hyundai matrix 1.6A third fc taking
-
jus to post my fc taking taken recently as follow:
Ron 92 petrol used =160 L
Distance travelled =1767Km
FC= 11.04 Km / L
Driving profile:
- Single driver, 95% of the time
- Highway driving, 75% of the time (include peak hour jam)
- Accerelating rate, <2500rpm (9%); 2500-3500 rpm(65%); 3500-5000 rpm (25%); > 5000rpm (1%)
- Occasionally left car at idle to enjoy aircon.
- Driving without air con, 70% of the time
- without spare tire
- Tire pressure 250 KPA ( check every 2-3 month)
- 1.5 liter water bottle (not always full) in boot all the time
So is my alpha2 engine worth the money or not?
anything not clear, pls ask.
thk for visiting.
-
I just post another one for comparison k? I used to have the chance to drive the last generation Altis.
Ron 95 petrol - Full tank 50~55L
Distance per tank - 550~570km
Fc = 10km/l
Driving profile:
- Single driver, 90% of the time
- Highway driving, 50% of the time, 50% normal roads
- Accerelating rate, <2500rpm, when idle (0.1%); 2500-3500 rpm cruising (50%); 3500-5000 rpm when moving off from traffic light (25%); > 5000rpm on TPE/ECP/AYE when possible (25%)
- Never drive without aircon, even when driving hard
- Tyres 15inch Potenza RE
- Tire pressure 215kpa
I think your matrix damn worth it. You pay less for it, and has better FC as well.
-
appreciated.
>5000rpm on TPE/ECP/AYE when possible (25%)
what speed you are going 150-160? amazing.
for old altis. the fc should be around 12+ during normal driving.
DOHC engine achieving 11km/l is consider reasonable to me. CVVT engine should achieve more efficiency/saving.
-
Originally posted by mh2:
appreciated.
>5000rpm on TPE/ECP/AYE when possible (25%)
what speed you are going 150-160? amazing.
for old altis. the fc should be around 12+ during normal driving.
DOHC engine achieving 11km/l is consider reasonable to me. CVVT engine should achieve more efficiency/saving.
Yes, that's true. I think n0x also driving the last generation altis, he's getting much better FC. Even sinicker is also getting better FC with his Mazda.
A lot of people say that Matrix have bad FC, but I don't think so. End of the day, you can't have the best of both worlds. You can't expect to have a car at matrix-prices but prius-like fuel efficiency.
-
i got report that old mazda3 and old civic is getting10-11km/h. lol
well anyway...fyi
-
Not bad for a Matrix,My Saga BLM gets 13km per litre with 70% expressway and 30% city driving..Is it okay for a 1.3 auto?
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Not bad for a Matrix,My Saga BLM gets 13km per litre with 70% expressway and 30% city driving..Is it okay for a 1.3 auto?
is ok.BLM =?
-
Originally posted by mh2:
is ok.BLM =?
BLM>Basic Line model the name code of the new Saga.Whew i thought after changing to new rims affect the FC much.Before the stock is 185/60-14 now using 195/50-15 -
bigger tread width (195 in your case) will increase fuel consumption
-
Reporting on my Kia Picanto 1.1:
RON95 - Full tank = 35L
Distance per tank ~ 420-440km
TWO driving profiles
My dad only accelerates to about 2,500rpm before he'll change up. Highway to normal roads ratio is about 50:50. Cruising in fifth is about 2,800rpm at 90-95kmh. Mostly with 3 passengers aboard and aircon is 100% of the time switched on. Tyre pressure at 240kpa checked monthly by me.
My driving style is holding until about 3,500-4000rpm before changing up. But I usually drive alone and highway to normal roads ratio is about 40:60. Aircon is on 70% of the time. Cruise at about 110kmh at around 3,100-3,200rpm.
Our FC is 13.11-13.15km/l. Which seems good in isolation, but when you factor in the fact that our engine is only 1.1-litres, seems quite bad huh?
-
Originally posted by mh2:
bigger tread width (195 in your case) will increase fuel consumption
For my case it not really,I'm quite a heavy footer in Malaysia road especially,The FC are almost the same as last time..195/55 yes the FC will suffer,The speedo also inaccurate(100kmh but meter showing 95 only) -
Originally posted by alleggerita:
Reporting on my Kia Picanto 1.1:
RON95 - Full tank = 35L
Distance per tank ~ 420-440km
TWO driving profiles
My dad only accelerates to about 2,500rpm before he'll change up. Highway to normal roads ratio is about 50:50. Cruising in fifth is about 2,800rpm at 90-95kmh. Mostly with 3 passengers aboard and aircon is 100% of the time switched on. Tyre pressure at 240kpa checked monthly by me.
My driving style is holding until about 3,500-4000rpm before changing up. But I usually drive alone and highway to normal roads ratio is about 40:60. Aircon is on 70% of the time. Cruise at about 110kmh at around 3,100-3,200rpm.
Our FC is 13.11-13.15km/l. Which seems good in isolation, but when you factor in the fact that our engine is only 1.1-litres, seems quite bad huh?
Think my friend Picanto gets 13-13.5km/l.
-
Originally posted by nightsky87:
Even sinicker is also getting better FC with his Mazda.
hahahaha.. see my journey lah.
2km to PIE.
35km on PIE.
from pioneer road north traffic light, 700 metres to carpark.
what % is expway driving?
if you want good FC, you can get it if you trust your right foot.
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
hahahaha.. see my journey lah.
2km to PIE.
35km on PIE.
from pioneer road north traffic light, 700 metres to carpark.
what % is expway driving?
if you want good FC, you can get it if you trust your right foot.7.16% non-expressway..
-
Originally posted by alleggerita:
Reporting on my Kia Picanto 1.1:
RON95 - Full tank = 35L
Distance per tank ~ 420-440km
TWO driving profiles
My dad only accelerates to about 2,500rpm before he'll change up. Highway to normal roads ratio is about 50:50. Cruising in fifth is about 2,800rpm at 90-95kmh. Mostly with 3 passengers aboard and aircon is 100% of the time switched on. Tyre pressure at 240kpa checked monthly by me.
My driving style is holding until about 3,500-4000rpm before changing up. But I usually drive alone and highway to normal roads ratio is about 40:60. Aircon is on 70% of the time. Cruise at about 110kmh at around 3,100-3,200rpm.
Our FC is 13.11-13.15km/l. Which seems good in isolation, but when you factor in the fact that our engine is only 1.1-litres, seems quite bad huh?
smaller engine do not equal to better fc.
think your father driving style is more saving. but your is about the same since you drive alone (compare to 3 pax for your dad's)
13 liter /km ++ is ok i believe, anyway, we are talking about DOHC engine for your picanto? yes?
my fren old lancer SOHC with cvt....about 10km/l. amazing?
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
hahahaha.. see my journey lah.
2km to PIE.
35km on PIE.
from pioneer road north traffic light, 700 metres to carpark.
what % is expway driving?
if you want good FC, you can get it if you trust your right foot.
hi sin.any fc taking you done for your mazda? (3 i suppose?)
-
Originally posted by mh2:
hi sin.any fc taking you done for your mazda? (3 i suppose?)
i have not noted it for the past few months actually...
i'll try to once sch reopens
because when i reach home frm sch, my dad/brothers may use the car too.. then the FC does not really show my driving style.. lol. -
so it is family car ya.
-
Originally posted by mh2:
so it is family car ya.
yup... family car... mileage very high nia. haha.
-
Originally posted by mh2:
smaller engine do not equal to better fc.
think your father driving style is more saving. but your is about the same since you drive alone (compare to 3 pax for your dad's)
13 liter /km ++ is ok i believe, anyway, we are talking about DOHC engine for your picanto? yes?
my fren old lancer SOHC with cvt....about 10km/l. amazing?
nope, it's sohc with no valve timing or whatsoever trickery. It's just a very simple low-tech engine.
-
toyota camry 2.0L (2005)
Ron 95 petrol 57.78 L (full tank)
Distance travelled = 456Km
FC= 7.89 Km / L
mostly urban driving. is that considered bad?
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
toyota camry 2.0L (2005)
Ron 95 petrol 57.78 L (full tank)
Distance travelled = 456Km
FC= 7.89 Km / L
mostly urban driving. is that considered bad?
Thought my friend Camry can get 8km/L.He's working at town area.
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
toyota camry 2.0L (2005)
Ron 95 petrol 57.78 L (full tank)
Distance travelled = 456Km
FC= 7.89 Km / L
mostly urban driving. is that considered bad?
My friend claimed he can squeeze 10km/l out of it from his Camry 2.0 (2008)
Dunno true or not.
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
toyota camry 2.0L (2005)
Ron 95 petrol 57.78 L (full tank)
Distance travelled = 456Km
FC= 7.89 Km / L
mostly urban driving. is that considered bad?
rather bad when you consider the fact that a 2.4-litre engine achieves about 7km/l.
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
toyota camry 2.0L (2005)
Ron 95 petrol 57.78 L (full tank)
Distance travelled = 456Km
FC= 7.89 Km / L
mostly urban driving. is that considered bad?
should be 8 or 9 la..vtti engine lay...unacceptable