Skoda Fabia smashes economy record

The Economist

So how about passing on all these marvelous techniques so we can all save fuel!!

By SprightlyBob on 17 May, 2011, 7:12am

Dangerous

He was probably doing grandad driving, sticking to 50 on the autobahn causing a danger to all the others doing 100 next to him. I bet he hogs the middle lane as well!

By asmithdesign on 17 May, 2011, 7:22am

Agree with above

Probably done using low friction tyres and at a constant 50, following closely a vehicle to reduce drag with a fleet of cars surrounding it clearing the way. Unrealistic and done just to grab a headline!

By gherkins123 on 17 May, 2011, 7:43am

The Problem is.......

We don't all commute "on Germany's Longest Autobahn" do we, so how is this relevant to normal driving conditions? I'd settle for 83.1mpg, if it's achievable "in the Real World" and not on a rolling road.

By derkdangler on 17 May, 2011, 8:14am

376mpg claimed in the 70's

Could be internet waffle but it doens't always have to be incorrect..lets face it most of us would agree its not something they would like to give us with loss of tax revenue/big oil etc..
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2007/05/01/big-oil-conspiracy-376-mpg-opel-uncovered/

By JamesAlex on 17 May, 2011, 8:30am

Spoon fed ?

Everybody wants everthing for nothing ! The easiest way to get the answers is to put and keep your brain in gear. A quick search using
" Gerhard Plattner" produced this :- http://www.articlesextra.com/fuel-saving-tricks.htm
No doubt there is more out there if you look for it

By jericlin1 on 17 May, 2011, 9:11am

Skoda Fabia jackanory

Hope these figures are more accurate than the figures all car makers put in their brochures!

By toycollector on 17 May, 2011, 9:44am

Diminishing Return

May be stating the obvious but are we not chasing smaller and smaller savings ? The cost saving between 30mpg and 60mpg is about 10p a mile but you have to do 120mpg to cut that by half to 5p a mile and then 240mpg to cut that by half to 2.5p a mile ! Its the same with speed, you have to double your speed to save half the time ! and what do you with the time saved ? probably waste it !

By jericlin1 on 17 May, 2011, 10:43am

The answer is obvious

Another way of looking at is that if you get 60mpg rather than 30mpg you are getting 30 miles free of fuel costs. If the price of fuel is an issue then that's worth having. If fuel costs are NOT a problem, then don't bother, but also don't complain!

What really gets my goat is the amazing number of people who moan about the price of fuel but then don't do anything to help themselves get better fuel consumption.

By ncollingridge on 17 May, 2011, 11:45am

Can I borrow it?

Worth trying on my (normal) routes, driven sensibly. Technology like this is good, if used properly through eco-aware driving. Dull, yes, but you get there in the end and save money / the Planet.

By nhunt2 on 17 May, 2011, 12:05pm

The answer is obvious & Can I borrow it

Couldn't agree more with both, my comment was directed more at the sharp end of seeking ever higher fuel economy. and ever reducing time saving by trying to get there faster and faster.
We may be able to go further and further for our gallon, but in reality we only actually want to drive the same distance at the end of the day.
Other forms of transport use all possible control methods to balance fuel usage against time and other restraints , ie Planes and Boats and Trains, why don't we, with our inbuilt computer which is behind our eyes ?

By jericlin1 on 17 May, 2011, 12:55pm

I drive a standard, but fabulous, 1.4 diesel Fabia estate and (4 up) regularly achieve at least 50mpg in town, 70 on long journeys (my best was 81.6 - driver only) and I've averaged 55.6 over 44,000 miles.

The key is being aware (sounds obvious but how many drivers do we see who aren't) and reading the road ahead - e.g., avoid 'accelerating to a stop', when possible, use gravity to aid acceleration; accelerate steadily; aim for optimum revs and the highest usable gear.

With the price of fuel as it is I'm not the fastest on the road - but I still sometimes arrive ahead of people who are faster!

Whatever your experience accept that we can all still learn! (Slip-streaming only works if you are dangerously close to the vehicle in front.)

By Chrisandrea on 17 May, 2011, 5:05pm

Materiality

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but there are several agendas on the go here, including:

1. folk who want to minimise costs; and / or
2. folk who want to be green.

As far as 1. is concerned, depreciation is usually the primary factor, not fuel consumption.

As far as 2. is concerned, diesel isn't the answer, go google and educate yourself.

By FloatingVoter on 28 May, 2011, 11:14am

Materiality pt 2

1. Depreciation of diesel cars is generally lower, and likely to be lower still in the future with high fuel costs.
2. Difficult to address this given the vagueness of your assertion. What technology are you suggesting is better than an efficient diesel engine, what parameters are you considering, and are you taking everything into account? Obviously from the way you make your point you are suggesting that people are not looking at the issue from a realistic perspective, but a suggestion by itself is not enough.

By ncollingridge on 31 May, 2011, 8:58am

Materiality pt 3

I was merely pointing out the different angles from which people come to this debate, and therefore the need for everyone to consider all sides of the argument going forward.

1. Depreciation currently determines cost of ownership more than any other factor. For the moment, diesels still hold more value in % residual value terms, but (critically) against an increasingly higher purchase price (usually £1.5 - £5k in the super-mini - family car range). Other factors are now coming to the fore, most notably the cost of servicing / maintenance, which will have a consequential impact on depreciation. The Daily Telegraph Motoring Section on 28 May 2011 recommended that "Diesel only really makes sense for drivers doing 20,000 miles a year or more, because the cost of replacing particulate filters, valves, dual mass and so on will outweigh the fuel savings". With the recent advent of small, lean turbo-charged petrol engines across several manufacturers, let's just sit back and see who the depreciation winners and losers are going forward.

2. Nothing remotely vague about it, I would rather folk go google and be set right with the evidence on pollution rather than suspect my petrol proselytism. No-one will doubt that diesel produces more energy per litre than petrol. BUT, equally, I would hope no-one woud dispute that diesels have much higher emissions of NO and particulate matter.

Unless they're biased.

By FloatingVoter on 31 May, 2011, 8:20pm

Petrol vs. Diesel

The oil companies love it when people knock diesel (excuse the pun) and govts tax them more because they sell more petroleum. Diesel may produce more Nox but you rarely hear about good old Carbon Monoxide. Petrol engines produce plenty of this invisible deadly gas whilst Diesels only produce a trace (which is why it is impossible to commit suicide in a diesel car with the tube through the window). . Since petrol became lead-free it has had the known carciogen benzene added to replace the lead. Something to bear in mind when choosing fuel type.

By Properjob on 12 June, 2011, 2:49pm

Find a big lorry and get up close behind it..

.it's a fuel saving tip I used back in my cash starved teens trying to get home on a empty tank

By liverpool on 17 June, 2011, 12:24am