Consult the book of lies - commonly known as a Haynes manual - it's actually covered well in there for a change!!!!!Phoenix wrote:any one know how to adjust them i thought they were self adjusting
Economy
-
bstardchild
- Moderator
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 pm
- Location: Norfolk - "Its just Black & Dirty"
-
Tahrey1043
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:15 am
- Location: Birmingham! Enjoys: The pseudo-G-Smiles provided by a 1.6 Megane Sport valver...
- Contact:
Just as a contribution to the average 
I can get maybe 55mpg when i'm being *really* careful. Blasting on a motorway run (brick on the throttle and lean back in the seat ) returns low 30s, depends on load, weather/traffic conditions etc. In general I see about 38-42, but it's been a while since I calculated it properly. I put in more petrol than I'd really wish to, but it's hardly breaking the bank (yet..). =These are figures for the MkIII singlepoint injection, but most of the figures for the two engines are similar - you may need to take 5% off the MPG (according to the manual), but that's all=
And considering the hit you get on performance with the roof rack on, economy's got to suffer as well.
And you'd be surprised the difference getting rid of a dirty, diesel-and-dust clogged air filter for a fresh one (all of like seven quid) will do for how your engine runs. I certainly was! When you've only got 1000cc, there's no room for having power taken away
(Ditto that for taking the cap off your distributor and giving all that a good clean, especially the contacts and removing conductive dust traces between them - a 15 minute job with an old toothbrush, weak Fairy solution, bit of sandpaper and finally a blast with WD40 before replacing. Occasional missing spark = lower speed.. and wasted petrol!)
(On this subject, anyone noticed that the general MPG figures for a lot of cars has dropped a little of late? EG a 1998 Polo 1.2 might turn in 53mpg on a run but the 2003 only gets 51 despite having exactly the same output and very similar design*... seems to be a sweeping thing across most manufacturers - new emissions regulations, change in the measurements, fuel quality... just plain heavier & less slippery cars from crash regulations... or wot?)
*Not actual figures - this randomised example comes from me browsing a used car list-book and noticing the figures for the last couple years are down 2 or 3 on the late 90s... and oddly, the most efficient thing in there apart from the Insight, Prius, and small-volume TDis, was the 1989 Fiesta 899cc, at some 65mpg. Most efficient petrol fiesta now might reach for the low 50s. Slightly disturbing trend?
I can get maybe 55mpg when i'm being *really* careful. Blasting on a motorway run (brick on the throttle and lean back in the seat
) returns low 30s, depends on load, weather/traffic conditions etc. In general I see about 38-42, but it's been a while since I calculated it properly. I put in more petrol than I'd really wish to, but it's hardly breaking the bank (yet..). =These are figures for the MkIII singlepoint injection, but most of the figures for the two engines are similar - you may need to take 5% off the MPG (according to the manual), but that's all=And considering the hit you get on performance with the roof rack on, economy's got to suffer as well.
And you'd be surprised the difference getting rid of a dirty, diesel-and-dust clogged air filter for a fresh one (all of like seven quid) will do for how your engine runs. I certainly was! When you've only got 1000cc, there's no room for having power taken away
(Ditto that for taking the cap off your distributor and giving all that a good clean, especially the contacts and removing conductive dust traces between them - a 15 minute job with an old toothbrush, weak Fairy solution, bit of sandpaper and finally a blast with WD40 before replacing. Occasional missing spark = lower speed.. and wasted petrol!)
(On this subject, anyone noticed that the general MPG figures for a lot of cars has dropped a little of late? EG a 1998 Polo 1.2 might turn in 53mpg on a run but the 2003 only gets 51 despite having exactly the same output and very similar design*... seems to be a sweeping thing across most manufacturers - new emissions regulations, change in the measurements, fuel quality... just plain heavier & less slippery cars from crash regulations... or wot?)
*Not actual figures - this randomised example comes from me browsing a used car list-book and noticing the figures for the last couple years are down 2 or 3 on the late 90s... and oddly, the most efficient thing in there apart from the Insight, Prius, and small-volume TDis, was the 1989 Fiesta 899cc, at some 65mpg. Most efficient petrol fiesta now might reach for the low 50s. Slightly disturbing trend?