Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

I can only go on personal experience of using the product. Every vehicle I have used Slick 50 in has given me improved figures of approx 10%, U.S. Legislature notwithstanding.

How do you measure the improvement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, S5 modeller said:

I'm off on holiday Friday, a longish run from sheffield to briddlington on motorway and A roads. Will reset the computer and check the results. 

 

Matt

Matt,

just a bit of advice, make sure your North of Leeds by 12:00

on Friday, unless your going via York and the A64 then

South on the coast road. Forecast ain't too hot for the weekend.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VMA131Marine said:

How do you measure the improvement?

In fuel consumption. I use the full tank method. Incidentally, many years ago, Top Gear did a test with Slick 50. They took two Ford vans, and gave one the Slick 50 treatment. They then drained both sumps and drove the vehicles around a test circuit. The untreated one seized solid after about 5 miles. They stopped the treated van after 80 miles, and it was still running. :shrug: Like the diesel engine fiasco over here. We can't have people losing revenue through improved fuel consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

In fuel consumption. I use the full tank method. 

Only way to do it.  Over the last 10 years it has demonstrated conclusively that my trip computer lies to me day in and day out.   Or it is using some clever continental algorithm for working out fuel consumption.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Have a 2012 Skoda Superb 2L 170BHP diesel. Bought it 3 years ago and I measure my MPG on an app. Yep very sad. Over the 63000 miles that I have done since I bought it my average is 52.65 MPG. That includes towing a caravan over 400 miles in one day and lots of other trips with the caravan. The trip computer lies by over estimating the MPG by about 10%. You need to get the engine warm as it's not helping the economy. Stop start also isn't helpful and the hills of Sheffield also don't do a lot for it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2014 Focus 1.5D with 82k miles will do 70+mpg on a long run but that can drop to mid 50’s around town or in heavy traffic.

 

I suspect it is the type of motoring rather than the car/engine.

 

If you are only doing 8 miles a day the actual cost saving between 25mpg and 40mpg would be negligible - probably less over a year than the cost of a decent service!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

In fuel consumption. I use the full tank method. Incidentally, many years ago, Top Gear did a test with Slick 50. They took two Ford vans, and gave one the Slick 50 treatment. They then drained both sumps and drove the vehicles around a test circuit. The untreated one seized solid after about 5 miles. They stopped the treated van after 80 miles, and it was still running. :shrug: Like the diesel engine fiasco over here. We can't have people losing revenue through improved fuel consumption.

So you measured fuel consumption not the actual improvement you think you saw.

 

"

PTFE is a solid which is added to engine oil and coats the moving parts of the engine.

However, such solids seem even more inclined to coat non-moving parts, like oil passages and filters. After all, if it can build up under the pressures and friction exerted on a cylinder wall, then it stands to reason it should build up even better in places with low pressures and virtually no friction. 

This conclusion seems to be borne out by tests on oil additives containing PTFE conducted by the NASA Lewis Research Center, which said in their report, "In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant"
 (Rau).

In defense of those additives that still use PTFE, tests done on a Chevy 6 cylinder engine by the University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station found that after treatment with the PTFE additive the test engine's friction was reduced by 13.1 percent, the output horsepower increased from 5.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and fuel economy improved as well. Unfortunately, the same tests concluded that "There was a pressure drop across the oil filter resulting from possible clogging of small passageways." Oil analysis showed that iron contamination doubled after the treatment, indicating that engine wear increased (Rau)."

 

http://skepdic.com/slick50.html

 

Also this:

 

https://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/snake-oil-is-that-additive-really-a-negative/

Edited by VMA131Marine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel consumption is what this thread is about. Incidentally I replicated this with three successive Volvo 740 2300cc 5 speed manual normally aspirated petrol fuelled cars over a 15 year period. Same results each time. Slick 50 added to each at first service, mpg up from average 27 to average 30 . These were all used cars, with 43,000; 98,000 and 168,000 miles on the clock when purchased. Same conditions, same results. Works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I suspect the driving too.  My 2007 Verso 1.8 gets up to 44 on a long run, 35 for shorter runs.  And that's with its rubbish semi-auto.  When I had to go up the M3 a series of times when it had the 50mph limit all the way, I regularly got over 50mpg.  It's all about smoothness, no harsh braking or violent acceleration.  I once had a 106 Rallye that could vary between 11 and 50mpg depending on my mood and driving style.  Luckily 11mg didn't happen very often as driving that hard was shattering if done for long enough to use a tank!

 

PS I don't criticise the OP's driving style, I mean that open roads give more opportunities for economical driving.  City driving will never allow good mpg, as the chance for gentle handling is limited.

 

Cheers

Will

Edited by malpaso
Added commentary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You could always buy another car. My previous dark blue car was quite good on fuel and my recent silver car is not bad either. 

Edited by Darby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for a car manufacturer & just wanted to point out a few facts regarding testing.

All vehicles manufactured for sale in the EU must undergo the same standard test devised to give the consumer comparable data for different models. These figures are all we are allowed to publish in sales literature and may or may not reflect real world performance.

The tests are conducted on standard vehicles in laboratory conditions and were configured to replicate an average spread of usage patterns. 

Since our friends at VW group decided to cheat the system with some software 'enhancements' the testing regime has changed and visits to showrooms will reveal the new WLTP (which includes a road test for the 1st time) test figures on vehicles recently introduced. Older models will still have the data from their NEDC test published. But remember, manufacturers invest billions of dollars into their vehicle development so these tests will be taken very seriously & will be undertaken by dedicated test teams to ensure the best score possible.

We do not try to dupe customers with inflated figures or promises of huge mpg numbers, we can only use the data returned in the official test. Even if we were to have a panel of customers create a 'real world' mpg figure we would not be allowed to legally use it. 

The biggest single influencer in mpg is driving style. Short journeys, heavy throttle inputs and, in the case of modern Diesel engines, incomplete DPF regeneration all have significant negative impact. The original post indicated a regular 8 mile journey to & from work. Put simply, the length of time that particular engine is in its warm up phase as a percentage of its total run time for that journey is likely to be high. Therefore it will be (in old school terminology) running rich, with a high fuel usage for a considerable portion of the overall journey, greatly increasing overall mpg. If we were to extend the journey, the engine would begin to spend longer at a more optimal temperature and revert to a fuel map more conducive to improved mpg.

Hope this puts some of the comments into perspective and helps dispel some of the myths attached to mpg claims?

The link below is the the SMMT website & gives a fuller explanation of the testing process:

 

https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/emissions/testing/

 

Edge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably the wrong person to offer suggestions as my everyday car is a Mercedes E63 AMG but my two pence worth....

 

  1. Don't fully fill the tank, I don't see the point in carrying all that weight around, as weight increases fuel consumption. I only fill my tank if going on a long journey! 
  2. Similarly, where possible don't leave the boot loaded.
  3. If fitted, use cruise control where possible, the system is more likely to run more efficiently than your right foot.
  4. Where feasibly, look at least 3-5 vehicles in front so that you can avoid having to brake harshly then have to accelerate away again and as mentioned earlier, approach roundabouts, junctions and traffic lights slowly, so that you don't stop.

 

I would also recommend having your engine 'Terracleaned', it's not particularly cheap but does seem to improve fuel consumption.

 

Oh and for the record, my current fuel consumption is 16.3mpg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the time you’ve had it and the fact you don’t know when it was last serviced it almost certainly needs one, especially with lots of short urban drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to average 23mpg in a 542bhp supercharged V8 rocketing 2 tonnes of bright blue Jag around - but that was on twisty rural roads and having fun.

 

There's urban driving and there's urban driving. At best, it's bad for fuel consumption. At worst, it's dreadful.

 

Sitting in jams is grossing you a grand total of 0mpg although you're still burning fuel running. When you do get moving you use disproportionate amounts of fuel, sacrificing your chemical energy to gain kinetic energy, whilst loosing a lot of it in the inefficient conversion by generating heat and noise. Then, you apply the brakes and convert all your investment into heat energy (and incidently spend more money wearing away your brake discs, pads and your tyres).

 

There really is no way to reliably get a comparison of fuel consumption in urban driving. If you happen to drive through a town when it's quiet, catch all the green lights and manage to keep rolling at every roundabout, you'll do better than the manufacturer's urban MPG figure. If on the other hand you're nudging along, catching every red light, having to anchor on because someone just cut in etc etc etc then you'll do much, much worse than the book figure.

 

Take the car for a long extraurban cruise (steady speed, not all uphill or downhill, not all into a headwind or with a tailwind) and measure that on your trip computer instead. You'll get a much better indication of whether your car is burning fuel at the expected rate or if there's a genuine problem with it.

 

If you are sitting still in traffic regularly on your commute, then a petrol-electric hybrid is probably what you need - they don't burn fuel when stationary and do a decent job of recovering kinetic energy that is otherwise wasted and lost to the atmosphere as reject-heat every time you brake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Chaps :bye:

 

An Interesting discussion :) 

I have had similar issues with my SUV. Its a 1.5 Turbo Petrol, (not one of those wussy eco turbo things, a real turbo :) ).it is a 2016 model and has a smidge over 70000km on the clock. When working on site, I was doing anything between 800 and 1200km's a week, depending on where I was working and how many times I traveled home in a week, but on average the trip was 199km one way. The consumptionometer in the car proudly stated that I was doing 8.8l per 100km*

It did, in fact, stay at 8.8 no matter what road was traveled, and after we went to out nationals, which is an 1100km round trip, I decided to look into it further. I actually did what was suggested, amount of fuel used against KM traveled, using my GPS to get exact KM's traveled and the digital fuelometer in the car to get exact fuel used, and hey presto, it actually came out at closer to 7.8l per 100....

After a trip to the dealer, and a hook up to a diagnostic machine, it was found that nothing was wrong with the fuel computers... (surprise).

This I did for about 3-4 months, working it out myself, and getting much the same numbers. It wasn't actually until a couple of months later until I had a long range tank fitted (120l) and the consumptionometer was recalibrated by the AM fitters that the consumption actually started showing figures closer to what I was coming out with and I felt I could actually believe what it was saying... 

And just for information, the manufacturer states that, city driving the consumption is around 7.2 (where its actually about 9), and urban/distance consumption is 6.7 :) 

 

Never have quite understood all this hoohah about reported consumption for manufacturers. Real people don't use rolling roads and algorythmns to see how far their cars can go, so why try baffle us with bull:poop:, why not just test the cars in real world situations?

 

* - sorry, its not in MPG and miles, that stuff is just dark arts... :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More valuable advice gents thank you. 

To add a bit more information into the mix, my commute to work is only 4 miles each way, the engine does tend to run on fast idle ( maybe warm up cycle) for about half of the journey, I have noticed though that the temperature gauge reaches the normal operation level pretty quickly. My route to work isn't very flat ( but where is in sheffield?) so that might not be helping. The only things in my boot, apart from the space saver spare and jack, are a litre of engine oil and an extending wheel nut wrench. Also I very rarely take passengers in my car. 

I think when the weather improves somewhat a fluids and filter service is in order. Apart from that I think I'll just have to live with the car as is. Should have got the mondeo st220 I wanted instead of the focys, then at least I would have an excuse for the amount of petrol I get through. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1.6TDi smogmeister can usually deliver between 48 and 52 mpg on the local roads, but did deliver an epic 62.3mpg when motorway driving with four adults on board.  Mind you, that was before she was 'corrected', since when consumption did get noticeably worse for a while.  I wonder if it's the meter that's a bit dodgy?  Seems a bit of a gimmick to me.  The real test is just how far each tank gets you.  Record how many litres you put in, set the trip meter and do some sums the next time you re-fill.

 

Totally agree with the comments about premium fuels like V-Power.  Costs a lot more per litre going in but the indication is that the cost per mile drops significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, S5 modeller said:

my commute to work is only 4 miles each way, the engine does tend to run on fast idle ( maybe warm up cycle) for about half of the journey,

There's your answer........ It's warming up correctly so no thermostat trouble, conclusion is it doesn't get a chance to be at it's most economic, cold weather makes it worse too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driving round town ? Thats not bad. I'd keep away from Tesco/ASDA etc. Its Blue stripe fuel, cheap and nasty, thats why everyone goes there. And unless Jet and Q8 have changed their recipe, not there either, its Supermarket hooch with another Logo. Repeat unless they changed their recipe. I stopped using those two 20 odd years ago... The JET Station on the A420 Frilford was the cheapest in England, queueing round the corners for it...My car was a dog until I'd had a couple of full transfusions to flush the cr*p out.....Manufacturers figures a figment or sidestepped with software, not real world anyway. The higher RON figure the better, produces more power or less fuel used depending on driving style obviously.

The big names aren't always brilliant

Around 1987 Shell had a scandal where the additives in their Premium unleaded were burning away Valves, Vauxhall got most of the trouble and they hit Shell with compensation for engine warranty work/replacements. The ones out of warranty had to prove Shell use by Fuel receipts that faded away like mission impossible tapes. G*ts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the twin cam engines in the Mk2 Focus suffered from water ingress into the spark plug recesses - rain water leaks through ill fitting windscreen washer jets on the bonnet, collects on the cam cover & seeps through the plug lead seals into the area below the cam cover & ends up in the plug recesses. This issue can cause severe corrosion around the spark plug threads, to the degree that trying to remove the plugs can cause the plug inserts to become damaged or threaded.

The above can result in a reluctance to replace spark plugs at the recommended intervals, potentialy leaving vehicle with well worn & poorly performing plugs which can hit MPG....

 

From memory it's one of the 1.6 engine thats worst for this & I can't remember if the 1.8 is as vulnerable....... scraped the recesses of the grey matter & just can't drag it out.

 

I'm running a 2.0 Turbo 16V petrol with a reasonably heavy right foot & unless I was being a complete hero driver on a hill climb or on the autobhan I would be surprised at MPG as poor as your fuel computer is indicating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jetblast said:

Some of the twin cam engines in the Mk2 Focus suffered from water ingress into the spark plug recesses - rain water leaks through ill fitting windscreen washer jets on the bonnet, collects on the cam cover & seeps through the plug lead seals into the area below the cam cover & ends up in the plug recesses. This issue can cause severe corrosion around the spark plug threads, to the degree that trying to remove the plugs can cause the plug inserts to become damaged or threaded.

The above can result in a reluctance to replace spark plugs at the recommended intervals, potentialy leaving vehicle with well worn & poorly performing plugs which can hit MPG....

 

From memory it's one of the 1.6 engine thats worst for this & I can't remember if the 1.8 is as vulnerable....... scraped the recesses of the grey matter & just can't drag it out.

 

I'm running a 2.0 Turbo 16V petrol with a reasonably heavy right foot & unless I was being a complete hero driver on a hill climb or on the autobhan I would be surprised at MPG as poor as your fuel computer is indicating.

We discussed this episode with Wellsprop, when he bought a Fiesta suffering from this very problem. He managed to get the dealer to sort it out after we gave him enough ammunition to rip the guy an ancillary anal sphincter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

We discussed this episode with Wellsprop, when he bought a Fiesta suffering from this very problem. He managed to get the dealer to sort it out after we gave him enough ammunition to rip the guy an ancillary anal sphincter.

Not all dealers need that level of persuasion & can see the issue for what it is - honest.

It's a problem that has huge potential for expense & headaches all round, S5 - I hope your fix isn't this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm another fan of using the cruise control when viable, I'm averaging low 60's in my 2006 307 1.6 HDI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bunch of lightweights.:P

 

My ol’ Series III Lightweight LandRover used to do about 10 to 15 MPG if I was lucky.:(

 

Mart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a mkii Mondeo 2.5l V6 Ghia X which was stunning, I used to drive without the radio on to enjoy the engine note - however come off a roundabout and boot it and the instantaneous fuel read out showed 2 mpg! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×