Real world mpg of 2 litre petrol turbos

[MarkRSi]

How does using the turbo/engine load effect the MPG?

Despite having boost/oil temp etc. readouts, unfortunately my Megane doesn't have an instant MPG readout, so can't work out what's best.

Is it better to drive at lower revs, but using more boost? Or at higher revs with less/no boost?

[DevonPaul]

croyde said:

Blimey! I thought these modern cars would do better than that. I have an old '98 E36 with a 2.5 N/A engine and my figures are about the same, except the 250 per tank would be for city driving/short hops only.

"Modern" cars aren't really made with fuel economy in mind. Sure there are some token nods to using less fuel, but the main aim of the manufacturers these days is meeting emissions regs, and getting lower CO2 figures for tax purposes for the fleet market. Whilst common sense says that CO2 output must be directly related to how much fuel is burnt, it seems not to be the case.

A mate works in Ford's development dept, and they are looking at the emissions for 5 years hence and are wondering htf they're going to meet them.

My 2p worth? - Get a Maserati QP, the cost of fuel will be the least of your concerns.

[cerb4.5lee]

Afromonk said:

In these sort of threads this sort of opinion inevitably comes up.
But I feel we do have to remember that "fun" or "exciting" are purely subjective feelings when in a car and as such it can be hard for companies to correctly produce a car that meets everyones fun criteria.

Some people derive their pleasure from speed, some from drifting, others from extreme grip through corners and some just like the sound and feel and as always its comparative to what you have been in before.

You make a very valid point & I agree it certainly depends what you are looking for from a car, I purchased my 330i knowing full well it would be boring to drive but I like RWD so it ticks that box, it will be comfy on a long run which it does very well, its relatively affordable to run & I appreciate six cylinder 3 litre engines just as personal preference against a 4 pot turbo but I have nothing against those either.

It will never set your pants on fire for sure but it will do a very competent job for me as a daily allrounder which suits me fine.

[macajc88]

2013 Ford Focus ST 2.0 EcoBoost

30-33mpg on a mix of A and B roads including some town driving.

I've seen max 37mpg on the motorway

My old n/a 2008 Fiesta ST 2.0 got 38-40mpg on the same roads, same driving style..

[exceed]

This thread makes me cry, Jaguar Super V8 ~24mpg at a Miss Daisy pace.

Any more than 10% throttle yields less than 15mpg.

Go enjoy your 2 litre turbos , in the meantime I'm keeping my eye on the classifieds for exactly that!

[pilchardthecat]

exceed said:

This thread makes me cry, Jaguar Super V8 ~24mpg at a Miss Daisy pace.

Any more than 10% throttle yields less than 15mpg.

Go enjoy your 2 litre turbos , in the meantime I'm keeping my eye on the classifieds for exactly that!

I dunno, lots of very ordinary cars in this thread making a 911 look economical

[SonicHedgeHog]

pilchardthecat said:

I dunno, lots of very ordinary cars in this thread making a 911 look economical

Precisely. A lot of people will end up with expensive fuel efficient cars that use a lot of fuel. Either bite the bullet and go diesel, or just get what you want and accept 25mpg.

[blank]

MarkRSi said:

How does using the turbo/engine load effect the MPG?

Despite having boost/oil temp etc. readouts, unfortunately my Megane doesn't have an instant MPG readout, so can't work out what's best.

Is it better to drive at lower revs, but using more boost? Or at higher revs with less/no boost?

Generally speaking... Low revs and higher load is more economical. For any engine.

Make sure the revs aren't so low that the engine labours though.

[pilchardthecat]

SonicHedgeHog said:

pilchardthecat said:

I dunno, lots of very ordinary cars in this thread making a 911 look economical

Precisely. A lot of people will end up with expensive fuel efficient cars that use a lot of fuel. Either bite the bullet and go diesel, or just get what you want and accept 25mpg.

Gen 2 997 C2S - 31/32mpg on the motorway at 80, 28/29mpg commuting.....

[stuart-b]

2.0 BMW e92 Diesel - AmD Remap - 59.5 mpg @ 65 mph, 215 bhp. Averaged 1000 miles across Europe from the UK to Croatia.

[SonicHedgeHog]

pilchardthecat said:

SonicHedgeHog said:

pilchardthecat said:

I dunno, lots of very ordinary cars in this thread making a 911 look economical

Precisely. A lot of people will end up with expensive fuel efficient cars that use a lot of fuel. Either bite the bullet and go diesel, or just get what you want and accept 25mpg.

Gen 2 997 C2S - 31/32mpg on the motorway at 80, 28/29mpg commuting.....

Indeed, although I suspect the slightly better mpg is down to the weight of the car rather than the efficiency of the engine.

[SprintSpeciale]

You must all drive like vicars. Over 12,000 miles my wife's Alfa Romeo Giulietta (1750 turbo, not even 2 litre) has averaged 17mpg. I think that makes the 12mpg I have achieved in my car (4.7 litre, non-turbo) look pretty good.

[pilchardthecat]

SprintSpeciale said:

You must all drive like vicars. Over 12,000 miles my wife's Alfa Romeo Giulietta (1750 turbo, not even 2 litre) has averaged 17mpg. I think that makes the 12mpg I have achieved in my car (4.7 litre, non-turbo) look pretty good.

You must live in London (or somewhere else with horrible traffic everywhere)

[SprintSpeciale]

pilchardthecat said:

SprintSpeciale said:

You must all drive like vicars. Over 12,000 miles my wife's Alfa Romeo Giulietta (1750 turbo, not even 2 litre) has averaged 17mpg. I think that makes the 12mpg I have achieved in my car (4.7 litre, non-turbo) look pretty good.

You must live in London (or somewhere else with horrible traffic everywhere)

True, but even on a track day at Goodwood you could see the fuel needle going down in the Alfa. It used a full tank of fuel just in the morning session. I think it was doing about 7 or 8 mpg!

[The Surveyor]

As a direct comparison, I replaced a 2.0TSi Scirocco for a Volvo D2 V60 for my daily 90 mile mixed road commute last Summer. I'm disappointed with the real-world mpg figures for the V60 as I'm getting on average 51mpg, not the 64mpg advertised, but it is still significantly better than the 34mpg I was getting from the VW.

Same 90 mile commute:-
2.0 litre turbo petrol = 34mpg
1.6 litre turbo diesel = 51mpg

However you factor in the extra cost of the fuel, I'm still saving bucket loads driving the Volvo, especially when you consider it's only £30 per year to tax and was bought brand new from dealer stock at £9k less than list.

We still have the Scirocco and it's a better 'drive' but comfort and economy is the key when your hacking to work and back.

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Has anyone mentioned old imprezas?

I love mine. But at best, 30mpg. 20-25mpg seems like the more day to day figure. Pretty poor for what it is, but you don't tend to care when blatting down your favourite B roads

[CliveM]

Driving my brother's 2003 MkIV Golf GTi - 26mpg around London and 40mpg if I drive like a saint on a motorway run to get it past 39.9mpg on the computer.

Not bad for a dirt cheap, comfortable, reasonably swift, ten year old car. Cost of ownership is peanuts.

Edited by CliveM on Tuesday 7th January 13:34

[MarkRSi]

blank said:

MarkRSi said:

How does using the turbo/engine load effect the MPG?

Despite having boost/oil temp etc. readouts, unfortunately my Megane doesn't have an instant MPG readout, so can't work out what's best.

Is it better to drive at lower revs, but using more boost? Or at higher revs with less/no boost?

Generally speaking... Low revs and higher load is more economical. For any engine.

Make sure the revs aren't so low that the engine labours though.

For an N/A that's certainly true, as (generally, ignoring extremes/labouring etc. etc.) less RPM = less friction losses = more efficient.

Wondered if adding a turbo into the mix altered things slightly. I'd guess as turbos tend to run with lower CR then it's better to run with a bit of boost (but not too much) to compensate.

[ORD]

SonicHedgeHog said:

pilchardthecat said:

SonicHedgeHog said:

pilchardthecat said:

I dunno, lots of very ordinary cars in this thread making a 911 look economical

Precisely. A lot of people will end up with expensive fuel efficient cars that use a lot of fuel. Either bite the bullet and go diesel, or just get what you want and accept 25mpg.

Gen 2 997 C2S - 31/32mpg on the motorway at 80, 28/29mpg commuting.....

Indeed, although I suspect the slightly better mpg is down to the weight of the car rather than the efficiency of the engine.

I would be surpised. The 911 has not been a light car for quite a while.

[joe_90]

Megane RS - about 28-mpg on avg over the last year or so (including a track day!) but up to 35-8 if driving like a nanny on the m-way.