Unexpected thirsty cars.
Discussion
I bought a X-Trail 1.6dci. Bought on the pretence of the official figure of combined cycle of mid fifties mpg, so was expecting mid to high forties.
The bloody thing wouldn’t crack 40mpg, which if that wasn’t bad enough it was combined with glacial performance from the alleged 130bhp.
It wasn’t my driving style or usage as I’m now using a 13 year old Volvo 2.4 D5 with 185bhp and that’s happily sitting just off 50mpg.
The bloody thing wouldn’t crack 40mpg, which if that wasn’t bad enough it was combined with glacial performance from the alleged 130bhp.
It wasn’t my driving style or usage as I’m now using a 13 year old Volvo 2.4 D5 with 185bhp and that’s happily sitting just off 50mpg.
My dear old ma had a 1.4 Renault 5 petrol that struggled to get above 25 mpg when she drove it. She was a bit of a headbanger.
All of the Gp A derived stuff I've driven - Integrale, Impreza, Evo 6 - had economy I'd expect from a Range Rover or supercar, not a relatively small and light hatch or saloon. They all managed single figure mpg at some point.
All of the Gp A derived stuff I've driven - Integrale, Impreza, Evo 6 - had economy I'd expect from a Range Rover or supercar, not a relatively small and light hatch or saloon. They all managed single figure mpg at some point.
Ron99 said:
I had a Swift Sport a few years ago and it was similar to yours, with high-30s mpg at 70-odd mph. The crazy thing is that my two-ton 2.8 slushbox 4wd Insignia manages the same motorway mpg as the Swift did.
The Swift Sport was unsatisfactory and disappointing for a number of reasons so I swapped it for the Viva I have now, which, despite being underpowered, slow and only five gears - so it needs 3500-4000rpm on the motorway - it still manages low-50s mpg at 70-80mph which is much better than the Swift.
Was that the mk 1 with the 5 speed or the mk 2 with the 6 speed.The Swift Sport was unsatisfactory and disappointing for a number of reasons so I swapped it for the Viva I have now, which, despite being underpowered, slow and only five gears - so it needs 3500-4000rpm on the motorway - it still manages low-50s mpg at 70-80mph which is much better than the Swift.
Just wondering because I have a mk 2 and at bang on 70 it gets about 50mpg which incidentally at 70mph is slightly more efficient than the 1.2 Swift I had as a courtesy car I suspect because of the 5 speed box and the smaller engine having to work a bit harder at that speed
Bagzie88 said:
Ron99 said:
I had a Swift Sport a few years ago and it was similar to yours, with high-30s mpg at 70-odd mph. The crazy thing is that my two-ton 2.8 slushbox 4wd Insignia manages the same motorway mpg as the Swift did.
The Swift Sport was unsatisfactory and disappointing for a number of reasons so I swapped it for the Viva I have now, which, despite being underpowered, slow and only five gears - so it needs 3500-4000rpm on the motorway - it still manages low-50s mpg at 70-80mph which is much better than the Swift.
Was that the mk 1 with the 5 speed or the mk 2 with the 6 speed.The Swift Sport was unsatisfactory and disappointing for a number of reasons so I swapped it for the Viva I have now, which, despite being underpowered, slow and only five gears - so it needs 3500-4000rpm on the motorway - it still manages low-50s mpg at 70-80mph which is much better than the Swift.
Just wondering because I have a mk 2 and at bang on 70 it gets about 50mpg which incidentally at 70mph is slightly more efficient than the 1.2 Swift I had as a courtesy car I suspect because of the 5 speed box and the smaller engine having to work a bit harder at that speed
To consistently get 50mpg I had to trundle along in lane 1 with the lorries at 50-56mph.
Hired a car for a trip to Devon last year, got a manual Insignia petrol. Overall I was genuinely really really impressed with it. It handled well, looked good, nicely spec'd and was really comfortable.
It was let down by the engine though which I believe was a 1.5 turbo although not sure how much power it made as there's two variants. To be fair the car was pretty good on the motorway, doing 45mpg+ and that's with a boot full of luggage, two adults and two kids.
Frustratingly though, because it was a big car and a small engine round town it was actually only getting around 30mpg and averaged 37mpg across the 700 odd miles we did. By contrast my E320 (3.2 I6 diesel) would average 40mpg+ on that kind of drive and significantly more powerful. Obviously not as good for the environment by any means but the Insignia was totally let down by it's engine.
It was let down by the engine though which I believe was a 1.5 turbo although not sure how much power it made as there's two variants. To be fair the car was pretty good on the motorway, doing 45mpg+ and that's with a boot full of luggage, two adults and two kids.
Frustratingly though, because it was a big car and a small engine round town it was actually only getting around 30mpg and averaged 37mpg across the 700 odd miles we did. By contrast my E320 (3.2 I6 diesel) would average 40mpg+ on that kind of drive and significantly more powerful. Obviously not as good for the environment by any means but the Insignia was totally let down by it's engine.
SEAT Leon 2.0 TDI is my contribution. Traded in my Impreza WRX wagon because it only scraped through the MOT and because we had our first kid and wanted something more modern/safer. Used to be able to coax 32-34 mpg out of the scoob on a run. Expected early 50s out of the SEAT.
The drive home from the dealer saw it return early 40s despite taking it VERY steady. Absolutely gutted. Expected it to be a step up from the 115 bhp Golf PD that i had many years before (that'd get late 50s no matter what), so was very disappointed by how crap the 2.0 TDI was.
The drive home from the dealer saw it return early 40s despite taking it VERY steady. Absolutely gutted. Expected it to be a step up from the 115 bhp Golf PD that i had many years before (that'd get late 50s no matter what), so was very disappointed by how crap the 2.0 TDI was.
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.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.
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.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff