You must be joking. Trolling for mullet?
Respectfully, a litre per 100 kilometres is not much. Tire inflation and a number of other things could cause such a doubtfully measurable 'loss' in economy.
"CELERON" wrote
I don't have the old specifications, but 9.1L urban, 5.6L outside and
6.9L in the EU-mix seem quite good for its size (Authentique, 1.6, 5-door). The old version was 1L better, really? Perhaps much lighter. But I doubt.Thomas
Depends on what it started with. In Europe, they have a class of cars known as 3L.
It's not engine displacement!
It's only 62 miles. If a car gets 40 mpg, it would use 5.8l/100km.
I think you'd notice the "loss" of 17%.
With your 40 MPG car (American gallons) you would burn about 5.87 litres to go the 62 miles. If it takes 6.87, then indeed, you have a large difference percentage wise. Agreed.
Seeing it from an American perspective, my van gets about 18 miles per gallon. In 62 miles, I will have burned about 13 litres. One litre difference would be about 6%, about which I would not lose much sleep. Tire inflation, crappy gas, temperature, humidity, and a lot of other factors could combine to lose me this much, I believe.
What does 3L mean in whichever Europe you are speaking about. I am a resident of Norway (we are a part of geographical Europe, but not of political Europe), and I am not familiar with your use of this term.
wrote
But this car and the Lupo 3L didn't found many customers. Quite small, skimpy equipped and (for this value) very expensive. Their production will fade out.
But in the range 4...5 Litres / 100km you already find small vans, station wagons etc. with a/c, removable seats and so on. These cars sell very good in central europe.
Thomas
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.