Why does a vehicle consume over 500 euro of petrol at 2000km?

Some time ago I finally bought my first car. It should be a bit sensible since I was already 22 years old at the time and had already put a lot on the high edge.

It has become a compact car with 136hp. In the summer it went by car to a wedding in Poland. So far, the only way to get there, as the contact with the time was getting sparse.

The distance was 950km plus a few short rides. At the end it was about 2000km. The total fuel cost for the trip amounted to more than 500 euro. That was a shock for me then. Although I drove permanently at the stop, especially since the highway on Sunday evening has been completely empty on the A44 and A38, but with only 136 hp something can't be true.

That a car is not cheap in maintenance, must be clear, but there's something wrong.

500 Euro assuming 1.40 petrol price on 2000km are over 17 liters per 100km. Either you should work on your driving style, or there's something broken, or both. The calculation basis "Euro per x KM" is wrong, however, because it makes a difference whether you drive in the Middle East, where the gasoline costs 20 cents per liter, petrol at German normal gas stations, which are rather cheap, only at motorway rest stops, where you can easily pay 10 to 20 cents extra or in a country where it costs 2 euro per liter. Nevertheless, even with currently for gasoline prices for Germany and Poland as high as 1.60, the fuel consumption of 15l / 100km are still absurdly high and even if you drove off with an empty tank (go, directly to the gas station) and come back with full (last Gas station before home again make full), it does not much better. What says the fuel gauge in the on-board computer, which has pretty much every car today.

A moderately modern compact with 136hp petrol engine is probably estimated to be about 6-7 liters. This is far from reality with older vehicles that have been measured on the test bench. Expect 8-9 as normal. You're still plus-minus twice as high.

Even with the new measurements under road conditions, the data from the data sheet should not be realistic, since it is probably driven as dune on Valium, but at least on the road with real rolling and wind resistance.

Why is that so high?

Consumption increases exponentially with speed. Did you drive a lot of top speed?
Speed kept pretty low by high gears?
A lot of braking and acceleration increases fuel consumption: drive ahead, keep the safety distance to the vehicle in front, in order to be able to modulate the speed with the gas foot incl. Engine brake instead of brake in case of doubt
Incorrect acceleration: idling + and crawling slowly is just as not conducive to consumption, as full throttle orgies and uneven gears. Nice to start with half to 2/3 of the gas pedal, since the engine is the most effective, and upshift early
And / or to the above: Something is broken. A faulty mass air flow sensor, drawn false air, incorrectly calculated injection quantity… There are many reasons why an engine has a "hole in the tank" even when looking ahead. However, a lot of consumption indicates a too rich mixture formation, which is not good for the engine in the long run, can be checked in the workshop.

It is not a problem, with completely wrong driving for road traffic to bring a 136hp compact to 15l - I suppose when cracking the best lap time on the Nordschleife is over 20. But you have to drive very unconventional. Therefore, I think rather that in addition to not yet fully grounded driving also a defect pure play.

He writes after all "driven permanently stop" that explains everything

Bleefuss is expensive, you can easily determine this with a trip meter during the first refueling. Look at the refueled liter, the Km-stand refueling and calculate the short.

Take a more leisurely ride, compare and then think about whether you would like to have fun driving briskly or currently would rather save money. Wieveil liter you need at full throttle you already know, or you can calculate well on the basis of the tank receipts.

With the motorcycle e.g. So I have depending on the driving style consumption between 6-10 liters.

If you drive the thing at full speed on the highway, it will easily consume its 15-17 liters

myself already experienced with a Toyota Corolla 1.4er 100PS

Build all the windows, so you reduce the Luftwiderstand and may end up at 11 instead of 16-17 liters, but this can be quite uncomfortable then at 200 on the highway, especially in this season. Oh yes, the windshield wipers you can then break down, which still worry about Luftverwirbelungen.

So, sarcasm aside. If you are constantly moving your car to the limit with lead-free, you do not have to be surprised at the operating costs.

A bit of physics lessons?

In order to be constantly moved at 108 km / h, a vehicle has to overcome an air resistance of 380 Newton and needs a constant 16 hp.

A doubling of the speed would claim eight times the power, so 128 hp.

That a motor needs more feed for this power, it should be clear.

One should include the following. It was my first long trip so I missed the experience. The criticism regarding the driving style is also not understandable, since the trip as already mentioned on Saturday evening took place. The highways were completely empty. Who knows the A44 and A38 can confirm it.

No idea what his problem is, if the track is free I drive with 200 things

Criticism of the driving style refers at best to "who drives fast, consumes more". As I wrote, consumption is increasing exponentially with speed.

However: On free highways (no limit, everything is empty) I also drive since ever Pedal to the Metal and can reasonably justify such a consumption (see hardles "explains everything") so not confirm. The fact that you can easily drive a car that consumes 6 liters on the paper, perhaps 7-8 liters in forward driving mode, with continuous full throttle easily to 10-12 liters, is just fact, based solely on physics. However, based on current gasoline prices, I come to 15 liters. This is more of a Nordschleife consumption with a 130PS lawnmower, where you brake sharply every corner and accelerate full throttle out again, but not "fast lead-slip gliding" with 200 things.

With my previous cars (Audi 80 1.6l carburetor, Ford Mondeo 1.8 Zetec and Lexus IS220d - okay diesel is always economical) was the consumption actually rather in the high single digits, if the speedometer was at the ready, but not at 15 liters and more. With the Mondeo (as gasoline and not the most economical of its kind) I'm Cologne-Munich, 200 where free (and there's quite a lot free, sometimes half the distance, if you take the right track and the right time, so one high full throttle / top speed ratio), 120 where limited and 80 driven in construction sites with 6.5 liters, with the Lexus under 6 liters, so your question is absolutely justified.

As a result, check your on-board computer, almost every car today has instantaneous consumption, tank average and average since last reset.

The question is, what do you want to hear? In the information situation, there are only theses and little facts. A fact is anyway, Tachonadel at the ready swallows neat, but it seems too much. One thesis is frequent braking and accelerating, which of course is deadly for consumption. Yes or no? If you have no, the authorization of your question will increase enormously, if yes we would come a little closer to the explanation. If the car swallows a lot in everyday life even if you drive restrained, what can be broken. There would be times a car mechanic announced, while reading the OBD live data while driving with the tester.