Speed ​​limit 120 on the highway? A self-experiment.

It's Saturday and I'm on my way to Bamberg. Around 160 kilometers and the opportunity to try it yourself. A speed limit of 120 km / h on German motorways is being discussed, and I'm already trying it out today. With a car that is anything but particularly suitable for it.

Speed ​​limit self-test in 9-3 aero. The least suitable car for this.
Speed ​​limit self-test in 9-3 aero. The least suitable car for this.

My Saab 9-3 Aero is almost 20 years old, has a 4-speed automatic and 17 "tires for this vehicle class. So you shouldn't expect miracles, the reference value of the last motorway trips is 9,8 liters as consumption. They were completed at an average of 150, 160 km / h - a speed at which Saab and driver feel comfortable.

A quick reset of the on-board computer, then off to the motorway. Tempo 120, I feel it for the first few meters, is really slow. Almost every other road user overtakes me, whether it's a small car, van or SUV. My foot on the accelerator doesn't like the slow speed either, I constantly catch myself with the speedometer swinging between 130 and 140. But it's no use, I have to go through it now! So the cruise control activated, set 120, and the 9-3 climbs the Kauppenaufstieg on the A3. This is boring, and before it gets boring for readers, a short story from my life.

The Kauppen ascent

A reader recently said that I should tell more about myself. After all, he reads me every day and is therefore in contact with me more often than with some family members. All right then! The Kauppen ascent the A3 is new, multi-lane. Its old version was extremely dangerous, and the most accident-prone section of the motorway in Northern Bavaria. I think it was 1971 when I almost breathed out my very young life there. My father and I were in a Ford Taunus 12 M (the one with the Saab engine) on the opposite lane on the descent from Rohrbrunn towards Aschaffenburg. On the road there was a wooden board that had been lost by a truck that had been driving earlier. It was impossible to evade, the traffic was already too dense back then. The Ford drove over the wood, which swirled against the underbody and cut the brake line.

I don't know how my old man managed it, but he kept his nerve. Somehow he made it to the nearest parking lot, let the Ford coast to a stop, and stopped safely. My mother only heard about it casually, and I cannot remember how she had reacted. After decades, the story still runs through my head as I ride the descent. The route has changed since then, but I can still recognize the place with the parking lot.

With the little story we passed the time to Würzburg. I still don't enjoy 120 km / h, but consumption has dropped to 8,3 liters. Not bad, but I have to go across town now, and that's when the automatic system hits. When I roll onto the A7, there are 8,5 liters on the display again. In the meantime I've got used to about 120. I glide along relaxed, enjoy the comfort of the 9-3, the speed of the gearbox, which has just been translated, is just under 3.000 revolutions.

The Kauppen ascent of the A3, there is something to tell here.
The Kauppen ascent of the A3, there is something to tell here.

What about climate change?

Of course, I'm not just doing the self-experiment because of the discussion about the speed limit. I am also concerned with conserving resources and the question of how a 20-year-old car fits in with the times. On the evening of that day, television will report from Spain. Greta Thunberg has organized her largest climate academy to date, the topic moves the masses. Perhaps. Or maybe not. The way it looks on the A70, no one is interested in CO2 emissions and ecological footprints.

I like to rant about the big, fat SUVs plowing the autobahn under full load. There are still those today, but with my 120 km / h shifting dune I am a traffic obstacle for everyone. The freeway is relatively free, and people drive according to a modified Donald Trump quote "I have a lot of horsepower, why shouldn't I use it?". Trump once said this in connection with nuclear weapons. And he didn't mean that as fun.

From the Dacia to the Bentayga, everything that works or almost everything overtakes me today. The crews of vehicles with Romanian or Bulgarian license plates alone are consistently slower than I am. At 110 they stoically pull their train eastwards in their diesel vehicles, which we are no longer allowed to drive. Economical and guaranteed to be sustainable. The consumption probably with fabulous values ​​below 4 liters. Not because of the environment, but for other reasons.

Speed ​​limit 120 relaxed

Consumption continues to fall towards Bamberg. 8,2 then 8,1. Shortly before Bamberg I see the 8th. I'm relaxed, low blood pressure and resting heart rate. You can live with a speed of 120, no question about it! I'm just 160 minutes slower on the roughly 10 kilometers - a number that can be neglected. Does the consumption still drop below the magic 8?

He does not do it. When I was at Muckelbauer drive to the yard, it is still on the display. I pull out the iphone, at that moment it jumps to 8,1. Bad luck! The bottom line is an under-consumption of 1,8 liters in the room. With a more sensitive gas foot and without Würzburg city traffic, it would have been 2 or 2,1 liters.

As I said, my Aero is not the ideal car for self-tests of this kind. If you exclude the automatic system, which I do not want to do without, it would be half a liter less consumption with the manual transmission. Tires in a smaller dimension would result in another 0,1 liters per inch. Around 7 liters of fuel would not be an illusion with a 20-year-old 9-3 at a speed limit. In the end, this would only be a small advantage for modern vehicles with 8 or 9-speed automatic transmissions.

The reward of sneaking. Only 8,1 liters of consumption. In fact, it was only 8,0.
The reward of sneaking. Only 8,1 liters of consumption. In fact, it was only 8,0.

How sustainable is that?

There are few arguments that would speak against old cars in everyday life. On the contrary. If a general speed limit is introduced, its greatest disadvantages are eliminated. Modern cars score with better chassis, brakes and lighting systems. Their strengths count especially at high speeds and are becoming increasingly less important at a comfortable 120 km / h.

The biggest asset is sustainability. Because the greatest consumption of resources took place two or three decades ago. If you now consume one or two liters per 2 kilometers more, then you can cope with it. For classification only: The Production of a new VW Golf emits an average of 5 tons of CO2. If we generously assume that the Golf consumes 2 liters less per 100 kilometers, then the old Saab can be moved 2 kilometers with this CO105.000 backpack without the modern Golf having an environmental benefit.

And while the VW Group gives the average lifespan of its products at 200.000 kilometers, the legends from Trollhättan play in a higher league. When the next Golf goes into production in Wolfsburg and its predecessor ends up at the recycling center, my old Saab still drives and is therefore a really sustainable vehicle.

35 thoughts on "Speed ​​limit 120 on the highway? A self-experiment."

  • Fully "boring" (@Hartmut),

    that is indeed a good argument. And it is honest. And you (at least I) can understand it immediately. I only feel speeds relatively.

    Even 100 km / h can be really fun. For example, on a dirt road with my old Volvo. Or 60 km / h on the thin tires of a racing bike. Conversely, in the younger Saab, even with 140, I still have to be careful not to fall asleep at the wheel of boredom on a less frequented motorway ...

    For the BAB I would prefer a regulation similar to that for federal and rural roads. There either the signs or a general speed limit apply. It could be freely defined for the BAB. It could also be 200 km / h.

    It is a pity that in Germany we hardly discuss the amount of a reasonable limit, nor do we sound out the greatest possible consensus and the best compromise. The discussion is pretty black and white and only knows lame versus infinite. It couldn't be more bipolar ...

  • My "thank you" was related to Anddeu's contribution, that was all.

    Discussions are such that different opinions are exchanged, so here too and I think the way in which this is done is absolutely ok.
    The addiction to harmony can take on grotesque forms.
    You have different opinions - so what?

    There are idiots among the supporters and among the opponents of the speed limit and just as examples of idiots on highways etc. are mentioned here, there are also unbearable snores and snails that are more than just nerves.

    But that's not the point, they won't change even with the speed limit.

    As the saying goes: SAAB drivers are individualists. When did they start calling for more regulations?

  • have no Saab, absolutely wants a 900-I, (turbo) but currently have four old / older boxes from 76-97.

    120 km / h is fully "boring" and so far I have only managed it once on German autobahns. Was with our SLK in bright sunshine and of course open.

    Otherwise, I prefer my personal travel speed of 160 km / h. Of course, this is due to the equipment. A Porsche v. 83, an Alfa 164 v. 96 and an Alfa Giulia v. 76 with a 2.1 and a tight 160 Cavalli.

    If it really comes to 120 km / h I have a real problem

    VG Hartmut

  • @ Vorstadtcasanova & Linus

    Quotes: "Please be careful that the discussion does not slide off." Or "Thank you!"

    That's cheap, isn't it? Is there even a single comment by a proponent of a speed limit that would have slipped out of the two articles on the topic? One who has been shown to make false claims?

    “Not slipping off” & “Thank you!” Does it mean that any comment about the limit, in the opinion of Messrs Casanova and Linus, is per se considered to have slipped away? Is that factual or rather presumptuous?

    Quote: "In fact, we already have a speed limit."

    Yes and? If nothing changes anyway, where would the problem be if it were laid down in law?

    Quote: "If everyone adhered to the general provisions of the StVO (...) then there would be no need for a discussion about a speed limit."

    An admission that not everyone does it and, conversely, you need one. It is also interesting that the frequent drivers and self-proclaimed BAB professionals, of all people, never or hardly ever want to see a speedster.

    Although I only cover a few thousand kilometers per year on the BAB, I am no stranger to motorbikes and sports cars with an additional 300 km / h. Or station wagons and SUVs on the two-lane (!) A20 with a fluctuating roof load (for example, bicycles including fluttering panniers and baskets on the flapping handlebars) at 200 km / h plus the left lane and threatening to block their load destroy or lose parts of the same. Fuck it, because you are late and the Sweden ferry MUST be reached on time ...

    Nobody can reasonably deny that on German autobahns, at least at times and in sections, sheer madness reigns. Anyone who, as a self-proclaimed BAB professional, claims to have never seen questionable wagons at a questionable speed is simply implausible. Or badly in need of a visual aid. Add to that the absurd claims that you would have saved 99% of the emissions without a limit and similar nonsense ...

    So if the discussion threatens to slip, why and who is it exactly?

    My impression is that those in favor of a limit are just as holding back here as they are probably on the BAB. Once more the phrase of the silent majority comes to mind ...

    And yet, whoever screams louder (and drives faster) may ultimately get it right. As I said, an admonishing reference to the culture of discussion and objectivity from this side, of all things, seems to me to be quite cheap. And there is no milder way to put it. So who is slipping? Which faction should restrain itself exactly why?

  • Thank you!

  • Please be careful not to let the discussion slip.
    I travel a lot professionally, earlier in the Saab, currently in the Volvo (don't go back in a row).
    In fact, we already have a speed limit. There are only a few motorway sections left where there is not already a signposted speed limit. But you can hardly drive quickly on the others either because the traffic density does not allow it. Anyone who is on the Berlin - Munich route on weekdays can hardly achieve an average speed of 130 km / h. I am in favor of traffic being regulated more via temporary speed limits. If the traffic density increases, the speed should be regulated down via the sign gantries. If there is little or no traffic, anyone can drive as fast as the road and visibility conditions allow.
    If everyone adhered to the general stipulations of the StVO - only drive as fast as visibility, road, weather and traffic conditions allowb and so fast that you can safely stop within sight - then there would be no need for a discussion Speed ​​limit.

  • @ Ken-Daniel S.

    I think we agree. The bottom line is that Saab drivers increasingly like to use vacuum cleaners. Be it a 900i, a 9000 or a young 9-3. They have always (and sometimes very happily) foregone the displacement and cylinder. Whether a luxury car can now have 1,6 or 2,0? ? ?

    Only Saab drivers think in such - almost cute - categories. For fans of other brands, this discussion is more of a 6- and an 8-cylinder and only begins with a cubic capacity that has already shown the maximum at Saab.

    In this respect, no NG driver even needs to consider a guilty conscience even if he preferred a 2,0 or 2,8 over the 1,6T. Still fascinating that this car was available at this time and in this size. Kind of typical Saab, right?

  • Thumbs up for alternative facts

    Currently, there is a commentary on opinion leadership that claims we have saved 1970% of emissions since the 99s, and proponents of a speed limit should shut up and Greta anyway.

    I happen to have a car from exactly 1970 with an impressive 160 hp at the time. A Porsche didn't have any more either. It is a Volvo 164E with a 4-speed manual switch plus (electrically) switchable overdrive (5th gear). The papers say 190. According to Wikipedia, it is 193 and 8,9 from 0 to 100. At least 180 according to the speedometer, out of pure lust for joy, I spent a few kilometers on a trip to the Baltic Sea on the dt. BAB granted ...

    Otherwise I usually drove it at 120 and at the destination it consumed 10,5 liters. If we had cut emissions by 1970% since the 99s, my chrome glasses (with which I have often driven the same distance) would have to make do with 0,105 liters ...

    The currently cheered 18-fold comment on the alleged saving of 99% of our emissions that has already been achieved is so irrelevant and so ridiculous that I will not go into this further.

    Rather than a single comment, the free flight of the thumbs horrifies me anyway. What is actually going on here? Has the author of alternative facts collected all of the devices in his extended family and has given thumbs up for himself and against others? Has he also voted several times? Has the lobby intervened? Or does the average Saab driver and blog reader really not know the difference between emissions (total), individual pollutants, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide?

    I cannot and do not want to believe the latter. The level of education here seems to me to be above average, the level of reflection higher.

    In this respect, the survey also seems manipulated and failed to me. Too bad. Really a shame. It would have been interesting to see how the majority of Saab drivers tick on this question.

    I also liked a lot of comments that didn't want to make friends with 130 or less. 150 someone had commanded and led. And stated that it would help and be enough to melt away the differences between the tracks. Personally, anything between 120 and 210 is fine now. But we need some limit ...

    ... we certainly don't need alternative facts and (all too obvious) manipulation of surveys.

  • @Andy 39

    With pure e-car supporters, I always ask myself which car did they have before the e-car and how did they live there? Do they then demonize their previous work?

  • @ Herbert Hürsch
    With some models you are more likely to search for the vehicle and only then will there be a question of which engine is inside. A neat 900i can also make you happy.
    With the 6 liter displacement vehicles, the question arises, why are we driving medium-sized vehicles with 0,8-1,5 liter displacement for our standards, while others continue to drive the V8 with 6 liter displacement. Some of them supposedly protect the environment, while others blow out more.
    The 1,6T was not particularly popular as the used car ads show. Is there an NG driver with 1,6T? In cars of this length, the small engines are still viewed with skepticism.

  • @ Anddeu,

    that (self-driving cars) is one of my concerns. I prefer to drive in a country with a speed limit of my own and sometimes 10 or 20 km / h too fast than not to drive anymore in the future or to send data online permanently to manufacturers, police and insurance companies during my journey.

    A speed limit (also largely adhered to) seems to me the least impending evil. And it takes many arguments against self-determined motorists with analog cars and conventional drives to take the wind out of their sails.

    CO₂ emissions drop. Traffic will be safer. And the space requirement for motorways is also decreasing because more vehicles move more smoothly on fewer lanes. Just think of braking distances and safety distances for 130 or 250. There are actually 4 × as many vehicles safely on one track.

    Especially if and because we want to drive independently in the future, we should make a small concession. Otherwise we will transfer the sovereignty over speed, distances, braking maneuvers and steering sooner rather than later to the legislature, the manufacturers and the insurance companies ...

  • One such topic is the upset mood, and when I look at the rhetoric of some electric car proponents in certain forums, then one has concerns. The militancy and intolerance towards other lifestyles and partly also towards people who cannot afford an e-car (not even in the future) is frightening. The division in society is palpable - also on this issue

  • The 9-3I Aero can be driven very economically in the right conditions. I find it fascinating what good engines Saab has developed over the years.

    I keep thinking about using mine again in everyday life. However, I don't really trust him anymore and staying somewhere is also a horror for me. Ideally, somewhere far away from people who are familiar with Swedish technology.
    Basically, I don't see much that speaks against old cars in everyday life (once outside the Saab box). However, I also wonder where the mood will "tip" at some point. The more driving bans expand (diesel or gasoline), the faster they will unfortunately disappear.

  • ... would this really end the discussion? It would probably only change into regular discussions about adjusting the pace up or down. Perhaps the discussion will end by itself with the introduction of self-driving cars.

  • @linus
    Couldn't have said it better.

  • The driver chauffeurs himself

    It's exciting what's going on here. The survey started with a plus of the supporters of a speed limit and is currently still 50:50 ...

    And that on a car and turboblog. You don't have to be a prophet or pollster to know exactly what the majority of voters want.

    And yet one of the arguments put forward many times by the opponents is that politicians should not dictate as much as possible.

    Quite, quite right, proponents of a limit could counter that. Wouldn't it be great if "those up there" just did what the majority wanted?

    Also noteworthy is the level of expertise with which some chauffeurs are rebuilt here (99% emissions already saved) and how their fingers crossed when one takes the risk to answer objectively to such an overheated comment.

    I am there for a limit if only because it would end this discussion. It took me far too long to get out of nuclear power.

  • You don't have to regulate everything through bans - here I also contradict the statement that we have never had so much freedom as we have today. We have never had so many restrictions since World War II as today and everyone chases after the prophets of doom without even thinking for themselves. We have to be told “how dare you” - by a 2-year-old who has certainly initiated something good, but inevitably has no life experience - but everyone parrots your statements.
    Just check the facts and put them in relation, then a lot looks very different.
    My favorite example is the street in Hamburg, which runs parallel to the Elbe ud where driving bans have already been issued - cruise ships, tankers etc. are driving 100m next to it. Are we so far that logical thinking is criminalized?
    There are far too many rules, laws and prohibitions - that is unworthy of a responsible citizen and colossally presumptuous.

    I drive a 900 Turbo 16S and often just drive up to 4.000 rpm because I no longer want this old car to have to drive at full throttle.
    But it's just fun to be able to speed over the highway at 200 km / h, experience the great suit of the turbo engine and just enjoy driving this car.

    This also has a value beyond money and exhaust-gas discussions. Humans themselves are not born to always act sensibly - they have to do too much anyway.
    I am blessed with a pronounced temperament, even that is now the devil for most of the people ...

    Because of my age, this will be over in a few years anyway, so I will certainly not submit to these bureaucrats who are allowed to scold "government".

  • The engine question (@ Ken-Daniel S)

    I have the impression that the injectors within the Saab friends are experiencing a certain renaissance. If at all available, the i-motors are also often used if they are in a delicious used car.
    This is not possible with some models. NG and chrome glasses, for example, were never on the market without charging, so the question does not even arise.

    Conversely, with a 2,0 or 2,3 liter turbo, you don't need to have a guilty conscience, because they can be moved around the consumption level of their uncharged and unexcited colleagues with the same displacement.

    I find it much more interesting that cars with a displacement of 6 liters are still being built after Saab offered 10 in a limousine over 1,6 meters long 5 years ago.

  • I see it the same way and fully agree with your opinion!

  • "We have never had as much freedom as today". Right. But not for long. The attentive observer sees their disappearance. And a speed limit is the least.

  • @ ken-daniel s
    I agree 100% with that !!
    Driving fast is fun, driving fast does not necessarily mean racing or being an environmental sow. I think the automatic link is nonsense.

  • The only question is why do we dream of Turbo X, Viggen and other fast cars? Because in Germany you can use it to drive fast, not only to accelerate quickly, but to be able to drive higher speeds with ease for longer periods. Of course you need much less with 120 than with 220. I've already written a few times that I also enjoy driving with as little consumption as possible. Only then the question arises why we drive 2,0T, TTID, V6. At 120 or only 100 and to accelerate this, a 1,8i with 122 HP is sufficient. It saves even more in everything.

  • Hello Saab driver ... u. everyone else too ... there is a speed limit in Sweden, in Switzerland, in Italy, in Spain, in Austria, etc ... so what's the point of the German fuss. I am in favor of driving on German roads 130. That is good for my Saab 9-3 Aero with currently 486780 km. Consumption when I drive in Sweden at 110 km / h ... 7,1 ltr.
    Environmentally friendly, gel bags and Saab spared

  • So I have also been “decelerating” vehemently for more than a year. For several years now, I have been moving two of these rather unloved “9-5 3.0t petrol monster limousines” with 4-speed automatic in everyday use. They are now both very close to the “real” legal age and will be completing their 21st birthday this year.

    As someone who is “left behind” in the provinces (every real big city is more than 100km away), as I have reasoned several times, I achieve a long-distance share of around 80%. Both on-board computers are pretty accurate, but I still calculate real consumption using km, filling up and the rule of three. The older one actually needs 9,2l and the younger 9,3l. I drive more than 130km / h on the AB as good as we never did. As a result, the son, elderly parents, mother-in-law and good friends sometimes have to wait a little longer before we arrive, but there is a loss of time of 15 to 20 minutes each way. Nevertheless, I occasionally have to force myself to just let the “lead feet” pass. Once you have that in your blood, the stressed and z. T. profile neurotic permanent left drivers just sorry.

    I used to like to drive 160-180 km / h. It was a lot of fun back then. Now I enjoy the peace and quiet and listen to music. I usually ignore the "company car lane" and am happy that I hardly have to reach any destination under deadline pressure.

    An occasional trip through Berlin or MD is, of course, all the more frustrating. Under 12-13 l / 100km there is nothing to be done, since then the sustainability is put into perspective a little, even though the old intake manifold injectors emit almost no soot particles. All "modern" gasoline direct injection engines now also have particle filters. Another part that can clog. So it is with progress. Everything gets better, but nothing gets really good.

  • @ Axel Valentiner = Branth,

    Saved 99% of emissions? ? ?

    That's really wonderful. In fact, this was also claimed by politics and business, when exhaust gas including carbon dioxide was not yet considered an emission per se and people still talked about pollutants ...

    About carbon monoxide. It may have felt like yesterday, but you don't need to come with Greta today. She is too young to know the debate about lead and catalysts, regulated and unregulated or even missing.

    From Greta's perspective, we have saved exactly 1970% in emissions since the 0s and it is not even wrong.

  • In the KIA-E-Soul the range at 120 km / h is only half as great as at 80 km / h, speeds over 120 km / h are rarely used. In the SAAB 9-5 Kombi TU-Autom. A cruising speed of 150 - 170 km / h is comfortable on an empty motorway. When traveling overall (also with Holland, Belgium, England), my 9-5 clearly consumes less than 8 liters, in short-distance city traffic, on the other hand, around 11 liters / 100 km.
    Environment: If you put 1970s cars with 100% emissions, then soon it was only 50% with unregulated catalytic converters, and 10 years later only 5% with regulated catalytic converters. With today's reprocessing and cleaning systems, it is still around 1% in comparison. (Hello Greta: In 50 years we have reduced the emissions of a car by around 99% - you call that we didn't do anything?) And now should we be able to save significant emissions on the rare opportunities on the few freeways with free travel? It’s all about guiding and prohibiting.

  • The maximum

    It would be interesting to see what you could consume on the route.
    The difference would then correspond to the savings potential that a speed limit would bring.

    My personal experience is that you can easily drive twice the amount of fuel through a car if you move it above 120 or 130 without a limit.

    Conversely, the savings potential compared to unlimited full throttle driving is 50% and more for many cars. In view of the current debates, that alone is enough for me to advocate a speed limit.

  • Incredible, but true: I also did a fabulous self-experiment of this kind last Saturday night and drove back from Munich to Bayreuth at midnight at 120. My "challenge" was to get my 9-3 / II from 10 to less than 7 liters: successful, up to Hienberg it was 6,5, then the Franconian Switzerland put another 0,4 liters / 100 km on it with its mountains ,
    The crazy thing was, however, that the police stopped me behind Munich to check me for alcohol, drugs and illegal things - such as weapons. The result was negative, but with my slow driving style I immediately fell into the grid for a traffic control. Where am I from? Admittedly, I was not at the security conference, but with my nephews, who pass as "terrorists": they are 2 and 4 years old and constantly threw sand at me on the playground. But if I had told you ... Maybe I should get a Mustang V8 after all, it's probably more inconspicuous than a Saab. But I think I'll continue to be on the road with my Saabs in a way that saves fuel and resources. On principle. And for joy. In our nature and our Saabs. Franconian greetings Gunther

  • Hi there,

    again a nice article by and with you and understandable for me in several points.
    It was for me about 20 years ago when I often commuted between Chemnitz and Munich. Back then it was a TDI Golf with 110 PS ... sorry, dad's 9000 AERO was only allowed to accompany me now and then 🙂 and I was mostly on the road with the Golf at 160 - 180 ... driving down and filling up was the order of the day to come home . Then my self-experiment, 120-130, about 20 minutes longer on the way but drove back with the same tank of fuel and arrived much more relaxed.
    I had another positive impression during my vacation in the USA when I was able to drive several 1000 km without stress and rushed car.
    I think 120 on our highways is a bit exaggerated, but I would be 130-140 immediately.
    That alone is missing from all the representatives who think only because they already have 4 zeros on the grille, the 5 zeros have to tell me at a distance of 1,5m that they are in a hurry and only because they think they are important.
    The time saved is put into perspective again when refueling, when working more because more money is spent on fuel and when you come back from a stressful journey.
    So that it doesn't get boring, you should concentrate on the short but intense accelerations, which are fun too
    Ciao Alex

  • Hello Tom, nice that you dared to try it yourself. For a year now, I've been driving my 93 SC TiD from 2008 on the German autobahn, usually only at 120. As a result, I drive well under 6 liters per 100 km despite the automatic, and I arrive at my destination more relaxed. It doesn't hurt to arrive a few minutes later. All in all, that's just 10 minutes from Dresden to Potsdam, for example. I come there and back with half a tank. 🙂… LG

  • What would be the speed of the Aero with manual transmission? How is the gearbox designed?

    • The manual transmission is slightly longer. According to the manual, the manually switched aero should have 120 revolutions at a speed of 2.790 and the automaton at 2.930.

  • That agrees well with my observations. The B19 through WÜ can ruin any good cut :-D. I usually set the cruise control to 130, which means that you can sail between AB and N quite well in flowing traffic. The shifting dune (MY99, 2.0i) is a good 1,5 - 2 L lower in use in WÜ city traffic than the convertible (MY01, 2.0SE LPT) with its automatic. On the BAB and the country road there is only a 1L difference.

  • Congratulations on trying it yourself. I'm already doing this in the endurance test. However, 130 with my 9-5 1,9TID and automatic. Here, too, I am constantly harassed by (mostly white) small trucks, which I only have in front of me uphill. My diesel consumption is then just under 6 liters and I can theoretically drive from Cologne to Berlin and back without refueling. Despite my “self-restraint”, I feel like a free citizen in a free country and I don't even have the feeling that we are not using the last freedom we have. What a thinking! We have never had so much freedom as we do today!


Comments are closed.