hybrid or not to hybrid

[Urbandreamer]

What's with the rolling eyes then ?

.... I record the mileage and fuel (brim to brim calculation) every time I fill up and produce stats and graphs with the figures. ..

If I may but in, the fact that it's a "brim to brim" amount makes little difference. The accuracy is in simply recording total miles and total fuel.
Brim to brim simply makes it easier to track seasonal changes, the likes of my flat tyre and makes the math/maths easier. Divide one by the other, you get mpg or in English miles per gallon.

It's simple math/maths that school children are taught.

Because I don't use brim to brim, my math/maths is slightly more complicated in that I use a historic rolling average to get rid of quantisation* effects. That is to say I divide the distance over the last three petrol stops by the amount of fuel added in those three stops, which I try to keep constant.

*The effect of the fact that we work on descrete data that we gather each time we refuel. The same effect is what causes inaccuracy in the instant readings of fuel consumption on computer dashboards. Errors in reading very small amounts of fuel lead to the dash giving wrong reports, but it should be used as just a rough guess when looking at a dashboard instant value.

[jackdaww]

What's with the rolling eyes then ?

The spreadsheet runs to many pages and what is shown are just the totals. I record the mileage and fuel (brim to brim calculation) every time I fill up and produce stats and graphs with the figures. I no longer need to do it but old habits die hard. The 80mpg figure was on the trip computer, which on the Hyundai is actually very accurate, as the figures show. But don't take my word for it.

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/hy ... 016/hybrid

And taking the Niro as an example

1488.07 litres * 0.21997 = 327.33 gallons (1 litres to UK gallons = 0.21997 UK gallons)

19254.8 miles / 327.33 gallons = 58.8 mpg

Ok, it's a little less than calculated brim to brim but within a margin of error of around 2%

===========================

your hyundai did just short of 60mpg based on miles and gallons .

assuming those are accurate - odometers arent - satnavs are - thats sounds fine .

but isnt your talk of 70 and 80 mpg just stretching it a little?

ive heard these tales all my driving life...... hence

ps. no need for 3 decimal places in this , round figures are plenty if the measurements are accurate.

[GrahamPlatt]

Well my 2010 VW transporter (diesel, obviously) has done - and continues to do - 39mpg real. That’s total miles/total fuel over its lifespan & the fuel efficiency hasn’t budged much over the years. It does about 700 miles between refills. Which is why, despite wanting to, I can’t bring myself to switch to electric (yet). Then again, (given the efficiency gains of running an engine in its sweet spot with their IVT, their flywheel technology and turbo/supercharger synthesis), I thought Torotrak was going to be part of the future. Hmm.

[nmdhqbc]

What's with the rolling eyes then ?

The spreadsheet runs to many pages and what is shown are just the totals. I record the mileage and fuel (brim to brim calculation) every time I fill up and produce stats and graphs with the figures. I no longer need to do it but old habits die hard. The 80mpg figure was on the trip computer, which on the Hyundai is actually very accurate, as the figures show. But don't take my word for it.

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/hy ... 016/hybrid

And taking the Niro as an example

1488.07 litres * 0.21997 = 327.33 gallons (1 litres to UK gallons = 0.21997 UK gallons)

19254.8 miles / 327.33 gallons = 58.8 mpg

Ok, it's a little less than calculated brim to brim but within a margin of error of around 2%

===========================

your hyundai did just short of 60mpg based on miles and gallons .

assuming those are accurate - odometers arent - satnavs are - thats sounds fine .

but isnt your talk of 70 and 80 mpg just stretching it a little?

ive heard these tales all my driving life...... hence

ps. no need for 3 decimal places in this , round figures are plenty if the measurements are accurate.

I've been rolling my eyes at you through out this thread. The Niro (Kia, not Hyundai) got just short of 60mpg. The Hyundai got over 70mpg. And the 80mpg was just for one long trip. So your "heard these tales before" bit and eye rolling is completely unjustified. The numbers stack up. You seem to want to imply you're being lied to when clearly that's false. I have no idea what your motive is for such an attitude. What's it to you if more decimals are included? Why do you set the rules on that?

[Urbandreamer]

but isnt your talk of 70 and 80 mpg just stretching it a little?

Err, no.

Look Shell, YES that oil company (who I have shares in) have been running a competition for over 35 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Eco-marathon
Here is just one win.

244.35 mpg‑US (0.9626 L/100 km; 293.45 mpg‑imp) with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968

OK, it's not normal or normal driving. But it IS real, not "magic".

The facts are there for any engineer. Yes we share info, and guess what, physics doesn't change often. Everything is incremental changes. We find ways of reducing drag by needing less engine cooling. The grill on many IC cars is mostly for show and in the 80's manufacturers looked towards closing it to reduce drag.

Hybrids are simply a way to engineer cars to suit how people want to drive, while reducing fuel consumption.

[Redmires]

your hyundai did just short of 60mpg based on miles and gallons .

assuming those are accurate - odometers arent - satnavs are - thats sounds fine .

but isnt your talk of 70 and 80 mpg just stretching it a little?

ive heard these tales all my driving life...... hence

ps. no need for 3 decimal places in this , round figures are plenty if the measurements are accurate.

Ok, I'll try to make things a bit clearer. Don't know why I need to justify myself but here goes.

If you read my post again and concentrate, you will see that in the first paragraph I am talking about the Hyundai. I then post a link to Honest John about the Hyundai. Then ..... 'Taking the Niro as an example' I give the figures for that car. I could have picked any car, it just happened to be the Kia Niro.

Here are the Hyundai figures for you to roll your eyes at

855.73 litres * 0.21997 = 188.23 gallons

13432.2 miles / 188.23 gallons = 71.36 mpg

I'll post my petrol receipts if you ask nicely.

[Redmires]

Here you go. Taken 5 minutes ago.



311 miles to empty and over half a tank left. 68.2 mpg. Not bad for October.

[tjh290633]

Well my 2010 VW transporter (diesel, obviously) has done - and continues to do - 39mpg real. That’s total miles/total fuel over its lifespan & the fuel efficiency hasn’t budged much over the years. It does about 700 miles between refills. Which is why, despite wanting to, I can’t bring myself to switch to electric (yet). Then again, (given the efficiency gains of running an engine in its sweet spot with their IVT, their flywheel technology and turbo/supercharger synthesis), I thought Torotrak was going to be part of the future. Hmm.

My 1958 VW Beetle 1200 did 38mpg virtually all the time. That was in the days of Maximum speed 68mph, Cruising speed 68mph.

304 miles allowed you to put 8 gallons in the tank, without fail. That was in the days of a "reserve tank", which was actuated by a foot lever, allowing you to use the last gallon or so.

TJH

[GrahamPlatt]

My 1958 VW Beetle 1200 did 38mpg virtually all the time. That was in the days of Maximum speed 68mph, Cruising speed 68mph.

304 miles allowed you to put 8 gallons in the tank, without fail. That was in the days of a "reserve tank", which was actuated by a foot lever, allowing you to use the last gallon or so.

TJH

Fair enough, but your 1200 beetle was circa 36 bhp, compared to the transporter’s 100+

[jackdaww]

Here you go. Taken 5 minutes ago.



311 miles to empty and over half a tank left. 68.2 mpg. Not bad for October.

=====================

the computer figure is 68.2 .

how does it get that ?

how accurately does it measure the fuel ? no need for accuracy here for the computer - its just cosmetic .

does the mileage come from the odometer ? usually at least 5% optimistic and dependent on other factors such as tyre pressure.

what does the computer software program look like - is it possible the manufacture would make it look favourable?

these computer figures are useless for serious comparisons .

[jackdaww]

but isnt your talk of 70 and 80 mpg just stretching it a little?

Err, no.

Look Shell, YES that oil company (who I have shares in) have been running a competition for over 35 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Eco-marathon
Here is just one win.

244.35 mpg‑US (0.9626 L/100 km; 293.45 mpg‑imp) with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968

OK, it's not normal or normal driving. But it IS real, not "magic".

The facts are there for any engineer. Yes we share info, and guess what, physics doesn't change often. Everything is incremental changes. We find ways of reducing drag by needing less engine cooling. The grill on many IC cars is mostly for show and in the 80's manufacturers looked towards closing it to reduce drag.

Hybrids are simply a way to engineer cars to suit how people want to drive, while reducing fuel consumption.

===================================

i am sure its real , and its not magic.

it is however not of any use for making serious comparisons.

[jackdaww]

What's with the rolling eyes then ?

The spreadsheet runs to many pages and what is shown are just the totals. I record the mileage and fuel (brim to brim calculation) every time I fill up and produce stats and graphs with the figures. I no longer need to do it but old habits die hard. The 80mpg figure was on the trip computer, which on the Hyundai is actually very accurate, as the figures show. But don't take my word for it.

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/hy ... 016/hybrid

And taking the Niro as an example

1488.07 litres * 0.21997 = 327.33 gallons (1 litres to UK gallons = 0.21997 UK gallons)

19254.8 miles / 327.33 gallons = 58.8 mpg

Ok, it's a little less than calculated brim to brim but within a margin of error of around 2%

===========================

your hyundai did just short of 60mpg based on miles and gallons .

assuming those are accurate - odometers arent - satnavs are - thats sounds fine .

but isnt your talk of 70 and 80 mpg just stretching it a little?

ive heard these tales all my driving life...... hence

ps. no need for 3 decimal places in this , round figures are plenty if the measurements are accurate.

I've been rolling my eyes at you through out this thread. The Niro (Kia, not Hyundai) got just short of 60mpg. The Hyundai got over 70mpg. And the 80mpg was just for one long trip. So your "heard these tales before" bit and eye rolling is completely unjustified. The numbers stack up. You seem to want to imply you're being lied to when clearly that's false. I have no idea what your motive is for such an attitude. What's it to you if more decimals are included? Why do you set the rules on that?

==============================

no , im not saying any one is being untruthful , i accept the numbers supplied absolutely , but have to question their derivation , eg . how is the mileage measured .

i am asking questions on a subject which has a very long history of over hype .

error margins preclude the need for decimals .

[nmdhqbc]

no , im not saying any one is being untruthful , i accept the numbers supplied absolutely , but have to question their derivation , eg . how is the mileage measured .

i am asking questions on a subject which has a very long history of over hype .

error margins preclude the need for decimals .

So why then when the calculation methods are shown and there's no discrepancies do you then go on to say something to the effect of - "na, I don't buy it. Useless data." That's just a ridiculous response to evidence shown.

In previous post it was shown that the Hyundai's trip computer had a very good estimate vs the manual "brim to brim" calculation done. So that 68mpg is probably quite accurate. And the info over the long term was done using real data not the computer and showed a higher mpg (71.13). Why ignore that? There's the proof. but you still say "na, I don't buy this". It's just completely illogical. Tell us why you want to not buy it? What motivates this? What axe do you have to grind? If you tell us your real issue maybe a proper conversation can be had on that topic.

The decimals were there to show you the calculation method. With the decimals there you can check the calculation to satisfy your skepticism on the numbers. You asked for that. Why do you want to control everything anyway? Leave people to give decimals if they want. They don't need your permission to leave them out anyhow

[jackdaww]

your hyundai did just short of 60mpg based on miles and gallons .

assuming those are accurate - odometers arent - satnavs are - thats sounds fine .

but isnt your talk of 70 and 80 mpg just stretching it a little?

ive heard these tales all my driving life...... hence

ps. no need for 3 decimal places in this , round figures are plenty if the measurements are accurate.

Ok, I'll try to make things a bit clearer. Don't know why I need to justify myself but here goes.

If you read my post again and concentrate, you will see that in the first paragraph I am talking about the Hyundai. I then post a link to Honest John about the Hyundai. Then ..... 'Taking the Niro as an example' I give the figures for that car. I could have picked any car, it just happened to be the Kia Niro.

Here are the Hyundai figures for you to roll your eyes at

855.73 litres * 0.21997 = 188.23 gallons

13432.2 miles / 188.23 gallons = 71.36 mpg

I'll post my petrol receipts if you ask nicely.

===================================

no need for receipts , i fully accept your figures .

the hyundai iconiq is a bit controversial - the manufacturer claims 63mpg, a lot less than your 71mpg.

however accepting all your figures , the average of all the vehicles is about 59mpg .

i find that very impressive , especially if your mileages are satnav based .

if odometer based they could be overstated by at least 5% which means your overall average could be nearer 55mpg.

i still find that impressive --

but its nowhere near 70 - 80 mpg .

[jackdaww]

no , im not saying any one is being untruthful , i accept the numbers supplied absolutely , but have to question their derivation , eg . how is the mileage measured .

i am asking questions on a subject which has a very long history of over hype .

error margins preclude the need for decimals .

So why then when the calculation methods are shown and there's no discrepancies do you then go on to say something to the effect of - "na, I don't buy it. Useless data." That's just a ridiculous response to evidence shown.

In previous post it was shown that the Hyundai's trip computer had a very good estimate vs the manual "brim to brim" calculation done. So that 68mpg is probably quite accurate. And the info over the long term was done using real data not the computer and showed a higher mpg (71.13). Why ignore that? There's the proof. but you still say "na, I don't buy this". It's just completely illogical. Tell us why you want to not buy it? What motivates this? What axe do you have to grind? If you tell us your real issue maybe a proper conversation can be had on that topic.

The decimals were there to show you the calculation method. With the decimals there you can check the calculation to satisfy your skepticism on the numbers. You asked for that. Why do you want to control everything anyway? Leave people to give decimals if they want. They don't need your permission to leave them out anyhow

=================================

trip computers are no use for serious comparisons.

i do accept the figures supplied including the 71mpg for the hyundai iconiq .

i have said the figures are overstated if mileages are derived from the odometer .

i grind no axes , i want to grind out more accuracy (without decimals).

[swill453]

if odometer based they could be overstated by at least 5%

Where do you get data to back up your claim that odometers are so inaccurate? With a bit of googling I found a few discussions where figures of about 1% off seemed typical.

Odometers by their nature are much easier to get accurate than speedometers, given the direct mechanical connection between the wheels and whatever's doing the counting. No wavy needle to take into account.

(I accept tyre wear and pressure come into play, but think the effect will be small).

Scott.

[nmdhqbc]

trip computers are no use for serious comparisons.

i do accept the figures supplied including the 71mpg for the hyundai iconiq .

i have said the figures are overstated if mileages are derived from the odometer .

i grind no axes , i want to grind out more accuracy (without decimals).

Seems like a given that most things are not 100% accurate. All anyone can do is their best to estimate. These numbers are as good as anyone can reasonably estimate so banging on about it like you have is pointless.

[jackdaww]

if odometer based they could be overstated by at least 5%

Where do you get data to back up your claim that odometers are so inaccurate? With a bit of googling I found a few discussions where figures of about 1% off seemed typical.

Odometers by their nature are much easier to get accurate than speedometers, given the direct mechanical connection between the wheels and whatever's doing the counting. No wavy needle to take into account.

(I accept tyre wear and pressure come into play, but think the effect will be small).

Scott.

==============================

you may be right.

i have assumed odometers derive their data from the same source as the speedometer , which are widely considered to be fast , my own car speedo is way faster than my garmin satnav.

DAK how odometers work , are the accurate ?

[nmdhqbc]

but its nowhere near 70 - 80 mpg .

Nowhere has anyone said they get 70-80mpg on average. The only time 80mpg is mention is for one journey. Obviously a good day and a favorable journey for efficiency. But it was never presented as anything different. I've corrected you on this already but you keep banging on about it. You keep refuting this 70-80mpg thing that no-one has said at all. This kind of ignoring facts and twisting of words and numbers is what makes me think you have some kind of axe to grind.

[jackdaww]

but its nowhere near 70 - 80 mpg .

Nowhere has anyone said they get 70-80mpg on average. The only time 80mpg is mention is for one journey. Obviously a good day and a favorable journey for efficiency. But it was never presented as anything different. I've corrected you on this already but you keep banging on about it. You keep refuting this 70-80mpg thing that no-one has said at all. This kind of ignoring facts and twisting of words and numbers is what makes me think you have some kind of axe to grind.

=================================

quote from a previous post .

"The Hyundai average surpasses 70mpg and on a 350 mile trip last year it topped 80mpg."

i think its quite fair to take issue with this .

again i have no axe to grind , i dont do politics.

i am very pro hybrids , my next car will be a hybrid.