|
TameRacingDriver
8,560 posts
142 months
|
VolvoT5 said: Fabia VRS diesel? If so there must have been something wrong with it! I had a Leon with the same 130tdi engine and I couldn't get it below 40mpg with a mixture of town and motorway driving and a heavy right foot..... and the Leon is a heavier car.
OP... One of the VAG TDI (130 or 150 version) plus a remap (£250) would get you close to your MPG requirements. Or else a 330d as suggested.
To be honest sub 8s + 40mpg doesn't really fit well together, not for < 2k anyway. I had a heavy boot at the time! But a lot of magazines at the time struggled to better 45 in any situation. Earlier vRS came with taller gear ratios, I had a later one with shorter ones. May explain a few things.
|
|
|
cs3ljw
Original Poster
14 posts
11 months
|
Clio 172 - have driven one really fun definitely worth a look.
Ford Puma - another possibility I hear there are great to drive
Few I have considered so far:
Suzuki Ignis Sport - bit of an un-known to me
Yaris t-sport - dull?
Daihatsu YRV Turbo - auto box puts me off
Fiesta Zetec S - 103 bhp sounds a bit week given its quite a bit heavy than a Ignis that has more power
MG ZT/ZS Diesel - ZT sounds slow (possible tuning options) ZS not sure about the L-Series engine last one I drove was like a tracktor..
|
|
|
Fireblade69
512 posts
73 months
|
Bohally said: Fireblade69 said: Mondeo 2.0 TDCI :-) Less than 8 seconds? Mine certainly isn't! (Its the 130 bhp version) Must try harder. My estate did, although it was chipped 
|
|
|
spudey
17 posts
30 months
|
+1 for a clio 172.
Fast and great fun when scooting round the b roads.
40mpg is easily achievable in mine on the commute, 32 is the lowest I've seen when messing about.
You can pick up a nice one for sub 2k, just make sure the belts have been done (due at 72k) or it's £400+ at a specialist.
|
|
|
DaveH23
971 posts
40 months
|
TameRacingDriver said: My Clio 172 will do 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. 7.2 in standard form and 34.9 combined mpg according to auto trader. TameRacingDriver said: Peugeot 106 GTI 8.7 to 60 and an offical combined mpg of 33 although I average 36 in mine.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Nigel Worc's
5,315 posts
58 months
|
BMW E39 528i SE ...... much better build quality than the 3 series, and you'll have plenty of change from your £2K. And it's a proper car, petrol & drives the rear wheels, rather than this girly fwd s  te being suggested. Or ...... get a motorbike.
|
|
|
TameRacingDriver
8,560 posts
142 months
|
DaveH23 said: TameRacingDriver said: My Clio 172 will do 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. 7.2 in standard form and 34.9 combined mpg according to auto trader. I'm going off Evo magazines road test figure. The MPG rating seems about right in my experience and I've not personally tested the 0-60 acceleration, nor do I care that much, its definitely under 8 though
|
|
|
Zwolf
22,321 posts
76 months
|
DaveH23 said: TameRacingDriver said: My Clio 172 will do 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. 7.2 in standard form and 34.9 combined mpg according to auto trader. AutoTrader are often woeful with that stuff. The 330d I linked above has the wrong stats (those of a facelifted six-speeder) appended to it for example. That said, I dimly recall evo testing an unmodified Clio 172 that covered the benchmark sprint in 5.9 secs.
|
|
|
TheLordJohn
1,884 posts
16 months
|
taylor86 said: Ford Puma.
It may take 9 seconds to get to 60 but the way these things drive is beyond belief!
I absolutely love mine, cost me £1000 a year ago and has been round bedford autodrome all day, 7000 miles of commuting and returns 40 mpg every tankful no matter how i drive it.
This car is without doubt the most fun car i have ever driven, you do not need to slow down for corners, parts and maintenance are very cheap and simple to do yourself. My last oil change cost me £35 with genuine parts for example.
Only problem is it is very much a girls car What engine size, 1.7?
|
|
|
Willhook
112 posts
12 months
|
|
|
TameRacingDriver
8,560 posts
142 months
|
I do wonder when people say "returns 40 MPG no matter how I drive it", when the claimed combined MPG figure on the car, in this instance, is 37 MPG (IIRC)... in my experience, if giving a car death, you can expect at best two thirds of this figure. Come on now folks, be honest!?
|
|
|
DrTre
12,428 posts
102 months
|
TameRacingDriver said: I do wonder when people say "returns 40 MPG no matter how I drive it", when the claimed combined MPG figure on the car, in this instance, is 37 MPG (IIRC)... in my experience, if giving a car death, you can expect at best two thirds of this figure. Come on now folks, be honest!? I concur. I am not heavy footed but rarely have I seen near what people suggest in a variety of machines (when you do tank to tank, calculate it on the exact value of the fuel etc etc..def not the onboard computer)
|
|
|
TameRacingDriver
8,560 posts
142 months
|
DrTre said: I concur. I am not heavy footed but rarely have I seen near what people suggest in a variety of machines (when you do tank to tank, calculate it on the exact value of the fuel etc etc..def not the onboard computer) Indeed... I had an indicated 42 MPG in my 172 once, but that was with very gentle treatment, and on a 60 mile run, and even then the trip computer is said to be about 10% too optimistic, so maybe 38 MPG genuine at 60 mph (to be fair, not on a motorway but on a very twisty, hilly A68 but still). Yet whenever I present my findings, there is always "something wrong with my car". I guess I must ALWAYS buy lemons then?
|
|
|
collateral
6,971 posts
88 months
|
fwiw my 1.7 Puma gives about 35mpg in pretty much all situations - low gearing means you're at quite high revs on the motorway.
A breathed on HDI Pug 306 might meet your requirements a little better, if you don't mind drinking from the black pump
|
|
|
Ordinary_Chap
7,165 posts
113 months
|
Zwolf said: DaveH23 said: TameRacingDriver said: My Clio 172 will do 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. 7.2 in standard form and 34.9 combined mpg according to auto trader. AutoTrader are often woeful with that stuff. The 330d I linked above has the wrong stats (those of a facelifted six-speeder) appended to it for example. That said, I dimly recall evo testing an unmodified Clio 172 that covered the benchmark sprint in 5.9 secs. The Clio 172 isn't getting anywhere near 5's unless its had some mods and then its probably not doing near 40mpg either!
|
|
|
Strawman
5,175 posts
77 months
|
TameRacingDriver said: if giving a car death, you can expect at best two thirds of this figure. Come on now folks, be honest!? Yes, if fully exploiting the performance of a car through the gears I'd expect half the combined MPG figure at best. Same if I did lots of short trips on a cold engine around town.
|
|
|
TameRacingDriver
8,560 posts
142 months
|
Ordinary_Chap said: The Clio 172 isn't getting anywhere near 5's unless its had some mods and then its probably not doing near 40mpg either! Agreed. I like my 172, but it is not a sub 6 second 0-60 car at all TBH. My old E36 I got to 5.7 0-60 at Brunters, which I am impressed with, but I do sometimes wonder about the accuracy of their timing gearing, as that's almost M3 pace?
|
|
|
DrTre
12,428 posts
102 months
|
TameRacingDriver said: Indeed... I had an indicated 42 MPG in my 172 once, but that was with very gentle treatment, and on a 60 mile run, and even then the trip computer is said to be about 10% too optimistic, so maybe 38 MPG genuine at 60 mph.
Yet whenever I present my findings, there is always "something wrong with my car".
I guess I must ALWAYS buy lemons then? It's amazing when you do the numbers (real fuel price paid vs real distance driven) how much difference there can be. 30 miles difference on a tank (which, to me, is in the ballpark of being the "same" amount) and 2p a litre on the fuel (again, ballpark of being the "same" price) has a considerable effect on the actual mpg.
|
|
|
cs3ljw
Original Poster
14 posts
11 months
|
Reading through this confirms my fears, one of requirements is going to have to bend slightly, MPG (head), Speed (heart) or Cost (ears.. via wife’s wrath).
Cheers for the replies, some good suggestions in there
|
|
|
DickHerpes
819 posts
29 months
|
TameRacingDriver said: I do wonder when people say "returns 40 MPG no matter how I drive it", when the claimed combined MPG figure on the car, in this instance, is 37 MPG (IIRC)... in my experience, if giving a car death, you can expect at best two thirds of this figure. Come on now folks, be honest!? Over the years I've come to the conclusion that people lie about MPG figures more than any other stat about their car, which is puzzling to me. I guess it's because you can't prove otherwise, but the number of people who claim to get 40mpg 'on a run' out of an XJR or something is ridiculous.
|
|
