Morgan 4/4 Sport vs. Lotus Eco Elise

Morgan 4/4 Sport vs. Lotus Eco Elise

Author
Discussion

rodschwarz

Original Poster:

90 posts

263 months

bordseye

2,023 posts

198 months

Friday 27th March 2009
quotequote all
The 140 CO2 level implies an average fuel consumption of around 45 to 50 mpg. Is this realistic?

The 200 mg CO2 level for the Lotus equates to 33 mpg which I find is realistic for my car. I dont understand why it doesnt do more, but it doesnt.

rodschwarz

Original Poster:

90 posts

263 months

Saturday 28th March 2009
quotequote all
bordseye said:
The 140 CO2 level implies an average fuel consumption of around 45 to 50 mpg. Is this realistic?

The 200 mg CO2 level for the Lotus equates to 33 mpg which I find is realistic for my car. I dont understand why it doesnt do more, but it doesnt.
When I collected my 4/4 in Malvern in 2002 my consumption on country roads and motorways to Dover was 51 mpg. I remeber this quite well because it was a surprise to me. 25 mpg was the figure I had known from my 1997 +8.

The 4/4 Sport is lighter than my 4/4 was and has a smaller engine. Therefore I do see a chance of 45 to 50 mpg at least as long as you don't drive in city centres too much or on German Autobahnen.;-)

bordseye

2,023 posts

198 months

Saturday 28th March 2009
quotequote all
I wonder what the comparison would be with the two cars following each other round a circuit. With very similar weights, aerodynamics should favour the Lotus but as I said it seems to drink more petrol for reasons I cant work out.
But I cant see 33 mpg playing 45 at the same speeds.

Does anyone know how the CO2 is measured?

rodschwarz

Original Poster:

90 posts

263 months

Saturday 28th March 2009
quotequote all
bordseye said:
I wonder what the comparison would be with the two cars following each other round a circuit. With very similar weights, aerodynamics should favour the Lotus but as I said it seems to drink more petrol for reasons I cant work out.
But I cant see 33 mpg playing 45 at the same speeds.

Does anyone know how the CO2 is measured?
24 (diesel 27) X comsumption (l/km) X km

bordseye

2,023 posts

198 months

Saturday 28th March 2009
quotequote all
really? so its a calculated figure from the fuel consumption rather than something measured directly at the exhaust?

rodschwarz

Original Poster:

90 posts

263 months

Saturday 28th March 2009
quotequote all
bordseye said:
really? so its a calculated figure from the fuel consumption rather than something measured directly at the exhaust?
There are two ways to find out about CO2. Measuring at the exhaust (laboratory condition) and calculating.

Acutally the calculation for the Sport is:

23.3 X 6,2 l = 144 g (only a bit higher than the 139 or 140 stated)

bordseye

2,023 posts

198 months

Monday 30th March 2009
quotequote all
the official test is on a dynamometer and running the engine through standard cycles including a max speed one at 75mph. so nothing to do with weight or aerodynamics or sporty use.

rodschwarz

Original Poster:

90 posts

263 months

Tuesday 31st March 2009
quotequote all
Yesterday I drove a 4/4 Sport from Perth to Newacastle and today from Amsterdam to Cologne and now I can confirm that fuel consumption is very low indeed.

Btw, what a fantastic car it is! I want one. I would not miss my Roadster with nearly double as much bhp.

gomog

72 posts

231 months

Wednesday 1st April 2009
quotequote all
rodschwarz said:
Yesterday I drove a 4/4 Sport from Perth to Newacastle and today from Amsterdam to Cologne and now I can confirm that fuel consumption is very low indeed.

Btw, what a fantastic car it is! I want one. I would not miss my Roadster with nearly double as much bhp.
They ARE fun! Power is not everything. Weight has more of an overall effect on the car's personality.

They took off 150 kilos (15%) and that makes the car very reactive and lithe..like the 4/4s of yesteryear but better. Problem is, I see that people are putting luggage racks, spare tyres, even brackets and overriders on them. I can understand that I guess but the car is great as is.

Lorne