Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, just back from my trip to Italy. Driving down a pitch black country road on Wednesday night saw a flash of grey hair in the lights just as the car smacked something large and bloody heavy dead on. Wasn't an OAP, it was a wild boar and it totally wrecked the front end of my car. Whole family in the back, thank God we were all safe. Went back to look for the boar but it had disappeared - those things must be made of cast iron if it destroyed my alfa and made it off alive. Guy in the repair shop said he'd seen one look like it was dead, had three pistol shots to make sure and still jumped up to attack him. Good thing I didnt get out of the car.
2000eur to get the emergency job done in the 1 1/2 days before I needed to get back through France. Insurance already making a fuss about the payment.:(

Other thing I tried on way back was to keep it on cruise control at 130kph (I find it impossible to keep at that if my right foot is in charge;)) Is cruise control the best way to average out better in terms of mpg? Got 43mpg on a tank which is far better than I have achieved before. Going at the speed limit is more fuel efficient than going at 200kph for 10 hours - who knew?:D
(Boring as *!!#!, though)
 
G

·
Never go looking for a wild boar after an RTA. :tut:

They are mean b'stards at the best of times and
you do not want go face-to-face with an injured/p****d-off one.

;)

Bloody tasty though :thumbs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yeah, strange thing was that two "forest rangers" turned up within thirty seconds of me stopping. Seemed a bit sheepish about my messed up Bella and more interested in where the boar was. I almost suspected that they were driving them towards the road, as I saw two other boars run in front of my car straight after. Bit dodgy. I did report it to the carabinieri next day.

Anyone got any idea about the cruise control? It seemed to rarely dip below 40mpg on the computer but when I try to maintain a constant speed up and down hills etc, it always seems to fluxuate between the 20s to 90s. Is the cc actually doing a better job of fuel consumption or is it just the trip computer which I guess is not always particuarly acurate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
The cruise control should make a worse job of being economical than right foot.
It has no anticipation, it just tries to maintain the set speed.

I think the secret to high mpg figures is to drive slowly :cry:
Or get it remapped :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,159 Posts
Anyone got any idea about the cruise control? It seemed to rarely dip below 40mpg on the computer but when I try to maintain a constant speed up and down hills etc, it always seems to fluxuate between the 20s to 90s. Is the cc actually doing a better job of fuel consumption or is it just the trip computer which I guess is not always particuarly acurate?
you may be loking at only the current not the average MPG if it's fluctuating like that:confused: I generally keep both up and find I cannot match the CC over long distance simply cos I see gaps and get Alfaheaded whereas with Cc on I tend to be in the cruising mind set and let the computer do the work. (1.9 jtdm average 41-42mpg over tank commute 54 /day 48 of it M/way)
:thumbs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Anyone got any idea about the cruise control? It seemed to rarely dip below 40mpg on the computer but when I try to maintain a constant speed up and down hills etc, it always seems to fluxuate between the 20s to 90s. Is the cc actually doing a better job of fuel consumption or is it just the trip computer which I guess is not always particuarly acurate?
The fluctuation is accurate, when going downhill the cars weight will sometimes make it speed up slightly or even hold the speed without the need for more acceleration, so it lifts off the gas, when this happens the engine management stops supplying fuel to the engine so your on board computer is calculating you are doing 70mph and using no fuel 99.9 mpg =)
going up hill it needs to use more power to sustain the speed and uses more fuel reducing you down to 10-20 mpg.
You can get a similar effect if you drop the clutch going downhill and letting it roll but in this case the engine has to use some fuel to keep the engine ticking over.

Please note I am not an engineer and i do expect someone to correct lots of small errors in what i just said.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,428 Posts
A friend in France hit a boar @ 220 kph... removed everything below the lights... the boar got up and wandered off... we made him drive at the front of the funeral cortage with his " naked" BMW:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
CC is better over a long distance motorway cruise as it can keep you at a set speed better than we can with our right foots! Notice how people always slow down and speed up on motorways, that uses more fuel to get you back up to speed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Yeah was wondering that. The CC kept it at just over 2000rpm no matter what. Whilst I was able to get quite a few 99mpg on the downhills, I'm sure overall the CC did a better job. Plus it's bloody difficult to keep your speed in check. Even with the CC on my right foot was ITCHING to hit the pedal. Don't reckon I would ever do it again, too bloody boring, but was quite interested to see my mpg (which I had to watch given all the trouble with fuel in France last week.)
Having said all that, I did 200kph most of the way on the outward journey and still only needed one refill, so the gains are all relative I guess.

That bloody boar though...
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top