least fuel efficient car? nothing 'obscure'

[marcosgt]

I think those figures are not 'non-motorway', but inner city - It's a very different kettle of fish.

The wife's C4 is anywhere between 25 and 45 around Fleet, a rural but not inner city area - I'd have to be crawling in first to get figures like those 'Urban' MPG figures even in a 1.6 litre, mid-sized hatch.

M.

[Uriel]

Just worked it out and I'm getting bang on 13mpg from my Cherokee! That's LPG though, probably more like 17/18 on petrol.

[IceBoy]

Auto volvo t5's, normally manage around 23 average!

Thats pretty bad for a normal car....they go like stink tho!

IceBoy

[Gnits]

I spoke to a chap with a GT40 he was using on track, he measured that in gallons per mile!

[SparkFox]

I average 23(ish) mpg out of the MG ZS180. How and where I drive does not seem to make a difference!

[redstu]

whoami said:

So are we talking average fuel consumption or instant?

has to be a fill up brim to brim or supply shut off otherwise it doesn't count!
My 156 v6 does about 16 mpg around town which isn't good for a 2.5l manual.
Does sound nice though.

Edited by redstu on Friday 31st December 20:53

[supersingle]

Got 28mpg out of a 306gti6 today. Filled up before the VAT rise!

Rubbish economy for an ordinary hatchback. Thinking of getting a 106 diesel.

[AnotherClarkey]

Some of these responses make me think the 26-27mpg overall I get out of a 2.4l (petrol) Jeep Cherokee is some kind of miracle.

[roverspeed]

Roadster over the long term has aveaged 26 mpg, which is pretty terrible for a 1.6!

Lowest I calculated was on a Jap car meet up the Antrim North Coast, which seen me return 15mpg, ouch.

[shovelheadrob]

Over the last couple of weeks, around 1100 miles 14.1 mpg (from computer, US gallons), Roush Supercharged F150. Mostly motorway, running on LPG gives the equivalent of between 22-30mpg depending on LPG prices, they can vary a lot more than petrol, i.e. 65-82p a litre.

[pbirkett]

No mention for the mk1 mx5? My old one was mechanically good and pulled strongly so I doubt there was anything wrong with it, but in normal use < 25 mpg seemed the norm - this was a sub 1000 kg, 1,8 litre car... Pretty poor. My current 328i seems better on fuel despite being a much bigger and more powerful engine in a bigger car!

[LeeThr]

Any Evo.

[LeeThr]

supersingle said:

Got 28mpg out of a 306gti6 today. Filled up before the VAT rise!

Rubbish economy for an ordinary hatchback. Thinking of getting a 106 diesel.

GTI-6 isnt exactly an ordinary hatchback is it though?

[dave_s13]

tali1 said:

dave_s13 said:

tali1 said:

Herman Toothrot said:

doug1e1972 said:

i get 28 mpg average out of my sportka

That st, so far for me its the most impressive figure quoted. A car that small with so little power returning such a poor figure.

Nah WAYYYYY OFF -try mine - urban mpg over last 20 years- and that's dawdling along(although thrashing had no effect whatsover -in fact nothing increased/decreased mpg)
33 mpg Nissan Micra 1.0 (4 of them) 55BHP
23 mpg -94pug 405td 92BHP
22mpg -87mg montego turbo
18-22mpg -83toyota camry 1.8 90BHP
18mgg 03 peugeot 307 1.6 110bhp
17-mpg -91citroen ax gt 85BHP
17 mpg -80 toyota starlet 1.2 55BHP
16mpg -85montego 1.6 90BHP
15mpg -99mondeo 2.0auto - 12 mpg with a/c on 125BHP
14mpg - 01 rover 75 2.5

Edited by tali1 on Thursday 30th December 20:32

Eh??

That's useless information, "urban"?? How do you calculate an Urban figure?

Surely the only figure relavant to running costs is the combined one??

BTW I had a pug 405td and it would do 600 odd miles on a tank...23mpg WTF!?!

WRONG -Urban is certainly not useless information- it was used by car makers MPG figures before they switched to "city"
I used the urban figure because 99% of my driving is urban ie - non motorway -hence the lack of combined figure

bkss - Manufacturers quote "urban - extra urban - combined" and these figures are determined using some unrealistic lab test thing.

How have you calculated your "urban" figure given it changes form going up hill, to coasting, to downhill etc etc???

The only way I can suss out how to do it would be to reset the average consumption on the computer at the start of every trip, record at the end and then average it out? But then, hang on, that would just be your combined figure. Maybe I'm just confused??

The only number that matters is your own combined figure imo.

My Volvo V70 D5 auto is on 37mpg btw....positively frugal.

My previous E39 540 did 17mpg and before that my 528 did 23mpg - - - both of those are combined figures.

ps. The only reason I'm arguing is that I just can't see how you have managed to get such $hite consumption out of that list of cars. The only way I can figure out how you could is if they were driven in sub zero temps for only a couple of miles at a time then left to go cold again before the return trip.

Edited by dave_s13 on Saturday 1st January 20:10

[tali1]

dave_s13 said:

tali1 said:

dave_s13 said:

tali1 said:

Herman Toothrot said:

doug1e1972 said:

i get 28 mpg average out of my sportka

That st, so far for me its the most impressive figure quoted. A car that small with so little power returning such a poor figure.

Nah WAYYYYY OFF -try mine - urban mpg over last 20 years- and that's dawdling along(although thrashing had no effect whatsover -in fact nothing increased/decreased mpg)
33 mpg Nissan Micra 1.0 (4 of them) 55BHP
23 mpg -94pug 405td 92BHP
22mpg -87mg montego turbo
18-22mpg -83toyota camry 1.8 90BHP
18mgg 03 peugeot 307 1.6 110bhp
17-mpg -91citroen ax gt 85BHP
17 mpg -80 toyota starlet 1.2 55BHP
16mpg -85montego 1.6 90BHP
15mpg -99mondeo 2.0auto - 12 mpg with a/c on 125BHP
14mpg - 01 rover 75 2.5

Edited by tali1 on Thursday 30th December 20:32

Eh??

That's useless information, "urban"?? How do you calculate an Urban figure?

Surely the only figure relavant to running costs is the combined one??

BTW I had a pug 405td and it would do 600 odd miles on a tank...23mpg WTF!?!

WRONG -Urban is certainly not useless information- it was used by car makers MPG figures before they switched to "city"
I used the urban figure because 99% of my driving is urban ie - non motorway -hence the lack of combined figure

bkss - Manufacturers quote "urban - extra urban - combined" and these figures are determined using some unrealistic lab test thing.

How have you calculated your "urban" figure given it changes form going up hill, to coasting, to downhill etc etc???

The only way I can suss out how to do it would be to reset the average consumption on the computer at the start of every trip, record at the end and then average it out? But then, hang on, that would just be your combined figure. Maybe I'm just confused??

The only number that matters is your own combined figure imo.

My Volvo V70 D5 auto is on 37mpg btw....positively frugal.

My previous E39 540 did 17mpg and before that my 528 did 23mpg - - - both of those are combined figures.

ps. The only reason I'm arguing is that I just can't see how you have managed to get such $hite consumption out of that list of cars. The only way I can figure out how you could is if they were driven in sub zero temps for only a couple of miles at a time then left to go cold again before the return trip.

Edited by dave_s13 on Saturday 1st January 20:10

.
Why would i need a "combined figure"? -when 99% is around city stop /start urban.I don't understand the obsession with combined -my combined is therefore made up of 99% urban and 1% m/way.- call it combined if you wish -i prefer urban.On rare occasions i take m/way MPG improves usually by 50%.
I put in a certain amount of fuel - ang go beyond the low warning light and then i calculate by dividing Miles travelled by gallons put in
Only Mondeo had OBC - side roads uphill instant OBC could show 4mpg and dual carriageway 72MPG
The low MPG has not been weather related in any car- it doesn't get better in summer -or worse in winter .What i would add is that my single jouney is no more than 4 miles
I'm puzzled as to why car makers persist on using the unrealistic lab figures -when 99% of owners get 50% better MPG than makers claims

Edited by tali1 on Saturday 1st January 23:33

EFA
Combined figures
30.3mg 94peugeot 405td 30.3mg
25mpg 85montego 1.6
24.6-mpg 91citroen ax gt
22.4mgg 03 peugeot 307 1.6
19mpg 99mondeo 2.0auto
17.25mpg 01 rover 75 2.5

Edited by tali1 on Sunday 2nd January 17:00

[insanojackson]

50% better mpg than claimed? really? my scirocco is meant to be about 42mpg combined. I average 35mpg and I would say my driving if fairly mixed.

[anonymous-user]

insanojackson said:

50% better mpg than claimed? really? my scirocco is meant to be about 42mpg combined. I average 35mpg and I would say my driving if fairly mixed.

Renault quote 35mpg for my car but I regularly do 38-40mpg with mixed driving. So I can't understand people when they say they get under the manufacturers claimed, just have to watch what gear you're in and you can match it and better it most of the time.

[hyperblue]

R53 MINI Cooper S, I've never got more than 28mpg out of one, usually below 25mpg. Pretty bad for a small 1.6 litre car, tends to catch new owners out a bit.

[Jo Po]

Herman Toothrot said:

doug1e1972 said:

i get 28 mpg average out of my sportka

That st, so far for me its the most impressive figure quoted. A car that small with so little power returning such a poor figure.

My girlfriend has a streetka abs it's usually working out at 25mpg. That's 12 miles motorway, 2 miles city driving. Everyday.

Terrible for A 1.6.

[Complex]

The A3 1.6 A3 Sportback gives between 30-34 mpg. That's when driven like an absolute saint, the only time I take it over 3k RPM in on the motorway due to gearing limitations, otherwise it won't see over 2.5k rpm. Pretty poor considering I know of people who drive hatchbacks of a similar displacement to the redline and achieve the same figures.

Makes the Range Rover look incredibly efficient, all things considered. Especially since the economy of every new TD model increases by 5% with a much larger than proportional increase in power too.

Edited by Complex on Sunday 2nd January 03:43