Mini = mini MPG?
Discussion
Hi,
What sort of fuel economy figures do people get from their cars? And what sort of range does this give you for motorway cruising on a production tank?
Very tempted to get a mini if it can a)fit the infamous MTB in the back and (b)get 220 miles home on one tank full (which my evil german contraption probably can't*)
*err, don't worry its NOT a BMW mini - its not 'that' evil....
Chris.
What sort of fuel economy figures do people get from their cars? And what sort of range does this give you for motorway cruising on a production tank?
Very tempted to get a mini if it can a)fit the infamous MTB in the back and (b)get 220 miles home on one tank full (which my evil german contraption probably can't*)
*err, don't worry its NOT a BMW mini - its not 'that' evil....
Chris.
). Mix of urban and high speed cross country motoring..... 
Waaaayyy better than the Chim (approx 18 
) My 924S does about 23mpg, which I was horrified by only to find thats not bad for one of those in stop start motoring.
Never realised just how much a regular commute costs. Also scary to think I used to drive back to Devon from Essex with my CVH powered Quantum and use half a tank. I'd probably have to refuel before the Porsche gets there and its a much bigger tank.
Want something a little more economical and always had a soft spot for minis. Up till now the prices most fast(ish) minis seem to command had prevented me, but might be tempted now....
Never realised just how much a regular commute costs. Also scary to think I used to drive back to Devon from Essex with my CVH powered Quantum and use half a tank. I'd probably have to refuel before the Porsche gets there and its a much bigger tank.
Want something a little more economical and always had a soft spot for minis. Up till now the prices most fast(ish) minis seem to command had prevented me, but might be tempted now....
It's the aerodynamics (what aerodynamics!) which spoil the fuel consumption on a Mini on longer journeys. Stop-start consumption in traffic is more a result of the mass/acceleration equation, but at a constant-speed cruise the drag coefficient plays the major part. When I had a 998 Cooper it would give about 37 mpg cruising at 75 mph, whilst my current BMW 728i will give c.32 mpg at the same cruise speed with about twice the weight and 10 times more comfort. Engine efficiency and aero-d have just made all the difference. I am constantly amazed by my wife's Mondeo 2.0 diesel which always gives over 50 mpg and goes very well too. With 0-60 in about 9 seconds and the 6-speed box it's agile, comfortable and great for long journeys too.
Of course, my Cooper 'S' will give about 20 mpg on a run and about 12 mpg on a rally, less on a special stage (about 8 mpg would be good!).
Of course, my Cooper 'S' will give about 20 mpg on a run and about 12 mpg on a rally, less on a special stage (about 8 mpg would be good!).
cooperman said:
It's the aerodynamics (what aerodynamics!) which spoil the fuel consumption on a Mini on longer journeys.
Of course, my Cooper 'S' will give about 20 mpg on a run and about 12 mpg on a rally, less on a special stage (about 8 mpg would be good!).
I've heard that de-seaming reduces the drag massively?
That's impressively nasty fuel economy
De-seaming reduces the frontal area by 44 sq.ins. However, it's important to get this done by a really good welder as the strength of the original seams is a significant factor in the structural integrity of the bodyshell. It is doubtful if de-seaming is much help at speeds of under 40 mph, and will make no difference at all to acceleration from rest to about 40-ish, after that the reduction in 'form-drag' (i.e. frontal area) is increasingly significant.
love machine said:
I heard that a 649 cam on an exciting 1275 gives about 10mpg. Mine does about 25 I reckon.
There is so much overlap on valve timing with a 649 that if you let it tick over with the air filters off you can see the neat petrol dripping down onto the manifold. It's OK at over 3000 rpm, but driven below that with no air filters you can smell the petrol inside the car. I had this with a full-race 1071 engine I built for a rally car a few years back with a 649 and 1.5 rockers. Nothing below 3200 but then, WOW, right up to 7500. It was, however, far to 'cammy' for unsurfaced roads, but great on tarmac with pace notes, and we put it back to a Kent 286 which suited the overall application much better.
my mini used to do about 20-30mpg but was always driven pretty hard! thats what the engine was built for tho! heh heh! 110bhp 100lbft 1301cc pretty nicely tuned with a 3.44:1 diff.
oh, and i used to get 2 downhill mtb's in the back on the seats with the wheels off, dh lids and stuff, and my 6"6 mate in the passenger seat! that was before i fit the bucket seats tho.....back in '98! heh heh! God i miss that little car!
oh, and i used to get 2 downhill mtb's in the back on the seats with the wheels off, dh lids and stuff, and my 6"6 mate in the passenger seat! that was before i fit the bucket seats tho.....back in '98! heh heh! God i miss that little car!
Edited by Toady1 on Monday 5th June 18:37
Got a stock 1275 MG Metro engine and box in my '67 - speedo's out (indicated 55mph at 4000rpm, I think not! ) and the fuel gauge only reads half full when it is full - always fill it up so I can work out mpg - averageing 30.4 mpg according to the odometer but 38.8 mpg according to my re-calculations.
) and the fuel gauge only reads half full when it is full - always fill it up so I can work out mpg - averageing 30.4 mpg according to the odometer but 38.8 mpg according to my re-calculations.AndrewGB said:
Mine gets much better figures than this. On my last two Sussex to Bristol trips I did 60mpg 160 miles on 12 litres of petrol. This was at about 70mph most of the way.
Andrew
Andrew
Are you sure? That figure is too high for the standard aerodynamic efficiency at 70 mph unless some radical re-engineering has taken place, like full de-seaming, lots ot weight saving and an ultra-high final drive on a 998 or 850 engine.
The best I ever got on a run was 47 mpg from an 850 cruising at around 55 to 60 mph. Remember, drag increases as a square of the speed so at 70 mph, the drag increase over the drag at 60 is not just 16.6% more, it's more like 35.5% (60x1.166x1.166) more. That's why the faster you go the more the mpg drops. Gearing can have some effect on this as if the higher speed is at more economical rpm where max torque occurs it may not increase so dramatically. However, the basic maths still apply.
Sorry if this is a bit technical, but you did ask!!!
Sorry if this is a bit technical, but you did ask!!!
Gassing Station | Classic Minis | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff