New Astra MPG

[SSBB]

Road2Ruin said:

My Old New Civic 2.2 CDTi used to get 62mpg on average, and that was a quick car too.

Bloody hell, what were you getting on a run?! Nearly bought one of those in red last year. Tidy motor.

I'm averaging 30mpg out of a dual turbo 3 litre automatic. Getting 42mpg at 70 and can achieve a little over 50mpg if I drive at low speeds on the mway (I don't like doing this). I would have thought a manual 1.7 4cyl could achieve much more.

Having said that, is the % split you give in time or distance? I do 75% mway and 25% urban by distance, but more like 50:50 by time. Computer told me 9mpg journey average after this mornings snarl up. This is probably where stop-start tech is valuable. If OH spends a lot of time stationary then it will slaughter your consumption figures.

[shoestring7]

Honest John is setting up a database of 'real' fuel consumption.

Why not add your experiences? http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/Results?manufa...

SS7

[Road2Ruin]

SSBB said:

Road2Ruin said:

My Old New Civic 2.2 CDTi used to get 62mpg on average, and that was a quick car too.

Bloody hell, what were you getting on a run?! Nearly bought one of those in red last year. Tidy motor.

I'm averaging 30mpg out of a dual turbo 3 litre automatic. Getting 42mpg at 70 and can achieve a little over 50mpg if I drive at low speeds on the mway (I don't like doing this). I would have thought a manual 1.7 4cyl could achieve much more.

Having said that, is the % split you give in time or distance? I do 75% mway and 25% urban by distance, but more like 50:50 by time. Computer told me 9mpg journey average after this mornings snarl up. This is probably where stop-start tech is valuable. If OH spends a lot of time stationary then it will slaughter your consumption figures.

I did 40 miles per day 32 were on the motorway at 60mph as I like the fuel consumption more than the speed. It did drop a lot when you went up to 80. Not that I did that you understand.

[sklar]

Road2Ruin said:

I did 40 miles per day 32 were on the motorway at 60mph as I like the fuel consumption more than the speed. It did drop a lot when you went up to 80. Not that I did that you understand.

Wow, I ran one of these from new for 2 years and didn't get over 44. I absolutley nailed it everywhere though, no wonder the turbo gave up after 67k. Take that Honda with your 90k warranty

[SSBB]

Road2Ruin said:

I did 40 miles per day 32 were on the motorway at 60mph as I like the fuel consumption more than the speed. It did drop a lot when you went up to 80. Not that I did that you understand.

[The Wookie]

It could be worse, you could have got a Petrol. I drove a new rental Astra 1.4 Estate a couple of weeks ago, fk me I thought it was broken it was that slow!

[HellDiver]

DickSkruttock said:

My mate's got a 2002 Astra 1.7 DTi (except the turbo's fked so it's more of a 1.7Di!) It's done 203000 miles, has a dashboard lit up like a christmas tree and manages a consistant 62mpg for 600 miles a week brim to brim.

Maybe the new one's are st

Misconception. The 1.7DI has a turbo, just no intercooler. Likely his MAF is gone, which runs them in limp mode, so it will use considerably less fuel.

Someone mentioned the 1.7 is still the same old ex-Isuzu lump from the late Mk3 Astra, just tarted up a bit with commonrail injection and a few oil jets.

[nouze]

chris_c201 said:

Worth pointing out that there are many disgruntled owners on the Astra forums... appears the quoted figures may well be unacheivable!

No st Sherlock!
43 mpg is 6.6 l/100km and the claimed extra urban is 3.9 l/100km. 10 years ago those numbers would have been classified as science fiction so do you think that now, with cars twice as large and twice as heavy you could really achieve fuel economy which your dear car manufacturer quotes? Do you also think that the quoted co2/km numbers are real life numbers or some made up one offs which are only possible in very extreme lab conditions?

[vrooom]

Maybe car maker uses "high mpg figures" to sell car quickly. like 60-70mpg to lure the buyers in.

[anonymous-user]

HellDiver said:

DickSkruttock said:

My mate's got a 2002 Astra 1.7 DTi (except the turbo's fked so it's more of a 1.7Di!) It's done 203000 miles, has a dashboard lit up like a christmas tree and manages a consistant 62mpg for 600 miles a week brim to brim.

Maybe the new one's are st

Misconception. The 1.7DI has a turbo, just no intercooler. Likely his MAF is gone, which runs them in limp mode, so it will use considerably less fuel.

Someone mentioned the 1.7 is still the same old ex-Isuzu lump from the late Mk3 Astra, just tarted up a bit with commonrail injection and a few oil jets.

They use the it in the last shape Honda Civic too, housemate had a turbo pack up on his just a few months back

[NHK244V]

over 2000 posts on here and you've memanaged to miss all the "mmanufacturers are lieing fookwits when it comes to MPG" posts

My wife allways got more MPG from our old non turbo escort than me but in the turbo diesel she gets like 10 MPG less than me, women just don't get "driving it off boost" !
try explaining it to her like 30 or so times then give up and show her, then give up again and just say "yes dear that's a shame". works for me

[Matt UK]

I suspect not much mpg from the good ol' 7.7 diesel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDJOlaVHfWk


Ok, ok, I know it's a 7.8...

[Russ T Bolt]

StottyZr said:

I ran one for a few months. Once got 750miles from one tank. I calculated an average of 70mpg by sitting at 56 behind lorries, 1.5N/A diesel is very frugal

My 1.6 TDCi fiesta will do 74mpg if I follow the lorries.

[odyssey2200]

I have a new Astra 1.4 Turbo (petrol)

32 MPG average over 9000 miles

[Chrisw666]

odyssey2200 said:

I have a new Astra 1.4 Turbo (petrol)

32 MPG average over 9000 miles

I hired one of those for a long trip last year, well I hired an Astra sized car and got an 1.4sri Turbo, I got so carried away with the looooonnnggg gear ratios that the trip computer was reading 28mpg as an average when I returned it.

[odyssey2200]

Chrisw666 said:

I hired one of those for a long trip last year, well I hired an Astra sized car and got an 1.4sri Turbo, I got so carried away with the looooonnnggg gear ratios that the trip computer was reading 28mpg as an average when I returned it.

It does better MPG in 5th than in 6th.

You just have to ignore the little shift light on the cluster.

[Chrisw666]

odyssey2200 said:

It does better MPG in 5th than in 6th.

You just have to ignore the little shift light on the cluster.

I may have spent more time on the motorway in 3rd and 4th. AFAIR are they not geared that if it would redline in 6th it would be doing over 200?

[zooky]

odyssey2200 said:

It does better MPG in 5th than in 6th.

You just have to ignore the little shift light on the cluster.

Really? Sounds like a wind up!

By way of comparison my 8 month old 2.0 SRi CDTI or whatever it is called has done 10,000 miles; 95% of then at 75mph, and returns between 47 and 49 mpg

[chriscoates]

DickSkruttock said:

Maybe the new one's are st

Pretty much and very expensive for what they are. Back on topic, is there any reason why manufacturers blatantly lie about mpg figures? Surely it just makes customers have a worse opinion about the car if they were expecting better.

[jason s4]

I recently did a run in a 150bhp 1.9 and got just over 50mpg, and that wasnt motorway driving either.

Bear in mind, that it had done nearly 30k miles.

New engines wont deliver real mpg's until they have a fair few K behind them.