Unexpected thirsty cars.
Discussion
My 1st car was a MK2 Cortina 1500cc, and in the year I had it the average was just above 20mpg over about 5K miles. 
But it was my 1st car so it got driven flat-out at every opportunity, and was a clapped out example when I got it! Plus it mostly did journeys of about 2/3 miles.
Still with petrol at less than £1 a gallon at the time I didn't care!
But it was my 1st car so it got driven flat-out at every opportunity, and was a clapped out example when I got it! Plus it mostly did journeys of about 2/3 miles.
Still with petrol at less than £1 a gallon at the time I didn't care!
I had a 2007 Mercedes C220CDI auto which I went for instead of a petrol as I did think it would be better on fuel, never did anymore than 24mpg no matter how it was driven.
Would drop to 18mpg around town, never did get to find out if broken or not as I traded it against my Mini 1.6 which seems to do 35mpg no matter what.
Would drop to 18mpg around town, never did get to find out if broken or not as I traded it against my Mini 1.6 which seems to do 35mpg no matter what.
stargazer30 said:
My old mk2 focus ST. 220bhp, 5 pot. If I drove it like I stole it, it did 19mpg. If I drove it like a granny it did 21mpg! 
I had a fuel card and between tyres and petrol I think I bankrupt the company.
Your Focus was broken, or you can't drive for toffee, I'm afraid. Never got anywhere near the 20 border, even in the depths of winter in a lot of morning crawl. Never wanted for enough pace at the right time either.I had a fuel card and between tyres and petrol I think I bankrupt the company.
Also probably spent more than your company on fuel & tyres out of my own pocket, so must have been a pretty small or wobbly one.
DukeDickson said:
Your Focus was broken, or you can't drive for toffee, I'm afraid. Never got anywhere near the 20 border, even in the depths of winter in a lot of morning crawl. Never wanted for enough pace at the right time either.
Also probably spent more than your company on fuel & tyres out of my own pocket, so must have been a pretty small or wobbly one.
On this years ago I opened a thread re the Focus ST 2t as the owners of that all had terrible economy yet the same engine with auto boxes in the V90 chirped much more. The general point identified vastly more ST owners were hooning as factually the engine could do much more. The test proved by resetting the trip computer at 70mpb on a flat surface with clear road at normal operating temps in top gear. Some tried it specifically the ones who got 20’s mpg and all confirmed it was mid 30’s .... QEDAlso probably spent more than your company on fuel & tyres out of my own pocket, so must have been a pretty small or wobbly one.
Sten. said:
2019 E200. It's apparently got 'mild hybrid technology' and the usual 9 speed auto, start/stop etc. Average of 27mpg with careful, mixed driving over the last year. And it's slower than a week in jail.
Again. My 10 year old thumping great E500 shows a long term average of about 24mpg. No cylinder deactivation, no attempt at eco at all.
Greendubber said:
My 2018 BMW 118i is crap on fuel, 3 cylinder 1.5 engine and it struggles to average 31mpg.
That's nuts. Although, I could beat it down into the teens without too much effort, my M140i averaged 30.2 indicated over 40,000 miles (never reset). Continuous brim to brim calculations for the first few thousand miles showed the computer to be pretty accurate.Roboticarm said:
My corolla t sport was surprising bad... 26mpg from a 1.8 n/a.
Had expected mid 30s
They were quite short geared though to make use of the 8200rpm. Was about 4-4.5krpm at 80? Had expected mid 30s
Still I don’t remember ours being particularly bad. Generally in the 30s with 40+ achievable.
My friend had a Compressor version and moaned like buggery that it was always in the low 20s
CDB1983 said:
I was unfortunate enough to have a rental fabia 1.2 htp a few years ago to drive from Bydgoszcz to Gdansk, at 180kph the thing absolutely hammered fuel whilst sounding like a cement mixer. (3 cylinder job I think) It barely cracked 20mpg.
And in other news, the earth is round.My first car was a 957cc Fiesta Pop+, X reg (ie 1981). 55bhp. Might have been 45.
Now one would think that in a light (700kg?), small car that it'd be economical.
But no! Every thing I tried to do it did 31mpg maximum - got it "tuned" (remember krypton tuning!), changed parts and filters, tried driving like a saint. 31mpg.
Compare with my last petrol car - a 2017 model E class coupe with almost 4 times the power, over double the weight, double the performance, automatic - and an average 37mpg over two years.
Or my current E class estate (diesel) which is about 2000kg which is giving 48mpg overall.
It really is remarkable what they've achieved in the last few decades.
Recent cars with pants economy - Volvo V70 SE 2.5T AWD (petrol) - ok I shouldn't expect the earth but 21mpg and that was really driving carefully. And Mrs DS current car - 2005 SLK 200, which is a 1800cc supercharged with 163bhp so nothing fast. 29 mpg overall. That is surprisingly crap.
Now one would think that in a light (700kg?), small car that it'd be economical.
But no! Every thing I tried to do it did 31mpg maximum - got it "tuned" (remember krypton tuning!), changed parts and filters, tried driving like a saint. 31mpg.
Compare with my last petrol car - a 2017 model E class coupe with almost 4 times the power, over double the weight, double the performance, automatic - and an average 37mpg over two years.
Or my current E class estate (diesel) which is about 2000kg which is giving 48mpg overall.
It really is remarkable what they've achieved in the last few decades.
Recent cars with pants economy - Volvo V70 SE 2.5T AWD (petrol) - ok I shouldn't expect the earth but 21mpg and that was really driving carefully. And Mrs DS current car - 2005 SLK 200, which is a 1800cc supercharged with 163bhp so nothing fast. 29 mpg overall. That is surprisingly crap.
I always figured the old R53 Mini wouldn't be so bad. Little 1.6, ok supercharged but still pretty weak. £60 to fill, so around 50L at £1.20pl, returning 280miles to a tank of mixed driving so somewhere around 25mpg. Unnecessarily expensive to run for a commuter so sold it on the next guy.
Krikkit said:
PTF said:
Limpet said:
Our MX-5 NB 1.8 wasn't great on fuel considering the relatively modest engine. I don't think we ever coaxed 30 mpg out of it.
Had a few MX5 1.8. They're never great on fuel, despite the lack of power. 28mpg out of my 1998 1.8 NA. I ran that for 2 yrs and about 20k miles. Spent a fortune on fuel.I'm quite surprised I can't get more than 30 out of my 325Ti, I was expecting 30 and change, but I'm actually at about 27.
If I poodle on back roads at 40-50 then it gets around 35mpg...
stargazer30 said:
My old mk2 focus ST. 220bhp, 5 pot. If I drove it like I stole it, it did 19mpg. If I drove it like a granny it did 21mpg!
I had a fuel card and between tyres and petrol I think I bankrupt the company.
Pretty much the same with the TVR, usually around 22, but can get to 24-25 on foreign trips cruising, or down to about 5 at Castle Coombe I had a fuel card and between tyres and petrol I think I bankrupt the company.
MPG is a misleading figure and it is not accurate to compare one car against another because they have different engines with different swept volumes and different torque curves.
They have different gear ratios
The have different CD and frontal area
So the comparison is meaningless..
The more accurate and transparent way to compare is to use BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption)
This is a measure of how much fuel is required to produce X power for Y time.
By removing other variables we more accurately compare engine against engine.
The biggest difference you can make to the ways car drives is to optimise the gearset, which will make the subjective measure of MPG improve markedly, although the engines mechanical efficiency will not change.
Buy the car with the best BSFC and choose gearing to suit your intended use (city/motorway etc) if you are bothered about the distance you can cover on a full tank.
They have different gear ratios
The have different CD and frontal area
So the comparison is meaningless..
The more accurate and transparent way to compare is to use BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption)
This is a measure of how much fuel is required to produce X power for Y time.
By removing other variables we more accurately compare engine against engine.
The biggest difference you can make to the ways car drives is to optimise the gearset, which will make the subjective measure of MPG improve markedly, although the engines mechanical efficiency will not change.
Buy the car with the best BSFC and choose gearing to suit your intended use (city/motorway etc) if you are bothered about the distance you can cover on a full tank.
stargazer30 said:
My old mk2 focus ST. 220bhp, 5 pot. If I drove it like I stole it, it did 19mpg. If I drove it like a granny it did 21mpg!
I had a fuel card and between tyres and petrol I think I bankrupt the company.
That's the same engine as in the V70 I just mentioned - nice engine that makes a nice woooooof noise but my word it was thirsty.I had a fuel card and between tyres and petrol I think I bankrupt the company.
M1C said:
gizlaroc said:
Aiminghigh123 said:
Aygo at motorway speed or above are shocking.
Yeah, Aygo is a great example of buying the right car for the job.
On holiday in Mallorca our hire car returned 58mpg over the two weeks.
I got home and decided to buy one as a run around, bought a new Aygo Black hung over, however, the reality was back home they are not set up for anything other than city driving.
Sit at 40mph and it will do 65mpg, 50mpg sees that drop to 40mpg, get up to 75mph and it is struggling to get much above 30mpg.
I disagree. We've got a Peugeot 107 (owned since 2009) and it will (or would) do a true 68mpg at a steady 60mph. (Worked out manually on a full tank)Yeah, Aygo is a great example of buying the right car for the job.
On holiday in Mallorca our hire car returned 58mpg over the two weeks.
I got home and decided to buy one as a run around, bought a new Aygo Black hung over, however, the reality was back home they are not set up for anything other than city driving.
Sit at 40mph and it will do 65mpg, 50mpg sees that drop to 40mpg, get up to 75mph and it is struggling to get much above 30mpg.
However similar to the 107 poster above, i regularly monitor mpg on our 107 (owned from 2008) and it never does less than 55mpg, and a motorway run at 65-70ish gives 60mpg, maybe a bit more. mpg values measured over repeated brim to brim fills.
To get 30mpg or even 40mpg from ours would take some effort!
C-J said:
M1C said:
gizlaroc said:
Aiminghigh123 said:
Aygo at motorway speed or above are shocking.
Yeah, Aygo is a great example of buying the right car for the job.
On holiday in Mallorca our hire car returned 58mpg over the two weeks.
I got home and decided to buy one as a run around, bought a new Aygo Black hung over, however, the reality was back home they are not set up for anything other than city driving.
Sit at 40mph and it will do 65mpg, 50mpg sees that drop to 40mpg, get up to 75mph and it is struggling to get much above 30mpg.
I disagree. We've got a Peugeot 107 (owned since 2009) and it will (or would) do a true 68mpg at a steady 60mph. (Worked out manually on a full tank)Yeah, Aygo is a great example of buying the right car for the job.
On holiday in Mallorca our hire car returned 58mpg over the two weeks.
I got home and decided to buy one as a run around, bought a new Aygo Black hung over, however, the reality was back home they are not set up for anything other than city driving.
Sit at 40mph and it will do 65mpg, 50mpg sees that drop to 40mpg, get up to 75mph and it is struggling to get much above 30mpg.
However similar to the 107 poster above, i regularly monitor mpg on our 107 (owned from 2008) and it never does less than 55mpg, and a motorway run at 65-70ish gives 60mpg, maybe a bit more. mpg values measured over repeated brim to brim fills.
To get 30mpg or even 40mpg from ours would take some effort!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff