MPG doesnt seem to relate to the kind of car
Discussion
Just had the chance to do some back to back comparisons on a couple of new cars, while my poorly C4 ( av 49mpg) was being repaired. I need to cover a fair few miles in my day and whilst I dont drive like Fangio I do press on a bit.
Car one: Brand new 1.6 Astra auto I covered about two thousand five hundred miles over three weeks. Apart from being quite the most horrible car it has been my misfortune to drive in a long time...poor build quality, poor comfort, impressive on first site interior which was ultimately made out of the bits of recycled plastic that Tata turned down for the Nano. The worst thing was its economy I averaged 31mpg . It wasn't even a question of thrashing it, it was so horrible to drive that after three days I didn't exceed 70mph ever!!
In fact as an experiment I hit a particular stretch of duel carriageway reset the trip meters and drove at a steady 65mph for seventy miles without touching the brake pedal once and got 32mpg?. This compares with our old 1996 Astra 2.0 Auto with 158k on the clock that used to get 38mpg on the same stretch???
Car Two: Toyota Hilux twin cab 4x4 pick up, in full "big fat gypsey wedding" spec. Again this car was brand new. I covered a variety of roads but where possible ran it at around eighty miles an hour, and accelerated briskly through the gears. At the end I came away with an average of 30mpg?
How can the two be so close?...actually how can the Astra's be so bad. I know it was auto but its miles worse than its 15 year old knackered predecessor, surely you would expect the truck to be terrible in comparison?
Car one: Brand new 1.6 Astra auto I covered about two thousand five hundred miles over three weeks. Apart from being quite the most horrible car it has been my misfortune to drive in a long time...poor build quality, poor comfort, impressive on first site interior which was ultimately made out of the bits of recycled plastic that Tata turned down for the Nano. The worst thing was its economy I averaged 31mpg . It wasn't even a question of thrashing it, it was so horrible to drive that after three days I didn't exceed 70mph ever!!
In fact as an experiment I hit a particular stretch of duel carriageway reset the trip meters and drove at a steady 65mph for seventy miles without touching the brake pedal once and got 32mpg?. This compares with our old 1996 Astra 2.0 Auto with 158k on the clock that used to get 38mpg on the same stretch???
Car Two: Toyota Hilux twin cab 4x4 pick up, in full "big fat gypsey wedding" spec. Again this car was brand new. I covered a variety of roads but where possible ran it at around eighty miles an hour, and accelerated briskly through the gears. At the end I came away with an average of 30mpg?
How can the two be so close?...actually how can the Astra's be so bad. I know it was auto but its miles worse than its 15 year old knackered predecessor, surely you would expect the truck to be terrible in comparison?
Two similar cars used on a 40mile round trip commute on mostly countryside A & B roads driven in the same way :-
2002 Vauxhall VX220 2.2, 150bhp/150lbs, 870kg, 0-60 in 5.6sec = 29.7mpg
2002 Toyota mk3 MR2 1.8, 138bhp/127lbs, 975kg, 0-60 in 7.8sec = 33.7mpg
almost as I'd expect really, possibly would have expected a bit better from the Vauxhall with the weight saving and marginally more power. I read the 2.2 Ecotech has to run rich to prevent burning out the valves though.
2002 Vauxhall VX220 2.2, 150bhp/150lbs, 870kg, 0-60 in 5.6sec = 29.7mpg
2002 Toyota mk3 MR2 1.8, 138bhp/127lbs, 975kg, 0-60 in 7.8sec = 33.7mpg
almost as I'd expect really, possibly would have expected a bit better from the Vauxhall with the weight saving and marginally more power. I read the 2.2 Ecotech has to run rich to prevent burning out the valves though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff