loganovac, your wish is my command, so you will get it: when cars are compared, and totally neutrally, it is usually on a test stand with an 'artificial' road, simulated driving conditions, stops, braking and so on. WE ARE NOT COMPARING FEET HERE. if i want to force it, i can push consumption up on a gasoline car to well over 14L/100k, and on a LPG car down to a very soft 6.8L/100k, would i then have proven your point? WOW, a gasoline car using four times the $$$ than a LPG car. AMAZING. and only loganovac knows how to prove it. we were comparing cars of the same make the same engine the same condition the same or similar driver the same roads the same age, and THEN the difference between LPG and benzin. not what mood you were in, not how heavy you were trying to impress your neighbor, not that you were trying to prove a point by adjusted driving. cars, not people! so i suggest you stop behaving stupid. but at 130 pounds per foot you beat both me and stu, anyhow. not by much, but ... greetings - heinz - This post has been edited by heinz57g: 26 Aug 2008, 23:52

Somehow I get a feeling that you are angry with me?
If you want to play the game, you must be prepared to LOOSE sometimes.
Nobody can always win.

>so i suggest you stop behaving stupid. but at 130 pounds per foot you beat
both me and stu, anyhow. not by much, but ...<

Finally, U admitted that U loose...
But I am surprised that you said nothing about gravity depending on the altitude, weigher calibration etc...
And, my friend, think about the monthly price of my victory...

Greetings to all, IN and EX PATs.

>> Somehow I get a feeling that you are angry with me?

see, again you go by feeling, rather than reality, and again you are wrong. i am far away from angry.

>> If you want to play the game

which game?

>> Finally, U admitted that U loose...

and i am happy about it, more than happy. als long as we have determined that LPG use is roughly 25-40% higher
than gasoline, i am happy to lose about the 130pounds per foot issue. thats totalling 130 kgs, way above my limit
of about 100k.

many greetings - heinz -

Once again you are wrong. One pound equals 0,45359237kg, so 2 feet times 130 pounds totals to 117,9340162kg.

27 Aug 2008, 08:53:
P.S. if it makes you happy, just for your eyes, Heinz, I can admit that LPG use is roughly 250-400% higher than gasoline. No problem at all. That would probably make you happy not converting your vehicles to LPG.

many greetings - Loganovac -


This post has been edited by Loganovac: 27 Aug 2008, 09:53

Logan 1.6 16V: 4 people(~300kg) + a full trunk.

European highways, speeds around 130kmph, ~8.0 av.

European roads, speeds around 95kmph, 6.4 av. Ive noticed that European cities are far more less crowded, traffic wise, compared to RRo cities.

While going down the Alps, in Austria, I got a 0.0 av.

>> Once again you are wrong

i guess i should get used to it. so keep on trying.

>> One pound equals 0,45359237kg

thats in the UK. we are in europe here (or trying to be), and by general and common usage a pound is
half a kilo. ask your mami. or try to teach her 0,45359237kg.

but then you forgot: we have (above) the UK pound (avoirdupois), the troy pound (373gr), the tower pound
(350gr), the merchants' pound (437gr), the london pound (467gr), a few others, and last not least, and quite
officially, the Metric pound at 500 gramms.

>> totals to 117,9340162kg

well, not quite, but you are getting closer to stu and me.

>> I can admit that LPG use is roughly 250-400% higher than gasoline

careful, you will now be quoted in every LPG forum and the entire internet. actually, i was just told that some
albanians who are in the LPG market would like to visit you personally, this weekend.

>> you happy not converting your vehicles to LPG

what are you talking about? all my private cars were always on LPG (if they were not diesel), some 10++ of them
over the years, including that funny LADA i told you about. our present NIVA runs on LPG, 6 or 7 of our office cars
do (all LOGANs, including the one i will start taking tonight) ...

so?

greetings - heinz -

PS: eXtenSion, tks for your valuable input, in the right spirit.

>> While going down the Alps, in Austria, I got a 0.0 av.

now it will be extremely (!) important for loganovac to know, if this
was on -->> gasoline or LPG ???

This post has been edited by heinz57g: 27 Aug 2008, 12:13

>we have (above) the UK pound (avoirdupois), the troy pound (373gr), the tower pound (350gr), the merchants' pound (437gr), the london pound (467gr), a few others, and last not least, and quite
officially, the Metric pound at 500 gramms.<

For that contribution to the Modern Metrology Knowledge, you should be awarded a PHD title and a Nobel prize.

About those Albanians, after all your activities on this forum on the LPG consumption, they will have to make a decision which one of us to visit first.

And, yes, according to eXtenSion's data, I assume he drives on LPG. And going down the Alps, now it will be extremely (!) important for Heinz to know, all of us are right about the ratio between LPG and gasoline consumption. It can be 10, 25 or 250 PERCENT MORE OR LESS LPG THAN gasoline.

Q U O T E T H I S ! ! !

>> you should be awarded a PHD title and a Nobel prize

but thanks, the PHD i have since 30+ years, the nobel i am working on ...

>> those Albanians ... they will have to make a decision which one of us to visit first

already decided, its beauty before age in this case, so you are first.

greetings - heinz -

I know, this was preliminary data

More like premature !!


But keep the Info coming in every little bit helps
StU

28 Aug 2008, 06:26:
In Germany during and after the war they used to somehow burn wood on the back of a vehicle and catch fumes to make a motor run
Come on Dr Heinz .......How did this system work please
Stu

This post has been edited by martin245: 28 Aug 2008, 07:26

wood gas stoves? still used today, various puposes, in countries
like india, indonesia and south america.

for starters, look here:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Wood_gas_s..._in_10_minutes/

they ARE simple, so thats why during WW2 they could be built on
the run. by the way, not only on german cars ... google for it, and
you find plenty of pics.

greetings - heinz -

Loganovac, you told us everything here except was your foot any lighter before you converted to LPG

In the spirit of the discussion, it would also be nice of you to explain the conditions in more detail, for instance, do you also apply some force on your foot, or you just let the Earth's gravity do it's stuff

PS
Obviously, for the sake of the correctness, along with the average consumption we must all as of now report the heaviness of our feet!

To avoid metrology issues, I will stick to the ISO standard metric system, and I hereby report my foot to be 35.5 kilo (measured yesterday). So, to make up for Loganovac' 60 kilos per foot, I have to apply force to my foot, and therefore burn calories from the food, but I guess it is cheaper then both petrol and LPG! I may be wrong though, I still don't know how much calories I burn this way, but Loganovac might help calculating this theoretically

This post has been edited by g100sic: 28 Aug 2008, 10:37

1. Trust me, before I made my first LPG conversion my foot was WAY lighter.
2. It's hard to explain. Just like explaining what exactly you are doing with your wife. I guess that sometimes I let the gravity do the job, but sometimes...

Trust you me, I could easily explain what I do with my wife, but I don't want to!!!

But with my foot, well... not so easily...

It is easy to calculate, because it is well known that if you are looking for cheaper driving energy, it is confirmed so many times that just one meat pie can make you cycling as much as 100km. Now, one meat pie costs about 60 cents...

28 Aug 2008, 09:47:
>>I could easily explain what I do with my wife<<

... in the meaning of mechanics, I don't believe you, at least not without any help from the experts (for instance Dr. Heinz).

This post has been edited by Loganovac: 28 Aug 2008, 10:47

Ups, we've been misbehaving...

Let's get back on track...

Fresh data, right from the gas station, OBC reset:
Warm engine, light traffic, few traffic light stops, even so average speed (only just) 28.9 km/h, 4.7 km stretch, avg. consumption on that stretch 7.9 l/100km, which I consider very good for a city drive! But... Just from maneuvering on the parking at home it went up to 8.3 l/100km!!!

g100sic, you should have known better: measuring on such a short distance
is almost nonsense, gives no meaningful values. the LOGANs boardcomputer
and the flow-measuring system is NOT very sophisticated, to say it politely.

any answer to this is considered off-topic.

greetings - heinz -

PS: stu, you are off-topic. whatever you said.

We are not posting off topic we have written about fuel consumption in just about every possible way and we are enjoying this as well .Do not think we are just chatting because there is a wealth of information on this thread if you just read between the lines
Eh Guys
Stu

I'm well aware that results from the OBC are very fluctuating early after reseting, but they are far from meaningless. In fact, until the averaging settles, it's behavior resembles that of an instantaneous fuel consumption indication that existed in early Logans, but which they lately silently dropped, not because it was not sophisticated (enough) but because people misinterpreted it's readings and then complained about it (apparently high fuel consumption).

What I wanted to point out:
1. conditions were almost ideal for a city drive (and so are the results, which is GOOD for Logan, near to what the factory states for the average consumption in the city), and yet the average speed achieved was less then 30 km/h, and,
2. how much the maneuvering in tight places affects (worsens) the fuel consumption, that most of us are very little (or not at all) aware of. This can only be seen before the averaging settles.

Oh, and I forgot to mention in the first post that the A/C was ON!

This post has been edited by g100sic: 4 Sep 2008, 21:04

AMAZINGLY LOW FUEL CONSUMPTION!!!

Last 2 weeks - only 30l LPG! Let's see who can beet this!

P.S. NOT AN OFF-TOPIC!

i can beat this easily: last ten days only about 2 liters (gasoline
though). actually, that car will the beat its own record: the next
4 days it will use 0 liters.

greetings - heinz -

C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S ! ! !

Unbelievable result! Renault engineers should be notified.

Greetings.

P.S. NOT AN OFF-TOPIC!

agreed, both of us should get a price for the lowest possible
fuel consumption LPG / BENZIN.

greetings - heinz -

seriously: we had another car doing 2730km between august 15th
and 24th, no A/C but lights on, smooth motorways but little real
high speed highways, no cities, overall fairly mountainous for 1/4rd
of it, and averaging 5.68L/100km - congrats to the driver, this
time a lady! for those who want to know: istanbul-sofia-skopje-sofia-
bukarest-sofia-istanbul, incl some local sidetrips. 1.4LMPI gasoline,
2 people (600km with 4), luggage.

This post has been edited by heinz57g: 12 Sep 2008, 15:29

I have the 1.5 85 dci in my logan, and looking at the other posts, I do truly believe it is worth the extra cost.
First of all the performance is utterly amazing in the lightweight logan, numerically the 1.6 goes to 100 km/h faster but in real life situations the large amount of torque the diesel produces makes it fly like the wind, the car feels a lot faster and "sporty" on the gas than a megane II 1.6 16v 115 I drove a while back which felt like it was broken compared to the combo logan-dci.

Fuel consumption is very good indeed, in combined city-motorway traffic I get 5,5 in the worst possible scenario (winter, traffic, city) while stil zooming along at a good pace due to the high torque.
On the highway the consumption depends on your needs:
Driving behind a truck or lorry at a safe distance I get 3,6
Driving 100 on the counter (90 on gps) I get 3,9.
Driving 110 on the counter (100 on gps) I get 4,3.
Driving 120 on the counter (110 on gps) I get 4,8.
Driving 130 on the counter (120 on gps) it should be around 5, I'm not completely sure about the last one cuz lets face it the logan is not a very nice car to drive very long distances at such high speeds (bouncy and noisy)
The engine would be very well suited for a sixth gear and I miss it, the engine is more than strong enough to cope with it and would give an even better consumption on the highway (I drive 110-120 and the revs are 2500-2750, for those who are interested, 130 is 3000 revs)

interesting to know is that I am busy with economical driving, I keep the revs as stable as possible between 2000-2200 revs (going lower is actually bad for consumption and reliability, lots of people make this mistake, its keeping the revs stable at a good middle of the line torque production rpm that gives you good mileage.) I turn off the engine when Im waiting too long, I brake a lot on the engine (thats the big one, modern engines like the dci, not the mpi's, shut down all injection when you release the throttle while still in gear, thus consuming literally nothing while rolling to a halt.) and thanks to the diesel torque I dont have to go above 2500 revs to go fast.

Another interesting thing to know is that I have also driven the 70 bhp version of the dci, there is a huge difference. The 70 bhp version for one uses a higher ratio gearbox to compensate for the lack of power, thus forcing you to cruise at higher revs. Another problem is that it really feels like a tuned down, suffocated engine compared to its big brother. This combined with having to press down the throttle deeper due to less power makes this engine less pleasant to drive, with more noise and a higher fuel consumption.

PLEASE DO NOT POST OFFTOPIC MESSAGESS!!!