19/06/07 20145 37.04 42.15 6.75 $45.52
25/06/07 20698 37.62 41.79 6.80 $48.50
02/07/07 21215 35.62 41.26 6.89 $43.78
09/07/07 21711 34.28 43.72 6.51 $42.13
16/07/07 22196 33.33 41.35 6.87 $40.97
23/07/07 22720 36.59 40.73 6.98 $44.24
Printable View
19/06/07 20145 37.04 42.15 6.75 $45.52
25/06/07 20698 37.62 41.79 6.80 $48.50
02/07/07 21215 35.62 41.26 6.89 $43.78
09/07/07 21711 34.28 43.72 6.51 $42.13
16/07/07 22196 33.33 41.35 6.87 $40.97
23/07/07 22720 36.59 40.73 6.98 $44.24
Sorry about the mis post so try again.... here is a copy of my log book readings for the last 6 weeks. Very consistant i think.
Date km Ltrs MPG Lt/100k
19/06/07 20145 37.04 42.15 6.75 $45.52
25/06/07 20698 37.62 41.79 6.80 $48.50
02/07/07 21215 35.62 41.26 6.89 $43.78
09/07/07 21711 34.28 43.72 6.51 $42.13
16/07/07 22196 33.33 41.35 6.87 $40.97
23/07/07 22720 36.59 40.73 6.98 $44.24
summer will of course affect fuel consumption as the air gets hotter and we all know how much engines love cold air. It may not be as noticable on a naturally aspirated car such as the Civic, but think of how much better a turbo car goes after having an intercooler fitted, and that is forgetting about the AC being used
I so far have gotten good fuel consumption.
first tank, a bit of highway driving 562klms, 45.2ltrs 91 octane
second tank all round town, 593klms, 43ltrs Mobil 91 octane
third tank all round town, 562klms, 45 ltrs and a bit of thrashing to help finish off the run in on the engine.
I have just filled up with BP Ultimate so will see if the 98 makes fuel consumption any better
I have noticed very little difference in fuel consumption, winter or summer, using air con or not. my all up average fuel consumption over 23,000km using standard unleaded fuel from woolworths is 7.05Lts/100km. Hard to beat i think
I've been averaging low to high 8l/100km and on a recent trip to Mt. Buller, did 8l/100km even with all that overtaking and a couple of redline's on the B-roads... but I'm still not getting 500k's on a tank... nowhere close when I'm in the city, only do about 400-420km's and I'll refuel (2-3 bars left).
any1 have the sports so I can compare mine with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyhui01
If your fuel guage is as accurate as mine, with 3 bars left you still have at least 100 km to go. I recently travelled 30km with no bars showing, yet it took 43 lts to fill it to the brim. bear in mind it is a 50 liter tank.
Finally we agreeing on sumthing here buddah :p my mate Vti was running around 100kms with 3 bars left and the car finnaly stop just when he about to enter the petrol station :pQuote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
so his gauge reads differently to mine, but that is not uncommon. wether u agree with me or not is your decision, but after 38 yrs as a mechanic owning & working on hondas since 1989, i think i know a little bitQuote:
Originally Posted by denot
I have done about 50klms with no lights opn the gauge and still had about 5 litres left in the tank which is great
I would like to share with everyone my fuel consumption figures for the last 9 weeks. All of this on standard unleaded fuel from my local woolworths station. I dont believe i nurse the car, mostly the cruise control is set 3 or 4 kph above whatever the limit is. Once a week the car is redlined in 1st & 2nd to give it a good run.
Distance travelled liters used consumption
640km 44.5 lts 6.67 L/100km
try again with the next 8 weeks
549km....37.04 lts......6.75 L/100km
553km....37.62 lts......6.80 L/100km
517km....35.62 lts......6.89 L/100km
496km....34.28 lts......6.51 L/100km
485km....33.33 lts......6.87 L/100km
524km....36.59 lts......6.98 L/100km
444km....29.62 lts......6.67 L/100km
439km....29.30 lts......6.67 L/100km
Remarkable figures i think and very consistent.
hey buddah... I need your help for this... will turning cruise control on more often consume more fuel? How about Paddle Shift?
just fill in my 06 Auto Sports again yesterday, driving without ever pass the 3,000 rpm last week using padle shift (and randomly mix with auto driving + cruise control on highway).
Consume 35.12L for 332kms... :confused:
snd me a private message with your email address. I believe there are definately a few tricks involved in achieving the figures i do and it definately requires a certain driving style. I also found the only way to achieve accurate figures is....as much as possible fill your tank using the same pump bouser each time so the angle of the car doesn't vary....the angle of the car when u fill it can make a difference of 2 or 3 liters, and on a small tank this omount of discrepancy makes a lot of difference to the figures achieved.
On a side note, i am looking forward to doing a trip to sydney 1 day, 1500km of which 1/2 of that distance will be flat open country......i will be disappointed if i dont average under 6L/100k....everything points in that diection in my opinion.
example.....previous car....EF Fairmont....weekly commute ave 10.8L/100....dropping to an average of 9.1 on a trip to sydney
thanks buddah... you've got pm! ^_^
For the last 10 weeks i have been experimenting with filling at the same bouser each time, so that the car is in the exact same position each time it is filled up. I am now certain this is absolutely vital to get accurate readings (plus or minus 1 liter makes a big difference in gauging fuel ecconomy, especially with a small fuel tank). The end result of this is that the weekly results have been very consistant ( a best of 6.51 l/100 & a worst of 6.98
l/100, average over 10 weeks = 5,044km - 343.08 lts = 6.8 l/100km).
My next experiment, if i can ever get the courage to do it, is to let the wife use the car for a week to see how much difference there would be between different driving styles on the same roads.......that could be an interesting result. If it ever happens i will post the result, but for now i think i have posted enough on this subject.
my updates: yesterday fill - 36L for 366kms
compare that to my fill up today - 360km - 25.18 lts. I realise the Civic Sport cant be compared to the VTI as they use different engines..... but an additional 11 lts to travel 6 km further.......Sport is used in city driving compared to vti used on rural back roads would definately account for a percentage of the difference. other than that i would have to get ho;d of a sport for a few days & use it under the same conditions to do an accurate comparrison.
Oh and I fill it with different ULP as well, using Shell instead of Caltex this time (will it matters?)
i am now up to 11 consecutive weeks of registering under 7L/100km, so i got the calculator out today and came up with the following figures. This is my overall fuel consumption since i got the car....these figures have been double & tripple checked.......24,268kms, total fuel used = 1703.49 lts. to me a remarkable set of figures
How do you check the litre consumed? I think I have to start to check as well since the drop in the console was really drastic lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
filled on monday (and this time I only use my car for 10-20kms a day and the rest kms are on weekends) 26.65L for 251.52kms... T-T
simple mathematics with the help of a calculatorQuote:
Originally Posted by dna4
Quote:
Originally Posted by dna4
Well, if you reset your trip counter when you put fuel in, then you know at your next refuel how much distance you have travelled for the amount of fuel you have to top up again.
buddah... the figures are pretty impressive, I am nowhere near your fuel consumption with a VTI-L Auto.
http://www.phyrefile.com/pic/2007/08/22/untitled.JPG
but I live pretty much 1 suburb away from the CBD which means I prob go through >10 traffic lights about 50m away from each other every day...
andyhui, i think my figures are close to yours as well... T-T
andyhui01...... I am very impressed with the figures and i honestly thing you would be hard pressed to get better without going to a very small car. nothing that compares to a civic can get close to it on fuel consumption. I also believe the programing of the auto trans is a big help. we are planing a trip to sydney later this year and i will be very surprised if i dont average under 6l/100
denot... bear in mind that I'm in the (VTi-L) 1.8 engine and you have the (Sport) 2.0 engine... I am by no means saying my fuel consumption is high but I remember reading on one of the fuel economy discussion threads (and also the singapore civic forum) that there are people doing 600k on 1 tank, and people who have a constant 8l/100km fuel consumption...
buddah, I don't understand, how are you impressed with my figures when you do <7l/100km on practically rhe same car (the weight difference on the VTi-L and Vti is very minimal I believe)
i am impressed with the overall figures i get....not yours....every car is used in deifferent conditions.....fuel consumption reflects those conditions as well as they different driving styles people have
^yea... I agree, just curious... could you give me a percentage of highway/city driving?
Since he uses cruise control most of the time, I think he does highway. When I did highway, the Euro's 2.4L returned 7.2L/100km, inclusive of a few runs to redline.
no highway work...mostly rural back roads with 35% town
as for cruise control........ i only use that on flat roads
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
So that people such as aaronng get their facts straight i did some measurements today. each weekday i do 4 trips of 22.4km, of this 10.3km is in a 100kph area, 7.8km in a 80kph area, and 4.3kn in a 60kph area. cruise control is used for 9.5km each trip (traffic permitting)
and because you are in the country, I assume that there are almost zero traffic lights? or maybe 1... so the journey is non-stop with no stop start traffic as well?
LMFAO......people & there assumptions.....sorry to say andy that your wrong as well, i think it is 11 or 12 sets of traffic lights.....stop start traffic is variable from day to day, but yes it is not like heavy city driving.
if its rural, then thats considered highway drivingQuote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
i get 450kmz from 38L of 98 octane
generally thrashed driving, 80% in a fair bit of traffic, and tons of traffic lights
hey buddah... just curious, can you do me a favor to time your 0-60km/hr from stopping at the trafic light on a, say, 60 km/hr area? I try to follow your suggestion on the email before, and now Im driving 0-60kms in a very very slow time and still the consumption is fairly sitting around 9-11 kms/L.Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
hope you get what I mean... thanks ^_^
^denot... unless you live in the country, you'll never get the same consumption as buddah... when I accelerate to 60, my rpm doesn't go above 2200rpm and my consumption didn't change much.
if its rural, then thats considered highway driving
i get 450kmz from 38L of 98 octane
generally thrashed driving, 80% in a fair bit of traffic, and tons of traffic lights
secondary back roads are a lot different to highway. some time in the next few mths i am planning a trip to sydney & i will then report what highway consumption is. it will definately be under 6l/100k.....but how far under is the question. but a round trip of 4000km will give a very accurate reading.
i have never timed myself, but i will guess around 15 seconds using 3000 to 3500rpm as a change up pointQuote:
Originally Posted by denot
wow... i never go that far... i change at around 2200 to 2500 (now i kno why ppl look @ me with a mean face when they go pass me... :p)Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyhui01
Andy.....if you go back to the beginning of this thread, it began because 8th generation civic owners felt that Honda were advertising fuel consumption figuers that were unrealistic and impossible to obtain in real world driving. I think the manual is advertised @ 6.9L/100 & the Auto is 7.2L/100. The majority of people living in cities have no chance of getting close to these advertised figures because of the conditions the vehicles are operated in. People seem to forget that the advertised figuers are averaged out. If people dig deep enough on overseas web sites they will find where different consumption figures are advertised for the same car....eg in England the civic is advertised @ 5.4 L/100 country & 8.9L/100 city. I do not know the criterea used to obtain those figures. Iether way, the civic is by far the most economical car in its class available in this country & given the RIGHT CONDITIONS the advertised ecconomy figuers are obtainable.
I am off to Sydney shortly, so i will be able to inform everyone how far the current model civic 1.8 ltr Auto can go on 1 tank of fuel as well as the best, worst and everage fuel consumption. As the round trip will be between 3,500 and 4,000 km i will be able to gauge very accurate figures and to be honest i will be disappointed it the average is over 6L/100km
I personally think the fuel consumption issue is caused by the way the consumption figures are advertised. While it is possible to achieve the advertised figures it is impossible when driving in the city. If you look at the Honda United Kingdom site you will see they advertise seperate figures for city and highway. Here are there advertised figures for the 1.8 ltr engine.......
Manual......City = 8.2L / 100km.......highway = 5.4L / 100km........................
Auto.........City = 9.0L / 100km.......highway = 5.4L / 100km........................
Type R......City = 12.7L / 100km......highway = 7.0L /100km.........................
From reading this site the city figures seem much closer to what most people are achieving, as for highway figures i will know soon
I do mainly city driving, although a lot of it is @ 80 to 100kmh on freeways around Melbourne.
I found my Integra got between 7.8 and 8.2 L/100km. Honda quoted 8.0 for city driving and 5.2 for highway driving.
It will be interesting to see what sort of fuel economy I get with my Civic.
So far I have done almost 400kms on the first full tank with fuel gauge still showing 6 bars. Seems pretty good.
that sounds about right.. thats what i get at the moment in my vti and i dont really drive for economy.. im ecstatic with it. (i swapped from a car that was doing around 17-18l/100km).Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
went to the Central Coast last Friday... 17.2L for 190.6kms!!! YAY!!!
btw, any1 kno is the Caltex's E10 unleaded is good or bad?
Yeah, good question denot, I stopped at a Caltex the other day and thought "Hmm, it can take E10 can't it.." but opted for normal unleaded anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by denot
I've always run on the normal stuff since I picked up the keys, 33,000km ago - would switching to E10 now do anything funny to the engine? (he says as he desperately tries to remember what he learnt in engine design all those years ago at Uni :o )
I would not use E10 unless it was a last resortQuote:
Originally Posted by denot
hey buddah, Can you explain a bit why?Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
I was under the impression that E10 was safe to use if you fill up regularly (drive often) and don't leave the fuel in there for long.
I have just completed a return trip to sydney, a total distance of 3,084km in 7 days. Overall the fuel consumption was very impreesive and my findings tell me the VTEC system works exactly as it is described (to my understanding of it). The bottom line is fuel consumption is very much controlled by the speed drive at. My understanding of the IVTEC system on the R18A engine is that it is most efficient in the 90 to 110 KPH range & i found this to be completely accurate. My findings were this.....eg; with the majority of cruising @ 108KPH on cruise control i returned a figure of 6.28L/100km, however if you increase that to 118 KPH, again on cruise control for extended periods the average fuel consumption increases to 6.55L/100KM. But the real eye opener for me was having the wife drive for a period of time (on P plates), therefore the Cruise control set @ 101KPH, followed by 400kms of night driving on Kangaroo infested roads where i had the cruise control set @ 90kph (I did not want to put a roo through the radiator so if u want to call it grandpa driving i will accept that) I got my best consumption figures for the trip......577km / 33.45L
and that equates to 5.8L/100km. One other thing i would like to mention is that from Maitland to Campbelltown, 2 days of city driving and back to Maitland i averaged 7.19L/100km, exactly as advertised for the VTI. Overall figures for the trip....3,084km / 199.79L = 6.48L/100km...............................
Please note that these figures could never be expected in the Civic sport with the 2.0 liter engine.
I will answer this question in the next few days after i do my research againQuote:
Originally Posted by denot
Well done buddah!! Fantastic logging! The fact that the auto isn't a 4 gear auto-box must make a big difference with the fuel economy at those higher speeds.
Thankyou Mark. In MY OPINION, The 5 speed auto is a major reason in choosing the civic over other vehicles in the same class (before considering build quality, reliability & resale value). The gearing of the transmission helps not only in fuel consumption, but it also leaves me with the opinion that here is a great small car that can comfortably cruise long distances without overworking any of the running gear as all Highway cruising is done between 2000 & 2500 rpm ( yesterday we covered 1396km in 16 1/4 hours...minus 1 1/4 hours for stops....so 15 hours driving time). I will say that i have never been a fan of Auto gearboxes in 4 cylinder vehicles, but here is a great example where they work well together. In saying that, i believe i caught the electronics out on 1 occasion ( for those of you that know the New England Hwy, there is a long downhill run from Willow Tree to Murrurundi. Here the gearbox was continually changing between 3rd & 4th, unsure what gear to hold, and then on flatter sections it would not change into 5th gear. At 1 point i actually thought i had lost top gear all together). I would actually prefer a manual control so that i can dictate the gear i wish to be in, maybe that change will be available in future models. 1 thing i did enjoy was the long uphill climbs on the F3 freeway where it would change back to 3rd gear and hold 5000RPM all the way to the top. Like all honda engines the R18A loves to rev when given the opportunity. The Bottom line is that i would recommend this car with an Auto transmission to anyone, even above the manual gearbox.Quote:
Originally Posted by markCivicVti
Sitting in a traffic jam for 2 hours on Pennant Hills Rd Due to a Bus accident or attempted Hijack - whatever it was .....definately not fun....and worse in a manual.
hey just to share what my FD2 can achieve 538km for 32liter of petrol... did it once .. drive normally just didn't rev above 3.4rpm 40% city 60% highway driving...
but since this records I nv drive such a mileage again, cos I am not playful driver... so on average my mileage is 410 to 440km for 42 liter.... 10km/L
Sorry for the delay in responding Denot and i stress that it is my opinion only not to use E10 fuel when i can buy standard 91RON. Individuals must do their own research and form their own opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by denot
I suggest anyone contemplating using E10 fuel should first do a web search on ....... "E10 fuel problems".....and read several of the articles listed there.
My other concern is that i personally do not trust fuel companies, we have all heard on accasions about sub standard fuel being distributed. How can we, as concerned consumers be absolutely certain that fuel companies on occasions will not stretch the legal requierments and up the ratio to more than 10% ethenol.....we cant. 91RON fuel has a proven track record over many years, at theis point in time E10 has no track record and there are too many various opinions on wether it is 100% safe and compatable or not. So this little black boy will stick with a known product for as long as possible.
On a side note i have noticed that E10 fuel sells for 2 cents a litre less than 91RON, yet the common belief is fuel consumption will increase between 1 and 3% when using E10. So in actual the cost saving is lost in running costs.
buddah tahnks for this... by only ready the last paragraph is already enough for me to not to try it... I fill my tank twice (on the trip to Central coast and return) and the consumption is CRAP! 30.8L/274.3kms (11.2L/100kms) and before its 30.78L/268.8kms (11.45L/100kms). Remind you that this is mainly Hwy driving... if using normal unleaded for hwy driving: 17.2L/190.6kms (9L/100kms).Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
From reading this thread over the last few weeks, its quite obvious that not all civic are 'identical'. i personlaly myself do not see the appox 7ltr/100km as advertised. Its more like 10ltr around town.Quote:
Originally Posted by denot
Also, my car pings when running 91RON, which I believe has something to do with fuel economy.
AND YES, the owners manual states that 91RON is acceptable so no remarks about being tight and not using 95ROM or higher please, which I do occasionally. Dealer has looked at it 3 times for this issue now. The last time they took snapshots of the ECU when the engine started to ping at different rev's under driving conditions on the road. Just got a reply back today that the ECU timing is normally between 12-18 deg, and the knock sensor is picking up the pining and the data shows its retarting the timing to -12 deg when it happens. Is this right????? The knock sensor is meant to prevent detonation correct? Why is it that I still hear the sound of 'tin cans rattling' still then? To me, the engine is still pinging, regardless of what the knock sensor is doing.... Anyway, their answer is 'oh it must be the fuel quality'. Like I haven't tried a dozen different stations and get the same result. I told the dealer I was going to escalate the issue with Honda Australia....
what type do you drive mate?Quote:
Originally Posted by fab4272
the 8th gen (FD???) 2006 Vti, 5spd AutoQuote:
Originally Posted by denot
So with the R18a implmentation of i-vtec, is it possible stay in the fuel efficient cam when gently accelerating up from a stand still? Or is that load too high, and hence the R18A will stay in the normal 'hot' cam mode?
According to the diagram off TOV on the R18A implementation of i-vtec it seems like provided you are accelerating below 3.5k rpm it will stay on the efficient cam. I suppose my question is.. would slowly accelerating in the lowerer gears (staying under 3.5k rpm) be classified as a high enough load to stay in the hot cam?
My understanding of the IVTEC system on the R18a is that the change over point from ecconomy cam to normal cam is 3200RPM. The IVTEC apparently only works under light throttle and light load situations, and the load is determined by the computer. SO yes, light acceleration is the best way to stay on the hot cams and leave the rest up to the computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by markCivicVti
For those who are interested i have just clocked up 30,000km, so spent some time calculating average fuel consumption. The figures are as follows.............
29,815km - 2,069.75 liters - average = 6.942 L/100km
I've got my best fuel consumption ever on my Auto Civic Sports!!! Went to Hunter Valley on the long weekend (75% F3 drive, 15% Country drive - very min traffic, and 10% traffic+city drive) and here is my consumption:
33.68L for 457.4kms which means 7.36L/100kms!!!! A lot better than what I use on my last 6 city driving (avg 10.77L/100kms)
YAY!
congrats denot, now u know what is possible
I wonder how this compares to similar priced 2L cars like teh focus and Mazda3?
This is 1 area where the Mazda 3 and Ford Focus cant match the Civic. On average they use 1 to 1.5 Lts per 100km more than the Civic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
Due to the engine size differece I imagine..Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
I would have thought they would also be hit on the auto transimission being 4 speed autos..
Would be great to see an independant comparison of the whole small-mid size range. auto and manual. As we know we can't trust the manufacturer claims, esp when they make different claims for the same car in diferent regions.
Before i brought my Civic i was looking at 3 cars, obviously the Civic, as well as the Mazda 3 & the Focus. I distinctly remember the Focus was favoured due to the 1 i wanted being in stock, and from memory they were offering about $2500 more for my trade-in. As i knew the dealer i was able to have a demo for 1 week and apart from the handling of that car i was not impressed. Add to that the Focus is built in Sth Africa, build quality was suspect along with poor resale values. I averaged 8.2L/100km for the week doing about 600km. Also i was not keen on the fact that @ 100KPH the engine was spinning over @ about 2700RPM from memory. that = more wear & tear & effects fuel consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
As for the Mazda 3, a nice car, similar RPM @ 100KPH, average fuel consumption over 1 week = 8.4L/100km, but i also disliked the amount of road noise entering the cabin on secondary rural roads.
As for the Honda, the handling does not compare with the other 2 cars as it is tuned more for comfort ( a bonus when u have serious back problems). I was immediately impressed with the 5 speed auto allowing the engine to spin over @ about 1800RPM @ 100kph, Fuel consumption for the week was 7.3L/100 KM.
Add to that Honda build quality and reliability as well as better resale value, the feeling of a much roomier interior and i felt in the end there was 1 clear winner amd even though i had to wait 3 months for the Civic & got considerably less trade in than the Focus but more than the mazda. Now after 15 months i am still very impressed with the car and obviously the fuel consumption is outstanding.
Being an X mechanic it takes a lot to impress me, but the Civic has done that and continues to do so. i would recommend this car to anyone.
I will add to the above and say that in my opinion there are 2 major problems with the Civic. 1 is the blind spot created by the "A" Pilars ( a definate safety issue & 2, Poor quality headlights for rural driving. This problem i have overcome with good quality driving lights, But the blind spot issue you have to live with.
OT: Same problem in the older 323 I am trdaing in on the Civic..Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
When I decided to buy a new sedan I did a lot of research into a range of cars. I eliminated the Focus and a few others early on in my research for various reasons, such as price, built quality, and various other issues.
In the end I favoured the Civic VTi-L over the Mazda 3 Maxx Sports and new Toyota Corolla Conquest because of the 5 speed auto and better fuel economy, but it wasn't an easy choice. I was very impressed with the Mazda, and got to do a lot of test driving in it as I have a relo with one.
If I could have afforded an SP23 with the 5 speed auto, it would have made it an even more difficult decision. Then my choice would have been Civic Sport v Mazda 3 SP23. Then it would come down to grey leather v black cloth trim, as the fuel economy of these 2 is quite similar in the real world.
I am happy with the Civic, but there are a few thinks I would change. The A pillars are a problem, but it does enhance the shape and I assume the aerodynamics. I bit more low down torque would be useful, as would a sequential shift automatic transmission. I'm not sure if that would match up well with the 1.8L engine though, as most cars that have sequential shift autos have 2L engines at least.
you dont necessarily need sequential shift to use an auto trams manually, justmove the lever through gears as requiered. However donig this on the civic it is not possible to access 4th gear. I will say that i do use the gearbox in this manner when needed.
Yeah I fully use the lever to control what gear I am in with my auto box.
I get told I drive my auto like a manual - in the sense of I decide at what revs I'll let the tranny go up a gear. Of course I don't always do this... but once in a while.
I haven't received my civic yet, but could someone let me know what slots you have on the fd1 with auto (i.e is it 1,2,3,D,R,P?). Also is there a hold button? My festiva with auto box has a hold button that seems to force the tranny to use a gear lower than it normally would use - or maybe that it wont shift up when revs go higher. For example on 2, after I push the hold button the revs jump up... and it feels like it must have gone to a lower gear.
I already drive it like that quite often as I have a few hills to negotiate in my area. The problem is that the transmission likes to jump to 5th once you shift from D3 to D, and often "hunts" between 4th and 5th going up or downhill at speeds around the 80-100 kph range. I usually just leave it in 3rd going uphill, but when I am going downhill I would like to be able to hold it in 4th.Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
agree!!! almost kill 2 pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing caused by this :(
I have spent the last few days coppying my log book to a spread sheet which i will be updating on a weekly basis. If anyone would like a copy so they can do the same just let me know. Maybe you can do something similar so that you always have an accurate fuel log and not a weekly guesstimate.
me doing that too now buddah! ^_^ on my mobile but...