red circle
Member
Me,Ford Ranger XLT Thunder.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What do you drive ?,
- Thread starter red circle
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
NLC1072
Member
Honda PCX lol
generalvegitable
Member
Gilera DNA 50, nice looking but really slow
EM2
Established Member
S-reg 1.3 Fiesta
90019
Established Member
Silver '03 plate Ford Ka 1.3.
It's fairly light on fuel and does the job fine.
I'll get couple of photos of it when I'm home next weekend.
Hoping to shift to something classic next year.
It's fairly light on fuel and does the job fine.
I'll get couple of photos of it when I'm home next weekend.
Hoping to shift to something classic next year.
strange6
Established Member
This one is defo railway management!
Toad
Member
Lexus IS 200
Stored Serviceable at present awaiting collection from lease company due to change of job.
Stored Serviceable at present awaiting collection from lease company due to change of job.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Promise you won't laugh?
Suzuki Swift, old shape, 993cc automatic, a tad over 13 years old.
Mind you, it does do 50+ mpg...
Suzuki Swift, old shape, 993cc automatic, a tad over 13 years old.
Mind you, it does do 50+ mpg...
O L Leigh
Established Member
A Volvo V50, a BMW F800ST and trains.
There, you didn't have to wait long did you.
O L Leigh
Pacerpilot
Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 347
Current commuter... does the 28 mile run to the depot rather quickly...and at 50mpg too
An old Golf GTI for the more inclement weather, shortly to be replaced by a Chelsea Tractor.
and one of these most days..
An old Golf GTI for the more inclement weather, shortly to be replaced by a Chelsea Tractor.
and one of these most days..
Last edited:
Yes but what trains?
O L Leigh
Established Member
What, you don't know...?! Have you not been paying attention?
O L Leigh
O L Leigh
starrymarkb
Established Member
A 2003 VW Polo - slow (it's the 1.2) but light on fuel (40mpg on town work) - has also been to Germany for a 'blast' on the Autobahns - lets just say I wasn't fast enough!
Last edited:
O L Leigh
Established Member
Pacerpilot
Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 347
I trust not for 5am starts, what with that stubby on it.
O L Leigh
O yea of little faith. I dont get on well with my neighbours anyway, so I relish the early turns
Is it diesel?
90019
Established Member
It'll be a petrol one.
I was driving an '02 one last year, I quite liked it, found it to be fun on the A roads though you were never going that fast
How do you know?
90019
Established Member
The only diesels were a 1.4TDI, a 1.9SDI and a 1.9TDI.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Not always.
O L Leigh
O L Leigh
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Diesels aren't suitable for short runs or low overall mileages.
Especially not moden ones with DPFs.
37372
Member
I drive a 1.3 Toyota Starlet, gets me from A to B (and helps me avoid voyagers and pacers as I have recently discovered).
O L Leigh
Established Member
Daft, isn't it.
This is the problem with the way the current legislation is drafted. Taxation bands and emissions targets are all based on what comes out of the exhaust and has no bearing whatsoever on the actual fuel consumption. My current Volvo has a 2 litre diesel engine and it returns worse MPG figures than my old car which had a VW 2.3 litre 5 cylinder petrol engine.
O L Leigh
This is the problem with the way the current legislation is drafted. Taxation bands and emissions targets are all based on what comes out of the exhaust and has no bearing whatsoever on the actual fuel consumption. My current Volvo has a 2 litre diesel engine and it returns worse MPG figures than my old car which had a VW 2.3 litre 5 cylinder petrol engine.
O L Leigh
Climate change is a more important issue than peak oil at this time although this could change.
O L Leigh
Established Member
But the two issues go hand in hand. By concentrating solely on what comes out the back no effort is going into fuel saving, and the less fuel you burn the less you pollute.
The problem at the moment is that because my 2 litre diesel car is designed to meet Euro 4 emissions standards it has so many filters and whatnot in the exhaust that the engine has to work harder just to overcome all the constraints on the exhaust. It also has to burn more fuel than it would otherwise have to in order to get the diesel particulate filter up to working temperature so that all the carbon deposits are burnt off. This is wasted fuel and demands more of the natural resources simply in order to meet environmental legislation. No matter how laudable the reasons behind the legislation this situation is utter madness.
**EDIT**
10 years ago I had my first diesel car, a VW Golf 1.9 TDI. It was a lovely car that didn't have to labour under all the Euro legislation. It never clagged and always returned MPG figures in the mid-high 40's, and on one memorable occasion I got just over 600 miles out of a single fill of fuel.
My current car has a more advanced common-rail diesel engine that is supposed to be more fuel efficient. However, it seldom returns MPG figures better than the mid 30's and at the moment is showing an average MPG of just over 32. If I get this figure over 40 then I consider that I've done incredibly well.
But why should this be? Motor manufacturers should be making engines that are more efficient and use less fuel as well as being less polluting. BBC Top Gear only managed to get 38MPG out of a Fiat 500 Twin Air, and that has a twin cylinder engine displacing just 850cc and is being sold as a fuel efficient car that can attain 68.9MPG on a combined cycle. Repeating the trip in a VW Polo Bluemotion and suddenly they got 50MPG. How is this a good thing?
O L Leigh
The problem at the moment is that because my 2 litre diesel car is designed to meet Euro 4 emissions standards it has so many filters and whatnot in the exhaust that the engine has to work harder just to overcome all the constraints on the exhaust. It also has to burn more fuel than it would otherwise have to in order to get the diesel particulate filter up to working temperature so that all the carbon deposits are burnt off. This is wasted fuel and demands more of the natural resources simply in order to meet environmental legislation. No matter how laudable the reasons behind the legislation this situation is utter madness.
**EDIT**
10 years ago I had my first diesel car, a VW Golf 1.9 TDI. It was a lovely car that didn't have to labour under all the Euro legislation. It never clagged and always returned MPG figures in the mid-high 40's, and on one memorable occasion I got just over 600 miles out of a single fill of fuel.
My current car has a more advanced common-rail diesel engine that is supposed to be more fuel efficient. However, it seldom returns MPG figures better than the mid 30's and at the moment is showing an average MPG of just over 32. If I get this figure over 40 then I consider that I've done incredibly well.
But why should this be? Motor manufacturers should be making engines that are more efficient and use less fuel as well as being less polluting. BBC Top Gear only managed to get 38MPG out of a Fiat 500 Twin Air, and that has a twin cylinder engine displacing just 850cc and is being sold as a fuel efficient car that can attain 68.9MPG on a combined cycle. Repeating the trip in a VW Polo Bluemotion and suddenly they got 50MPG. How is this a good thing?
O L Leigh
Last edited:
- Status