Fords 1.0 eco-boost engine
Discussion
I'd expect 40 I think, 35 at 90.
I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
Northernchimp said:
I'd expect 40 I think, 35 at 90.
I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
The 1.6 is less economical than the 2.0 despite official figures saying otherwise. I got 46 mpg over 2 years in the 1.6 and am getting a rather impressive 56mpg out of the 2.0TDi that replaced it. Identical use for both. Fact is the 2.0 just doesn't have to work as hard.I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
Northernchimp said:
I'd expect 40 I think, 35 at 90.
I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
I think they do in the SEAT ToledoI've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
I hired a Focus a couple of weeks ago, not sure which engine, but it was absolutely gutless - 13 plate with 7000m.
I'm used to driving a 1.9TD which will accelerate OK in top from low revs, the Focus on a similar hill needed to be dropped into 3rd and thrashed to get any acceleration.
Average MPG was about 40 which I'd have been pleased with if the car was quick, but with that performance it would have had to be doing 70 or 80 mpg before I would want to buy one, as I can get 55 easily out of the diesel.
I'm used to driving a 1.9TD which will accelerate OK in top from low revs, the Focus on a similar hill needed to be dropped into 3rd and thrashed to get any acceleration.
Average MPG was about 40 which I'd have been pleased with if the car was quick, but with that performance it would have had to be doing 70 or 80 mpg before I would want to buy one, as I can get 55 easily out of the diesel.
Dblue said:
Northernchimp said:
I'd expect 40 I think, 35 at 90.
I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
The 1.6 is less economical than the 2.0 despite official figures saying otherwise. I got 46 mpg over 2 years in the 1.6 and am getting a rather impressive 56mpg out of the 2.0TDi that replaced it. Identical use for both. Fact is the 2.0 just doesn't have to work as hard.I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
Northernchimp said:
Dblue said:
Northernchimp said:
I'd expect 40 I think, 35 at 90.
I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
The 1.6 is less economical than the 2.0 despite official figures saying otherwise. I got 46 mpg over 2 years in the 1.6 and am getting a rather impressive 56mpg out of the 2.0TDi that replaced it. Identical use for both. Fact is the 2.0 just doesn't have to work as hard.I've had a car with the 1.6 common rail VAG diesel by the way - nowhere near as frugal as you'd think. The variance to the published figure is criminal. 45 in a small car (105 BHP variant, I'd expect the lower powered ones to be worse). It's such a shame VAG don't offer a 6 speed manual with that engine. You might as well have a 1.2 TSI.
Dangerous work
hora said:
davepoth said:
40mpg on a motorway run is really pretty poor, all things considered. I get around 38mpg out of a 10 year old mondeo-sized car with a 1.8 litre engine...
I kinda agree- My av. in the C1 is c35mpg. In my old 05 Subaru Legacy sportswagon I hit an average on the trip computer of over 50mpg on the motorway. I had mixed-feelings over that achievement 
You cant really compare the two, they arent really in competition, suspect the Fiesta is not far off double the price, even a Ka is in a higher market segment than a C1.
I quite fancy an ST Mountune.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff