car is costing a lot on fuel ...advice

[pumpjack]

i went from pattaya - sa kaeo - buriram - surin - udon thani  approx 850 kilometres.   i was using E20 then i used 91 gas.      the total cost in fuel so far has been 2400 baht

 

something not right here is there ?  i used to drive my 4x4 mitsu triton for less money than this ,  i am driving a ford focus auto 1.6

[shady86]

i went from pattaya - sa kaeo - buriram - surin - udon thani  approx 850 kilometres.   i was using E20 then i used 91 gas.      the total cost in fuel so far has been 2400 baht
 
something not right here is there ?  i used to drive my 4x4 mitsu triton for less money than this ,  i am driving a ford focus auto 1.6

Is this ecoboost or normal aspirated model? Assuming 1200b is full tank, sounds reasonable if you go to city and uphill downhill roads.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[VocalNeal]

That's about 2.8 baht per kilo? My Suzuki truck on LPG gets about 1.8 to 2 baht per kilo but probably doesn't go as fast:-) Dump the E20 which gets lousy kms/l and just use 91 then see.

[petermik]

7 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

 Dump the E20 which gets lousy kms/l and just use 91 then see.

I use E20 in my 1200cc Nissan Almera (recommended fuel) on a run I,m getting 20kms/litre out of it

[shady86]

I don't notice big difference running on e20 and 91 for my crv 2.0. E20 is more economical for city driving as fuel mostly burnt for idling and stop/go traffic

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Don Mega]

Did the triton also have a small capacity benzine engine ?

 

 

[pgrahmm]

Simple things to check - dirty air filter can cost you 25-30% in fuel economy.....

Under inflated tires can do the same....

 

You might be overdriving it trying to compensate for the power & gear ratio difference from the Triton...

Edited May 10, 2017 by pgrahmm

[juehoe]

That's about 2.8 baht per kilo? My Suzuki truck on LPG gets about 1.8 to 2 baht per kilo but probably doesn't go as fast:-) Dump the E20 which gets lousy kms/l and just use 91 then see.

It depends on the car. Older cars use a lot more of fuel with E20 than with 91/95.

The difference is minimal with modern cars. I have just no difference with my Mazda CX-3 with E20 or 95.

[Don Mega]

A quickie google search suggest a ford focus auto 1.6 will use approx 8lt/100km so thats 106.25 lt of fuel to travel 850km and at 23b/l for E20 thats a spend of Bt.2443

[Upnotover]

15 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

A quickie google search suggest a ford focus auto 1.6 will use approx 8lt/100km so thats 106.25 lt of fuel to travel 850km and at 23b/l for E20 thats a spend of Bt.2443

You might want to check that calculation, @8l/100km 850 km will be 68 litres. 

[Don Mega]

24 minutes ago, Upnotover said:

You might want to check that calculation, @8l/100km 850 km will be 68 litres. 

I doubt the op was paying 35b per liter for either E20 or 91 gasahol. How did you calculate that number  cause when I divide 850 x 8 my calculator says 106.25.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Don Mega

[Upnotover]

Just now, Don Mega said:

I doubt the op was paying 35b per liter for either E20 or 91 gasahol. How did you calculate that number ?

 

 

(850/100)*8

[Don Mega]

4 minutes ago, Upnotover said:

(850/100)*8

Well that the issue then, paying atleast 10b per liter of fuel too much then.

 

 

Weird that my 850/8 = 106.25

 

106.25 x 23 (baht per liter) = approx what the op spent.

 

Meh.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Don Mega

[KhunBENQ]

31 minutes ago, Upnotover said:

You might want to check that calculation, @8l/100km 850 km will be 68 litres. 

Correct.

At about 25 Baht/liter that's roughly 1700 Baht.

and 8l/100 km would sound reasonable for a 1.6l.

I have a 1.5l automatic and use about 7.2l/100 km of E20 on long trips (Mazda 2).

 

[KhunBENQ]

6 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Weird that my 850/8 = 106.25

How about 850 km / 100 km = 8.5.

8.5 * 8l/100km = 68 l.

 

If it fits better:

8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8/2 = 68

 

[Don Mega]

Just now, KhunBENQ said:

How about 850 km / 100 km = 8.5.

8.5 * 8l/100km = 68 l.

 

Iam not doubting your math and happily stand corrected however the OP said he has spent 2400b on fuel and @ 68lt the numbers dont stack up.... I feel there is some porky pies floating in the air.

[Pdaz]

Auto gearbox and small cc is a recipe for poor fuel consumption 

[KhunBENQ]

Just now, Don Mega said:

said he has spent 2400b on fuel and @ 68lt the numbers dont stack up.

No question that the fuel consumption sounds too high for such car.

 

[KhunBENQ]

2 minutes ago, Pdaz said:

Auto gearbox and small cc is a recipe for poor fuel consumption 

An old fairy tale.

The difference with modern autos is minimal and a manual driver needs to be tough to beat it.

Far far from the discrepancy described here.

It's not 3 speed auto on big blocks anymore.

 

AC on or off has more influence than auto vs. manual.

[daveAustin]

Praps you're just a crap driver, op. 

[Pdaz]

9 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

An old fairy tale.

The difference with modern autos is minimal and a manual driver needs to be tough to beat it.

Far far from the discrepancy described here.

It's not 3 speed auto on big blocks anymore.

 

AC on or off has more influence than auto vs. manual.

No it's not.

Okay the way you drive has probably the biggest influence on fuel economy. But most of the automatics available in Thailand are still old style slush boxes. Granted, modern 6, 7 or even 9 speed autos with locking torque converters are much better than their predecessors. But they are still heavier, change down at inappropriate times and have greater transmission losses than a modern 6 speed manual. Twin clutch autos are better than traditional autos but these haven't trickled down to all generic models as yet.

 

The OP's post was about about a 1.6cc car ( he didn't say what type of auto ) but generally smaller engines have the gearbox shifting more frequently than a larger cc engine with more torque. Downshifts increase the engine RPM which in turn burns more fuel.

 

A well driven manual still produces the best economy. 

[Don Mega]

1 minute ago, daveAustin said:

Praps you're just a crap driver, op. 

I think he misses the torque of the diesel Triton and is nailing the throttle on the girlie car harder !!

[Gary A]

My driving habits are pretty consistent whether driving the car or the truck, The Isuzu 3.0 liter 4X4 manual does more kilometers per liter than the Ford Focus 1.8 liter using E20. If you want excellent fuel economy, buy a diesel, car or truck.

[transam]

12 minutes ago, Pdaz said:

No it's not.

Okay the way you drive has probably the biggest influence on fuel economy. But most of the automatics available in Thailand are still old style slush boxes. Granted, modern 6, 7 or even 9 speed autos with locking torque converters are much better than their predecessors. But they are still heavier, change down at inappropriate times and have greater transmission losses than a modern 6 speed manual. Twin clutch autos are better than traditional autos but these haven't trickled down to all generic models as yet.

 

The OP's post was about about a 1.6cc car ( he didn't say what type of auto ) but generally smaller engines have the gearbox shifting more frequently than a larger cc engine with more torque. Downshifts increase the engine RPM which in turn burns more fuel.

 

A well driven manual still produces the best economy. 

Rubbish...........You are twisting facts.....

[Pdaz]

3 minutes ago, Gary A said:

My driving habits are pretty consistent whether driving the car or the truck, The Isuzu 3.0 liter 4X4 manual does more kilometers per liter than the Ford Focus 1.8 liter using E20. If you want excellent fuel economy, buy a diesel, car or truck.

A few years back myself and a mate had identical 3litre diesel Toyota Vigos. Only difference being was mine was manual, his was auto. We did many trips over time and never failed to notice the higher fuel consumption of his truck.  Okay that is just circumstantial observation. But the majority of cars/trucks available here are simply not that advanced. They have old fashioned 4 or 5 speed autos. They idle at higher RPM, have higher transmission losses and greater all up weight. 

 

Buying a manual diesel truck is the best option for economy here.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Pdaz said:

A few years back myself and a mate had identical 3litre diesel Toyota Vigos. Only difference being was mine was manual, his was auto. We did many trips over time and never failed to notice the higher fuel consumption of his truck.  Okay that is just circumstantial observation. But the majority of cars/trucks available here are simply not that advanced. They have old fashioned 4 or 5 speed autos. They idle at higher RPM, have higher transmission losses and greater all up weight. 

 

Buying a manual diesel truck is the best option for economy here.

Crap.....

[Pdaz]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Rubbish...........You are twisting facts.....

Care to un-twist any of them ?

 

greater transmission losses ?

Higher weight ?

Less ratios in older auto boxes ?

Higher RPM at idle ?

Higher engine speed when cruising in "top"

[Pdaz]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Crap.....

You'll have to be more eloquent than that.

[transam]

Just now, Pdaz said:

Care to un-twist any of them ?

 

greater transmission losses ?

Higher weight ?

Less ratios in older auto boxes ?

Higher RPM at idle ?

Higher engine speed when cruising in "top"

So what RPM does my 10 year old auto Vigo tick over at and a similar manual...?

[Pdaz]

I expect the auto will be a hundred rpm higher maybe more.