[quote=Ferrer;1010582]And I've got 175bhp under my right foot ;)[/quote]
You know, with the exception of that extra clutch you have and the sparkplugs you don't, that seems like a decent car.
Printable View
[quote=Ferrer;1010582]And I've got 175bhp under my right foot ;)[/quote]
You know, with the exception of that extra clutch you have and the sparkplugs you don't, that seems like a decent car.
[quote=Ferrer;1010582]And I've got 175bhp under my right foot ;)[/quote]
See above post :p
[quote=f6fhellcat13;1010585]You know, with the exception of that extra clutch you have and the sparkplugs you don't, that seems like a decent car.[/quote]
I'm quite happy with it. But more in the other thread.
Zeroing in on that 5l/100km mark. Last two tanks were just on either side of that number.
in the mean time I have done well over 10k with the new C5 and the computer says 16.6 km/l. I don't know whether this is correct, but fact is that I could do Rotterdam-Paris and back, including several kms in heavy Paris traffic on one tank.
That's not bad at all. It's about the same I get in the Alfa in mixed driving without caring much about the fuel consumption.
[quote=Ferrer;1011751]That's not bad at all. It's about the same I get in the Alfa in mixed driving without caring much about the fuel consumption.[/quote]
yes, we are are a bit slower than we used to be, as the car lacks 60 BHP (and one turbo) and weighs 200 kg more. Furthermore the previous one invited to use all the power much more than this one, not because of the ride, but because of the engine itself.
So is km/l the preferred method to list fuel consumption now?
I prefer l/100km, but I did some simple maths with Pieter's figure and turned out to be 6l/100km.
[quote=Ferrer;1011754]I prefer l/100km, but I did some simple maths with Pieter's figure and turned out to be 6l/100km.[/quote]
I grew up with the old system, 1 liter per x KM.