During my 20 mile commute (extra urban with 2 miles urban) it's settled down to around 50mpg.
On a drive back from North Wales (180 miles, steady 60 all the way) it managed 67mpg.
Thanks....is that as displayed in the car info screens, or calculated from tank input? About 3 mpg different as far as I can tell so far.The average difference between computer and fuel pump is around 9% on my Mk 3. At the last refill the car claimed 60.8mpg but it was 55mpg according to the pump. The best mpg so far (60.5 mpg @ pump) was when the car was nearly new and I was being gentle with the right foot.
As calculated by me, fill to fill. The display settles on 51.7 for the commute and was showing 64mpg for the long drive home. This is my third Jazz and it's unusual for the dash display to under read.During my 20 mile commute (extra urban with 2 miles urban) it's settled down to around 50mpg.
On a drive back from North Wales (180 miles, steady 60 all the way) it managed 67mpg.
Thanks....is that as displayed in the car info screens, or calculated from tank input? About 3 mpg different as far as I can tell so far.
The range may be slightly longer but the main difference is that the trigger for the low fuel warning is not as conservative as on the previous Jazzes. The fuel gauge seems to be reasonably linear with one segment representing two litres.Oh, I see! Yeah the Mk2 was ludicrous with its warning light.
As calculated by me, fill to fill. The display settles on 51.7 for the commute and was showing 64mpg for the long drive home. This is my third Jazz and it's unusual for the dash display to under read.Actually this has improved. Probably due to the warmer weather (hah!) but the dash is now showing over 53mpg most of the time and fill-to-fill I'm getting 52mpg.
Actually this has improved. Probably due to the warmer weather (hah!) but the dash is now showing over 53mpg most of the time and fill-to-fill I'm getting 52mpg.
There seems to be a view on here that the computer's MPG read-out is less accurate than the manual fill-to-fill method. Can anyone suggest why that might be ?They always are.
There's usually a reason (or reasons) for this kind of thing so I was trying to see whether anyone could explain. Some useful stuff in that blog, although it seems to me that some of those factors affect the manual method as well (eg thermal expansion of the tank), so we probably shouldn't consider either method as 100% accurate.There seems to be a view on here that the computer's MPG read-out is less accurate than the manual fill-to-fill method. Can anyone suggest why that might be ?They always are.
If the odometer was also wrong it would affect the manual tank fill method too.Tyre diameters reduce as they wear so any measurement derived from wheel rotation is inevitably going to be inaccurate ;)
Deeps +1
Vic.
Deeps +1
Vic.ln
Fuel gauge OCD? ;)
I don't believe my odometer is 10% wrong to true miles, which is what is implied by suggestion that the discrepancy is due to the legal requirement for displayed mph.Thinking about it, logically you must be correct on this. Like Deeps, I'm not bothered by it, but it definitely reads higher on the computer than actual MPG. My last CRV was exactly the same.
So I found this:
says Raj Manakkal, chief engineer for electrical and infotainment devices.
My own concern is that Honda has consciously tweaked the software to overstate the mpg...Hence my question:
... are there any legal requirements (maybe in the Construction & Use Rules ?) about the accuracy of the calculation ?My amateur trawl through Google didn't find anything; there's plenty about the Official figures, and about display of energy efficiency labels, but nothing I can find about on-board display. And sadly, as we know from the VW debacle, manufacturers are not averse to looking for innovative ways of making their cars look good if there's no rule actually preventing it. My suspicion is that the software has to make a number of detailed assumptions (fuel temperature, density, calorific value, etc) in it's calculations, and it's probably programmed to take the most optimistic assumptions which build to a cumulative "good picture" for display purposes.
Does it matter ? The need for accuracy of the displayed MPG really depends on what use we make of it. My personal view is that it's not for comparison with some theoretical optimum or "Official" value, but to monitor the car for faults that might show up with a change in MPG and/or to improve our own energy-efficient driving style. For those purposes the displayed value is perfectly adequate even with known errors, and is more immediately obvious to the driver than the (probably) more accurate tank-fill method.
Does it matter ? The need for accuracy of the displayed MPG really depends on what use we make of it. My personal view is that it's not for comparison with some theoretical optimum or "Official" value, but to monitor the car for faults that might show up with a change in MPG and/or to improve our own energy-efficient driving style. For those purposes the displayed value is perfectly adequate even with known errors, and is more immediately obvious to the driver than the (probably) more accurate tank-fill method.
What cars have you owned that have had totally accurate mpg readout and how did you know they were accurate?
402 miles driven. 12 miles remaining (according to car). Orange light on. 35 litres to full.
So that's about 52mpg and suggests that the 12 miles remaining was a bit pessimistic.
I think you need all the warning you can get,
12 miles remaining (according to car).I wouldn't trust the computer's "miles remaining" at all. It was discussed here:
3778 miles, 49.7mpg (10.94/ltre).
This is 4.53mpg better than Mk2 traded in
I ended up pushing things the other day, fuel gauge said low fuel and by the time I found an open petrol station the car had done some 30 miles from the readout indicating 0 miles left.
Filled up with 39.7 litres, much to close to being a disaster (40 litre tank) never in 50 years of driving have I been that close to "running dry".
I ended up pushing things the other day, fuel gauge said low fuel and by the time I found an open petrol station the car had done some 30 miles from the readout indicating 0 miles left.Do you stop filling at the first cut-out of the pump or keep trying and fill up the filler pipe (my usual technique)? I'm sure the pipe holds another litre or two which probably explains why it's often 50 miles or more before the fuel gauge moves off full. Nonetheless, 39.7 litres is getting close to empty.
Filled up with 39.7 litres, much to close to being a disaster (40 litre tank) never in 50 years of driving have I been that close to "running dry".
You went into London? What the hell for?
I live in the South Midlands and I've got more sense than to go into that hell hole :)
I meant to add in my previous post that the discrepancy between trip computer mpg and tank-to-tank mpg has increased steadily on my car. When it was new the error was 2-3 mpg. Now 12 months 14,000 miles it is 5-6 mpgAny change in motoring mix, I.e long runs v short? I have found the discrepancy to be around 8% pretty consistently.
Any thoughts on that? rolling radius change as tyres wear? You would think that would feed into both types of mpg.
I'll try something else.
I meant to add in my previous post that the discrepancy between trip computer mpg and tank-to-tank mpg has increased steadily on my car. When it was new the error was 2-3 mpg. Now 12 months 14,000 miles it is 5-6 mpgAny change in motoring mix, I.e long runs v short? I have found the discrepancy to be around 8% pretty consistently.
Any thoughts on that? rolling radius change as tyres wear? You would think that would feed into both types of mpg.
I approximately alternate 97 and 95 RON fuel, but that doesn't seems to be a factor either.
If you say you are not getting any extra MPG from 97RON then it is cheaper to buy Redex and use that to keep system clean, I did notice better performance or MPG improved* by up to 10% on 97I'm afraid I'm always suspicious of benefits "up to x%"! I know this has been discussed in some detail previously, but I'm sticking to ASDA 95 and no Redex as the cheapest option.
If you say you are not getting any extra MPG from 97RON then it is cheaper to buy Redex and use that to keep system clean, I did notice better performance or MPG improved* by up to 10% on 97I'm afraid I'm always suspicious of benefits "up to x%"! I know this has been discussed in some detail previously, but I'm sticking to ASDA 95 and no Redex as the cheapest option.
Just watched Tiff's video. I'll give it a try. Asda are selling it for £3.00.
And Asda fuel (or any supermarket fuel with well documented lower levels of additives) may not be the cheapest option if your car is doing less miles per gallon.
Try telling my carbed motorbikes and lawnmower that redex doesn't work - and obviously the dynomometer was telling porkies as well.
There are postings from tanker drivers on internet that yes, supermarket fuel does get same additives, just less of them as they get added when tanker leaves the depot. Redex may well remove carbon,
About the Redex... it cleans more than the additives in petrol, but what happens with the dirt it losens? Does it solve and not float to another place? And how would you compare 95 octane petrol (with the 5-10 percent) ethanol plus Redex, to a higher octane petrol without ethanol and better additives (V-Power/BP Ultimate) without
Going back to around 2003 I recall that I had poor running problems with my car (at the time it was a Landrover Freelander Auto) and complained to the dealer. His response was to ask what fuel i was using, to which i responded Sainsburys.
He immediately suggested that I change fuel to one of the main fuel companies (is this case BP) and see what the difference was.
I was very dubious about the possible result, but I have to say that there was a significant difference ie, much smoother running and better MPG and I have never used supermarket fuel since. OK it was a penny or two dearer, but this was more than offset by the increased MPG, probably in order of 10%, which of course on that vehicle was only 2 or 3 miles different.
So, i'm now on my fourth Jazz, and I still stick with the main petrol companies wherever possible.
I suppose I could be classed as a somewhat spirited driver, however my Mk3 EX CVT has covered almost 7000 miles so far and returned 52.7 MPG on the trip computer, and as long as it stays on the plus side of 50 MPG, I'm happy.
I experience the difference — smoother drive (maybe between my ears) and a few percent better MPG compared to the Euro 95 petrol i used before. But with using a premium fuel without ethanol, an extra system cleaner might be overkill. And going back to a fuel with 5-10 percent ethanol will always give a decrease in MPG whatever cleaner i put in, i guess.About the Redex... it cleans more than the additives in petrol, but what happens with the dirt it losens? Does it solve and not float to another place? And how would you compare 95 octane petrol (with the 5-10 percent) ethanol plus Redex, to a higher octane petrol without ethanol and better additives (V-Power/BP Ultimate) without
If you have been using premium fuel your system will probably be pretty clean anyway, but purpose made system cleaners are not expensive.
Anything that the cleaner dissolves is only stuff that is normally in fuel anyway and will just get injected and burned with fuel.Thanks! I was wondering about that always, both with Redex and other brand cleaners.
Redex is not the only cleaner available Wynns, STP and others make similar product, you only need to use it occasionally, add some to tank of fuel about once every one or two months - which means it is not expensive.Again, with a premium fuel it might be overkill, or not?
Hi Culzean
I should have said, that both cases, supermarket & main fuel company, we were talking 95RON fuel
I don't think I've ever used 97RON in my cars, certainly not in recent years.
"The problem with e10 isn't so much actually burning the alcohol in the engine. It is that the alcohol is hydroscopic; that it can actually absorb water from the atmosphere when it's in an open tank - particularly in the ground tank at the petrol station.
https://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/petrol-test (https://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/petrol-test)
This Australian fuel test is interesting.
You men 98 octane in the diesel and diesel in the 98 octane car. Sure the results would be startlingly different :PIncluding the diesel in the test will be meaningful to some but I just ignored it!
I would have been more convinced if they had tried all fuels in one car and one driver.
Found the Shell V-Power has 5% ethanol and, in Scotland, so has 98 RON Esso Synergy!I thought that only in Belgium, the Netherlands and France V-Power does not contain ethanol. At the gas station in Belgium where i fill there's a big 'no ethanol in v-power' sign so okay for older cars. ;)
This may be of interest.
https://www.whatcar.com/news/new-e10-fuel-will-cost-uk-motorists/ (https://www.whatcar.com/news/new-e10-fuel-will-cost-uk-motorists/)
This is a response from Shell to an email request for information:The European fuel specification aside, in Belgium there is no ethanol in the Shell V-Power.
...
This may be of interest.
https://www.whatcar.com/news/new-e10-fuel-will-cost-uk-motorists/ (https://www.whatcar.com/news/new-e10-fuel-will-cost-uk-motorists/)
Typical muddled thinking, ethanol often takes more energy to produce than it supplies, also why grow ethanol crops instead of food. EU made a big mistake with bio diesel, poor countries were destroying rain forest to plant Palm oil trees to supply Europe with 'green' bio oil, I don't know if it is stupidity or vested interests at work here.
Hmm. It's settled down to 58 mpg. That's higher than normal but could just be down to me being on vacation and not subject to Banbury rush hour. Still - it's interesting. It still seems a bit better than I'd expect which rather surprises me. I'd assumed that only performance engines could see a difference but maybe the Honda unit is so advanced that it can work more efficiently.
I think, regardless of your take on climate change and air quality, some very odd decisions are made in an attempt to hit targets. I have never seen the sense of burning food to power transport and the decision to encourage diesel to hit CO2 targets must be one of the worst given the implications for air quality.
WTF even a 5 year old knows that when you turn a heater up you get hotter, turn it down you get colder - think of the sun as the Earths heater.Was wearing my Montreal coat in New York one winter....... the outside temp didn't matter - I was sweltering; the Earth keeps adding another coat. Anyway a different set of scientists claim we are starting a new mass extinction event, might only be 10,000 years left.
might only be 10,000 years left.Wonder if they will have perfected the Autonomous Vehicle by then?
Yes, but that's because a five year old doesn't understand complex systems.I think, regardless of your take on climate change and air quality, some very odd decisions are made in an attempt to hit targets. I have never seen the sense of burning food to power transport and the decision to encourage diesel to hit CO2 targets must be one of the worst given the implications for air quality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3661875/A-spotless-sun-Incredible-image-shows-solar-activity-quietest-100-years-say-trigger-mini-ice-age.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3661875/A-spotless-sun-Incredible-image-shows-solar-activity-quietest-100-years-say-trigger-mini-ice-age.html)
Global warming, they are having a laff - according to lack of sun activity we are heading for an ice age, NASA say 'the effect of sun activity on global warmth is still a work in progress' - WTF even a 5 year old knows that when you turn a heater up you get hotter, turn it down you get colder - think of the sun as the Earths heater.
Yes, but that's because a five year old doesn't understand complex systems.I think, regardless of your take on climate change and air quality, some very odd decisions are made in an attempt to hit targets. I have never seen the sense of burning food to power transport and the decision to encourage diesel to hit CO2 targets must be one of the worst given the implications for air quality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3661875/A-spotless-sun-Incredible-image-shows-solar-activity-quietest-100-years-say-trigger-mini-ice-age.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3661875/A-spotless-sun-Incredible-image-shows-solar-activity-quietest-100-years-say-trigger-mini-ice-age.html)
Global warming, they are having a laff - according to lack of sun activity we are heading for an ice age, NASA say 'the effect of sun activity on global warmth is still a work in progress' - WTF even a 5 year old knows that when you turn a heater up you get hotter, turn it down you get colder - think of the sun as the Earths heater.
The Earth does not react passively to solar heat. It reacts actively in ways that can cause cooling or heating. So it's a bit simplistic to say that a reduction in solar output is sure to result in cooling. Scientists think a solar minimum caused a mini ice age several hundreds years ago but we don't know if the biosphere will react the same way today.
There is evidence that something is causing a rise in global temperatures. There is even evidence that it is linked to industrialisation. So another solar minimum may just mean a slowing in global temperature rises. And when the sun returns to what we consider 'normal' heating is going to accelerate. So the best view on a mini ice age is that it might be a temporary respite followed by even more rapid heating.
I'm actually fairly neutral on the whole climate change thing - I just hate waste and think that polluting our environment is foolish.
Mind you if I remember correctly, fuel was around 4 gallons to £1, a might different to today!
My 4/4d a gallon equates to £4.29 a gallon today, so cheaper but not a huge difference.
What don't you understand?
I decided my original post wasn't very helpful, so I changed it!What don't you understand?
Cancel that.Got it.
So, very early days and a small sample mileage wise but I'm pleased. Looks like a 10% increase in mpg is on the cards. I've got the Fuelly.com BB code so this will show my average mpg as future fuel ups are added.7-10% improvement over a Mk 2 is a reasonable expectation based on my experience after 20,000 miles.
20,054 miles of mixed motoring completed in two years from new, and 1776.2 litres (usually ASDA 95) bought, giving 11.3 mpl or 51.3 mpg overall. The averages shown by the car's instruments are 54.1 mpg and 34 mph.
20,054 miles of mixed motoring completed in two years from new, and 1776.2 litres (usually ASDA 95) bought, giving 11.3 mpl or 51.3 mpg overall. The averages shown by the car's instruments are 54.1 mpg and 34 mph.
Just revisited this thread and looked at this post again. This indicates that the car's computer is about 5-6% optimistic and that over a long period.
My very small sample over my first refill indicated a 5% discrepancy as well.
This is much better than the 10% error in the following cars: Golf 1.9TDI, Civic 1.8 (petrol), Jazz 1.4 x 2. These cars were all manual. Is there anything in the theory that a CVT or, indeed, any automatic will produce a more accurate computer reading? Fewer variables as computers are in charge?
Somebody with more technical knowledge than me needed!
The combination of CVT and cruise control certainly cuts out some unnecessary right foot twitching.20,054 miles of mixed motoring completed in two years from new, and 1776.2 litres (usually ASDA 95) bought, giving 11.3 mpl or 51.3 mpg overall. The averages shown by the car's instruments are 54.1 mpg and 34 mph.
Just revisited this thread and looked at this post again. This indicates that the car's computer is about 5-6% optimistic and that over a long period.
My very small sample over my first refill indicated a 5% discrepancy as well.
This is much better than the 10% error in the following cars: Golf 1.9TDI, Civic 1.8 (petrol), Jazz 1.4 x 2. These cars were all manual. Is there anything in the theory that a CVT or, indeed, any automatic will produce a more accurate computer reading? Fewer variables as computers are in charge?
Somebody with more technical knowledge than me needed!
I have just read Barcam's post above, I note that our first tank fuel consumptions are similar. We obviously both drive in the real world. :-)
Just had a refill which gave me just over 50 mpg. 65% city driving so I'm well pleased. The weather helps but, looking back at my Mk2s, I only got over 50 mpg if I was at 10% city driving.
On Sunday morning I drove from Haycock to High Wycombe in light traffic,180ish miles, cruise control, 70 mph all the way. The cars info screen was showing an average of 60 mpg which I expected to be 4 mpg optimistic judging from my 1.3 Jazz. The full to full calculation was 58 mpg. I did not believe the calculation and got Mrs Sky to check it, we agreed (a novelty) that the calculation was correct. I am amazed, a bit better than the 37 mpg I have achieved in different conditions, or when "making progress".
On Sunday morning I drove from Haycock to High Wycombe in light traffic,180ish miles, cruise control, 70 mph all the way. The cars info screen was showing an average of 60 mpg which I expected to be 4 mpg optimistic judging from my 1.3 Jazz. The full to full calculation was 58 mpg. I did not believe the calculation and got Mrs Sky to check it, we agreed (a novelty) that the calculation was correct. I am amazed, a bit better than the 37 mpg I have achieved in different conditions, or when "making progress".
On Sunday morning I drove from Haycock to High Wycombe in light traffic,180ish miles, cruise control, 70 mph all the way. The cars info screen was showing an average of 60 mpg which I expected to be 4 mpg optimistic judging from my 1.3 Jazz. The full to full calculation was 58 mpg. I did not believe the calculation and got Mrs Sky to check it, we agreed (a novelty) that the calculation was correct. I am amazed, a bit better than the 37 mpg I have achieved in different conditions, or when "making progress".Cruise control at 70 mph would be a true 66 mph on mine, based on Satnav reading.
On Sunday morning I drove from Haycock to High Wycombe in light traffic,180ish miles, cruise control, 70 mph all the way. The cars info screen was showing an average of 60 mpg which I expected to be 4 mpg optimistic judging from my 1.3 Jazz. The full to full calculation was 58 mpg. I did not believe the calculation and got Mrs Sky to check it, we agreed (a novelty) that the calculation was correct. I am amazed, a bit better than the 37 mpg I have achieved in different conditions, or when "making progress".Cruise control at 70 mph would be a true 66 mph on mine, based on Satnav reading.
You will be pleased with that.
I think it's going to pan out with the Mk3 CVT being, give or take, about 10% better than the Mk2 manual. Reasonably content with that.That mirrors my experience over 20,000 miles.
Min peaked this year at 56mpg (mainly rural, some urban rush hour) back in May. But since the glorious summer weather really began to bite the figure has dropped. Last fill was 53mpg which is presumably the cost of the air conditioning. It always amuses when me I set off and the climate control starts winding up the fan. Takes it about five minutes before it starts to let it drop back from full speed.
I still don't think the Honda cabin air flow is as good as Nissan's. I'm sure my last Nissan (an Almera) rarely took more than five minutes to get the cabin temperature down whereas the Jazz can take ten minutes before it stops feeling hot and sometimes the fan is still going strong twenty minutes later as I arrive home.
Yeah yeah yeah. ::)
The real bonus is the look on would-be hooligan drivers faces as you leave them standing.
8)
From Honest Johns weekly email newsletter (received today 30 Aug 2018)
"The Honda Jazz 1.3-litre petrol has proven to be a Real MPG winner in August, averaging at 97 per cent of its official economy. That means Real MPG drivers get at least 53mpg on the road - just a couple of points short of the advertised 54-55mpg..."
I remember looking at the Honest John Website where they collect data for real life mpg. Last time I looked they asked you to record what the onboard computer shows which is, usually, around 5 mpg optimistic so the figures on that site are almost worthless.And of course the folks who bother to report will be those who are pleased with their MPG so the figures will have a natural optimistic bias.
Last time I looked they asked you to record what the onboard computer showsI had a good search of the Honest John site and can find no mention of recording what the computer says. It just asks for your real mpg. Mind you, the majority of motorists these days just go by their onboard computer and no longer calculate what they are actually getting.
Last time I looked they asked you to record what the onboard computer showsI had a good search of the Honest John site and can find no mention of recording what the computer says. It just asks for your real mpg. Mind you, the majority of motorists these days just go by their onboard computer and no longer calculate what they are actually getting.
The key variables are where and how the car is driven. I have no problem averaging real world 52 mpg, but the average speed is 34 mpg and in largely rural and flat East Anglia.Similar figures and circumstances as myself, though it is not all that flat around here!
The biggest gain for most people would be not using the brakes except in emergencies and when coming to a halt. Learn to plan ahead and anticipate traffic flow. Lift off early. Even though I drive an automatic with a CVT I can still drive hundreds of miles without ever having to touch the brake pedal.
Do let us know when your brake calipers seize up from lack of use, it will be the rear ones first.I seldom use the brakes and drove more than 100,000 miles with my Cavalier and never experienced brake issues. Don't know about the Jazz though. Only done 20,000 miles with that so far.
Do let us know when your brake calipers seize up from lack of use, it will be the rear ones first.I seldom use the brakes and drove more than 100,000 miles with my Cavalier and never experienced brake issues. Don't know about the Jazz though. Only done 20,000 miles with that so far.
Callipers are unlikely to be a problem however corroded discs could be. They will still last longer than those of a typical driver but it might smart a bit to have to replace discs because they have too much surface pitting and aren't worth skimming down.The biggest gain for most people would be not using the brakes except in emergencies and when coming to a halt. Learn to plan ahead and anticipate traffic flow. Lift off early. Even though I drive an automatic with a CVT I can still drive hundreds of miles without ever having to touch the brake pedal.
Do let us know when your brake calipers seize up from lack of use, it will be the rear ones first.
In the last 30 months I have driven 34,000 miles without trying to drive economically and achieved 50.36 mpg (real, not computer). If I changed my driving techniques as suggested by some, I may achieve savings of optimistically 10% and that would save me £12 per month.
In the overall scheme of things I think I will just continue to enjoy my driving.
In the last 30 months I have driven 34,000 miles without trying to drive economically and achieved 50.36 mpg (real, not computer). If I changed my driving techniques as suggested by some, I may achieve savings of optimistically 10% and that would save me £12 per month.
In the overall scheme of things I think I will just continue to enjoy my driving.
Exactly, life's too short for extreme economy driving, if you can't afford the fuel use a bus. Free for me but I rarely use them. Just drive it, it is about as economical a petrol car as you can get.
I have been driving for economy for the last year, not to save petrol but just as a game, to see how good mpg I can get. I accelerate briskly and make excellent progress but still achieve excellent mpg. I have always driven with minimum use of the brakes. Always found it a smooth, safe way to drive. I love driving, and get great enjoyment from it. I tend to drive at no more than 55 - 60 mph, but take corners at speed that many motorists would never dream of.You sound a lot like me. I've always driven with economy in mind (I do most things in life economically, possibly because of my long computer programming career). I think those dismissing efficient driving are perhaps unaware that it can make it more interesting and fun. You have to be so much more aware of what's going on around and coming up. More engaged in what can otherwise be seen as a boring experience. It probably make me a safer driver as well. I don't track mpg and but I do calculate the pump to pump figure after each fill.
I have been driving for economy for the last year, not to save petrol but just as a game, to see how good mpg I can get. I accelerate briskly and make excellent progress but still achieve excellent mpg. I have always driven with minimum use of the brakes. Always found it a smooth, safe way to drive. I love driving, and get great enjoyment from it. I tend to drive at no more than 55 - 60 mph, but take corners at speed that many motorists would never dream of.You sound a lot like me. I've always driven with economy in mind (I do most things in life economically, possibly because of my long computer programming career). I think those dismissing efficient driving are perhaps unaware that it can make it more interesting and fun. You have to be so much more aware of what's going on around and coming up. More engaged in what can otherwise be seen as a boring experience. It probably make me a safer driver as well. I don't track mpg and but I do calculate the pump to pump figure after each fill.
And yes, I take corners quickly. Always mindful of visibility and road surface of course but I know what my car can do.
I will admit to using "S" mode and the paddles from time to time but I see that as entirely justified when I need a burst of acceleration.
I will admit to using "S" mode and the paddles from time to time but I see that as entirely justified when I need a burst of acceleration.
With the 1.3 engine acceleration needs all the help it can get! An excellent engine spoiled by its setup. It could have been so much better.
Just done a journey down the dreaded M6/m5/m42/m40. 70mph when possible and the onboard computer finished at 60 mpg.
Pleased with that normal town driving about 44mpg. Mk3 CVT.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
44mpg (calculated brim to brim) over the last 211 miles, mainly short journeys, although a steady cruise to Glasgow and Back along the M8 (50mpg according to trip computer for that trip).
Trip computer showed 48.1mpg average for the 211 miles. So quite a difference between trip computer & average mpg as calculate from brim to brim fills. (2013 MK2 Jazz 1.4 EX Plus).
44mpg (calculated brim to brim) over the last 211 miles, mainly short journeys, although a steady cruise to Glasgow and Back along the M8 (50mpg according to trip computer for that trip).
Trip computer showed 48.1mpg average for the 211 miles. So quite a difference between trip computer & average mpg as calculate from brim to brim fills. (2013 MK2 Jazz 1.4 EX Plus).
About right Brian. Some people get nearer the computer - say 5% out - but 10% - give or take - is the discrepancy with this car and the 2 previous Jazzes I've owned. In fact 4 mpg over optimistic is about right and this over 12,000 miles in 3 different cars.
In fact I don't really need to do the OCD recording thing that I do. Just look at the computer calculation - deduct 4 mpg and I'm almost blob on.
I reset trip every time I fill up, that way I can see miles per half tank (rarely let tank get much less than half empty).Are you aware there's a function to automatically reset Trip A on refueling?
I reset trip every time I fill up, that way I can see miles per half tank (rarely let tank get much less than half empty).Are you aware there's a function to automatically reset Trip A on refueling?
Are you aware there's a function to automatically reset Trip A on refueling?
I thought the 500 miles estimate was silly. Orange light came on at 410 miles with two bars on the fuel gauge. Finally filled up with the car saying 4 miles left, put in 35 litres. Pump to pump mpg was 55.9.I'm very surprised you could only put in 35 litres if the miles remaining was down to 4.
This whole tank has been weird. I mentioned in another thread that a closed road has resulted in me commuting by dual carriageway and motorway instead of A road. That has bumped the displayed mpg from 54 to nearly 58 and for most of the tank the car has been suggesting I'd get nearly 500 miles before filling up. Then for the final quarter it has started reducing that estimate.I thought the 500 miles estimate was silly. Orange light came on at 410 miles with two bars on the fuel gauge. Finally filled up with the car saying 4 miles left, put in 35 litres. Pump to pump mpg was 55.9.I'm very surprised you could only put in 35 litres if the miles remaining was down to 4.
I thought the 500 miles estimate was silly. Orange light came on at 410 miles with two bars on the fuel gauge. Finally filled up with the car saying 4 miles left, put in 35 litres. Pump to pump mpg was 55.9.I'm very surprised you could only put in 35 litres if the miles remaining was down to 4.
Got back from my trip to North Wales (~190 miles each way plus some local travel). Crappy weather going up, good weather coming down. Car claimed 28 miles left on fill. 32 litres squeezed in. 420 miles between fills and 59mpg.What was the computer showing for fuel consumption?
Make of that what you will :-/
As it happens Tesco Brackley only had Momentum fuel left so will be interesting to see how that performs :-/
Computer was showing just under 57mpg.Got back from my trip to North Wales (~190 miles each way plus some local travel). Crappy weather going up, good weather coming down. Car claimed 28 miles left on fill. 32 litres squeezed in. 420 miles between fills and 59mpg.What was the computer showing for fuel consumption?
Make of that what you will :-/
As it happens Tesco Brackley only had Momentum fuel left so will be interesting to see how that performs :-/
Any vehicle for cruising you need the engine to be at the max torque which is normally 56mph. Go above that and down it goes.
One only has to look at the way the CVT version behaves at 56 mpg being at less than 2,000 rpm unless going up a hill. Also, last year's Land's End to John o'Groats on one tank of fuel https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/fuel-economy-record-attempt was done at a sedate 40 mph which, I'm sure, someone had figured out to be the sweet spot for best mpg. Faster would significantly increase the drag losses.Any vehicle for cruising you need the engine to be at the max torque which is normally 56mph. Go above that and down it goes.
That is 5,000rpm for the 1.3 and 4,600rpm for the 1.5. Not the best engine revs for economy or 56mph cruising.
Well no, I'm not even sure it's possible. I'm currently commuting along the M40 and I sit in lane one with the CC set at 58mph. That's about 1,800 rpm. That'll be efficient because it's going to be running in Atkinson mode.Any vehicle for cruising you need the engine to be at the max torque which is normally 56mph. Go above that and down it goes.
That is 5,000 rpm for the 1.3 and 4,600 rpm for the 1.5. Not the best engine revs for economy or 56 mph cruising.
Yup. There's 'best vehicle efficiency' and there's 'extracting the most energy from a given amount of fuel'. The two can be mutually exclusive.One only has to look at the way the CVT version behaves at 56 mpg being at less than 2,000 rpm unless going up a hill. Also, last year's Land's End to John o'Groats on one tank of fuel https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/fuel-economy-record-attempt was done at a sedate 40 mph which, I'm sure, someone had figured out to be the sweet spot for best mpg. Faster would significantly increase the drag losses.Any vehicle for cruising you need the engine to be at the max torque which is normally 56mph. Go above that and down it goes.
That is 5,000rpm for the 1.3 and 4,600rpm for the 1.5. Not the best engine revs for economy or 56mph cruising.
There's also the difference between best engine efficiency and best vehicle efficiency but if our cars were more efficient at >4,000rpm in 3rd gear then why bother providing higher gears (less noise?)? I suspect that the iVTEC system messes up traditional thinking about maximum torque = best efficiency. For example, having half the inlet valves closed at lower revs improves the fuel mixing which helps efficiency at the lower rev range.
Any vehicle for cruising you need the engine to be at the max torque which is normally 56mph. Go above that and down it goes.Peak torque is only needed for maximum acceleration. The beauty of CVT is that it should control engine revs to give the required power with minimum fuel consumption. 56 mph cruising could be achieved at all sorts of rpm, but only one consumes minimum fuel.
8th fill up and my first sub 40 mpg figures. 39.2. Average speed only 16 mph so the cooler weather and many hours in traffic explain this one.
8th fill up and my first sub 40 mpg figures. 39.2. Average speed only 16 mph so the cooler weather and many hours in traffic explain this one.
Peteo,
Was your 39.2mpg taken from the on board gauge or actual fuel put in calculated against actual mileage.
https://www.aol.co.uk/2017/12/08/honda-jazz-sets-new-world-fuel-economy-record-of-95mpg/Yes - interesting. Although the official consumption test figures show the cvt to be more economical, the John o'Groats run was no doubt under very different conditions, trying to maintain a constant speed with minimum braking and acceleration. The official test involves frequent stops and starts. I suppose with a manual, the driver could retain exact control of engine revs at all times, which would not be possible in a cvt.
According to this article the Honda Jazz used for record setting mpg from lands end to John o'groats on one tank ( 9 galls ) of fuel was a manual gearbox model.
https://www.aol.co.uk/2017/12/08/honda-jazz-sets-new-world-fuel-economy-record-of-95mpg/Yes - interesting. Although the official consumption test figures show the cvt to be more economical, the John o'Groats run was no doubt under very different conditions, trying to maintain a constant speed with minimum braking and acceleration. The official test involves frequent stops and starts. I suppose with a manual, the driver could retain exact control of engine revs at all times, which would not be possible in a cvt.
According to this article the Honda Jazz used for record setting mpg from lands end to John o'groats on one tank ( 9 galls ) of fuel was a manual gearbox model.
Yes - interesting. Although the official consumption test figures show the cvt to be more economical, the John o'Groats run was no doubt under very different conditions, trying to maintain a constant speed with minimum braking and acceleration. The official test involves frequent stops and starts. I suppose with a manual, the driver could retain exact control of engine revs at all times, which would not be possible in a cvt.Also, the CVT has lower transmission efficiency than a normal gearbox (more than compensated in normal usage by the better drivetrain efficiency). I'm sure that research into the optimum speed and gear selection would have been carried out beforehand to give the confidence that the journey was feasible (it would have looked bad if they had run out of fuel at, say, Inverness). The vehicle itself had been borrowed from a dealer and hadn't been teaked. What's the engine speed in the manual 1.3 Mk 3 Jazz at 40 mph in top gear? Well into the Atkinson cycle range.
Just got back from a trip to see my Dad. 424 miles, mostly motorway at ~60mph with cruise control. Also mostly at night so headlights on. Two bars and a claimed 54 miles left according to the dash display. 33 litres put in.
Just over 58mpg.
Oh I did better than that once (https://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=7808.msg40927#msg40927) :)Just got back from a trip to see my Dad. 424 miles, mostly motorway at ~60mph with cruise control. Also mostly at night so headlights on. Two bars and a claimed 54 miles left according to the dash display. 33 litres put in.
Just over 58mpg.
Great figures. My record is a tad over 56 in my Mk2. In summer that 58 might well have been 60.
Just had my lowest mpg figures for over 2 years - 33.8 mpg (36.1 on computer). Lots of very short journeys and, of course, the cold. Average speed of 13 mph shows how stop start in the cold destroys mpg on any car.Temperature is an interesting one. I've no recorded figures to back this up but it seems like the Mk3 is more sensitive to temperature (or at least environmental) changes than previous models. From what I recall my previous two Jazz (Mk1, Mk2) varied by only a couple of MPG. I think the Mk2 was ~51mpg in summer, and ~49mpg in winter. My Mk3 is ~56mpg in summer and ~50mpg in winter.
Put the trip mpg on the touchscreen display and watch it increase as the engine warms up. I reckon that my HR-V takes about 10 miles to properly warm up in cold weather.Sounds about right. My commute is ~12 miles and the MPG display doesn't start to 'recover' after a cold start until I'm within a couple of miles of my destination.
I do 50 miles a day to and from Edinburgh so the car gets pretty hot. The mpg figure is from the display. I never bother working the numbers out. I have to do the miles so I have to use the petrol and the dashboard display is near enough for my curiosity.You might want to do some checks. I had a Mk. 3 Jazz for a year and the computer was 9% optimistic compared with the mpg calculated from fuel used and miles travelled. However, I don't recall any other Mk. 3 Jazz owners reporting similarly large discrepancies. However, the overall check compared with your previous car is whether the weekly fuel bill goes up or down (although the oscillations in the petrol price add some confusion to this approach).
I had a Mk. 3 Jazz for a year and the computer was 9% optimistic compared with the mpg calculated from fuel used and miles travelled. However, I don't recall any other Mk. 3 Jazz owners reporting similarly large discrepancies.
I've just completed 3 years and 30636 miles, using 2738 litres of mainly ASDA 95, giving 50.9 mpg. Trip B has been running throughout without resetting and is showing 55.8 mpg, a discrepancy of 9%. Average speed shown as 35 mph.
Fuelly is giving 46.0 avg for 37974 miles since I got the car new 32 months ago.No. Trip B has only 4 digits, but it seems that the average speed and fuel calculations continue unbroken. I paid particular attention when it recently passed 9999 for the third time, and the averages didn't change. Much of my driving is in East Anglia and north up the A1, which is all relatively flat. No doubt this helps the fuel economy. At the recent service, in a moment of weakness I was persuaded to pay £35 for a Tunap cleaner and additive treatment, but I'm not expecting any miraculous improvements!
I haven't recorded average speed or the computer numbers but computer usually about 4mpg higher.
I am pretty sure that trip B reset every 10000 miles on my mark 2. Not bothered with it on mk3. Is your trip B showing the full 30636 miles?
Thanks! Useful to know that average speed and mpg of trip B do not reset.
Since I have never reset my trip B the mpg and speed should be correct data for my 38000 miles? Can't look at the moment
Thanks! Useful to know that average speed and mpg of trip B do not reset.
Since I have never reset my trip B the mpg and speed should be correct data for my 38000 miles? Can't look at the moment
I have auto reset on tank fill set and it seems to reset B as well as A so I can't see my data for all 38000.
Thanks! Useful to know that average speed and mpg of trip B do not reset.
Since I have never reset my trip B the mpg and speed should be correct data for my 38000 miles? Can't look at the moment
I have auto reset on tank fill set and it seems to reset B as well as A so I can't see my data for all 38000.
I know my Mk 3 has various options for resetting A and B and am sure that the Mk2 I had was the same. I use A to reset on refuel and B for ignition on / off.
My husband has been using my Jazz Sport this week and filled up last night. Display said 51.1 mpg but he calculated the true figure and it was 49.7 mpg. I don't know how he does it. The display on his car which I am using is currently showing 19.5 mpg!Presumably your husband has longer runs at steadier speeds, with fewer stops and starts?
My husband has been using my Jazz Sport this week and filled up last night. Display said 51.1 mpg but he calculated the true figure and it was 49.7 mpg. I don't know how he does it. The display on his car which I am using is currently showing 19.5 mpg!
My husband has been using my Jazz Sport this week and filled up last night. Display said 51.1 mpg but he calculated the true figure and it was 49.7 mpg. I don't know how he does it. The display on his car which I am using is currently showing 19.5 mpg!
It might be ungallant to say it but is your right foot a tad heavier ;)
Or using the break pedal for other than actually bringing the vehicle to a halt. So many people think that there's one pedal to make the car go faster and different one to reduce the speed.My husband has been using my Jazz Sport this week and filled up last night. Display said 51.1 mpg but he calculated the true figure and it was 49.7 mpg. I don't know how he does it. The display on his car which I am using is currently showing 19.5 mpg!
It might be ungallant to say it but is your right foot a tad heavier ;)
Presumably your husband has longer runs at steadier speeds, with fewer stops and starts?My husband does considerably more miles with most of it in lighter faster moving traffic.
it might just be that it had only just been filled up. That is the only time I see very low numbers.I had done about 150 miles since topping up. I have now done 190 miles and it is reading 19.8 mpg. At this rate I should see it over 20 by the time I have to fill up at the weekend
Or using the break pedal for other than actually bringing the vehicle to a halt. So many people think that there's one pedal to make the car go faster and different one to reduce the speed.I do 30 miles a day in stop start queueing traffic so it pretty much is a case of one pedal or the other.
That makes it more difficult but allowing a gap to open up to the vehicle in front ought to allow you to minimise the need for brakes. A few months ago I was having to commute via J10 of the M40 which meant fifteen to twenty minutes in a queue of cars and I rarely needed the brakes. Instead of stop/start try and just inch along at the average speed.Or using the break pedal for other than actually bringing the vehicle to a halt. So many people think that there's one pedal to make the car go faster and different one to reduce the speed.I do 30 miles a day in stop start queueing traffic so it pretty much is a case of one pedal or the other.
The Type R is not a car for daily rush hour commuting to and from the city centre!
I'm pretty sure I could do better because at the moment I'm being lazy and using the adaptive cruise control virtually all the time. Although it uses EV mode some of the time I know a few places where I could get it into EV mode a bit earlier. Got my first long motorway drive next week so will be interesting to see how it does. My Jazz would get me over 60mpg on my trips to North Wales and that's going to be tough to beat - basically a fight between a 1.3 litre engine in Atkinson mode and a 1.8 litre in Atkinson mode. It does use the battery power occasionally at 60 mph and cruises at less than 1,500 rpm but I don't know if it will be enough to return a better figure.My guess is that for sustained cruising at 60 mph or above your Corolla will pull ahead on mpg as it sits lower on the road and should be aerodynamically better than the Jazz by a big enough margin to offset any deadweight due to the hybrid system. Cruising at 50 or below probably sees the Jazz pull ahead. Don't forget the Land's End to John O'Groats run by the Mk 3 Jazz - very impressive mpg at a sustained 40 mph. Hybrids best deliver their benefit in variable speed motoring.
Yeah, I have driven a few relatively short sections of MWay/DC at 60mph and it was interesting to see how 'active' the system was in mixing the two power sources. A lot of people think that the hybrid stuff is all or nothing but actually it's forever swapping between sources and often combines them.I'm pretty sure I could do better because at the moment I'm being lazy and using the adaptive cruise control virtually all the time. Although it uses EV mode some of the time I know a few places where I could get it into EV mode a bit earlier. Got my first long motorway drive next week so will be interesting to see how it does. My Jazz would get me over 60mpg on my trips to North Wales and that's going to be tough to beat - basically a fight between a 1.3 litre engine in Atkinson mode and a 1.8 litre in Atkinson mode. It does use the battery power occasionally at 60 mph and cruises at less than 1,500 rpm but I don't know if it will be enough to return a better figure.My guess is that for sustained cruising at 60 mph or above your Corolla will pull ahead on mpg as it sits lower on the road and should be aerodynamically better than the Jazz by a big enough margin to offset any deadweight due to the hybrid system. Cruising at 50 or below probably sees the Jazz pull ahead. Don't forget the Land's End to John O'Groats run by the Mk 3 Jazz - very impressive mpg at a sustained 40 mph. Hybrids best deliver their benefit in variable speed motoring.
My guess is that for sustained cruising at 60 mph or above your Corolla will pull ahead on mpg as it sits lower on the road and should be aerodynamically better than the Jazz by a big enough margin to offset any deadweight due to the hybrid system. Cruising at 50 or below probably sees the Jazz pull ahead. Don't forget the Land's End to John O'Groats run by the Mk 3 Jazz - very impressive mpg at a sustained 40 mph. Hybrids best deliver their benefit in variable speed motoring.The only drag figures I've been able to find suggest coefficients of 0.30 for the new Corolla, and 0.33 for the Mk 3 Jazz/Fit. Drag increases as the square of speed, so as you suggest, the Corolla should be more fuel efficient at higher speeds. It's an interesting comparison in anticipation of a Jazz hybrid. I'm not yet convinced that non plug-in hybrids achieve much in overall economy, but they should be cleaner in urban areas in electric mode.
I'm not yet convinced that non plug-in hybrids achieve much in overall economy, but they should be cleaner in urban areas in electric mode.They definitely achieve a lot better economy in urban/extra urban use. My daily commute is 9 miles free running A road and 2 miles busy town. I was getting ~50mpg in my Jazz when I sold it a month ago and am getting ~58mpg in the Corolla. And that figure for the Corolla is a new, tight engine.
It is not the variable valve timing but the knock sensor that allows the ignition to be advanced some, with "super" fuels.
Re super fuel, I seem to remember someone suggesting previously that the variable valve timing would in some way detect the higher octane fuel and in effect adjust the compression ratio accordingly. I have some doubts about this, but it's an interesting idea - does anyone knows more about it?
On improved mpg, I spent a geeky half hour recently looking at Greenergy's fuel quality reports. They do one a month for each fuel they sell. It is clear that the high octane stuff is more dense. Could this have anything to do with it?
It is not the variable valve timing but the knock sensor that allows the ignition to be advanced some, with "super" fuels.
For many years I was firmly in the camp that believe if the octane is high enough to prevent knocking there is no benefit for higher octane. But the advent of knock detection and automatic ignition advance to the point where it is just not knocking, gives a technical basis why higher octane might be more efficient, or more powerful.
However I have never seen any convincing data supporting this. There are lots of reports by people who know which fuel they are using and therefore tend believe they notice a difference. I have used Shell 99 sobymetimes and don't believe I could tell which fuel was in the tank by power or economy.
From what I could tell the ethanol content was the same in each grade. I'll double check.
It is not the variable valve timing but the knock sensor that allows the ignition to be advanced some, with "super" fuels.
For many years I was firmly in the camp that believe if the octane is high enough to prevent knocking there is no benefit for higher octane. But the advent of knock detection and automatic ignition advance to the point where it is just not knocking, gives a technical basis why higher octane might be more efficient, or more powerful.
However I have never seen any convincing data supporting this. There are lots of reports by people who know which fuel they are using and therefore tend believe they notice a difference. I have used Shell 99 sobymetimes and don't believe I could tell which fuel was in the tank by power or economy.
I did 'blind trial' on my wifes Jazz a few years ago, she normally used super market fuel due to money off vouchers, I filled her Jazz up with 97 and she later asked me if I had tuned her care, as it felt smoother to drive and more perky. Now she didn't know she had better fuel in tank.
From what I could tell the ethanol content was the same in each grade. I'll double check.
From what I could tell the ethanol content was the same in each grade. I'll double check.
"Esso super unleaded petrol (Synergy Supreme+ Unleaded 97) is ethanol free (except in Devon, Cornwall, the Teesside area and Scotland). They therefore advise anyone who has concerns about the presence of ethanol in petrol to use Synergy Supreme+ – providing they do not fill up in Devon or Cornwall, the Teesside area or Scotland." (Ex Esso website today).
Shell are more ambivalent. May be, may be not, sometimes yes, sometimes no!
"In the UK, Shell regular unleaded and Shell V-Power unleaded are likely to contain some ethanol." (Ex Shell website today).
The others...........?
Good numbers. Had a look at your Fuelly page and you can see how the time of the years impacts your mpg.
Good numbers. Had a look at your Fuelly page and you can see how the time of the years impacts your mpg.
Check your tyre pressures when cold.Thanks.
I set mine, Mk 1, to 35 all round.wow :o
I set mine, Mk 1, to 35 all round.
A couple of psi over is better than a couple under. And I don't have to worry about them going under if I miss a pressure check (about once a month, weather permitting).I set mine, Mk 1, to 35 all round.wow :o
Check your tyre wear pattern, under-inflation can cause extra wear at edges of tread, and over-inflation causes more wear in centre of tread.After 15,000 miles on these tyres the tread is uniform, across the pisté.
Tried Shell V-Power and I feel significant better mpg and better acceleration.I found the same, but when I crunched the numbers I found the cost per mile cheaper using 95 octane.
Another thing (I'm sure many mentioned that before): cold engine mpg. Just started drive short distance after 2 days (average temp outside 6-10C) and get only 26 mpg after 7 miles trip to shop.This is one of my complaints. I think Honda could have done more to help the engine warm up quickly but when fuel efficiency is tested using pre-warmed engines there was no incentive to address this aspect. Now the fuel economy tests include some "real life" conditions the vehicle manufacturers have started to do something. The current CR-V has moveable louvres (or similar) on the air intake for the engine compartment - the modern equivalent of drivers blocking off half the radiator in a previous era (when it was more accessible). I hope that the Mk 4 Jazz has a similar feature, maybe more.
My current work-around is to turn off the cabin heating for the first few minutes of a cold start journey to give the engine some help in getting warm.I never turn the heater on until the blue light goes out, and when it is below zero, I leave it a couple of minutes after that. In really low temps the blue light has gone out, I have immediately turned the heating on, and the light has come back on. Especially at high fan settings.
Just had another fill up that was very close to the computer and I'm now wondering if the CVT removes some of the variables in a manual.I’ve not found that - see my 3 year figures in a quote from 2019: “I’ve just completed 3 years and 30636 miles, using 2738 litres of mainly ASDA 95, giving 50.9 mpg. Trip B has been running throughout without resetting and is showing 55.8 mpg, a discrepancy of 9%. Average speed shown as 35 mph.”
My year and 5000 miles of a CVT Mk. 3 Jazz also showed 9% optimism by the computer. I have to wonder if it was programmed to show a nice increase in mpg compared to the Mk. 2 Jazz. In contrast, my HR-V was only 3% optimistic perhaps because there was no need to show an improvement over a previous model. I'm convinced that some bias is programmed into the calculation. If there wasn't then, on average, half of drivers would get a computer mpg that was below the reality.Just had another fill up that was very close to the computer and I'm now wondering if the CVT removes some of the variables in a manual.I’ve not found that - see my 3 year figures in a quote from 2019: “I’ve just completed 3 years and 30636 miles, using 2738 litres of mainly ASDA 95, giving 50.9 mpg. Trip B has been running throughout without resetting and is showing 55.8 mpg, a discrepancy of 9%. Average speed shown as 35 mph.”
I think manufacturers are making sure they can't be blamed for speeding incidents.I've found the odometers on my recent cars to agree very closely so it's not miles being shorter than the real distance in order to show more of them. Also, I think if you compare the speedometer to GPS speed then you'll find that the difference between display and actual is fairly constant (1 -2 mph) throughout the speed range so this safety margin is added in just before the speed is displayed.
I was always very anti the CVT transmission until I actually got one. I think one reason for my poor mpg at times (even allowing for the short journey in the winter thing) is coming to terms with the best way to drive them. To overcome an initial sluggishness, especially at the lights, I've been in the habit of opening the throttle in a rather heavy footed way. I've been looking into various techniques to maximise fuel economy with the CVT and the key seems to be "linear" throttle inputs - squeezing the pedal rather than a more aggressive stamping on the pedal approach.
It's blindingly obvious really and it was how I used to drive manuals with the imaginary egg between foot and accelerator. I'm finding that the "linear" approach is absolutely the way to drive a CVT and this avoids the rubber band effect where the engine roars up the rev range with little result in terms of acceleration. The car actually seems to move off the line more briskly and higher gear ratios are achieved earlier as well.
More squeeze less stamping!
Had Mk2 Jazz, Have Mk3 and new Mk4 on order. Current model is 1.3 S manual with 31000 miles on the clock.I thought I was doing well at 52 mpg, but I do a lot of mileage at around 65 mph. With your pattern of driving, you should achieve outstanding economy with the hybrid.
Total mileage divided by all fuel purchased since new gives 60.48 mpg. Most journeys 21 miles on A15 and minor roads at around 55mph.
Actually, with the hybrid I didn't see much difference between motorway style roads and doing mountainous B roads this last weekend. Very similar mid 60s mpg.The Mk 4's hybrid system provides little benefit at motorway speed. There should be slightly higher transmission efficiency when in direct drive move plus the full Atkinson cycle engine but these may be offset by the extra weight of the battery and electronics. If, however, you encounter crawling traffic then the hybrid system makes it less tedious and fuel wasting. Mountainous conditions make the engine work hard on the uphills while the battery doesn't have sufficient capacity to absorb all the regenerated energy on the descents.
My mpg is pretty disappointing at the moment. A tad over 40 mpg when I filled today (actual - the computer said 44.8). I'm just wondering if I'm taking a hit from the aircon after a period of exceptionally hot weather. To be fair I haven't done any distance driving.
I’ve driven over 700 miles this week from Suffolk to Tyneside and back via Huddersfield and York. For the first time in this car I drove over 500 miles on one tank, 501 to be precise!
Great stats. I notice your average speed is 34 mph. Mine is usually about 18 mph and reflects the stop start stuff I do - the bane of fuel economy.Yes, quite a lot of my mileage has been on the A14 and A1 between Suffolk, Yorkshire and Tyneside, making extensive use of cruise control, which is more economical than I am! With this driving pattern, I don't think I would do a great deal better with the hybrid, because much of the time it would be in direct drive.
The best I ever managed with my Mk 1 was 70.9 mpg (calculated) over 234 miles.
I was getting back regulat 50mpg and up to 59mpg on long trips in my 64 reg automatic.
Then I boughtva spacesaver spare wheel and the extra weight knocked about 3mpg off.