Discussion:
MG ES fuel economy
Add Reply
Mighty Mouse
2024-11-22 23:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
--
Have a nice day!..
stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-23 20:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.

Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best Japanese
cars.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Noddy
2024-11-23 21:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best Japanese
cars.
Yep. 7l/100km out of a tiny little "SUV" like that is positively
shithouse. Our Kia Sorento is significantly larger & heavier than his
little MG, and on a trip will get into the low 5's.

As usual, Felix has no idea.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Xeno
2024-11-24 02:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
Yep. 7l/100km out of a tiny little "SUV" like that is positively
shithouse. Our Kia Sorento is significantly larger & heavier than his
little MG, and on a trip will get into the low 5's.
FFS Darren, it's a *diesel*. You would *expect* that sort of fuel
consumption on highway cycle. For the record, it's an E-VGT
(Electronically Managed Variable Geometry Turbocharger) with CRDi
(Common-Rail Direct Injection). It's also a larger displacement being a
2.2 litre engine.

Try to compare apples with apples. Felix' MG has a 1.5 litre *petrol* engine
Post by Noddy
As usual, Felix has no idea.
As usual, *you* have no idea.

Easy to see you have never had *any* training as a mechanic - the
technical stuff does you in *every-single-time*.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Daryl
2024-11-23 22:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best Japanese
cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing 4.2lts/100km at
160kph on the motorway.
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing 5.1lts/100km
on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to transfer its NSW rego
to Vic.
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make a car
that I would want to own.
--
Daryl
Xeno
2024-11-24 02:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing 4.2lts/100km at
160kph on the motorway.
And here was me thinking you had *training* as a mechanic. Obviously I
was wrong.
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing 5.1lts/100km
on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to transfer its NSW rego
to Vic.
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make a car
that I would want to own.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 08:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you have.
The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum trailer
mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow 1,500kg. Very
different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer comparison. The 2L
turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as the Levorg. Though the
Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing 4.2lts/100km at
160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing 5.1lts/100km
on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to transfer its NSW rego
to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP Commodore
could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant speed. In fact,
my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than the Levorg.
Post by Daryl
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make a car
that I would want to own.
**Yeah, I heard the same thing about Japanese cars. The Chinese will get
batter at building cars. Maybe. Right now, they're winning the battle on
price only. That may change.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Xeno
2024-11-24 10:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you have.
The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum trailer
mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow 1,500kg. Very
different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer comparison. The 2L
turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as the Levorg. Though the
Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing 4.2lts/100km
at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the mix
here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant will
use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7 litres
per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech 1.5 litre
NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP Commodore
could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant speed. In fact,
my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make a
car that I would want to own.
**Yeah, I heard the same thing about Japanese cars. The Chinese will get
batter at building cars. Maybe. Right now, they're winning the battle on
price only. That may change.
Yeah, once all subsidies drop off, they will have to compete like
everyone else.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 21:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum
trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow
1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer
comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as
the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg
lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing 4.2lts/100km
at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the mix
here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant will
use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7 litres
per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech 1.5 litre
NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP Commodore
could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant speed. In
fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~ 6.9
and a range of just under 1,000km.
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make a
car that I would want to own.
**Yeah, I heard the same thing about Japanese cars. The Chinese will
get batter at building cars. Maybe. Right now, they're winning the
battle on price only. That may change.
Yeah, once all subsidies drop off, they will have to compete like
everyone else.
**Yep. My prediction: When the tax incentives and subsidies are removed
(as they eventually must), I reckon there will only be 3 ~ 4 EV
manufacturers left in China. There will be almost no petrol car
manufacturers left at that time. IMO, BYD will survive, simply due to
the fact that they make batteries for everyone else.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Daryl
2024-11-24 23:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum
trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow
1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer
comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as
the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg
lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing 4.2lts/100km
at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the
mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant
will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7
litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech
1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP Commodore
could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant speed. In
fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~ 6.9
and a range of just under 1,000km.
I've seen that on older Commodores so no trouble believing your figures,
they achieve it by having high gearing so at hwy speeds the engine is at
very low rpm.
Same reason my DIL's MB only uses low 5's at 110kph, at that speed the
engine is almost idling and the 7spd auto also helps.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make a
car that I would want to own.
**Yeah, I heard the same thing about Japanese cars. The Chinese will
get batter at building cars. Maybe. Right now, they're winning the
battle on price only. That may change.
Yeah, once all subsidies drop off, they will have to compete like
everyone else.
**Yep. My prediction: When the tax incentives and subsidies are removed
(as they eventually must), I reckon there will only be 3 ~ 4 EV
manufacturers left in China. There will be almost no petrol car
manufacturers left at that time. IMO, BYD will survive, simply due to
the fact that they make batteries for everyone else.
Son was in Shenzhen China a couple of weeks ago, he said that he stopped
counting the number of different EV brands he saw after he got to 40.
We see very few of those brands here because our market is too small to
bother with.
Sounds like the Chinese are copying what the Japanese did, enter the
market with very low prices then when they win a big chunk of the market
prices go up very significantly.
--
Daryl
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 23:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum
trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow
1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer
comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as
the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg
lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the
mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant
will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7
litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech
1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than
the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
I've seen that on older Commodores so no trouble believing your figures,
they achieve it by having high gearing so at hwy speeds the engine is at
very low rpm.
Same reason my DIL's MB only uses low 5's at 110kph, at that speed the
engine is almost idling and the 7spd auto also helps.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make
a car that I would want to own.
**Yeah, I heard the same thing about Japanese cars. The Chinese will
get batter at building cars. Maybe. Right now, they're winning the
battle on price only. That may change.
Yeah, once all subsidies drop off, they will have to compete like
everyone else.
**Yep. My prediction: When the tax incentives and subsidies are
removed (as they eventually must), I reckon there will only be 3 ~ 4
EV manufacturers left in China. There will be almost no petrol car
manufacturers left at that time. IMO, BYD will survive, simply due to
the fact that they make batteries for everyone else.
Son was in Shenzhen China a couple of weeks ago, he said that he stopped
counting the number of different EV brands he saw after he got to 40.
We see very few of those brands here because our market is too small to
bother with.
**And, no one wants to import a car where the manufacturer is likely to
cease to exist in a few years.
Post by Daryl
Sounds like the Chinese are copying what the Japanese did, enter the
market with very low prices then when they win a big chunk of the market
prices go up very significantly.
**Nope. Completely different strategies. The Japanese conquered the
planet's car markets by:

* Building quality, RELIABLE vehicles. In the case of Toyota, they
ensured that there were suitable repair facilities across Australia,
when the Land Cruiser was first imported here.
* Raising the cost of registration in Japan, such that buying a new car
was cheaper than owning an old one. This ensured a significant local
demand was installed.
* Providing more 'fruit' in their cars than European, American and
Australian manufacturers could.
* Building cars at lower prices, due to lower labour costs.
* Outsourcing many components to tiny, backyard manufacturers, who often
work for minuscule income.

Some of those things no longer exist, but they did allow the Japanese
car manufacturers to become amongst the largest on the planet.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Noddy
2024-11-25 12:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Son was in Shenzhen China a couple of weeks ago, he said that he
stopped counting the number of different EV brands he saw after he got
to 40.
We see very few of those brands here because our market is too small
to bother with.
**And, no one wants to import a car where the manufacturer is likely to
cease to exist in a few years.
The majority of Chinese vehicles would be unlikely to ever meet our
compliance requirements.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Sounds like the Chinese are copying what the Japanese did, enter the
market with very low prices then when they win a big chunk of the
market prices go up very significantly.
**Nope. Completely different strategies. The Japanese conquered the
* Building quality, RELIABLE vehicles. In the case of Toyota, they
ensured that there were suitable repair facilities across Australia,
when the Land Cruiser was first imported here.
Do you make this bullshit up as you go, or what? :)

The Japanese made their name in the automotive world by making cheap
junk, and the Land cruiser was no exception. It was first imported into
Australia in the late 1950's as the BJ25 model to compete with the Land
Rover, and at the time it was an unreliable heap of shit. Nor was it
supported by an extensive dealer network. That came *much* later.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Raising the cost of registration in Japan, such that buying a new car
was cheaper than owning an old one. This ensured a significant local
demand was installed.
Which had absolutely fuck nothing to do with anything *other* than the
Japanese domestic market.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Providing more 'fruit' in their cars than European, American and
Australian manufacturers could.
That they did, which is what got their foot in the door.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Building cars at lower prices, due to lower labour costs.
Not always :)

The Japanese can be pretty ruthless people, and they thought nothing of
dumping products on our shores at very minimal margins, or even below
cost, in order to make life difficult for the local opposition.

Look up the saga of Ebeling Road Sweepers, and how a long established
business was wiped out by Japanese product dumping.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Outsourcing many components to tiny, backyard manufacturers, who often
work for minuscule income.
What "backyard" manufacturers did Toyota outsource to?

What they tended to do, and in particular Toyota who were World
Champions at it, was second, third and fourth source components from a
variety of manufacturers so as not to hold up production should one of
the third party suppliers suffer a problem that affected their ability
to supply.

Great for Toyota as it meant that cars kept plopping out the door, but a
pain in the arse for anyone fixing them when you had to work out which
one of three different alternators or starters the thing left the
factory with :)
Post by Trevor Wilson
Some of those things no longer exist, but they did allow the Japanese
car manufacturers to become amongst the largest on the planet.
Eventually.

You're no doubt old enough to remember when there was a time where "Made
in Japan" was a saying that was as synonymous with cheap rubbish as
"Made in China is today, and their initial foray into the automotive
world was no different. Like a lot of today's Chinese vehicles, early
Japanese ones looked great on paper in terms of what they offered for
money, but were utter crap in service.

Early Mazdas, Toyotas, Hondas and Datsuns were fucking *rubbish*. It
wasn't until the 1970's did they get their shit together, and in a way
the Chinese are following suit. Not to the same extent that the Koreans
did who overcame their initial stumblings *very* quickly, but they're
getting there.

The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm not
sure about as the business ment
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
alvey
2024-11-25 21:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Son was in Shenzhen China a couple of weeks ago, he said that he
stopped counting the number of different EV brands he saw after he
got to 40.
We see very few of those brands here because our market is too small
to bother with.
**And, no one wants to import a car where the manufacturer is likely
to cease to exist in a few years.
The majority of Chinese vehicles would be unlikely to ever meet our
compliance requirements.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Sounds like the Chinese are copying what the Japanese did, enter the
market with very low prices then when they win a big chunk of the
market prices go up very significantly.
**Nope. Completely different strategies. The Japanese conquered the
* Building quality, RELIABLE vehicles. In the case of Toyota, they
ensured that there were suitable repair facilities across Australia,
when the Land Cruiser was first imported here.
Do you make this bullshit up as you go, or what? :)
The Japanese made their name in the automotive world by making cheap
junk, and the Land cruiser was no exception. It was first imported into
Australia in the late 1950's as the BJ25 model to compete with the Land
Rover, and at the time it was an unreliable heap of shit. Nor was it
supported by an extensive dealer network. That came *much* later.
Comprehension Fail:
"The Japanese conquered the planet's car markets by..." is not the same
as, "...first imported...".

rant snipped

And you say that your father "hated" Asians eh...



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Daryl
2024-11-25 22:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Son was in Shenzhen China a couple of weeks ago, he said that he
stopped counting the number of different EV brands he saw after he
got to 40.
We see very few of those brands here because our market is too small
to bother with.
**And, no one wants to import a car where the manufacturer is likely
to cease to exist in a few years.
The majority of Chinese vehicles would be unlikely to ever meet our
compliance requirements.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Sounds like the Chinese are copying what the Japanese did, enter the
market with very low prices then when they win a big chunk of the
market prices go up very significantly.
**Nope. Completely different strategies. The Japanese conquered the
* Building quality, RELIABLE vehicles. In the case of Toyota, they
ensured that there were suitable repair facilities across Australia,
when the Land Cruiser was first imported here.
Do you make this bullshit up as you go, or what? :)
The Japanese made their name in the automotive world by making cheap
junk, and the Land cruiser was no exception. It was first imported into
Australia in the late 1950's as the BJ25 model to compete with the Land
Rover, and at the time it was an unreliable heap of shit. Nor was it
supported by an extensive dealer network. That came *much* later.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Raising the cost of registration in Japan, such that buying a new
car was cheaper than owning an old one. This ensured a significant
local demand was installed.
Which had absolutely fuck nothing to do with anything *other* than the
Japanese domestic market.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Providing more 'fruit' in their cars than European, American and
Australian manufacturers could.
That they did, which is what got their foot in the door.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Building cars at lower prices, due to lower labour costs.
Not always :)
The Japanese can be pretty ruthless people, and they thought nothing of
dumping products on our shores at very minimal margins, or even below
cost, in order to make life difficult for the local opposition.
Look up the saga of Ebeling Road Sweepers, and how a long established
business was wiped out by Japanese product dumping.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Outsourcing many components to tiny, backyard manufacturers, who
often work for minuscule income.
What "backyard" manufacturers did Toyota outsource to?
What they tended to do, and in particular Toyota who were World
Champions at it, was second, third and fourth source components from a
variety of manufacturers so as not to hold up production should one of
the third party suppliers suffer a problem that affected their ability
to supply.
Great for Toyota as it meant that cars kept plopping out the door, but a
pain in the arse for anyone fixing them when you had to work out which
one of three different alternators or starters the thing left the
factory with :)
Post by Trevor Wilson
Some of those things no longer exist, but they did allow the Japanese
car manufacturers to become amongst the largest on the planet.
Eventually.
You're no doubt old enough to remember when there was a time where "Made
in Japan" was a saying that was as synonymous with cheap rubbish as
"Made in China is today, and their initial foray into the automotive
world was no different. Like a lot of today's Chinese vehicles, early
Japanese ones looked great on paper in terms of what they offered for
money, but were utter crap in service.
Early Mazdas, Toyotas, Hondas and Datsuns were fucking *rubbish*.
Possibly because many of them were copies of older English cars that
were well past their use by dates.
One thing the Japanese were good at was improving on those old designs,
the originals used to leak oil from new but the Japanese somehow managed
to mostly cure that, I remember seeing a Datsun engine in a small
forklift that was a copy of a B series BMC engine, the main difference
was the lack of oil leaks and the SU carby replaced by something better.

It
Post by Noddy
wasn't until the 1970's did they get their shit together, and in a way
the Chinese are following suit. Not to the same extent that the Koreans
did who overcame their initial stumblings *very* quickly, but they're
getting there.
The Koreans do seem to be very fast learners which is easy to see if you
compare a Hyundai Excel to any of their current models, the difference
is massive.
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm not
sure about as the business ment
Maybe a few Chinese cars will be decent in time but then its likely if
they make a decent car they will lose their price advantage.
--
Daryl
Xeno
2024-11-26 09:52:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Son was in Shenzhen China a couple of weeks ago, he said that he
stopped counting the number of different EV brands he saw after he
got to 40.
We see very few of those brands here because our market is too small
to bother with.
**And, no one wants to import a car where the manufacturer is likely
to cease to exist in a few years.
The majority of Chinese vehicles would be unlikely to ever meet our
compliance requirements.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Sounds like the Chinese are copying what the Japanese did, enter the
market with very low prices then when they win a big chunk of the
market prices go up very significantly.
**Nope. Completely different strategies. The Japanese conquered the
* Building quality, RELIABLE vehicles. In the case of Toyota, they
ensured that there were suitable repair facilities across Australia,
when the Land Cruiser was first imported here.
Do you make this bullshit up as you go, or what? :)
The Japanese made their name in the automotive world by making cheap
junk, and the Land cruiser was no exception. It was first imported
into Australia in the late 1950's as the BJ25 model to compete with
the Land Rover, and at the time it was an unreliable heap of shit. Nor
was it supported by an extensive dealer network. That came *much* later.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Raising the cost of registration in Japan, such that buying a new
car was cheaper than owning an old one. This ensured a significant
local demand was installed.
Which had absolutely fuck nothing to do with anything *other* than the
Japanese domestic market.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Providing more 'fruit' in their cars than European, American and
Australian manufacturers could.
That they did, which is what got their foot in the door.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Building cars at lower prices, due to lower labour costs.
Not always :)
The Japanese can be pretty ruthless people, and they thought nothing
of dumping products on our shores at very minimal margins, or even
below cost, in order to make life difficult for the local opposition.
Look up the saga of Ebeling Road Sweepers, and how a long established
business was wiped out by Japanese product dumping.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Outsourcing many components to tiny, backyard manufacturers, who
often work for minuscule income.
What "backyard" manufacturers did Toyota outsource to?
What they tended to do, and in particular Toyota who were World
Champions at it, was second, third and fourth source components from a
variety of manufacturers so as not to hold up production should one of
the third party suppliers suffer a problem that affected their ability
to supply.
Great for Toyota as it meant that cars kept plopping out the door, but
a pain in the arse for anyone fixing them when you had to work out
which one of three different alternators or starters the thing left
the factory with :)
Post by Trevor Wilson
Some of those things no longer exist, but they did allow the Japanese
car manufacturers to become amongst the largest on the planet.
Eventually.
You're no doubt old enough to remember when there was a time where
"Made in Japan" was a saying that was as synonymous with cheap rubbish
as "Made in China is today, and their initial foray into the
automotive world was no different. Like a lot of today's Chinese
vehicles, early Japanese ones looked great on paper in terms of what
they offered for money, but were utter crap in service.
Early Mazdas, Toyotas, Hondas and Datsuns were fucking *rubbish*.
Possibly because many of them were copies of older English cars that
were well past their use by dates.
One thing the Japanese were good at was improving on those old designs,
the originals used to leak oil from new but the Japanese somehow managed
to mostly cure that, I remember seeing a Datsun engine in a small
forklift that was a copy of a B series BMC engine, the main difference
was the lack of oil leaks and the SU carby replaced by something better.
And that's petty much how I remembered the Japanese cars of the 60s and
70s - better than the originals.
Post by Daryl
 It
Post by Noddy
wasn't until the 1970's did they get their shit together, and in a way
the Chinese are following suit. Not to the same extent that the
Koreans did who overcame their initial stumblings *very* quickly, but
they're getting there.
The Koreans do seem to be very fast learners which is easy to see if you
compare a Hyundai Excel to any of their current models, the difference
is massive.
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm
not sure about as the business ment
Maybe a few Chinese cars will be decent in time but then its likely if
they make a decent car they will lose their price advantage.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Noddy
2024-11-26 11:29:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm
not sure about as the business ment
Maybe a few Chinese cars will be decent in time but then its likely if
they make a decent car they will lose their price advantage.
My last post got truncated. I've moved from Telstra to Starlink, and
while the Starlink service is excellent it has big problems with Eternal
September. Oh well, I was planning on leaving anyway :)

What I was attempting to say was that there is a distinct difference in
business ethos between the Japanese and Chinese. The Japanese focus is
on quality, whereas the Chinese focus is on price. That's why horrid
little shitheaps like the MG ES exist, and why the Chinese will never
displace the Japanese or Koreans when it comes to building quality cars.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Xeno
2024-11-26 11:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm
not sure about as the business ment
Maybe a few Chinese cars will be decent in time but then its likely if
they make a decent car they will lose their price advantage.
My last post got truncated. I've moved from Telstra to Starlink, and
while the Starlink service is excellent it has big problems with Eternal
September. Oh well, I was planning on leaving anyway :)
You're finally leaving? Is that a promise?
Post by Noddy
What I was attempting to say was that there is a distinct difference in
business ethos between the Japanese and Chinese. The Japanese focus is
on quality, whereas the Chinese focus is on price. That's why horrid
little shitheaps like the MG ES exist, and why the Chinese will never
displace the Japanese or Koreans when it comes to building quality cars.
You have NFI.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Daryl
2024-11-26 11:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm
not sure about as the business ment
Maybe a few Chinese cars will be decent in time but then its likely if
they make a decent car they will lose their price advantage.
My last post got truncated.
I knew that it didn't seem finished.

I've moved from Telstra to Starlink, and
Post by Noddy
while the Starlink service is excellent it has big problems with Eternal
September. Oh well, I was planning on leaving anyway :)
What I was attempting to say was that there is a distinct difference in
business ethos between the Japanese and Chinese. The Japanese focus is
on quality, whereas the Chinese focus is on price. That's why horrid
little shitheaps like the MG ES exist, and why the Chinese will never
displace the Japanese or Koreans when it comes to building quality cars.
I think that cheap is built into the Chinese mentality, they can build
very good quality if they want but its not what they have built their
economy on so its going to be difficult for them to change the way they
think.
My 2 German cars are 22yrs old and still drive perfectly, I wonder how
many Chinese cars will still be running at 20+yrs old?
--
Daryl
alvey
2024-11-26 20:58:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm
not sure about as the business ment
Maybe a few Chinese cars will be decent in time but then its likely
if they make a decent car they will lose their price advantage.
My last post got truncated.
I knew that it didn't seem finished.
I've moved from Telstra to Starlink, and
Post by Noddy
while the Starlink service is excellent it has big problems with
Eternal September. Oh well, I was planning on leaving anyway :)
What I was attempting to say was that there is a distinct difference
in business ethos between the Japanese and Chinese. The Japanese focus
is on quality, whereas the Chinese focus is on price. That's why
horrid little shitheaps like the MG ES exist, and why the Chinese will
never displace the Japanese or Koreans when it comes to building
quality cars.
I think that cheap is built into the Chinese mentality, they can build
very good quality if they want but its not what they have built their
economy on so its going to be difficult for them to change the way they
think.
My 2 German cars are 22yrs old and still drive perfectly, I wonder how
many Chinese cars will still be running at 20+yrs old?
Yair! Those Krauts are such paragons. NOx anyone?


alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
alvey
2024-11-26 20:54:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm
not sure about as the business ment
Maybe a few Chinese cars will be decent in time but then its likely if
they make a decent car they will lose their price advantage.
My last post got truncated. I've moved from Telstra to Starlink, and
while the Starlink service is excellent it has big problems with Eternal
September.
Nothing is ever your fault is it.
Post by Noddy
Oh well, I was planning on leaving anyway :)
Yeah yeah. Heard that before.
Post by Noddy
What I was attempting to say was that there is a distinct difference in
business ethos between the Japanese and Chinese. The Japanese focus is
on quality, whereas the Chinese focus is on price. That's why horrid
little shitheaps like the MG ES exist, and why the Chinese will never
displace the Japanese or Koreans when it comes to building quality cars.
History Lesson: People, well Ockers anyway, said the same thing about
Japanese cars when they first arrived. "They'll never be as good as my
Falcadore!" they bellowed...


alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Xeno
2024-11-26 09:50:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Son was in Shenzhen China a couple of weeks ago, he said that he
stopped counting the number of different EV brands he saw after he
got to 40.
We see very few of those brands here because our market is too small
to bother with.
**And, no one wants to import a car where the manufacturer is likely
to cease to exist in a few years.
The majority of Chinese vehicles would be unlikely to ever meet our
compliance requirements.
The ones coming here obviously do!
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Sounds like the Chinese are copying what the Japanese did, enter the
market with very low prices then when they win a big chunk of the
market prices go up very significantly.
**Nope. Completely different strategies. The Japanese conquered the
* Building quality, RELIABLE vehicles. In the case of Toyota, they
ensured that there were suitable repair facilities across Australia,
when the Land Cruiser was first imported here.
Do you make this bullshit up as you go, or what? :)
C'mon Darren, the only one here who makes shit up is *you*!
And you do it a lot!
Post by Noddy
The Japanese made their name in the automotive world by making cheap
junk, and the Land cruiser was no exception. It was first imported into
Australia in the late 1950's as the BJ25 model to compete with the Land
Rover, and at the time it was an unreliable heap of shit. Nor was it
supported by an extensive dealer network. That came *much* later.
The BJ25 was *privately* imported into Australia by Thiess, a company
into mining and construction projects, and used on their projects.
Thiess himself was so impressed by them that he applied for and was
granted a dealership franchise arrangement.

The Land Cruiser was never an unreliable heap of shit. The advent of the
Toyota Land Cruiser into Australia was the reason why the Land Rover all
but disappeared from the mining scene and the main reason was
*reliability*. The early BJ25's would break axles and gearboxes. So
what? Land Rovers were renown for breaking axles - nearly always the
short one. Back when I was an apprentice in the 60s, fishing broken
axles out of Land Rover's axle housings was *normal*.

The difference between Land Rover and Toyota, when the BJ25 broke a few
axles, the Japanese engineers came to Australia to sort out the issue
once and for all. None of the FJ40s in my home district ever broke an
axle - and they had the power and torque of a 6 cylinder engine twisting
them.
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Raising the cost of registration in Japan, such that buying a new
car was cheaper than owning an old one. This ensured a significant
local demand was installed.
Which had absolutely fuck nothing to do with anything *other* than the
Japanese domestic market.
The Japanese domestic market was the proving ground for the export market.
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Providing more 'fruit' in their cars than European, American and
Australian manufacturers could.
That they did, which is what got their foot in the door.
That and greater reliability than the Pommy vehicles they replaced.
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Building cars at lower prices, due to lower labour costs.
Not always :)
In the early days, yes, for sure.
Post by Noddy
The Japanese can be pretty ruthless people, and they thought nothing of
dumping products on our shores at very minimal margins, or even below
cost, in order to make life difficult for the local opposition.
Look up the saga of Ebeling Road Sweepers, and how a long established
business was wiped out by Japanese product dumping.
Post by Trevor Wilson
* Outsourcing many components to tiny, backyard manufacturers, who
often work for minuscule income.
What "backyard" manufacturers did Toyota outsource to?
In Japan - lots. In Australia, not so much, just small companies - but a
lot of them.
Post by Noddy
What they tended to do, and in particular Toyota who were World
Champions at it, was second, third and fourth source components from a
variety of manufacturers so as not to hold up production should one of
the third party suppliers suffer a problem that affected their ability
to supply.
Sounds sensible. Why wouldn't a car manufacturer have more than one
string for their bows?
Post by Noddy
Great for Toyota as it meant that cars kept plopping out the door, but a
pain in the arse for anyone fixing them when you had to work out which
one of three different alternators or starters the thing left the
factory with :)
Holden, Ford and Chrysler did exactly the same thing. Remember the
Holdens with either Bosch or Lucas bits? Oh, that's right, you were
still in short pants and getting bullied at Richmond Tech when that was
going on.
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Some of those things no longer exist, but they did allow the Japanese
car manufacturers to become amongst the largest on the planet.
Eventually.
You're no doubt old enough to remember when there was a time where "Made
in Japan" was a saying that was as synonymous with cheap rubbish as
"Made in China is today, and their initial foray into the automotive
world was no different. Like a lot of today's Chinese vehicles, early
Japanese ones looked great on paper in terms of what they offered for
money, but were utter crap in service.
Hmmm, I recall a lot of old Datsun Bluebirds of the 60s that were way
better than the Pommy cars they were modelled on. You weren't even a
teenager then, what would you know! I was there, I worked on those cars.
Post by Noddy
Early Mazdas, Toyotas, Hondas and Datsuns were fucking *rubbish*. It
wasn't until the 1970's did they get their shit together, and in a way
Nah, the 60s were the good years. They were the cars *I worked on* when
they were very new cars. They were the reason we don't make cars here
any more - people got used to reliable cars.
Post by Noddy
the Chinese are following suit. Not to the same extent that the Koreans
did who overcame their initial stumblings *very* quickly, but they're
getting there.
Bullshit - Hyundai/Kia are *still* stumbling.
Post by Noddy
The question is will they *ever* get there, and that's one that I'm not
sure about as the business ment
My god, looks like you abruptly stopped running off at the mouth!
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Xeno
2024-11-25 00:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum
trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow
1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer
comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as
the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg
lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing 4.2lts/100km
at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the
mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant
will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7
litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech
1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP Commodore
could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant speed. In
fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~ 6.9
and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
I doubt that I will live long enough for a Chinese company to make a
car that I would want to own.
**Yeah, I heard the same thing about Japanese cars. The Chinese will
get batter at building cars. Maybe. Right now, they're winning the
battle on price only. That may change.
Yeah, once all subsidies drop off, they will have to compete like
everyone else.
**Yep. My prediction: When the tax incentives and subsidies are removed
(as they eventually must), I reckon there will only be 3 ~ 4 EV
manufacturers left in China. There will be almost no petrol car
manufacturers left at that time. IMO, BYD will survive, simply due to
the fact that they make batteries for everyone else.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-25 00:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum
trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow
1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer
comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as
the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg
lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the
mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant
will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7
litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech
1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than
the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
**My VP was very accurate. The one in the Levorg is also accurate. I
fitted one to my VL Commodore and paid extra for a proper, die cast fuel
flow sensor, guaranteed to be accurate. It was also pretty good.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Daryl
2024-11-25 06:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg.
Maximum trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to
tow 1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far
closer comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel
economy as the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that
it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the
mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant
will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7
litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech
1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than
the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
**My VP was very accurate. The one in the Levorg is also accurate. I
fitted one to my VL Commodore and paid extra for a proper, die cast fuel
flow sensor, guaranteed to be accurate. It was also pretty good.
Did you ever do an actual fuel economy check?
If you did I wouldn't be surprised if it confirmed your figures, I've
seen amazingly low fuel consumption from a manual V8 SS ute mostly
because at hwy speed the engine is only doing 1500rpm.
--
Daryl
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-25 09:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg.
Maximum trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed
to tow 1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far
closer comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel
economy as the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that
it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into
the mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol
variant will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's
all about *efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric
efficiency. 7 litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a
relatively old tech 1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump
it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than
the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
**My VP was very accurate. The one in the Levorg is also accurate. I
fitted one to my VL Commodore and paid extra for a proper, die cast
fuel flow sensor, guaranteed to be accurate. It was also pretty good.
Did you ever do an actual fuel economy check?
**Many times, using different bowsers.
Post by Daryl
If you did I wouldn't be surprised if it confirmed your figures, I've
seen amazingly low fuel consumption from a manual V8 SS ute mostly
because at hwy speed the engine is only doing 1500rpm.
**Sure. I know the old 3.8L V6 developed maximum torque at (if I recall
correctly) 1,800RPM. That number corresponded to around 100kph. I assume
that means that the engine was operating at it's optimal efficiency.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Noddy
2024-11-26 04:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
If you did I wouldn't be surprised if it confirmed your figures, I've
seen amazingly low fuel consumption from a manual V8 SS ute mostly
because at hwy speed the engine is only doing 1500rpm.
**Sure. I know the old 3.8L V6 developed maximum torque at (if I recall
correctly) 1,800RPM. That number corresponded to around 100kph. I assume
that means that the engine was operating at it's optimal efficiency.
It was a petrol engine, not a diesel :)

Peak torque was 3200rpm. 1800rpm was the point where the boffins decided
was a good balance between driveability and fuel economy at highway
cruising speed.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Clocky
2024-11-26 06:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and
30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine
you have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg.
Maximum trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed
to tow 1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far
closer comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel
economy as the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact
that it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into
the mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol
variant will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's
all about *efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric
efficiency. 7 litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a
relatively old tech 1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump
it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip
than the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
**My VP was very accurate. The one in the Levorg is also accurate. I
fitted one to my VL Commodore and paid extra for a proper, die cast
fuel flow sensor, guaranteed to be accurate. It was also pretty good.
Did you ever do an actual fuel economy check?
**Many times, using different bowsers.
Post by Daryl
If you did I wouldn't be surprised if it confirmed your figures, I've
seen amazingly low fuel consumption from a manual V8 SS ute mostly
because at hwy speed the engine is only doing 1500rpm.
**Sure. I know the old 3.8L V6 developed maximum torque at (if I recall
correctly) 1,800RPM.
Nope, somewhere around 3600rpm from memory but the Buick had a nice even
torque curve that started quite low.

That number corresponded to around 100kph. I assume
Post by Trevor Wilson
that means that the engine was operating at it's optimal efficiency.
No, the best compromise. If you think about it, you don't want the peak
to be at cruising speed.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Clocky
2024-11-25 01:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg. Maximum
trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to tow
1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far closer
comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel economy as
the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that it is 150kg
lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the
mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant
will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7
litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech
1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than
the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
They can be reasonably accurate and Buick V6 Commodores did get
reasonably good economy figures due to their low end torque and gearing
which fell right into the sweet spot for highway cruising - but nearly
1000km out of a 60L tank... yeah, nah.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-25 04:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg.
Maximum trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed to
tow 1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far
closer comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel
economy as the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that
it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into the
mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol variant
will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's all about
*efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric efficiency. 7
litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a relatively old tech
1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than
the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
They can be reasonably accurate and Buick V6 Commodores did get
reasonably good economy figures due to their low end torque and gearing
which fell right into the sweet spot for highway cruising  - but nearly
1000km out of a 60L tank... yeah, nah.
**Well, I almost made it to Melbourne (from Sydney) on one tank, but
SWMBO demanded that I fill the tank about 100 clicks out. If I recall
correctly, it was a 68L tank, but I could be wrong.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Daryl
2024-11-25 07:16:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine you
have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg.
Maximum trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed
to tow 1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far
closer comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel
economy as the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact that
it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into
the mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol
variant will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's
all about *efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric
efficiency. 7 litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a
relatively old tech 1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump
it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip than
the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
They can be reasonably accurate and Buick V6 Commodores did get
reasonably good economy figures due to their low end torque and
gearing which fell right into the sweet spot for highway cruising  -
but nearly 1000km out of a 60L tank... yeah, nah.
**Well, I almost made it to Melbourne (from Sydney) on one tank, but
SWMBO demanded that I fill the tank about 100 clicks out. If I recall
correctly, it was a 68L tank, but I could be wrong.
Syd CBD to Melb CBD is approx 871km so it should be possible to get that
far on one tank of 68lts if the car is using less than 7lts/100km but
you wouldn't have any margin for error.
Worth a try if you had a full 20lts jerry can in the boot.
--
Daryl
Clocky
2024-11-26 03:52:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and
30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine
you have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg.
Maximum trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed
to tow 1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a far
closer comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same fuel
economy as the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The fact
that it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into
the mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol
variant will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again. It's
all about *efficiency* and, into that mix toss in *volumetric
efficiency. 7 litres per 100 isn't all that bad for what is a
relatively old tech 1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo would pump
it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a constant
speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on a trip
than the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8 ~
6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
They can be reasonably accurate and Buick V6 Commodores did get
reasonably good economy figures due to their low end torque and
gearing which fell right into the sweet spot for highway cruising  -
but nearly 1000km out of a 60L tank... yeah, nah.
**Well, I almost made it to Melbourne (from Sydney) on one tank, but
SWMBO demanded that I fill the tank about 100 clicks out. If I recall
correctly, it was a 68L tank, but I could be wrong.
Syd CBD to Melb CBD is approx 871km so it should be possible to get that
far on one tank of 68lts if the car is using less than 7lts/100km but
you wouldn't have any margin for error.
Worth a try if you had a full 20lts jerry can in the boot.
The VP had a 63L tank so as I said, 60L of useable capacity before it
started starving of fuel.

A VN/VPVR Buick V6 was reasonably efficient but there is no way you got
871km out of a tank.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Xeno
2024-11-26 09:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and
30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
And German cars are even better, wife's Golf uses low 4s on a long trip.
**And again: I don't know which Golf, fitted with which engine
you have. The Mk7 Golf weighs a full 225kg LESS than the Levorg.
Maximum trailer mass for a Golf is 750kg. The Levorg is designed
to tow 1,500kg. Very different beasts. A VW Passat would be a
far closer comparison. The 2L turbo Passat has roughly the same
fuel economy as the Levorg. Though the Passat is quicker. The
fact that it is 150kg lighter likely helps.
Post by Daryl
A diesel C Class I rented in the UK in 2016 was showing
4.2lts/100km at 160kph on the motorway.
**Apples vs. bricks. We're discussing petrol cars.
You will get used to it, always lots of red herrings thrown into
the mix here. A typical diesel will use ~half of what the petrol
variant will use - and a turbo diesel will better that again.
It's all about *efficiency* and, into that mix toss in
*volumetric efficiency. 7 litres per 100 isn't all that bad for
what is a relatively old tech 1.5 litre NA petrol engine. A turbo
would pump it up quite a bit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Daryl
Daughter in laws 2011 MB C350 (225kw 3.5lt V6) was showing
5.1lts/100km on the hwy when I drove to Vicroads in Bendigo to
transfer its NSW rego to Vic.
**I don't know the road, but I know that even my ancient VP
Commodore could return such figures on a flat road, at a
constant speed. In fact, my VP Commodore was more economical on
a trip than the Levorg.
I'd like to see that!
**The fuel consumption meter on my VP regularly showed around 6.8
~ 6.9 and a range of just under 1,000km.
Those inbuilt meters are rarely accurate.
They can be reasonably accurate and Buick V6 Commodores did get
reasonably good economy figures due to their low end torque and
gearing which fell right into the sweet spot for highway cruising  -
but nearly 1000km out of a 60L tank... yeah, nah.
**Well, I almost made it to Melbourne (from Sydney) on one tank, but
SWMBO demanded that I fill the tank about 100 clicks out. If I recall
correctly, it was a 68L tank, but I could be wrong.
Syd CBD to Melb CBD is approx 871km so it should be possible to get
that far on one tank of 68lts if the car is using less than 7lts/100km
but you wouldn't have any margin for error.
Worth a try if you had a full 20lts jerry can in the boot.
The VP had a 63L tank so as I said, 60L of useable capacity before it
started starving of fuel.
A VN/VPVR Buick V6 was reasonably efficient but there is no way you got
871km out of a tank.
The manufacturers used to aim for a range of ~550 kilometres and sized
the tanks accordingly.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Noddy
2024-11-26 04:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Well, I almost made it to Melbourne (from Sydney) on one tank, but
SWMBO demanded that I fill the tank about 100 clicks out. If I recall
correctly, it was a 68L tank, but I could be wrong.
There is no way on this earth that you would get 1000km's out of a V6 VP
Commodore on a single tank of fuel. If you could Holdden would have been
singing that song all over every media outlet in the country, and they
never ever did.

The old Buick V6 was okay, but they weren't *that* good.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Clocky
2024-11-23 22:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
That's extra-ordinary for a Levorg and not typical.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best Japanese
cars.
Or Euro cars. Subaru's are hardly setting the benchmark here.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 00:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
That's extra-ordinary for a Levorg and not typical.
**Well, it's been 8 years and it has gone as high as 7.4. Subaru specify
that it is rated at 8.7. Obviously, I've seen higher figures over short
runs, but my long term average is 7.2. I don't hammer it much, because I
value my driver's license. However, I am not afraid to give it some
curry when required or desired. According to the turbo memory display,
I've gone to around 1.45bar reasonably regularly. I reckon I've never
driven it past 150kph though. I had my old 2L Escort at higher speeds
than that (190kph - Oh for a fifth cog). Of course, speed cameras were
not common back then.
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
Or Euro cars. Subaru's are hardly setting the benchmark here.
**Certainly, but the Levorg was never designed to be an economy car. It
even lacks that silly engine shut-off that Subaru fitted to every other
model (except the WRX). The Levorg was always designed to be a
performance car.

As for economy, I put a couple of thousand clicks onto a Suzuki Swift
(yeah, I know, much smaller than Felix's POS), but I returned around
4.5L/100km. That included a spirited drive up and down the mountain from
Cairns to Kuranda every day for 9 days. Make no mistake, I had my foot
planted right up to the firewall. The Suzuki was utterly brilliant.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Daryl
2024-11-24 01:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
That's extra-ordinary for a Levorg and not typical.
**Well, it's been 8 years and it has gone as high as 7.4. Subaru specify
that it is rated at 8.7. Obviously, I've seen higher figures over short
runs, but my long term average is 7.2. I don't hammer it much, because I
value my driver's license. However, I am not afraid to give it some
curry when required or desired. According to the turbo memory display,
I've gone to around 1.45bar reasonably regularly. I reckon I've never
driven it past 150kph though. I had my old 2L Escort at higher speeds
than that (190kph - Oh for a fifth cog). Of course, speed cameras were
not common back then.
Not that bad considering its a performance car, I remember seeing the
WRX getting into the 6's on Melb-Syd return trip with the cruise set at
the speed limit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
Or Euro cars. Subaru's are hardly setting the benchmark here.
**Certainly, but the Levorg was never designed to be an economy car. It
even lacks that silly engine shut-off that Subaru fitted to every other
model (except the WRX). The Levorg was always designed to be a
performance car.
As for economy, I put a couple of thousand clicks onto a Suzuki Swift
(yeah, I know, much smaller than Felix's POS), but I returned around
4.5L/100km. That included a spirited drive up and down the mountain from
Cairns to Kuranda every day for 9 days. Make no mistake, I had my foot
planted right up to the firewall. The Suzuki was utterly brilliant.
Which really shows how fat the Chinese have to go, they are still a long
way behind established car makers.
--
Daryl
Mighty Mouse
2024-11-24 02:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
That's extra-ordinary for a Levorg and not typical.
**Well, it's been 8 years and it has gone as high as 7.4. Subaru
specify that it is rated at 8.7. Obviously, I've seen higher figures
over short runs, but my long term average is 7.2. I don't hammer it
much, because I value my driver's license. However, I am not afraid
to give it some curry when required or desired. According to the
turbo memory display, I've gone to around 1.45bar reasonably
regularly. I reckon I've never driven it past 150kph though. I had my
old 2L Escort at higher speeds than that (190kph - Oh for a fifth
cog). Of course, speed cameras were not common back then.
Not that bad considering its a performance car, I remember seeing the
WRX getting into the 6's on Melb-Syd return trip with the cruise set
at the speed limit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
Or Euro cars. Subaru's are hardly setting the benchmark here.
**Certainly, but the Levorg was never designed to be an economy car.
It even lacks that silly engine shut-off that Subaru fitted to every
other model (except the WRX). The Levorg was always designed to be a
performance car.
As for economy, I put a couple of thousand clicks onto a Suzuki Swift
(yeah, I know, much smaller than Felix's POS), but I returned around
4.5L/100km. That included a spirited drive up and down the mountain
from Cairns to Kuranda every day for 9 days. Make no mistake, I had
my foot planted right up to the firewall. The Suzuki was utterly
brilliant.
Which really shows how fat the Chinese have to go, they are still a
long way behind established car makers.
I think Chinese, like most ppl, don't like being fat
--
Have a nice day!
Mighty Mouse
2024-11-24 03:00:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
That's extra-ordinary for a Levorg and not typical.
**Well, it's been 8 years and it has gone as high as 7.4. Subaru
specify that it is rated at 8.7. Obviously, I've seen higher figures
over short runs, but my long term average is 7.2. I don't hammer it
much, because I value my driver's license. However, I am not afraid
to give it some curry when required or desired. According to the
turbo memory display, I've gone to around 1.45bar reasonably
regularly. I reckon I've never driven it past 150kph though. I had my
old 2L Escort at higher speeds than that (190kph - Oh for a fifth
cog). Of course, speed cameras were not common back then.
Not that bad considering its a performance car, I remember seeing the
WRX getting into the 6's on Melb-Syd return trip with the cruise set
at the speed limit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
Or Euro cars. Subaru's are hardly setting the benchmark here.
**Certainly, but the Levorg was never designed to be an economy car.
It even lacks that silly engine shut-off that Subaru fitted to every
other model (except the WRX). The Levorg was always designed to be a
performance car.
As for economy, I put a couple of thousand clicks onto a Suzuki Swift
(yeah, I know, much smaller than Felix's POS), but I returned around
4.5L/100km. That included a spirited drive up and down the mountain
from Cairns to Kuranda every day for 9 days. Make no mistake, I had
my foot planted right up to the firewall. The Suzuki was utterly
brilliant.
Which really shows how fat the Chinese have to go, they are still a
long way behind established car makers.
so turbo engines do better then
--
Have a nice day!
Xeno
2024-11-24 03:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
That's extra-ordinary for a Levorg and not typical.
**Well, it's been 8 years and it has gone as high as 7.4. Subaru
specify that it is rated at 8.7. Obviously, I've seen higher figures
over short runs, but my long term average is 7.2. I don't hammer it
much, because I value my driver's license. However, I am not afraid
to give it some curry when required or desired. According to the
turbo memory display, I've gone to around 1.45bar reasonably
regularly. I reckon I've never driven it past 150kph though. I had my
old 2L Escort at higher speeds than that (190kph - Oh for a fifth
cog). Of course, speed cameras were not common back then.
Not that bad considering its a performance car, I remember seeing the
WRX getting into the 6's on Melb-Syd return trip with the cruise set
at the speed limit.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Clocky
Post by Trevor Wilson
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
Or Euro cars. Subaru's are hardly setting the benchmark here.
**Certainly, but the Levorg was never designed to be an economy car.
It even lacks that silly engine shut-off that Subaru fitted to every
other model (except the WRX). The Levorg was always designed to be a
performance car.
As for economy, I put a couple of thousand clicks onto a Suzuki Swift
(yeah, I know, much smaller than Felix's POS), but I returned around
4.5L/100km. That included a spirited drive up and down the mountain
from Cairns to Kuranda every day for 9 days. Make no mistake, I had
my foot planted right up to the firewall. The Suzuki was utterly
brilliant.
Which really shows how fat the Chinese have to go, they are still a
long way behind established car makers.
so turbo engines do better then
It's all about volumetric efficiency and compression ratio. Turbo
engines have the air pumped in as opposed to being aspirated in. Petrol
engines are, however, knock limited, so even pumping in the air only
goes so far. Increased intake turbulence increases flame propagation in
the cylinder so higher compression ratios are possible with attendant
increases in efficiency. GDI engines are a whole different ball game
because you can combine homogenous charge and stratified charge
operation and operate without the encumbrance of the throttle plate.
Diesels only operate under stratified charge with much higher
compression ratios hence much higher efficiency. Add turbo, increase
efficiency further.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Keithr0
2024-11-24 00:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average on
the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a trip to
the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the highway, it
turned in 5.4l/100km.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best Japanese
cars.
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 00:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average on
the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a trip to
the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the highway, it
turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not purchase the
Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.

BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated to
tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.

That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In fact,
my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda engine into
the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We both much
preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Mighty Mouse
2024-11-24 02:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible.
so he says without even considering the facts..

a/ fully loaded with ppl and luggage

b/ much of the travel short stop/start stuff

and I'm not saying the economy is great, I just posted to see what would
be said about it. but I think the economy is certainly not bad.
Post by Trevor Wilson
I should also add that I did not purchase the Levorg because of it's
(lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
--
Have a nice day!
Xeno
2024-11-24 03:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible.
so he says without even considering the facts..
a/ fully loaded with ppl and luggage
b/ much of the travel short stop/start stuff
and I'm not saying the economy is great, I just posted to see what would
be said about it. but I think the economy is certainly not bad.
It's about average for the era and the engine type.
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Trevor Wilson
I should also add that I did not purchase the Levorg because of it's
(lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Keithr0
2024-11-24 11:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average on
the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a trip
to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the highway, it
turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not purchase the
Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated to
tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In fact,
my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda engine into
the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We both much
preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me. Maybe
it's because of the electric power assistance rather than hydraulic, but
then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the unassisted MX-5.

Anyway, we may go back to Subaru in the not too far distant future, the
wife has mobility problems, and has been hinting that her friends
Outback is easier for her to get in and out of than the Mazda.
Xeno
2024-11-24 12:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not purchase the
Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me. Maybe
it's because of the electric power assistance rather than hydraulic, but
then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the unassisted MX-5.
It is because of the electric power steering. EPS has a lot of
advantages; full power at low engine RPM, reduced emissions, fuel
savings, ease of manufacture, but the one big disadvantage is that
vagueness you complain of. I noticed it when I went from a HPS to an EPS
with the second Corolla. HPS was refined over 50 years and it was at its
best, EPS looks like it will take somewhat longer to get perfect. There
is rather a good treatise on EPS from chapter 15, page 403 on, in this book;
Steering Handbook,
Manfred Harrer, Peter Pfeffer,
Springer Publishing, 2017

Almost forgot, EPS makes active steering possible. Think about that when
your next car parks itself.
Post by Keithr0
Anyway, we may go back to Subaru in the not too far distant future, the
wife has mobility problems, and has been hinting that her friends
Outback is easier for her to get in and out of than the Mazda.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Daryl
2024-11-24 12:29:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not purchase the
Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me. Maybe
it's because of the electric power assistance rather than hydraulic, but
then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the unassisted MX-5.
Cars with electric PS rarely have steering as good as cars with
hydraulic or no PS, I watch a lot of car reviews videos and electric PS
is one of the most complained about things.
BTW I recently watched a Jay Leno's garage video where he described the
MX5 as the best sports car ever made, that's high praise from a man who
owns the likes of a McLaren F1 and numerous other super cars.
Not sure if I agree its the best but its certainly very close.
Post by Keithr0
Anyway, we may go back to Subaru in the not too far distant future, the
wife has mobility problems, and has been hinting that her friends
Outback is easier for her to get in and out of than the Mazda.
When it comes to that sort of thing I must be the odd one out, I
recently serviced a 2019 Subaru Forester and I found that to be more
difficult to get in and out of than a normal car like my MB or my wife's
Golf.
--
Daryl
Xeno
2024-11-25 00:23:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me. Maybe
it's because of the electric power assistance rather than hydraulic,
but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the unassisted MX-5.
Cars with electric PS rarely have steering as good as cars with
hydraulic or no PS, I watch a lot of car reviews videos and electric PS
Cars with electric power steering (EPS) are better than cars with HPS
The only issue with EPS is the vagueness in the straight ahead position.
Fine tuning will fix that - eventually.
Post by Daryl
is one of the most complained about things.
BTW I recently watched a Jay Leno's garage video where he described the
MX5 as the best sports car ever made, that's high praise from a man who
owns the likes of a McLaren F1 and numerous other super cars.
Not sure if I agree its the best but its certainly very close.
Post by Keithr0
Anyway, we may go back to Subaru in the not too far distant future,
the wife has mobility problems, and has been hinting that her friends
Outback is easier for her to get in and out of than the Mazda.
When it comes to that sort of thing I must be the odd one out, I
recently serviced a 2019 Subaru Forester and I found that to be more
difficult to get in and out of than a normal car like my MB or my wife's
Golf.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 20:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not purchase the
Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me. Maybe
it's because of the electric power assistance rather than hydraulic, but
then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior to
any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old Escort,
with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others have stated
electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
Post by Keithr0
Anyway, we may go back to Subaru in the not too far distant future, the
wife has mobility problems, and has been hinting that her friends
Outback is easier for her to get in and out of than the Mazda.
**The new Outback is available with a turbo 2.4L engine, making 183kW,
so that would be quite nice. Possibly not as desirable as the old 3.6L
flat six, but likely more economical.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Noddy
2024-11-24 20:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me. Maybe
it's because of the electric power assistance rather than hydraulic,
but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior to
any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old Escort,
with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others have stated
electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
It makes things like lane assistance and crash avoidance possible, as
well as auto parking features if you're into those. I have two vehicles
with it, but never used it as I know how to park :)

It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem Toyota
had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US had some
bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it would suddenly
apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along a freeway.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 21:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant,
which makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly
enjoyed the test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a
delight. In fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit
the Mazda engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a
great car. We both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me.
Maybe it's because of the electric power assistance rather than
hydraulic, but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the
unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior to
any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old Escort,
with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others have
stated electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
It makes things like lane assistance and crash avoidance possible, as
well as auto parking features if you're into those. I have two vehicles
with it, but never used it as I know how to park :)
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem Toyota
had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US had some
bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it would suddenly
apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along a freeway.
**Although initially disconcerting, I find the Subaru lane assist very
respectable and relatively unobtrusive. I recently drove a Toyota Hi
Ace, fitted with similar technology. It was utterly horrible. Really,
REALLY annoying. I had to fight HARD to prevent the Hi Ace from doing
what it wanted to do. By comparison, my Subaru provides a gentle
reminder. If I take my hands from the wheel of the Suby, it will steer
around a gentle corner, but I can easily over-ride the system. The
Toyota system appears to be far more aggressive.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Noddy
2024-11-24 22:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Noddy
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US had
some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it would
suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along a freeway.
**Although initially disconcerting, I find the Subaru lane assist very
respectable and relatively unobtrusive. I recently drove a Toyota Hi
Ace, fitted with similar technology. It was utterly horrible. Really,
REALLY annoying. I had to fight HARD to prevent the Hi Ace from doing
what it wanted to do. By comparison, my Subaru provides a gentle
reminder. If I take my hands from the wheel of the Suby, it will steer
around a gentle corner, but I can easily over-ride the system. The
Toyota system appears to be far more aggressive.
There's quite a vast difference in the way different manufacturers
implement things like this. For example, the Koreans seem to do it
really well. Our previous Hyundai Santa Fe and the current Kia Sorento
are both very good in that they do their job without making you feel
like you have to micro manage them all the time to ensure they don't
make a mess. They really are excellent systems that work exceptionally well.

On the other hand, the Ranger's lane guidance system is ridiculously
annoying with it being a fight over who has control. It constantly pulls
itself into the centre of the road to get close to the centre line
presumably so it can "get it's bearings", and from there it drifts back
to the left to check the other side before heading back towards the
centre again. It just lives in one perpetual state of "zig zag" and I
hate it. It's the only feature in the vehicle that doesn't work well,
and I have it permanently turned off.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Keithr0
2024-11-24 22:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Noddy
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US
had some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it
would suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along
a freeway.
**Although initially disconcerting, I find the Subaru lane assist very
respectable and relatively unobtrusive. I recently drove a Toyota Hi
Ace, fitted with similar technology. It was utterly horrible. Really,
REALLY annoying. I had to fight HARD to prevent the Hi Ace from doing
what it wanted to do. By comparison, my Subaru provides a gentle
reminder. If I take my hands from the wheel of the Suby, it will steer
around a gentle corner, but I can easily over-ride the system. The
Toyota system appears to be far more aggressive.
There's quite a vast difference in the way different manufacturers
implement things like this. For example, the Koreans seem to do it
really well. Our previous Hyundai Santa Fe and the current Kia Sorento
are both very good in that they do their job without making you feel
like you have to micro manage them all the time to ensure they don't
make a mess. They really are excellent systems that work exceptionally well.
On the other hand, the Ranger's lane guidance system is ridiculously
annoying with it being a fight over who has control. It constantly pulls
itself into the centre of the road to get close to the centre line
presumably so it can "get it's bearings", and from there it drifts back
to the left to check the other side before heading back towards the
centre again. It just lives in one perpetual state of "zig zag" and I
hate it. It's the only feature in the vehicle that doesn't work well,
and I have it permanently turned off.
A friend reckons that his wife's CHR is similar, if left to it's own
devices, it will build up bigger and bigger swings from one edge of the
lane to the other. The only vehicle that I've driven with it was a RAV4
which just gave a gentle nudge if you got too close to the edge of the
lane.
Xeno
2024-11-25 00:43:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Noddy
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US
had some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it
would suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along
a freeway.
**Although initially disconcerting, I find the Subaru lane assist
very respectable and relatively unobtrusive. I recently drove a
Toyota Hi Ace, fitted with similar technology. It was utterly
horrible. Really, REALLY annoying. I had to fight HARD to prevent the
Hi Ace from doing what it wanted to do. By comparison, my Subaru
provides a gentle reminder. If I take my hands from the wheel of the
Suby, it will steer around a gentle corner, but I can easily over-
ride the system. The Toyota system appears to be far more aggressive.
There's quite a vast difference in the way different manufacturers
implement things like this. For example, the Koreans seem to do it
really well. Our previous Hyundai Santa Fe and the current Kia Sorento
are both very good in that they do their job without making you feel
like you have to micro manage them all the time to ensure they don't
make a mess. They really are excellent systems that work exceptionally well.
On the other hand, the Ranger's lane guidance system is ridiculously
annoying with it being a fight over who has control. It constantly
pulls itself into the centre of the road to get close to the centre
line presumably so it can "get it's bearings", and from there it
drifts back to the left to check the other side before heading back
towards the centre again. It just lives in one perpetual state of "zig
zag" and I hate it. It's the only feature in the vehicle that doesn't
work well, and I have it permanently turned off.
A friend reckons that his wife's CHR is similar, if left to it's own
devices, it will build up bigger and bigger swings from one edge of the
lane to the other. The only vehicle that I've driven with it was a RAV4
which just gave a gentle nudge if you got too close to the edge of the
lane.
All lane keeping assist systems can have their sensitivity adjusted.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Daryl
2024-11-24 23:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Noddy
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US
had some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it
would suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along
a freeway.
**Although initially disconcerting, I find the Subaru lane assist very
respectable and relatively unobtrusive. I recently drove a Toyota Hi
Ace, fitted with similar technology. It was utterly horrible. Really,
REALLY annoying. I had to fight HARD to prevent the Hi Ace from doing
what it wanted to do. By comparison, my Subaru provides a gentle
reminder. If I take my hands from the wheel of the Suby, it will steer
around a gentle corner, but I can easily over-ride the system. The
Toyota system appears to be far more aggressive.
There's quite a vast difference in the way different manufacturers
implement things like this. For example, the Koreans seem to do it
really well. Our previous Hyundai Santa Fe and the current Kia Sorento
are both very good in that they do their job without making you feel
like you have to micro manage them all the time to ensure they don't
make a mess. They really are excellent systems that work exceptionally well.
On the other hand, the Ranger's lane guidance system is ridiculously
annoying with it being a fight over who has control. It constantly pulls
itself into the centre of the road to get close to the centre line
presumably so it can "get it's bearings", and from there it drifts back
to the left to check the other side before heading back towards the
centre again. It just lives in one perpetual state of "zig zag" and I
hate it. It's the only feature in the vehicle that doesn't work well,
and I have it permanently turned off.
I think that generally lane keeping assist is a bad idea that is just
another example of nanny states taking over.
Son and his girlfriend just got back from Thailand, they hired a car and
he said that despite the fact that appears to be no road rules at all he
actually liked driving there, the onus is on the driver/rider to not hit
anything or be hit unlike here where the nanny state controls everything.
A very different way of thinking.
--
Daryl
Daryl
2024-11-24 23:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term
average on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running.
Yesterday, on a trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but
not all on the highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so
there's that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and
is rated to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant,
which makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly
enjoyed the test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a
delight. In fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit
the Mazda engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a
great car. We both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me.
Maybe it's because of the electric power assistance rather than
hydraulic, but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the
unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior to
any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old
Escort, with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others
have stated electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
It makes things like lane assistance and crash avoidance possible, as
well as auto parking features if you're into those. I have two
vehicles with it, but never used it as I know how to park :)
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US had
some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it would
suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along a freeway.
**Although initially disconcerting, I find the Subaru lane assist very
respectable and relatively unobtrusive. I recently drove a Toyota Hi
Ace, fitted with similar technology. It was utterly horrible. Really,
REALLY annoying. I had to fight HARD to prevent the Hi Ace from doing
what it wanted to do. By comparison, my Subaru provides a gentle
reminder. If I take my hands from the wheel of the Suby, it will steer
around a gentle corner, but I can easily over-ride the system. The
Toyota system appears to be far more aggressive.
Possibly due to the age of the vehicles? The Hi Ace newer?
Newer lane keeping seems to be more aggressive and there is a lot of
variation model to model.
Friends own a couple of years old Kia Cerato which I have driven several
times, at fwy speeds lane keep assist is ok but at low speed its very
annoying but to Kia's credit there is an easy to reach button that
switches it off.
When you watch new car reviews especially in the UK they often give a
car extra points if its easy to turn off "assistance" features, at least
so far we haven't had to put up with stupid speed limit warning beeps
which is now mandatory in new cars sold in Europe and the UK.
--
Daryl
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 23:24:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term
average on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running.
Yesterday, on a trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but
not all on the highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so
there's that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more
and is rated to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant,
which makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly
enjoyed the test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a
delight. In fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit
the Mazda engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a
great car. We both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me.
Maybe it's because of the electric power assistance rather than
hydraulic, but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the
unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior
to any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old
Escort, with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others
have stated electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
It makes things like lane assistance and crash avoidance possible, as
well as auto parking features if you're into those. I have two
vehicles with it, but never used it as I know how to park :)
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US
had some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it
would suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along
a freeway.
**Although initially disconcerting, I find the Subaru lane assist very
respectable and relatively unobtrusive. I recently drove a Toyota Hi
Ace, fitted with similar technology. It was utterly horrible. Really,
REALLY annoying. I had to fight HARD to prevent the Hi Ace from doing
what it wanted to do. By comparison, my Subaru provides a gentle
reminder. If I take my hands from the wheel of the Suby, it will steer
around a gentle corner, but I can easily over-ride the system. The
Toyota system appears to be far more aggressive.
Possibly due to the age of the vehicles? The Hi Ace newer?
**The Hi Ace was brand new. Well, 2024 model anyway.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Keithr0
2024-11-25 03:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 25/11/2024 9:01 am, Daryl wrote:
.
Post by Daryl
When you watch new car reviews especially in the UK they often give a
car extra points if its easy to turn off "assistance" features, at least
so far we haven't had to put up with stupid speed limit warning beeps
which is now mandatory in new cars sold in Europe and the UK.
The stupid woman in the Mazda 3's GPS occasionally goes mad and keeps
repeating "Reduce your speed" even when stopped at traffic lights, or in
the driveway at home. So far, I haven't been able to find what causes it
or how to stop it.
Daryl
2024-11-25 07:00:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
.
Post by Daryl
When you watch new car reviews especially in the UK they often give a
car extra points if its easy to turn off "assistance" features, at
least so far we haven't had to put up with stupid speed limit warning
beeps which is now mandatory in new cars sold in Europe and the UK.
The stupid woman in the Mazda 3's GPS occasionally goes mad and keeps
repeating "Reduce your speed" even when stopped at traffic lights, or in
the driveway at home. So far, I haven't been able to find what causes it
or how to stop it.
LOL, that would be very annoying.
Do you still use the cars built in GPS?
Our Golf has built in GPS but it also has Apple car play etc so we
always use that instead of the cars sat nav.
--
Daryl
Keithr0
2024-11-25 07:28:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Keithr0
.
Post by Daryl
When you watch new car reviews especially in the UK they often give a
car extra points if its easy to turn off "assistance" features, at
least so far we haven't had to put up with stupid speed limit warning
beeps which is now mandatory in new cars sold in Europe and the UK.
The stupid woman in the Mazda 3's GPS occasionally goes mad and keeps
repeating "Reduce your speed" even when stopped at traffic lights, or
in the driveway at home. So far, I haven't been able to find what
causes it or how to stop it.
LOL, that would be very annoying.
Do you still use the cars built in GPS?
Our Golf has built in GPS but it also has Apple car play etc so we
always use that instead of the cars sat nav.
The Mazda 3 is 8 years old, pre-dating AA and CP
Daryl
2024-11-25 11:58:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Daryl
Post by Keithr0
.
Post by Daryl
When you watch new car reviews especially in the UK they often give
a car extra points if its easy to turn off "assistance" features, at
least so far we haven't had to put up with stupid speed limit
warning beeps which is now mandatory in new cars sold in Europe and
the UK.
The stupid woman in the Mazda 3's GPS occasionally goes mad and keeps
repeating "Reduce your speed" even when stopped at traffic lights, or
in the driveway at home. So far, I haven't been able to find what
causes it or how to stop it.
LOL, that would be very annoying.
Do you still use the cars built in GPS?
Our Golf has built in GPS but it also has Apple car play etc so we
always use that instead of the cars sat nav.
The Mazda 3 is 8 years old, pre-dating AA and CP
Unless its been updated recently it would be best to use Google Maps or
some phone based sat nav.
I've been using Waze and its excellent.
--
Daryl
Xeno
2024-11-25 00:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant,
which makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly
enjoyed the test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a
delight. In fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit
the Mazda engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a
great car. We both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me.
Maybe it's because of the electric power assistance rather than
hydraulic, but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the
unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior to
any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old Escort,
with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others have
stated electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
It makes things like lane assistance and crash avoidance possible, as
well as auto parking features if you're into those. I have two vehicles
with it, but never used it as I know how to park :)
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem Toyota
had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US had some
bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it would suddenly
apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along a freeway.
Not possible! Please provide a legitimate cite!
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Clocky
2024-11-25 04:59:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Xeno
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term
average on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running.
Yesterday, on a trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but
not all on the highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so
there's that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and
is rated to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant,
which makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly
enjoyed the test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a
delight. In fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit
the Mazda engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a
great car. We both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me.
Maybe it's because of the electric power assistance rather than
hydraulic, but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the
unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior to
any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old
Escort, with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others
have stated electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
It makes things like lane assistance and crash avoidance possible, as
well as auto parking features if you're into those. I have two
vehicles with it, but never used it as I know how to park :)
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US had
some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it would
suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along a freeway.
Not possible! Please provide a legitimate cite!
You mean him making shit up isn't a legitimate cite?
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Xeno
2024-11-25 05:26:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Xeno
Post by Noddy
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre
turbo, 1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30%
city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term
average on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running.
Yesterday, on a trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but
not all on the highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just
that Felix's POS is terrible. I should also add that I did not
purchase the Levorg because of it's (lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so
there's that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more
and is rated to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant,
which makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly
enjoyed the test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a
delight. In fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit
the Mazda engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a
great car. We both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
The SP25 is a reasonably good car, the only thing that I don't like
about it is the feel of the steering, it seems quite dead to me.
Maybe it's because of the electric power assistance rather than
hydraulic, but then, I suppose that I'm comparing it to the
unassisted MX-5.
**The Levorg has electric PS and I find it to be excellent. It is
heavily weighted (which I prefer) though. It is certainly superior
to any hydraulic PS I've ever driven. It is not as good as my old
Escort, with it's unassisted rack and pinion setup though. As others
have stated electric PS has a range of advantages that are compelling.
It makes things like lane assistance and crash avoidance possible, as
well as auto parking features if you're into those. I have two
vehicles with it, but never used it as I know how to park :)
It can have some horrendous failings too though, like the problem
Toyota had some years ago when Corolla electric steering in the US
had some bizarre bug that caused the death of a few people when it
would suddenly apply full lock while the car was doing 100km/h along
a freeway.
Not possible! Please provide a legitimate cite!
You mean him making shit up isn't a legitimate cite?
Yeah, nah!
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
MightyMouse
2024-11-26 04:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Keithr0
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Subes aren't exactly famous for fuel economy. The long term average
on the Mazda 3 is 6.7l/100km, mostly local running. Yesterday, on a
trip to the airport, 126Km round trip mostly but not all on the
highway, it turned in 5.4l/100km.
**I never claimed that Subarus were particularly economical. Just that
Felix's POS is terrible. I
Bullshit. It's just normal. many cars would be a lot worse. and stop
disparaging my wonderful car, you wanker.
Post by Trevor Wilson
should also add that I did not purchase the Levorg because of it's
(lack of) economy.
BTW: Your Mazda 3 is around 300kg lighter than my Levorg, so there's
that. The Levorg is much larger, is AWD, can carry more and is rated
to tow 1,500kg. A fundamentally different beast.
That all said, I seem to recall that yours is the 2.5L variant, which
makes the economy respectably decent. FWIW: I thoroughly enjoyed the
test drive I had in the 2.5L Mazda 3. The engine was a delight. In
fact, my partner suggested that if only they could fit the Mazda
engine into the Subaru Impreza, then that would make a great car. We
both much preferred the AWD of the Subarus.
--
Have a great day!
Live long and prosper
Xeno
2024-11-24 01:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best Japanese
cars.
Can't compare a turbo engine with a naturally aspirated one when it
comes to fuel economy.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Trevor Wilson
2024-11-24 06:20:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Xeno
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
**MY 8 year old, 197kW (0-100kph - 6.6 secs), 350Nm, 2Litre turbo,
1,600kg wagon manages 7.2L/100km with 70% country and 30% city driving.
Chinese cars have a long way to go, before they reach the best
Japanese cars.
Can't compare a turbo engine with a naturally aspirated one when it
comes to fuel economy.
**The last MG I drove was a 1.5L turbo. 350kg lighter than the Levorg,
way less power, not as quick and way less economical. AND it demanded
95RON. POS.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Grumpy Tech
2024-11-26 07:30:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
That's not great. My 6 cylinder outback did 6.8l/100kms on my trip last
years.
Daryl
2024-11-26 11:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grumpy Tech
Post by Mighty Mouse
on a week away this week averaged 7 litres per 100 klms
That's not great. My 6 cylinder outback did 6.8l/100kms on my trip last
years.
Hi Grumpy, hows things?
--
Daryl
Loading...