Any extremely intelligent, good looking people out there?

[Pete.S]

Just wondering if anyone can offer a valid explanation: went for a spirited drive on Thursday night, intense driving for a good half an hour to blow the cobwebs out the system

Then, Friday night, long cruise (500 miles or so) mostly at 75mph-ish. Previously fuel consumption at said speed would have been around 23mpg, but returned almost 26 mpg! This was, if you remember, on a very cold night. Now I know that when it's cold, turbo powered cars fair better performance-wise, but would it have been the temperature that suddenly increased my car's economy, or the fact that I'd recently given the car a good booting?

[Pete.S]

Thought I'd edit the title of this post: more chance of a reply now possibly from you vain lot!!?

[Scotty]

I think the only explanation is that you on drugs!!

There is no way that you can get 26mpg from spirited driving!!

[Scotty]

Actually I drove to Luxembourg in September and had cruise control set at 85mph. For that day I average 26.5mpg. It seems it's the accelaration that kills the fuel comsumption. If you just drive at a fixed speed you can get reasonable mpg.

[Mike_K]

Pete - you've already seen this post but for others I put my mpg's at:

http://www.rs246.com/index.php?name=PNp ... 3295#63295

I agree that "use of the boot" is probably at least as significant as "the speed", and a lot more difficult to control Even "fixed speed" doesnt give the complete picture since the cruise control does its own "booting" for every up-hill and down-dale.....

[Scotty]

Do you have up hill and down hill in Holland?

[Pete.S]

I think you've missed my point fellas (though Scotty, yeah, I wish I was on drugs sometimes, especially when I come up behind those ruddy middle-lane hoggers )

What I was basically asking was, have you found your fuel consumption improve with increased use of the car? I was getting 23mpg max at steady 70mph-ish BEFORE my "spirited" drive (and when I say spirited, I mean spirited), now a cruise at 70 returns 26mpg!

What's interesting is that Scotty, you're getting good figures even on a stage III set up, but if I remember rightly, didn't you get your motor with a few thousand miles on it anyway? That would kinda suggest what I'm now asking, ie, more use = better economy? If that is the case, what's the technical reason for this?