Jump to content

Welcome to Autoworld Forum !

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Close
Photo

1.6sx Fuel Consumption


  • Please log in to reply

#1
Gen2White

Posted 13 February 2011 - 12:48 PM

Gen2White

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 134 posts
RM 80 @ Esso / Mobil

At half tank balance, approximately 170 km.

At empty light balance, approximately another 165 km.

Total approximately 350 km for RM 80.

Approximately 22 sen / km.

Approximately 11.5 L / 100 km.

2010 1.6SX 17"

100% 'Urban' / 'City Drive', mostly below 80km/h & regular traffic light stops.

#2
willie79

Posted 13 February 2011 - 08:19 PM

willie79

    Taxi Driver

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 442 posts
banyak makan minyak woh~~~ got mistake count?
Kenari SS6133H

#3
kawkawchan

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:21 PM

kawkawchan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 190 posts
QUOTE (Gen2White @ Feb 13 2011, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
RM 80 @ Esso / Mobil

At half tank balance, approximately 170 km.

At empty light balance, approximately another 165 km.

Total approximately 350 km for RM 80.

Approximately 22 sen / km.

Approximately 11.5 L / 100 km.

2010 1.6SX 17"

100% 'Urban' / 'City Drive', mostly below 80km/h & regular traffic light stops.

Where got such thing that ur 1.6 pia FC is far higher than my 2.0......
My 2.0's urban driving = 9.5-10.2 l / 100km(I drive)
= 8.5-8.8 l / 100km(wife drive)

Btw, I'm using petronas , seem like the gas goes very well with the petronas full syn oil.....

I'm kaw kaw chan mo pong chan

#4
darreltian

Posted 16 February 2011 - 10:49 AM

darreltian

    Tokyo Drifter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,823 posts
QUOTE (Gen2White @ Feb 13 2011, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
RM 80 @ Esso / Mobil

At half tank balance, approximately 170 km.

At empty light balance, approximately another 165 km.

Total approximately 350 km for RM 80.

Approximately 22 sen / km.

Approximately 11.5 L / 100 km.

2010 1.6SX 17"

100% 'Urban' / 'City Drive', mostly below 80km/h & regular traffic light stops.

can u also describe your daily travelling route....

#5
jayraptor

Posted 18 February 2011 - 11:12 AM

jayraptor

    Tokyo Drifter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,070 posts
QUOTE (kawkawchan @ Feb 14 2011, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Where got such thing that ur 1.6 pia FC is far higher than my 2.0......
My 2.0's urban driving = 9.5-10.2 l / 100km(I drive)
= 8.5-8.8 l / 100km(wife drive)

Btw, I'm using petronas , seem like the gas goes very well with the petronas full syn oil.....


Bro kawkawchan,

It's not about the engine oil but the way the driver steps on the pedal. If both the 1.6 and 2.0 were driven at heavy foot, the 2.0SX could get better FC than the 1.6L. Reason is the 1.6L engine is tuned to churn out optimum output/torque at midend enough to drag the C-segment body around without lag. Because of this, the 1.6L Forte could achieve 60km/h, 80km/h, 100km/h at engine speed of Camry 2.0L D-segment. Driving the 1.6L is to follow the style of driving a 2.0L D-segment and not to drive it like normal Japs B/C-segment that require more flooring to get optimum torque.

Most probably, Gen2White is driving his 1.6L Forte like how he would drive normal 1.5/1.6L B-segment that he would floor over 3000rpm often. The FC could drop from 12km/L down to 9km/L with much of the pulling power wasted on excessive braking.

#6
gregy

Posted 18 February 2011 - 04:24 PM

gregy

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 642 posts
QUOTE (jayraptor @ Feb 18 2011, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bro kawkawchan,

It's not about the engine oil but the way the driver steps on the pedal. If both the 1.6 and 2.0 were driven at heavy foot, the 2.0SX could get better FC than the 1.6L. Reason is the 1.6L engine is tuned to churn out optimum output/torque at midend enough to drag the C-segment body around without lag. Because of this, the 1.6L Forte could achieve 60km/h, 80km/h, 100km/h at engine speed of Camry 2.0L D-segment. Driving the 1.6L is to follow the style of driving a 2.0L D-segment and not to drive it like normal Japs B/C-segment that require more flooring to get optimum torque.

Most probably, Gen2White is driving his 1.6L Forte like how he would drive normal 1.5/1.6L B-segment that he would floor over 3000rpm often. The FC could drop from 12km/L down to 9km/L with much of the pulling power wasted on excessive braking.


If you drive either a 1.6 or 2.0 with a heavy foot, the 2.0 will consume more fuel, period. I'm sorry bro, your explanations are all over the place and full of conjecture.

If you want to save fuel, accelerate gently and not like a jackrabbit, and anticipate stops ahead.

Try to achieve top gear with torque converter lockup as soon as possible, which means no pussyfooting uphill, thinking you're saving fuel when in fact you're dragging the car and not taking advantage of forward momentum. The catch is to spin the engine the least, at max possible speed.

When on a slight decline, feather the throttle, and if speeds are high enough, don't touch the throttle altogether, because when there is enough momentum to keep the car running with no pedal input, the ECU will shut fuel off completely. Already proven in hypermiling circles.

In traffic jams, a 1.6 will burn less fuel at idle compared to a 2.0. Also, when you know the lights will take at least a minute or so to turn green, push the lever to Neutral. Leaving it in D will consume more fuel. Also proven by hyper milers.

For drivers who mostly drive in town, it's better to go with smaller or lighter wheels so that less energy is used to turn the wheels.

For frequent outstation travellers, a heavier wheel will get you better FC figures as heavier wheels have more momentum and require less energy to keep rolling at a constant speed.
There are no lousy cars. Only better cars.

#7
Gen2White

Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:07 PM

Gen2White

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 134 posts
QUOTE (kawkawchan @ Feb 14 2011, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Where got such thing that ur 1.6 pia FC is far higher than my 2.0......
My 2.0's urban driving = 9.5-10.2 l / 100km(I drive)
= 8.5-8.8 l / 100km(wife drive)

Btw, I'm using petronas , seem like the gas goes very well with the petronas full syn oil.....

Got such thing. Mine is 1.6SX.

But I agree with you. I feel that using good fully synthetic / good semi-synthetic helps FC.

QUOTE (darreltian @ Feb 16 2011, 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
can u also describe your daily travelling route....

There's 6 traffic lights from Point A to Point B (about 10km). Two ways = 12 time stop. (Oklar, maybe less, not everytime is red light :-))

That's roughly 1 traffic light every 2 km!

QUOTE (jayraptor @ Feb 18 2011, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's not about the engine oil but the way the driver steps on the pedal. If both the 1.6 and 2.0 were driven at heavy foot, the 2.0SX could get better FC than the 1.6L. Reason is the 1.6L engine is tuned to churn out optimum output/torque at midend enough to drag the C-segment body around without lag. Because of this, the 1.6L Forte could achieve 60km/h, 80km/h, 100km/h at engine speed of Camry 2.0L D-segment. Driving the 1.6L is to follow the style of driving a 2.0L D-segment and not to drive it like normal Japs B/C-segment that require more flooring to get optimum torque.

Most probably, Gen2White is driving his 1.6L Forte like how he would drive normal 1.5/1.6L B-segment that he would floor over 3000rpm often. The FC could drop from 12km/L down to 9km/L with much of the pulling power wasted on excessive braking.

Interesting info, thanks.

Actually, not floor over 300rpm often, but because of the frequent start/stop, power wasted on braking.

If I remember correctly, the same route will cost my 1.3L Campro 'classic' Gen2 nearly/over 30 sen/km. My Gen2 can also achieve less/nearly 12 sen/km on the highway! :-)

I haven't driven the Forte 1.6SX on the highway yet. But estimate to be around the same too (12-15 sen/km).

QUOTE (gregy @ Feb 18 2011, 04:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you drive either a 1.6 or 2.0 with a heavy foot, the 2.0 will consume more fuel, period. I'm sorry bro, your explanations are all over the place and full of conjecture.

If you want to save fuel, accelerate gently and not like a jackrabbit, and anticipate stops ahead.

Try to achieve top gear with torque converter lockup as soon as possible, which means no pussyfooting uphill, thinking you're saving fuel when in fact you're dragging the car and not taking advantage of forward momentum. The catch is to spin the engine the least, at max possible speed.

When on a slight decline, feather the throttle, and if speeds are high enough, don't touch the throttle altogether, because when there is enough momentum to keep the car running with no pedal input, the ECU will shut fuel off completely. Already proven in hypermiling circles.

In traffic jams, a 1.6 will burn less fuel at idle compared to a 2.0. Also, when you know the lights will take at least a minute or so to turn green, push the lever to Neutral. Leaving it in D will consume more fuel. Also proven by hyper milers.

For drivers who mostly drive in town, it's better to go with smaller or lighter wheels so that less energy is used to turn the wheels.

For frequent outstation travellers, a heavier wheel will get you better FC figures as heavier wheels have more momentum and require less energy to keep rolling at a constant speed.

Even more interesting info, thanks.

I can understand & agree with most of it, except this: "The catch is to spin the engine the least, at max possible speed."

Could you be so kind as to help explain in simpler words? Not a car techie.

Least RPM at a particular speed?

Is this why 6-speed or 7-speed gearboxes are said to give better FC?

It would be taxing on the brain to be continuously monitoring the RPM :-)

#8
gregy

Posted 19 February 2011 - 12:57 AM

gregy

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 642 posts
QUOTE (Gen2White @ Feb 18 2011, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Got such thing. Mine is 1.6SX.

But I agree with you. I feel that using good fully synthetic / good semi-synthetic helps FC.


There's 6 traffic lights from Point A to Point B (about 10km). Two ways = 12 time stop. (Oklar, maybe less, not everytime is red light :-))

That's roughly 1 traffic light every 2 km!


Interesting info, thanks.

Actually, not floor over 300rpm often, but because of the frequent start/stop, power wasted on braking.

If I remember correctly, the same route will cost my 1.3L Campro 'classic' Gen2 nearly/over 30 sen/km. My Gen2 can also achieve less/nearly 12 sen/km on the highway! :-)

I haven't driven the Forte 1.6SX on the highway yet. But estimate to be around the same too (12-15 sen/km).


Even more interesting info, thanks.

I can understand & agree with most of it, except this: "The catch is to spin the engine the least, at max possible speed."

Could you be so kind as to help explain in simpler words? Not a car techie.

Least RPM at a particular speed?

Is this why 6-speed or 7-speed gearboxes are said to give better FC?

It would be taxing on the brain to be continuously monitoring the RPM :-)



Ya, basically it means to reach top gear as soon as possible. I have only test driven the 2.0 FL once so I can't say with certainty, but I've tested a Peugeot 308T and also read about how there is a lock up clutch on each gear from 2nd gear onwards.

On the 2.0 and 2.0 FL, I'm fairly confident that there is a lockup clutch if not in every gear, then in top gear.

So what's this "lockup clutch"?
In conventional automatic transmissions, there's this magic disc called a torque converter. Basically, what it does is spin independently of the engine so that when you're at a stop, your engine won't stall. When you step on the gas, the engine speed will rise, which in turn will spin the auto trans fluid (ATF). This fluid in turn will spin the torque converter which in turn transmits that energy towards the gears to make your car move. It's called a torque converter because it converts that spinning energy and multiplies the spinning force towards the gears.

Torque converters are only able to convert part of that spinning energy from the engine. Some of that energy is converted into heat and is absorbed by the ATF. That is why it's important to change ATF regularly as too much heat will kill the ATF and cause long term damage to the torque converter. Anyway, car engineers in the 90s started incorporating a lockup clutch in their torque converter designs to take care of that wasted energy. If you've ever driven a manual, think of it as driving with half clutch. The slipping clutch will waste fuel and kill the clutch in no time.

Back to the lockup clutch. What it does, is that when a car is moving at a certain speed, the lockup clutch couples the engine's flywheel directly to the torque converter, so that no slipping is occurring. Basically, with the lockup clutch in place, your engine is directly driving the gearbox with no slippage, resulting in the best fuel economy.

So how does one know if his car comes with a lockup clutch? Very simple. Start driving normally. Once you reach top gear, observe the rpm at your current speed. Let's say, 2,800rpm @ 100km/h (example). If you maintain the throttle at that speed (assuming you're on a level road), you will find that the engine's rpm will drop slightly to around 2,500rpm (again, just an example). When this happens, your lockup clutch has been activated.

I had a friend last time (a Masters degree holder, no less!), who remarked that his Nissan Sentra 4-sp auto actually has 5 speeds. He argued that he notices the rpm dropping slightly whenever he reaches top gear. I tried to explain about the lockup clutch but he wouldn't listen, cos I didn't have a Masters LOL...
There are no lousy cars. Only better cars.

#9
stinger82

Posted 19 February 2011 - 01:17 AM

stinger82

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 217 posts
QUOTE (gregy @ Feb 19 2011, 12:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I had a friend last time (a Masters degree holder, no less!), who remarked that his Nissan Sentra 4-sp auto actually has 5 speeds. He argued that he notices the rpm dropping slightly whenever he reaches top gear. I tried to explain about the lockup clutch but he wouldn't listen, cos I didn't have a Masters LOL...



er, i have yet to find an auto car without a lockup clutch. but cheap car will only lock on 4th speed. and fast car, like merc AMG will lock up at every gear, to minimize power loss, but thats another story.

the point is, drive smoothly smile.gif sure will save fuel.

a lot ppl vroom and brake, vroom and brake. i think that hurts too.

#10
gregy

Posted 20 February 2011 - 04:44 AM

gregy

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 642 posts
QUOTE (stinger82 @ Feb 19 2011, 01:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
er, i have yet to find an auto car without a lockup clutch. but cheap car will only lock on 4th speed. and fast car, like merc AMG will lock up at every gear, to minimize power loss, but thats another story.

the point is, drive smoothly smile.gif sure will save fuel.

a lot ppl vroom and brake, vroom and brake. i think that hurts too.


Try Wira 1.5A with three forward ratios and no lockup clutch smile.gif Have you also driven a Kelisa auto? Ah, you haven't looked around enough LOL...

Cheap car? Don't be so quick to judge. Even current Accords, Camrys etc lockup only on 5th. And not only fast cars have lockup on every gear. Pug 407 and 308's original AL4 gearbox also lockup from 2nd gear onwards, and sometimes even in first. It all boils down to engineering design decisions, not about how fast a car can go. And FYI, Toyota has also started to employ lockup on every gear on some of its new mass produced cars.

If you have the time, read Pg 18 of the following pdf:
http://www.scribd.co...L4-Transmission

Driving smoothly, yes, but not to the point of driving too slow.

Too slow = dragging the car, not taking advantage of forward momentum.

Too fast = higher wind resistance that counters the benefits of forward momentum.

Vroom and brake, sure makan minyak wan loh. Captain Obvious!
There are no lousy cars. Only better cars.