Fuel Consumption

there is a diff bet sx n ex??

astroboy28 wrote:there is a diff bet sx n ex??

think its due to the rim size.. 17" SX / 15" EX.. so...

btw,
still in run in.. SX A, manage only 8.5l/100km.. now kind of drive normally...
hope it could improve to 13+km / l after 1st servicing..

Hi bros & sis,

Anyone tried removing the spare tyre and compared the difference in FC ?

Me thinking of removing it cause its quite heavy and furthermore, in the very rare case that if get puncture, I doubt I would change it myself on Singapore roads. Not that I don't know how, but in Singapore weather + all the car exhaust & dangerous driving out there, by the time I jack up the car, I'll probably be bathing in my own sweat!!! Not forgetting that its quite dangerous to change tyres on our congested roads here.

Carying a spare tyre in other big countries makes sense especially when your on a deserted stretch of road with little help nearby, but in Singapore, I'd rather just call a tow truck & pay a bit more.
Can't imagine if (touch wood) the damn jack fails or you're on a slope or a highway, it will super dangerous to try to change tyres yourself!

So, what do folks think about removing the spare tyre to save FC?

It should improve FC because the total weight of the vehicle will be lighter. But to what extent i will not know because i have not get it removed.

Any bro / sis did it ? Can feedback ?

be careful with insurance claim too.. iirc some bro mentioned that might affect your ins cover as that is deem as part of the safety feature..too..
not too sure though...

oh....removing of spare tires will affect insurance ?
thanks for update, will check with AIG then.

Hi Pessimizt,

I suggest you dun ask AIG insurer's, the answer they give you will surely be a "cover backside" answer one....no point. You know insurer's they will sure "kiasu/kiasi one".
In insurance, a lot of things is arguable one...

If you actually read the policy, there is only 1 statement on pg2, section 1.1 that says "The accessories and spare parts must be on your Vehicle at the time of loss, damage or theft."
If one reads it in a "kiasi" way, then AIG can technically say, "yah your damn spare tyre not inside, so we dun pay".

However, by strict interpretation, all those folks who change their rims would have then voided the insurance policy, because the "accessories/spares" are referring to those "that are fitted as standard equipment without change by the car manufacturer or distributer at the time of purchase of your vehicle" (first statement in the same clause).

So, at the end of the day, insurer's words are just slippery interpretation, just like the way AIG mess around with their accounting books ...and got burnt in the last financial crisis...hahaha.

So, my point is just a question on who among our bros/sis have tried removing the spare tyre and compared the FC difference, if any?

fortecstatic wrote:Hi Pessimizt,

I suggest you dun ask AIG insurer's, the answer they give you will surely be a "cover backside" answer one....no point. You know insurer's they will sure "kiasu/kiasi one".
In insurance, a lot of things is arguable one...

If you actually read the policy, there is only 1 statement on pg2, section 1.1 that says "The accessories and spare parts must be on your Vehicle at the time of loss, damage or theft."
If one reads it in a "kiasi" way, then AIG can technically say, "yah your damn spare tyre not inside, so we dun pay".

However, by strict interpretation, all those folks who change their rims would have then voided the insurance policy, because the "accessories/spares" are referring to those "that are fitted as standard equipment without change by the car manufacturer or distributer at the time of purchase of your vehicle" (first statement in the same clause).

So, at the end of the day, insurer's words are just slippery interpretation, just like the way AIG mess around with their accounting books ...and got burnt in the last financial crisis...hahaha.

So, my point is just a question on who among our bros/sis have tried removing the spare tyre and compared the FC difference, if any?

Wow, words of a wise. Also understand if ppl "kiss" ur back really hard, the spare tire does actually acts like a "air bag".

So depends u want FC or ... worse case scenario

That boot area is reinforced with high tensile steel already. The only area that will crumple in despair is the rear bumper and perhaps 1/4 of the boot area. Unless you are talking about small batchbacks, small sedans, and those under 4 stars crash rating. Furthermore, how serious the rear crash would be? Highway speed of 90km/h whack your rear is not really that serious and the reinforced boot area can absorb that impact. So I would say, please go ahead and hack the spare tyre off.

i would not say so... no matter how save a car is.. never assume ppl will only drive on highway limit... dig a bit on stomp... you could find even some of the best 5 star Encap car turn into... scarp... imagine if this car hit you from the back..(its not entirely impossible?)

http://www.asiaone.com/static/motoring/gallery/loyang_fire/

there are always some bad lucks here and there. While the assumption that you might get hit by 90km/h at worst on the highway, some might get to you at 100km/h or above. But it don't happen everyday. There is always a certain degree of risks to whatever things we are doing, even as simple as walking to the next street to buy a packet of chicken rice, who knows, some passing cars might knock you down at 100km/h? It is down to your luck, really. But if fearing for an accident is an issue, then my suggestion is, take public transport the safest.

back to the topic, to suggest an alternative, I would recommend you to swap your spare tyre with a smaller one like 15" or 16" at a tyre shop to save weight, yet "able to absorb the impact" during an extreme speed rear collision.

btw, that loyang avenue crash is a little out of the context here. It is basically an old, tiny toyota hatchback vs a giant container truck. Even if you have 10 spares on your boot won't help.

Maybe when it is the time to go, cannot run. Final Destination

yup agree... so there all we are saying is to have the best prepared to take the worst == safety equipment?... all equipment / design are meant for this way... if we solely take on luck then... think there not need for all these safety devices, ESP/ AB/ EBD all are not necessary since we dun need it everyday?...but still we would want it to be there ya?
Even in public transport.. its not entirely save.. guess that explains gov is making great effort to maximize safetly.. i.e speed limit/ bus lanes / smrt platform doors etc etc...

not to start a fire.. this is just to share my pov... heee... peace...

The White Cruiser wrote:
btw, that loyang avenue crash is a little out of the context here. It is basically an old, tiny toyota hatchback vs a giant container truck. Even if you have 10 spares on your boot won't help.

err... that link refers to a subaru legacy (5 stars Encap rating car) crashing into a tree burst into fire.. just look at the shape after the crash had it not catch on fire.. this is just to show how good even the best rating could take a practical test...

Hi Bros & Sis,

I think rear kenna whack is generally less serious than collision from the front, all other things being equal.

If I remember from my last time my Physics lessons; Let's compare say 2 cars A & B, similar size and weight.

Scenario 1)
Car A moving at 80Km/h & car B moving behind in same direction at 110km/h kiss the backside of car A. The "effective" collision speed is actually only 110-80 = 30km/h.

Scenario 2)
Car A stationary 0km/h at red light and car B whack car A at 110km/h from backside. The "effective" collision speed is actually 110km/h.

Scenario 3)
Car A moving at 80km/h while car B driver drank too much vodka and came in from OPPOSITE direction at 110km/h in a head-on collision. The "effective" collisin speed is actually 80+110 = 190km/h !!!

Scenario 3 is almost confirm case one. (touch wood).
Long ago, precisely, because of a head-on collision, my dad's friend actually died even though his car was stationary at a red light.

So, kiss backside cases generally less serious, I say generally, unless we talking about a BIG 3 tonne truck whack a minicooper from behind, then I think mini-cooper become a micro-cooker.

Anyway, I've seen the spare tyre on my Forte SX, and its held down by 1 long screw only...somemore the jack kits & tools are just placed ontop of the wheelbase in a black styrofoam...not secured otherwise. So, in a serious enough "backside" kiss...I think the tools will fly out and become deadly projectiles some more...;-)

Not to scare other Forte Bro's & Sis...just take a look yourselves in your own boot. I guess other types of cars maybe also the same way of putting the spare tire.

Anyway, I digress....my question is again whether anyone has actually removed the spare tire and compared the FC difference ?

for a few kilos of difference... there should not be much difference if there is any at all......

yah maybe you're right...I actually measured the 17inch stock spare tire and its about 25kg.

I guess for near-term not much diff... 8)

Hi JuanST,

Then again, I did a quick calculation and 25kg is almost 2% (1.9% to be exact) of the Forte's kerb weight of about 1300Kg.

Hmm...maybe I'll try removing the spare tire afterall and see the FC savings over time...

FriesL wrote:

err... that link refers to a subaru legacy (5 stars Encap rating car) crashing into a tree burst into fire.. just look at the shape after the crash had it not catch on fire.. this is just to show how good even the best rating could take a practical test...

That one is different case already. I can't seem to recall back my forgotten physics knowledge but a tree has a smaller area of circumstance than a car's boot, plus it is extremely hard compared to aluminium. So there is less area/space to absorb the impact, making the collision between the car and the tree even more pronounced than between a car and a car. Btw, had it not catch a fire, I think one out of the three Indian passengers could have survived somehow. Btw again, if I am not wrong, that Legacy side-ended the tree. Side is much more weaker than rear and front.

Let's come back to the fuel thingy again. 25kg may slightly influence the fuel consumption pattern. "Slightly influence" may not seem 了不起 but it's totally free instead of adding expensive mods here and there to reduce FC.

fortecstatic wrote:yah maybe you're right...I actually measured the 17inch stock spare tire and its about 25kg.

I guess for near-term not much diff... 8)

that means...... 4 main tyres and the spare together is 125kg in total. think not only you need to hack that spare off but also other fours. haha.

yeah... forgetting that quantum physics.. and i think OT too much liao..hee and its not my point to make this thread a collision and safety debate... i agrees to some but disagree to the case too.. but lets just move on...

not too sure if we want to really manage that extreme scale of Fuel efficiency... as there are just too much more variables that could affect the FC that is beyond our controls. i.e traffic jam, traffic lights, etc etc...
of course.. its everyone's choice...

happy driving..

Wah, this thread become maths and physics lesson. Both i return to teacher liao.

yalah.... i need to get my books again..... but outdated oredi....

maiane leh bro... dun need to get books one... once master see this will sure get a full lesson liao... so... heeee

haha, my FC improved a lot liao. now is 10.5L/100km (urban), 6.8L/km (Highway) since last service with now 1.5k mileage, i think new oil really helps to decrease the FC. must season the oil after 500km then u can see the difference.

Fransge wrote:haha, my FC improved a lot liao. now is 10.5L/100km (urban), 6.8L/km (Highway) since last service with now 1.5k mileage, i think new oil really helps to decrease the FC. must season the oil after 500km then u can see the difference.

hai...my lateast FC dropped. car abt 8000km now. 1.6EX auto. 2nd servicing over.
best ever fc 12.9km/L
average abt 12.2km/L to 12.4km/L
yesterday dropped to 11.75km/L! dunno why???
SPC95 petrol since day one.

my fren says his 6 months old honda stream can easily acheive 14km/L!
envy siah! such a big car can get such amazing FC figures!

whyeme wrote:my fren says his 6 months old honda stream can easily acheive 14km/L!
envy siah! such a big car can get such amazing FC figures!

i-VTEC, 5-speed tranny, streamlined shape, lightweight... what do you expect? it's a honda.

The White Cruiser wrote:

whyeme wrote:my fren says his 6 months old honda stream can easily acheive 14km/L!
envy siah! such a big car can get such amazing FC figures!

i-VTEC, 5-speed tranny, streamlined shape, lightweight... what do you expect? it's a honda.

any idea what is the stream's weight?
forte auto ex 1.6 is 1251kg

Honda Stream's curb/kerb weight - 1370kg

whyeme wrote:my fren says his 6 months old honda stream can easily acheive 14km/L!
envy siah! such a big car can get such amazing FC figures!

Is too good to be true for 7 seater 1.8L engine to achieve 14km/L

Reading take from the front display or result take from average reading after few full tanks top up.

Seriously, how fast and in what type of traffic do those of you who report high FCs drive in? Do you all have a lot of gear/stuff in your boot?

It is NOT impossible to get below 6-l/100-km if you drive under 90-kph with a light foot(below 2500 RPM and up-shift at the earliest) on a 36-km route (72-km to and from work; 90% highway) 5-days a week. Stick to this and yes, even my Boss's 2009 1.8-L Honda Stream can hit 14-km/L which works out to just about 7-l/100-km; not impossible!

Btw, I drive a 1.6 SX(M).

BR,
w a y

Well I also drive 1.6SX manual. Not away can hit 7L/100km or 14km/L is always depend on road condition. Expressway sometimes also got jam or slow traffic.

Totally agree. Very much dependent on traffic also, which I mentioned. It 'helps' when I have to leave for work everyday by 0545hrs ; e'ways and roads are generally clearer.

BR,
w a y

jl1500k wrote:Well I also drive 1.6SX manual. Not away can hit 7L/100km or 14km/L is always depend on road condition. Expressway sometimes also got jam or slow traffic.

jl1500k wrote:Well I also drive 1.6SX manual. Not away can hit 7L/100km or 14km/L is always depend on road condition. Expressway sometimes also got jam or slow traffic.

My avg 8L/100km 70% expressway, SX manual

pl8288 wrote:

jl1500k wrote:Well I also drive 1.6SX manual. Not away can hit 7L/100km or 14km/L is always depend on road condition. Expressway sometimes also got jam or slow traffic.

My avg 8L/100km 70% expressway, SX manual

Bros, I think you heavy foot? 8L/100km like driving a auto one.

today i test from Air hitam toll to skudai toll.
Average 9.0L/100km, Average speed 137km/h take reading from meter panel.
my 2.0L

Over the weekend got my best average 7L/100km from KL to sg speed 110km/h used 1/2 tank oil. tested 150-160km/h Car feel better in there at high speed. once reached sg 9-10L/100km car feel sick again. 1.6 sx auto

eeyore79 wrote:Over the weekend got my best average 7L/100km from KL to sg speed 110km/h used 1/2 tank oil. tested 150-160km/h Car feel better in there at high speed. once reached sg 9-10L/100km car feel sick again. 1.6 sx auto

so far good still got half tankfrom kl to sg

Sigh...
I'm @ my 600km and my avg FC to date is about 10l / 100km.

I was expecting better

actually for me to achieve around 12km/L to 12.5km/L on my stock 1.6EX auto,
i pump my 4 tyres to 250kpa and upshift below 2.5k rpm and 80% highway.
stock 15inch rims

250??

Isn't that alittle much?

It's supposed to be 220 right?

joepele wrote:250??

Isn't that alittle much?

It's supposed to be 220 right?

yup 220 for most folks but i pump 250 for better FC
and since i used to drive a very bumpy ride i can handle the stiffer ride at 250

joepele wrote:Sigh...
I'm @ my 600km and my avg FC to date is about 10l / 100km.

I was expecting better

My 1st Full tank 40.4L travel 589KM and FC is 14.5km/L. Mine is 1.6SX Manual. Now 2nd tank and still running in.

I use alot of free gear when downslope / approaching traffic light and engine brake to achieve better FC.

jl1500k wrote:

joepele wrote:Sigh...
I'm @ my 600km and my avg FC to date is about 10l / 100km.

I was expecting better

My 1st Full tank travel 589KM and FC is 7.9L/100km. Mine is 1.6SX Manual. Now 2nd tank and still running in.

I use alot of free gear when downslope / approaching traffic light and engine brake to achieve better FC.

I did that too... but my travels are about 40% expressways and 60% city

for the past 2 weeks , am 100 city/town driving.... 11L/100km

An interesting observation!

My first 3 tanks i pump Esso5000... FC ~ 9.8L/100KM

The 4th tank i pump Esso2000... FC improves to ~ 9.3 L/100KM...
I floor more this time round too... Road usage similar to before...
About 80% city/town, 20% highway...

So, i continue to pump Esso2000...

jimixer wrote:An interesting observation!

My first 3 tanks i pump Esso5000... FC ~ 9.8L/100KM

The 4th tank i pump Esso2000... FC improves to ~ 9.3 L/100KM...
I floor more this time round too... Road usage similar to before...
About 80% city/town, 20% highway...

So, i continue to pump Esso2000...

hmmm...interesting!
maybe i should try spc92

hmmmm.... b4 my 1st servicing, FC is 8+ to 9+L/100km. after servicing is 10-11+.

very funny leh