Real world mpg of 2 litre petrol turbos
Discussion
ADM06 said:
Lightly tuned Megane R26. 25 - 33mpg since I've had it. That's are fair mix of driving and the figure changes most when I decide I want to enjoy the car.
22.9 over the 6 months i owned mine.In my experience they can be extremely good 35+ if driven carefully or extremely bad <25 as soon as you start being a bit progressive.
HonestIago said:
y2blade said:
HonestIago said:
Classic Impreza Turbo - 25mpg (little to no urban driving)
Good effort! 
My friend bought one and only managed about 19mpg at best...he didn't keep it long as it was averaging about 12mpg with his driving style
Great fun car though, lovely exhaust note
Current car - 2013 Audi A4 2.0T - 27mpg average, 30mpg on a long motorway run.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/a4
Previous car - 2007 BMW 320d - 41mpg average, 50mpg on a motorway run.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/320d
Have had the Audi for 4 months and am pretty disappointed with the gap between it and the 320d. Obviously I never expected a petrol to get the same economy as a diesel, but I am surprised that the motorway fuel economy figure isn't better (even when sticking to a steady 70mph). I have tried running the Audi on both regular and super unleaded, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to fuel economy.
Don't believe the PH hype that "diesels are hardly any more economical than petrols" or "they only make sense if you do 20,000 miles a year". Looking at the data on fuelly.com, the diesel A4 would probably have matched our old 320d for fuel economy.
The petrol A4 costs 6p a mile more in fuel than the 320d used to cost. Even over a modest 30,000 miles in 3 years, it's going to cost nearly two grand extra in fuel.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/a4
Previous car - 2007 BMW 320d - 41mpg average, 50mpg on a motorway run.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/320d
Have had the Audi for 4 months and am pretty disappointed with the gap between it and the 320d. Obviously I never expected a petrol to get the same economy as a diesel, but I am surprised that the motorway fuel economy figure isn't better (even when sticking to a steady 70mph). I have tried running the Audi on both regular and super unleaded, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to fuel economy.
Don't believe the PH hype that "diesels are hardly any more economical than petrols" or "they only make sense if you do 20,000 miles a year". Looking at the data on fuelly.com, the diesel A4 would probably have matched our old 320d for fuel economy.
The petrol A4 costs 6p a mile more in fuel than the 320d used to cost. Even over a modest 30,000 miles in 3 years, it's going to cost nearly two grand extra in fuel.
AudiWurst said:
Current car - 2013 Audi A4 2.0T - 27mpg average, 30mpg on a long motorway run.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/a4
Previous car - 2007 BMW 320d - 41mpg average, 50mpg on a motorway run.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/320d
Have had the Audi for 4 months and am pretty disappointed with the gap between it and the 320d. Obviously I never expected a petrol to get the same economy as a diesel, but I am surprised that the motorway fuel economy figure isn't better (even when sticking to a steady 70mph). I have tried running the Audi on both regular and super unleaded, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to fuel economy.
Don't believe the PH hype that "diesels are hardly any more economical than petrols" or "they only make sense if you do 20,000 miles a year". Looking at the data on fuelly.com, the diesel A4 would probably have matched our old 320d for fuel economy.
The petrol A4 costs 6p a mile more in fuel than the 320d used to cost. Even over a modest 30,000 miles in 3 years, it's going to cost nearly two grand extra in fuel.
That is surprisingly poor for the Audi! My S4 does better on the motorway.http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/a4
Previous car - 2007 BMW 320d - 41mpg average, 50mpg on a motorway run.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/excelmonkey/320d
Have had the Audi for 4 months and am pretty disappointed with the gap between it and the 320d. Obviously I never expected a petrol to get the same economy as a diesel, but I am surprised that the motorway fuel economy figure isn't better (even when sticking to a steady 70mph). I have tried running the Audi on both regular and super unleaded, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to fuel economy.
Don't believe the PH hype that "diesels are hardly any more economical than petrols" or "they only make sense if you do 20,000 miles a year". Looking at the data on fuelly.com, the diesel A4 would probably have matched our old 320d for fuel economy.
The petrol A4 costs 6p a mile more in fuel than the 320d used to cost. Even over a modest 30,000 miles in 3 years, it's going to cost nearly two grand extra in fuel.
MrGman said:
22.9 over the 6 months i owned mine.
In my experience they can be extremely good 35+ if driven carefully or extremely bad <25 as soon as you start being a bit progressive.
That 25mpg was the first fill up after I bought it. I took a deliberately long winded B-road route home from buying it and really got to know the car.In my experience they can be extremely good 35+ if driven carefully or extremely bad <25 as soon as you start being a bit progressive.
The car is only fun on the twisties so I just set the cruise to 70 on the dual carriageway as does wifey when she drives it to work every day. So far the cars been pretty good.
Kawasicki said:
y2blade said:
Kawasicki said:
Ford Falcon 2.0 Ecoboost
250 bhp, 6 speed auto.
1650kg rwd 4 door saloon, longer but less wide and less tall than a Mondeo
Long cruise at 60-70mph 39 mpg
250 bhp, 6 speed auto.
1650kg rwd 4 door saloon, longer but less wide and less tall than a Mondeo
Long cruise at 60-70mph 39 mpg
Nice Post a piccy for me please?
A lot of these figures for 2.0T engines are just terrible.
My 3.4l NA Cayman S gets about 32 out of town and around 20-25 in town. On most tanks (reflecting a mix of town, motorway and b-roads), it is usually 28 or so. It has 2 seats, sure, but it isnt really that light (around 1400kg).
These "economy" engines are almost as crap in terms of real world fuel economy as they are to drive!
My 3.4l NA Cayman S gets about 32 out of town and around 20-25 in town. On most tanks (reflecting a mix of town, motorway and b-roads), it is usually 28 or so. It has 2 seats, sure, but it isnt really that light (around 1400kg).
These "economy" engines are almost as crap in terms of real world fuel economy as they are to drive!
y2blade said:
That is surprisingly poor for the Audi! My S4 does better on the motorway.
Easternlight said:
B8 A4 Audi avant 2.0 tsfi FWD.
Would do 40 on a long run sticking to 70, showed an average of 32 over the 16 months I owned it.
Depressing!Would do 40 on a long run sticking to 70, showed an average of 32 over the 16 months I owned it.
My car is an estate which probably adds a bit of weight, and has the Multitronic CVT 'box. It's not even a quattro
The CVT allows ultra-long gearing (70mph is roughly 1700rpm) which I thought would be great for motorway economy, but this hasn't proved to be the case.
Fuel consumption aside, my wife and I really like the car. Maybe it has a duff sensor or something causing it to run rich? I don't know whether to take it back to the dealer and ask them to run a diagnostic check, or whether that would just be a waste of cash.
Edited by AudiWurst on Friday 3rd January 10:32
2005 Saab 9-5 estate 2.0t petrol with circa 200bhp. The average MPG fluctuates between 32 & 35 and I normally get close to 500 miles out of a tank before filling up again. I think it has a 75 litre tank.
Ford S-Max 2.0t Ecoboost 240. It returns a fairly consistent 31-32mpg, and while we occasionally squeeze 500 miles out of a tank it’s usually closer to 430-450. (70 litre tank).
Ford S-Max 2.0t Ecoboost 240. It returns a fairly consistent 31-32mpg, and while we occasionally squeeze 500 miles out of a tank it’s usually closer to 430-450. (70 litre tank).
AudiWurst said:
y2blade said:
That is surprisingly poor for the Audi! My S4 does better on the motorway.
Easternlight said:
B8 A4 Audi avant 2.0 tsfi FWD.
Would do 40 on a long run sticking to 70, showed an average of 32 over the 16 months I owned it.
Depressing!Would do 40 on a long run sticking to 70, showed an average of 32 over the 16 months I owned it.
My car is an estate which probably adds a bit of weight, and has the Multitronic CVT 'box. It's not even a quattro
The CVT allows ultra-long gearing (70mph is roughly 1700rpm) which I thought would be great for motorway economy, but this hasn't proved to be the case.
Fuel consumption aside, my wife and I really like the car. I don't know whether to take it back to the dealer and ask them to run a diagnostic check, or whether that would just be a waste of cash.
I really don't know although to my mind it should be more efficient than my S4.
What do other owners say about theirs?
Edit: 1700rpm might be out of the optimum revs for good MPG, have you tried it sitting at 2k? I know my old Volvo T5 was better on fuel at 80 than it was at 70 (just thinking out loud).
Edited by y2blade on Friday 3rd January 10:37
MrGman said:
22.9 over the 6 months i owned mine.
In my experience they can be extremely good 35+ if driven carefully or extremely bad <25 as soon as you start being a bit progressive.
I got mine down to 16.2 in the first week! (I had just turned 19 though).In my experience they can be extremely good 35+ if driven carefully or extremely bad <25 as soon as you start being a bit progressive.
After then use to average 27 with a mix of throttle, down, and steady 10 mile commute to work.
As said, would do 38 mpg at 70mph with cruise on, but would drop too 27 if sat at 90mph.
30 mpg was my general average throughout (only ever went on about 3 motorway runs in the time i had it).
y2blade said:
Is it brand new? If so it Might loosen up with some miles under it's belt!
I really don't know although to my mind it should be more efficient than my S4.
What do other owners say about theirs?
Edit: 1700rpm might be out of the optimum revs for good MPG, have you tried it sitting at 2k? I know my old Volvo T5 was better on fuel at 80 than it was at 70 (just thinking out loud).
Thanks for your input. The car has done 9,000 miles so I don't think it's a "loosening up" thing. I'll mention the poor economy when the car goes in for its 10,000 mile service, and see if they pick anything up (or whether I get told "they all do that sir").I really don't know although to my mind it should be more efficient than my S4.
What do other owners say about theirs?
Edit: 1700rpm might be out of the optimum revs for good MPG, have you tried it sitting at 2k? I know my old Volvo T5 was better on fuel at 80 than it was at 70 (just thinking out loud).
Hear what you're saying about certain engine speeds being better for economy than others, but I thought the whole point of CVT was to select the optimum gear ratio for economy at any given cruising speed?
Best way to assess fuel economy would be to re-calculate everything to miles per £ !
This would then allow regular/super unleaded and diesel to all be compared directly !
I did some analysis in my Corolla of the benefit of regular verses super unleaded, doing 5 tanks on each for statistical purposes, and it worked out that as long as I was getting >3mpg benefit from super then I was still getting an improved mp£ despite the 8p per litre difference in price.
For example:
regular = 37mpg @ £1.30 per litre = 6.26 mp£
super = 40mpg @ £1.38 per litre = 6.38 mp£
This would then allow regular/super unleaded and diesel to all be compared directly !
I did some analysis in my Corolla of the benefit of regular verses super unleaded, doing 5 tanks on each for statistical purposes, and it worked out that as long as I was getting >3mpg benefit from super then I was still getting an improved mp£ despite the 8p per litre difference in price.
For example:
regular = 37mpg @ £1.30 per litre = 6.26 mp£
super = 40mpg @ £1.38 per litre = 6.38 mp£
AudiWurst said:
y2blade said:
Is it brand new? If so it Might loosen up with some miles under it's belt!
I really don't know although to my mind it should be more efficient than my S4.
What do other owners say about theirs?
Edit: 1700rpm might be out of the optimum revs for good MPG, have you tried it sitting at 2k? I know my old Volvo T5 was better on fuel at 80 than it was at 70 (just thinking out loud).
Thanks for your input. The car has done 9,000 miles so I don't think it's a "loosening up" thing. I'll mention the poor economy when the car goes in for its 10,000 mile service, and see if they pick anything up (or whether I get told "they all do that sir").I really don't know although to my mind it should be more efficient than my S4.
What do other owners say about theirs?
Edit: 1700rpm might be out of the optimum revs for good MPG, have you tried it sitting at 2k? I know my old Volvo T5 was better on fuel at 80 than it was at 70 (just thinking out loud).
Hear what you're saying about certain engine speeds being better for economy than others, but I thought the whole point of CVT was to select the optimum gear ratio for economy at any given cruising speed?
At that mileage it would be loosed up, definitely worth mentioning it when it goes in for next service.
Nice looking car btw (just had a click on your profile).
All the best with it.
gizlaroc said:
Someone has just gone from a V8 M3 to a 328i on the BMW section, ask how he is getting on, I reckon it is so much more car than the 320d.
I have done similar I swapped my V8 M3 for a E90 330i & I did consider a 320d & test drove a couple but the low rev harshness of the engine in terms of sound put me off & its very hard to love a 4 pot diesel & I thought as I only do 10/12k miles a year I didn't really need a oil burner.The 330i has such a lovely engine in it smooth & pretty gutsy when you work it & the fuel savings in comparision to the M3 are amazing but I know now that I struggled going steady in the M3 whereas the 330i is far more calming to drive & doesn't egg you on to floor it all the time but it is still enjoyable to punt down a back road when needed.
Grayedout said:
Best way to assess fuel economy would be to re-calculate everything to miles per £ !
This would then allow regular/super unleaded and diesel to all be compared directly !
I did some analysis in my Corolla of the benefit of regular verses super unleaded, doing 5 tanks on each for statistical purposes, and it worked out that as long as I was getting >3mpg benefit from super then I was still getting an improved mp£ despite the 8p per litre difference in price.
For example:
regular = 37mpg @ £1.30 per litre = 6.26 mp£
super = 40mpg @ £1.38 per litre = 6.38 mp£
MPS 22mpg @ 1.33l = 6.25 mp£This would then allow regular/super unleaded and diesel to all be compared directly !
I did some analysis in my Corolla of the benefit of regular verses super unleaded, doing 5 tanks on each for statistical purposes, and it worked out that as long as I was getting >3mpg benefit from super then I was still getting an improved mp£ despite the 8p per litre difference in price.
For example:
regular = 37mpg @ £1.30 per litre = 6.26 mp£
super = 40mpg @ £1.38 per litre = 6.38 mp£
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff