CADDY2K.com

a friend has recommended this new shell fuel save he reckons you get more mpg so i done this job in barnstaple last week an i put £40.00 worth of asda regular diesel(@ £1.13p/l=35.11 litres=7.91litres per mile) i got 278 miles out of it, this weekend i'm doing the same job and the same mileage roughlyso i'm going to use this shell fuel save(£40.00 @£1.156p/l=34.6 litres) and we'll see how many extra i get . oh yeah i put the fuel in as it goes onto the low fuel light and i dont have cruise control 200 miles is motorway driven at around 80 mph

This could develop into a very important thread if its managed right. You have got my attention pappa smurf. Will you be using your cruse control, ect.
I will try to get you feed back for repeat journeys I make , as my job takes me to the same location maybe two to three times a month, I am very interested in this one as I do 25K to 30K miles a year so fuel is a big consideration, plus Im running my 2k at 1960Kg loaded so that makes things even worse for my fuel consumption, I have recently fitted CC so this will help lower the variables in this survey, nice one dude.

On my last van, a Transit Connect which had much the same mods as my Caddy, (Re-map, K&N, De-cat & stainless steel exhaust) I changed to BP Ultimate Diesel. I have read reports that say it does nothing and is no better but in my case after a few fills, my MPG went well up as did my performance, nothing proven by rolling road but the performance was a lot better as was fuel economy. As I say, this was in my case, others may differ.

Tim

this is a great idea, we should all do it and post results. i already know cruise control is less economical. i tested it when i used to do big mileage in my golf mark IV tdi 130.

the light coming on is not that accurate a w2ay of doing it.

you are better to fill the tank right to the brim before going, do the journey, and then brim it on your return. that way you get a very accurate amount of fuel used for the journey.

then you just use mileage completed and fuel used to work out the economy.

sticko2 wrote:this is a great idea, we should all do it and post results. i already know cruise control is less economical. i tested it when i used to do big mileage in my golf mark IV tdi 130.

the light coming on is not that accurate a w2ay of doing it.

you are better to fill the tank right to the brim before going, do the journey, and then brim it on your return. that way you get a very accurate amount of fuel used for the journey.

then you just use mileage completed and fuel used to work out the economy.

Yey I agree re-topping is the only way to acuratly determining the exact amount of fuel used. I was surprised to here that in your experience you found CC less economical, how come dude

Daddy, here goes (sorry it gonna be long)

to drive the most efficiently you accelerate on downhills and decelerate on uphills, this way you utilise the power of the engine the most effectively.

CC works the other way round, you start going downhill and the engine backs off as you hit your required speed. then on uphill the CC pumps in more fuel to keep you at the set speed.

if you had manual control, only a very small amount of throttle opening would allow the car to accelerate quite rapidly on the downhill. meaning you don't have to use anywhere near the same fuel to get up the hill.

on a downhill when you accelerate you are storing kinetic energy in the mass of the vehicle.

example.
now if you are sitting at 60 on a flat bit of road, then you have a 15% downhill for 500m then 15% uphill for 500m.

with cc the throttle closes (may open momentarily now and again due to wind/rolling resistance) on the downhill - you remain at 60,
then the uphill the throtle opens very wide to keep you at the set speed of 60.

now manually, when you come to the downhill you keep the throttle open slightly and accelerate to say 70/75 very easily, with no increase of fuel consumption compared to driving on the flat, and then when you start going uphill you back off (not necessarily completely) and your aim should be to be back at around the 60 mark by the time you come over the brow of the hill. again hopefully not using much more fuel than driving on the flat.

All of the above can add 5-10 mpg easy, but requires alot of concentration. it also helps if you know the road. ie. if you have a small downhill then a big up hill section coming you can quietly increase your speed in the downhill section to see you through the uphill bit. and other way round if you have a small uphill followed by a big downhill section, you can afford to drop your uphill speed to say 45/50

this is my take on it all, and with the aid of an mpg gauge, which i know are not the most accurate, but you can see the direction of the trend of consumption.

thoughts?

Hi sticko2 your spot on dude, you have a valid point there dude, I always thought CC all the time during a long journey, but after reading your post I done a bit of research into it this morning. The biggest issue seem to be hills, with people saying know the terrain your driving towards think ahead, using the general rule of thumb, CC on flat terrain and "accelerate and coast" on hill sections.

right here we go the figures are in,same journey i got 289 miles till the fuel light came on so considering there was less diesel i did get 11 extra miles so if you take over the space of a year you could save money least ways at 40 pounds a week put in the tank you would save 70 pounds a year which suits me so i definately will be using shell fuel save diesel . on another note went out on the sauce sat night with the customer i was working for sunday morning still hung over i clipped a kerb on a traffic island doing about 30 mph hacked both drivers side rims puncturing the front tyre buckled the back wheel and bent the front wishbone all in all done about £ 400 worth of damage absolutely frigging gutted

Hi

I have an android phone where i'm using "aCar" to keep track of my fuel economy, the program can be downloaded form android marked or here