Topic: Feature: AJAC Eco-Run, Part II: The Vehicles

[Autos_Editor]

The AJAC Eco-Run featured the latest high-tech and high-efficiency models from a variety of manufacturers.

Read More...

[JohnM]

A very interesting report!

I'm surprised the CT 200h will not do more than 40km/hr in pure electric.   The Prius C I had out managed 85km and that was in the only chance I had in the first 2 km of the test drive.   I'm sure it would do over 100 on really big downhills.

Driving through Toronto on Dundas street has to be the acid test for fuel economy as well as nerves.  I guess automotive journalism is not all glory.

Cheers,
John M.

[Ex-airbalancer]

A very interesting report!

I'm surprised the CT 200h will not do more than 40km/hr in pure electric.   The Prius C I had out managed 85km and that was in the only chance I had in the first 2 km of the test drive.   I'm sure it would do over 100 on really big downhills.

Driving through Toronto on Dundas street has to be the acid test for fuel economy as well as nerves.  I guess automotive journalism is not all glory.

Cheers,
John M.

mike probably has not enough seat time to true know all the secrets of driving a hybrid

[Mike]

The CT200h (like the Prius V) flash 'speed exceeded' when surpassing 40 km/h and disable EV only mode.  Doesn't your regular Prius do that too?

[Ex-airbalancer]

The CT200h (like the Prius V) flash 'speed exceeded' when surpassing 40 km/h and disable EV only mode.  Doesn't your regular Prius do that too?

Yes, but I never put in ev mode , what you have to is get up speed as fast as possible , then feather the gas pedal
It cal pulse and glide http://www.google.ca/search?q=prius+pulse+and+glide+technique&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Tons of info , you should go to clean mpg.com, they are kings of hyper high mpg
could be a road trip story for you
http://www.cleanmpg.com/

[Mike]

The CT200h (like the Prius V) flash 'speed exceeded' when surpassing 40 km/h and disable EV only mode.  Doesn't your regular Prius do that too?

Yes, but I never put in ev mode , what you have to is get up speed as fast as possible , then feather the gas pedal
It cal pulse and glide http://www.google.ca/search?q=prius+pulse+and+glide+technique&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Tons of info , you should go to clean mpg.com, they are kings of hyper high mpg
could be a road trip story for you
http://www.cleanmpg.com/

Thanks!  I'll read up on it.

[D70]

A good read and interesting opinions. I have also driven the Cruze Eco and was impressed, certainly good value for the buck

[Just_A_Fan]

Maybe not exactly the correct place for this, but what the heck - we're talking about fuel economy . . .

Whoever came up with this goofy L/100km way to rate fuel economy? Doesn't km/L make more sense, for a number of reasons?

1) It's easier to calculate: number of km's driven divided by number of litres of fuel used. I drove 497 km's and put in 55 litres of gas. 497 / 55 = 9 km/L. Simple, no?

2) It's easier to visualize: let's see, what's about 9 km's away . . . Oh, I know, the mall ! Okay, we all know what a litre of liquid looks like (think litre of oil), so if I put that much fuel in, I can go as far as the mall. Now try that with current method. 9 km/L = 11.1 L/100km. So let's see, how far is 100 km? Toronto to Barrie? Okay, so with my 11 oil bottles worth of fuel, I'm all set !

3) It's a LINEAR system: a difference of 1 number is 1 km.  The difference between 4 and 5 km/L is 1 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 km/L is 1 km/L. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100 km is 5 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 L/100km is 0.4 km/L !!! For us old guys who still think in miles/gallon, the differences are even more pronounced; a difference of 1 km/L is always 2.82 mpg, so whether we're talking the difference between 4 and 5 km/L or 15 and 16 km/L, the difference is always 2.82 mpg. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100km is 14 mpg (70.5 vs. 56.4), while the difference between 15 and 16 is just over 1 mpg (18.8 vs. 17.6) !!!

Okay, down off my soapbox now   

[Mike]

The manufacturers just supplied the cars but some, like those with pure EVs, had handlers there the whole time

[Mike]

A bit of all three, and to ensure they were charged properly at the stops

[Ace]

As usual Diesels were overlooked

[tpl]

What kind of power access does a home owner need to charge EV cars? Do you just plug them into an outlet in the garage over night or is some house-mods required? Or, does it vary?

I think that you can plug all of them into a 110v socket...probably should be one with no other load.  12-20 hours to charge ( depending on which car it is)
The next stage is a dedicated 40 amp 240 V line  into which the 240V charger connects.  I suspect that IF you could just buy the charging unit that installation would be easy but I have read that the EV manufacturers insist that you pay an electrician to have it installed.  Dunno why...240V will kill you faster than 110 especially if you do the install with the power on while standing on a damp garage floor.  So what.   (8-12 hours)

The final stage would indeed require a house mod and I would not be surprised if you would have trouble getting it installed. That would be the sort of fast charger that is planned to go into gas stations. High voltage and current and in a residence you might not be able to arrange a suitable service...I don't know.
( 1/2  to 3 hours)

[Mike]

Diesels weren't overlooked, the Passat TDI was there

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Diesels weren't overlooked, the Passat TDI was there

No, no, you know the DIESELS! All of the RWD diesel station wagons with manual transmissions that are setting the continent on fire! 

[ArticSteve]

Maybe not exactly the correct place for this, but what the heck - we're talking about fuel economy . . .

Whoever came up with this goofy L/100km way to rate fuel economy? Doesn't km/L make more sense, for a number of reasons?
1) It's easier to calculate: number of km's driven divided by number of litres of fuel used. I drove 497 km's and put in 55 litres of gas. 497 / 55 = 9 km/L. Simple, no?

2) It's easier to visualize: let's see, what's about 9 km's away . . . Oh, I know, the mall ! Okay, we all know what a litre of liquid looks like (think litre of oil), so if I put that much fuel in, I can go as far as the mall. Now try that with current method. 9 km/L = 11.1 L/100km. So let's see, how far is 100 km? Toronto to Barrie? Okay, so with my 11 oil bottles worth of fuel, I'm all set !

3) It's a LINEAR system: a difference of 1 number is 1 km.  The difference between 4 and 5 km/L is 1 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 km/L is 1 km/L. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100 km is 5 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 L/100km is 0.4 km/L !!! For us old guys who still think in miles/gallon, the differences are even more pronounced; a difference of 1 km/L is always 2.82 mpg, so whether we're talking the difference between 4 and 5 km/L or 15 and 16 km/L, the difference is always 2.82 mpg. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100km is 14 mpg (70.5 vs. 56.4), while the difference between 15 and 16 is just over 1 mpg (18.8 vs. 17.6) !!!

Okay, down off my soapbox now   

 

[Ex-airbalancer]

Maybe not exactly the correct place for this, but what the heck - we're talking about fuel economy . . .

Whoever came up with this goofy L/100km way to rate fuel economy? Doesn't km/L make more sense, for a number of reasons?
1) It's easier to calculate: number of km's driven divided by number of litres of fuel used. I drove 497 km's and put in 55 litres of gas. 497 / 55 = 9 km/L. Simple, no?

2) It's easier to visualize: let's see, what's about 9 km's away . . . Oh, I know, the mall ! Okay, we all know what a litre of liquid looks like (think litre of oil), so if I put that much fuel in, I can go as far as the mall. Now try that with current method. 9 km/L = 11.1 L/100km. So let's see, how far is 100 km? Toronto to Barrie? Okay, so with my 11 oil bottles worth of fuel, I'm all set !

3) It's a LINEAR system: a difference of 1 number is 1 km.  The difference between 4 and 5 km/L is 1 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 km/L is 1 km/L. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100 km is 5 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 L/100km is 0.4 km/L !!! For us old guys who still think in miles/gallon, the differences are even more pronounced; a difference of 1 km/L is always 2.82 mpg, so whether we're talking the difference between 4 and 5 km/L or 15 and 16 km/L, the difference is always 2.82 mpg. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100km is 14 mpg (70.5 vs. 56.4), while the difference between 15 and 16 is just over 1 mpg (18.8 vs. 17.6) !!!

Okay, down off my soapbox now   

 

 , don Valley to my house is just about dead on 100 km 

I cannot remember the last I bought something in a imp gallon.
 It as been almost 40 years since we stop buying gas in gallons so get over it

[Ace]

Maybe not exactly the correct place for this, but what the heck - we're talking about fuel economy . . .

Whoever came up with this goofy L/100km way to rate fuel economy? Doesn't km/L make more sense, for a number of reasons?

1) It's easier to calculate: number of km's driven divided by number of litres of fuel used. I drove 497 km's and put in 55 litres of gas. 497 / 55 = 9 km/L. Simple, no?

2) It's easier to visualize: let's see, what's about 9 km's away . . . Oh, I know, the mall ! Okay, we all know what a litre of liquid looks like (think litre of oil), so if I put that much fuel in, I can go as far as the mall. Now try that with current method. 9 km/L = 11.1 L/100km. So let's see, how far is 100 km? Toronto to Barrie? Okay, so with my 11 oil bottles worth of fuel, I'm all set !

3) It's a LINEAR system: a difference of 1 number is 1 km.  The difference between 4 and 5 km/L is 1 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 km/L is 1 km/L. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100 km is 5 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 L/100km is 0.4 km/L !!! For us old guys who still think in miles/gallon, the differences are even more pronounced; a difference of 1 km/L is always 2.82 mpg, so whether we're talking the difference between 4 and 5 km/L or 15 and 16 km/L, the difference is always 2.82 mpg. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100km is 14 mpg (70.5 vs. 56.4), while the difference between 15 and 16 is just over 1 mpg (18.8 vs. 17.6) !!!

Okay, down off my soapbox now   

Very good question.
Does anyone know why we measure metric fuel consumption this way?
It makes sense to use the same equation as MPG and call it KPL, rather than LP100K.

I filled up my Golf TDI yesterday and took on 54.3 liters to drive 964 km's,  that works out to 5.6L/100KM or using the new system- 964 divided by 54.3 = 17.75 KPL. Not bad eh !

[tpl]

We use  litres/100km as that is the SI unit for fuel consumption.

[Ace]

We use  litres/100km as that is the SI unit for fuel consumption.

Wonder why the U.S. don't use gallons/100 miles ?

[Ex-airbalancer]

We use  litres/100km as that is the SI unit for fuel consumption.

Wonder why the U.S. don't use gallons/100 miles ?

Who care 

I did the Brighton to Cobourg run in the truck today, keep it to the speed limited, it is 40 km
3000kg truck with a ladder on the roof, 5.5 l, 4*4
Rating was 11.8 l/ 100km