"Matt B." <noway (AT) hellno (DOT) com> wrote

Doesn't matter what the size of the tank is. No one drives a vehicle dry.
Not knowing the amount of gas used, one can't guess the mileage. That's the
point.
--
Jonny

"a tank of fuel" is just an exprecion used in england, it mean average. will
get back to you all over the weekend and let you know the out come when i
have seen a mechanic.

Jonny wrote:
--
Message posted via http://www.carkb.com

I know what you meant, and I'm sure all these other turkeys knew what
you meant, too. I get about 360 miles "on a tank" when all's well with
my Jetta, and when it drops off that, it's either because of cold
weather or something needing attention in the engine -- for example, it
was the first indication I got that my mass-airflow sensor needed
replacement. Yes, "miles per tankful" is a rough but useful measurement.

cheers for your support!!! any idea what the bhp is on mk2 1.8 auto?

Brian Running wrote:
--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...ooled/200609/1

No, can't help you with that.

"Jonny" <spamyourself (AT) blackworm (DOT) net> wrote

That's all semantics and true in general, yes. But you can drive it to
within a gallon of being dry and one gallon fudge-factor out of 14.5 gallons
will affect the outcome less than 10 percent. For the distance the O.P. was
claiming on a tank of fuel, adding in that 10% difference still wouldn't
even come close to making his consumption look "OK" for that car. Therefore
you don't need to burn the whole tank in its entirety to know something is
wrong with his car.

"drunknmunky via CarKB.com" <u26877@uwe> wrote

I'm only familiar with US/Canadian versions and UK versions are probably
similar enough but they do differ on injection versions, catalytic
converters (if they have one), etc.

A US version of that car would have put out 100hp with Digifant Fuel
Injection. Euro versions were usually slightly higher if there was no cat.
But if it's a CIS-injected car it actually might be a little lower (when the
US went from CIS to Digifant on the 1.8 8V, the HP went from 85 to 100). So
I'm going to guess that your engine if CIS was probably about 90hp if no
cat, or about 85 with a cat. Your engine with Digifant would probably be
about 108hp w/o a cat or 100 with a cat.

And I suppose that like the fuel tank scenario, there's plenty of folks out
there that will probably completely invalidate my guesstimation of your
engine's HP...whatever.

"Matt B." <noway (AT) hellno (DOT) com> wrote

And being a U.S. citizen, am aware of how people and corporations fudge the
truth to death. This I can easily see particularly true of the "tankful"
connotation. This can easily form a very big "ballpark" where assumptions
and their consequential conclusions may be widely different as a result. It
makes for lots of conversation about mushy figures and conclusions. In the
end, means absolutely nothing with a very foggy basis as its foundation.
There's plenty of other newsgroups for guessing games on mushy info. Please
don't introduce that here. Thanks.
--
Jonny

Boy, real life is sure a bitch, ain't it, Jonny?

"Jonny" <spamyourself (AT) blackworm (DOT) net> wrote

And the original poster has a hidden agenda behind his question right up
there on par with big corporations that spread lies, so therefore his
question was just as suspicious.

seriously...if he was only going to 1/4 tank instead of near empty, dontcha
think he would have said "I get 260 miles to 3/4 of a tank"? C'mon
dude...really.