Cars where the performance doesn't justify poor economy

[Heathwood]

Having spend some time looking at the 'Hidden gems of MPG efficiency' thread, I started thinking that I've owned a number of cars where the performance on offer simply did not justify the poor fuel economy.

Chief among these must by the Mk3 Golf VR6 I ran about a decade ago. It really struggled to drag its sorry arse out of the (very) low 20mpg range, wasn't particularly fast and was certainly no fun on a twisty B road. I sold it quite quickly as the (lack of) enjoyment didn't justify the fuel bills.

Anyone else owned cars where the performance / enjoyment didn't justify the poor economy?

[jimmy156]

Nothing too drastic, but my old 306 1.8 hatchback (112 bhp) achieved almost identical mpg as my current alfa 156 2.0ts (150bhp), despite the latter being bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful.

[Baffled Spoon]

The MX-5 32mpg official average from a lightweight 1.8 roadster is a joke given it takes over 8 seconds to get to 60mph. And owners report that even 32mpg average is optimistic.

[danneth]

r32

[edo]

new the rx8, although as a used proposition it makes up for it.

[Heathwood]

I knew it wouldn't take long for the RX8 to get a mention. Agree with the used proposition though assuming very cheap purchase price and lowish annual mileage.

[macky17]

Evos and Scoobies - even the not particularly quick versions drink. I have a completely standard WRX as a daily car and have to nurse it to get 26mpg. STIs down to below 20 = ridiculous.

[danneth]

focus ST as well

[GroundEffect]

danneth said:

focus ST as well

That was the first car that sprung to mind for me. Just silly mpg for a moderately fast hatchback.

[EDLT]

jimmy156 said:

Nothing too drastic, but my old 306 1.8 hatchback (112 bhp) achieved almost identical mpg as my current alfa 156 2.0ts (150bhp), despite the latter being bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful.

My 2.0 306 too

It gets around 30mpg, the same as the GTI-6 except its missing one gear and 30hp.

[davepoth]

The Kia Picanto uses an absurd amount of fuel if you want to drive up a hill. at 85mph.

[Gun]

The Focus ST170.

[tercelgold]

The old 2 liter Zetec engine in anything especially a mk1 focus.

130bhp and 23 mpg urban.

[SteveS Cup]

My remapped TT was shocking. I had the thing checked over for sensors etc but was always told it was fine! It was about 280bhp but not amazingly quick and I'd be very lucky to see 24mpg!!

[Vixpy1]

The 3.0 Legacy's . Fantastic cars but the economy is ste for a mid 200bhp saloon

[Ricky_M]

tercelgold said:

The old 2 liter Zetec engine in anything especially a mk1 focus.

130bhp and 23 mpg urban.

This, mine is dreadful on fuel and not very quick at all.

28MPG combined and 0-60 in 9 seconds!

[Kong]

Vixpy1 said:

The 3.0 Legacy's . Fantastic cars but the economy is ste for a mid 200bhp saloon

I was going to say that one. Shame really because I think its a really interesting engine.

Also:

BMW 730i V8 (E38) - small engine in a heavy car needs to be worked = slow and poor mpg.

[scdan4]

1.3 ford capri with the carb from a 2 litre on it (from memory - it was a while ago)

couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding. never got into the 20's.

this was a while ago when petrol was for the masses rather than the socialists and the car had other issues too, but by christ it was slow and thirsty.

[Or888t]

sd1, Crap efficency from the rover v8... Although might of been better "at the time".

[Jimmy No Hands]

R32? ... really?

240 bhp for an average 25 mpg is bad?

Or is the mpg worse than I'm lead to believe.



Edit: Got an average 32 mpg in an ST-3 Focus ST on a trip to Scarborough a few week ago. Again I wouldn't call that "poor".