The Gas Mileage In England...

woodguru

New member
I just got back from England, where we had rented a car that would carry six people comfortably so we could travel about. This thing posted an average of 45 miles to the gallon even around town at slower speeds, and 60mpg on the freeways at 80mph. and this was a bigger car with a bigger engine than my son in law has that gets 55mpg overall. It had way more power and was a lot more fun to drive than my wife's Honda CRV that gets 25mpg.

So why does the same car like an Audi get close to twice the fuel efficiency that the same car in the US does? The big Audi A8 gets closer to 40mpg in the UK.

They sell fuel by the liter, so it's cost is roughly $6 a gallon, but even with the higher fuel cost I spent less than I would have here for the same miles driven. I'd love to have that station wagon type car here
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruI just got back from England, where we had rented a car that would carry six people comfortably so we could travel about. This thing posted an average of 45 miles to the gallon even around town at slower speeds, and 60mpg on the freeways at 80mph. and this was a bigger car with a bigger engine than my son in law has that gets 55mpg overall. It had way more power and was a lot more fun to drive than my wife's Honda CRV that gets 25mpg.

So why does the same car like an Audi get close to twice the fuel efficiency that the same car in the US does? The big Audi A8 gets closer to 40mpg in the UK.

They sell fuel by the liter, so it's cost is roughly $6 a gallon, but even with the higher fuel cost I spent less than I would have here for the same miles driven. I'd love to have that station wagon type car here


In large part, because England does not force the dilution of their gasoline with 10-15% ethanol like our progressives, who know what is best for us better than we do!
cursing.gif


Edit to add: Not to mention they are probably not saddled with all the big brother mandated pollution control crap either.

Regards,
hm
 
Last edited:
are they running the same engines? or do the european models maybe have a supercharger/turbo to help boost both MPG and power thats not present on the US models?

[edit] i'm not real familiar with audi's so i'm not suggesting that to poke at them. legit question.

i do notice with a quick look at their website that the us model comes with a 4.0L engine and the UK model comes with a 4.2L. Both are available with a 3.0L base model engine.

the US 4.0L is a 450 hp model w/ 444 ft/lbs torque, where as the 4.2L UK version is only 385 hp

the US 3.0L is a 333hp model w/ 325 ft/lbs of torque, and the equivilant 3.0L UK model is only 262hp.

that probably has something to do with the significant MPG differences.
 
Last edited:
Mostly because euro gallons and US gallons are not the same.

But also, thanks to woodless and his idiot liberal party as previously stated.
 
It's more likely to do with weight. Us cars are required to be heavy, to much safety equipment in them. Take that away and you can use a smaller but more efficient engine and still get better mpg and similar or better performance.

A 70s/80s civic would get outrageously good mileage (70ish mpg) compared to a brand new car. But the weight of the car has doubled, noamount of modern tech can make up for that. The hybrid might get 40 under ideal conditions.
 
Originally Posted By: Plant.Oneare they running the same engines? or do the european models maybe have a supercharger/turbo to help boost both MPG and power thats not present on the US models?




A super charger or turbo charger will boost power but not mpg. They add air to the engine and with that extra air extra fuel is also used.
 
forced air induction systems are one of the big ways the big 3 are responding to the new MPG mandates passed by congress....

with more power you can play with gear ratios and such.... look at what ford has done with the F150 line and what a lot of manufacturer's are using them for.... improving fuel economy by boosting power on small displacement engines....
 
I agree.
I have a 2000 Silverado 1500 2wd that i put a heads/cam 6.0 in with the 3/4 ton 4L80E and running 3.42 gear and a 31.5" tire i got my rpms to 2000@70mph and with a 75mm Turbo i can get 24-26mpg on long drives. Even [beeep] the turbo is pretty big it still makes good torque at 2000rpms so it never has to downshift or unlock the Torque Converter. Even Towing to the trucks rated limit it still got 16-17mpg and never got out of 4th gear on long hills.

I set the tune up so it is running pretty lean depending on the MAP pressure 16.2-15.8 at 2000rpms up to 55kpa, 15.8-15.2 to 75kpa and at 6psi boost it was around 13.8-14.2 and alot of timing on 93oct. It only took me 3 years to figure out how to tune it so it wouldnt melt pistons or sparkplugs. But it lasted over 200k miles like that before a lifter took out the cam.


Forced Induction with todays electronics is the way to go.

If i could just get my hunting truck up past 17mpg id be happy hahaha
 
Anytime you add extra air you have to add extra fuel....no way around that. The Ford ecoboost thing hasn't worked out as well as they wanted as of yet but with technology advancements will possibly do ok in the future. It takes more fuel to make more power whether by forced induction or naturally aspirated. Turbos are definitely the best way to add power as it doesn't take power to turn the turbo as a belt driven super charger draws power from the engine but boost is almost instantaneous while turbos usually have a bit of lag to them depending on turbo size. If I were to build another hotrod I'd definitely go the twin turbo route as they seem to be much easier on engine parts in a high boost situation and can make tremendous power and still be kinda streetable.
 
Ya. But the extra fuel isn't the issue. We're power hungry for the most part. We can get x hp of of a big heavy naturally aspirated engine. Our turbo an engine 1/3 the size. Even with the extra gas needed for the turbo is still using less gas to make the same power, and needing less mass to do it. So it's a net win. But going fi on an existing large engine is going to be a net loss.
 
I asked a friend that lives in the UK. Here is his response.

Quote:US gallon is smaller than a US gallon

US gallon = 0.83 UK gallons.

The UK car will measure the mpg in UK gallons, while the US car will use the US gallon.

This gives the impression of better mpg in UK because of the bigger gallon,

Also -- rental car likely a newer model than the US cars - mpg has increased markedly in recent years eg lean burn engines and low rolling resistance tyres etc

One way of cutting pollution is to reduce the fuel burned – which drives the manufacturers to increase mpg to help meet pollution criteria.

My manual shift is 6 speed, (most are at least 5 speed these days) so on motorways (freeways) in 6th it is using relatively low revs, which must help mpg

Also the US car will almost certainly be automatic shift; in the UK automatics are few and far between; manual shift is better fuel economy, normally.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherI asked a friend that lives in the UK. Here is his response.

Quote:US gallon is smaller than a US gallon

US gallon = 0.83 UK gallons.

The UK car will measure the mpg in UK gallons, while the US car will use the US gallon.

This gives the impression of better mpg in UK because of the bigger gallon,

Also -- rental car likely a newer model than the US cars - mpg has increased markedly in recent years eg lean burn engines and low rolling resistance tyres etc

One way of cutting pollution is to reduce the fuel burned – which drives the manufacturers to increase mpg to help meet pollution criteria.

My manual shift is 6 speed, (most are at least 5 speed these days) so on motorways (freeways) in 6th it is using relatively low revs, which must help mpg

Also the US car will almost certainly be automatic shift; in the UK automatics are few and far between; manual shift is better fuel economy, normally.


Now that you have pointed that out that must be the difference between imperial gallons and US gallons. They sell fuel in liters and the car computers do give mileage figures in gallons.

Yes they use misleading figures but the fact remains that when you fill the tank with 40/50 liters you are getting somewhere between 600/700 miles to a tank of gas. If Imperial gallons are bigger than US.
 

found this

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091...and-often-wrong

Quote:We're often asked why cars sold in Europe seem to be so much more efficient than those on sale in the U.S.

Typically, it's accompanied by the mention of some supposedly 80-mpg car sold in Europe--while the best U.S.-market vehicles barely crest the 50-mpg mark.

Now, Reuters highlights one of the main reasons for the discrepancy: Not only are European tests unrealistic, but automakers exploit loopholes in the testing, further blurring the lines between rated efficiency and real-world results.

Year after year, European sales figures have shown a bias towards higher average fuel economy and lower fleet-wide CO2 emissions.

In 2013, the average European car emitted just 127 grams of CO2 every kilometer--3 g/km below European Union targets for 2015 greenhouse-gas emissions.

To put some perspective on those figures, the sales-weighted average U.S. fuel economy of new vehicles has just crossed the 25-mpg mark--equivalent to 218 g/km of CO2.



Some of that difference is down to the sort of cars people buy. Smaller vehicles and diesels are much more prevalent in Europe than they are in the U.S, and both typically lead to more fuel-efficient vehicles than large vehicles with large gasoline engines.

Cars really are more efficient "over the pond," then, but many come with performance (and size) compromises that few U.S. drivers would be prepared to live with.


Discrepancies between European and U.S. numbers extend far further than that, however. Some of it is down to how cars are tested in Europe--the New European Driving Cycle's test procedure is both shorter and slower than the EPA's procedure.

The European "Urban" test, for example, is 13 minutes long--the EPA's city test is 31 minutes long. The "Extra urban" test takes 6 minutes, 40 seconds; the equivalent EPA highway test is 12 minutes, 45 seconds.

Speeds are different too. During that 13-minute urban test, the highest speed attained is just over 30 mph, and maintained for only 12 seconds.

The rest of the test is made up of slow acceleration and deceleration, while around 2.5 minutes is spent stationary--meaning cars equipped with increasingly common start-stop systems use no fuel at all for those minutes.

The EPA's city test reaches almost 60 mph on occasion, while the rest of the drive is spent accelerating to 30 mph and stopping again--true stop-start driving, and much harder on economy.

It's the same with highway testing--not only are the EPA's tests longer, but cars spend much more time at greater speeds. (Though the basic CAFE highway test cycle still only tops out at 60 mph, and averages a mere 48 mph, so it's hardly realistic either.)

The EPA also considers extra variability, such as 'High Speed', 'Air Conditioning' and 'Cold Temperature' tests, to adjust the city and highway mileage posted on every new car's window sticker to get it closer to real-world factors.

But as in the States, automakers in Europe have exploited loopholes to game the tests. Reuters cites European Environment Agency data suggesting manufacturers use tests that replicate an unrealistically smooth road surface, and use tires that have extra traction.

There are other, less-obvious factors too. The structured nature of the tests means automakers can set up gear ratios to suit--particularly on automatic transmissions--while gentle throttle-mapping software, ineffective at higher speeds, can lead to better official mileage.



Finally, there's one significant difference some people are unaware of: The often-quoted European figures are measured in liters of fuel used per 100 kilometers covered, the inverse of the North American gas mileage (which is distance per fuel quantity, the other way around).

So when those figures are converted to the more familiar MPG measure--generally for a U.K. audience--they are generally given in the Imperial gallons used there. And those aren't the same as U.S. gallons: They're 20 percent larger, containing 5 quarts rather than the 4 quarts in a U.S. gallon.

EPA gas-mileage label (window sticker), design used starting in model year 2013EPA gas-mileage label (window sticker), design used starting in model year 2013
In other words, that "80-mpg" European car is doing nearer 67 mpg--and it doesn't achieve anything near that in real life, because testing procedures are so far from reality.

Typically, there's a 20 to 25 percent difference between European NEDC and U.S. EPA fuel economy figures: A new Toyota Prius is rated at 60 mpg in Europe, exactly 20 percent more than its EPA combined rating of 50 mpg.

Some of the differences are even higher, though: The 48 mpg of a 2014 VW Beetle TDI in Europe is fully 50 percent higher than its EPA combined rating of 32 mpg.

In real-world driving, the figure is somewhere between the two, and EPA figures aren't always accurate either, particularly on diesel vehicles.

But generally, EPA numbers are much closer to the mark than European figures.

So next time you see a car advertised in Europe with some spectacular MPG figure, take it with a pinch of salt--because drivers aren't getting anything like that in the real world.
 
Back
Top