T Sport Mpg?

[vikvallabh82]

huh?? so what is the general consensus???

I get 35ish mpg on my commute - a roads all the way at 70mph

[FoxX]

27mpg at the moment, used mostly for short journeys and it shows. I reckon you will average 34-36 with 30 mile trips, maybe a touch more but depends how much your stopping and starting.

Best I've had is 37 on a 3hr motor way trip. Not quiet at 4k rpm and above, definatly not quiet at 6k and above!! but quite quiet under 50mph in 6th. :)

[eddieinvader]

Just been to devon for the week averaged 41 mpg all the way there with my 2 kids and the wife in the car, mileage dropped a bit driving around down there and only got 38 mpg on the way home but was in more of a rush to get back, not bad considering the car was packed to the rafters, managed to get 380 miles from a full tank on a run, much better than the usual 250 I get driving around locally all week.

[Corrolla18]

i dont do a lot of town driving at peak times- but ye, combined you should get 35+ although i get good mpg in town too but i save speed for other places ;) 40 combined on a standard car would be more difficult - but not unrealistic unless you sit in town traffic alot.

a decent intake improves mpg - a cold air intake. ported intake gave me the biggest mpg gain. generally in an n/a application anything that improves performance will improve mpg - its the same bag of bones, increasing efficiency.

today i done a 140 mile round trip to the brum area - all a roads. got 40mpg and had to use lift a fair few times to get past slower traffic. i only observe speed limits in reduced speed areas to give you an idea.

I'm confused by this statement - Generally I understand that most modifications to increase power would lend themselves to reduced mpg. The basic rule of more power is more air, more fuel = more power. If a power increase is generated without extra fuel then this would have me thinking the motor was running lean - not good for longevity. A cold air intake should increase the level of oxygen reaching the motor - as cold air is more dense - this should then mean that your ecu allows more fuel and thus you get more power/better performance.

In the past I've tried all sorts of intakes, custom and off the shelf and always suffered from reduced mpg.

I stand to be corrected though - if your finding better consumption then maybe it's time I switch intakes

[s.illes79]

since I had my car lowered I'm getting 3-4 mpg plus. I mainly do motorway drivings, I guess at high speed the drag is significantly less than before.

[ae102]

^^ by increasing performance on a n/a engine you are increasing efficiency - more efficiency = more mpg.

i wont say what i can achieve after porting my intake manifold as some peeps are too sceptical. keeping tyre pressures maintained and weight reduction also help a lot.

[farhanali89]

u didnt achieve anything, numbers please.

[Corrolla18]

^^ by increasing performance on a n/a engine you are increasing efficiency - more efficiency = more mpg.

i wont say what i can achieve after porting my intake manifold as some peeps are too sceptical. keeping tyre pressures maintained and weight reduction also help a lot.

Volumetric efficiency on an n/a motor can not be increased without some form of forced induction as the length of the bore stroke will dictate how much air can be "drawn into" the motor. a rough average for n/a applications is aprox 80% while turboed applications are approx 116%. Of course you can increase the level of oxygen in each intake charge by the use of CAI. This would lead us onto Mechancial efficiency - which even on a race tuned engine is normally no better than aprox 23%. Obviously the efficiency is improved as the power gained from the fuel is increased and so the engine is more mechanically efficient, the engine will however more than likely still use more fuel to obtain the higher output.

I suppose if no power gain is being obtained but the engine is running lean then a gain in mpg would be possible.

I totally agree with weight loss and tyre pressures though because I have done this previously - car pulls a lot better too.

How much have you stripped out?

[ae102]

by making it "easier" to suck in and blow out would disagree with charging unless your using a turbo - an sc is a draw on the engine but the 2zz dont suit a turbo.

[the punisher]

All post in the thread are totaly irrelevent and pointless as we all know when DAZBLOCK views and drives the Tsport on staurday and hits lift for the first time he will buy it and we all know MPG thoughts go out the window when your smiling so much and cant stop revving to 8K RPM!!! T SPORT FOR THE WIN!!!

As an aside, i for one love the t sport, for its the ulimate jekyel and hyde car, frugle and senible when you want it to be and fast and fun when you want it to be...

NUFF SAID

Joel

[nrgizerbunny]

my immaculately maintained corolla does 350 miles on average on a tank. Based on a 12.1 gallon tank that is 28mpg.

If i take it for a run and sit at around 70mph it does 430 miles on a tank which is 35mpg. These are true figures based on my SatNav not the onboard odometer.

If you get 45mpg, the car will do 545 miles on a full tank - this is total rubbish.

[s.illes79]

my immaculately maintained corolla does 350 miles on average on a tank. Based on a 12.1 gallon tank that is 28mpg.

If i take it for a run and sit at around 70mph it does 430 miles on a tank which is 35mpg. These are true figures based on my SatNav not the onboard odometer.

If you get 45mpg, the car will do 545 miles on a full tank - this is total rubbish.

if u push it hard 450m from a tank is possible. Other day I did 375 miles until the light came up, I had roughly 10 liters left.

So 55/45*375 = 458 miles per tank.

545 would only be possible on a circular track doing 45-50MPH constant speed, no stopping/accelerating, in real life it's not possible.