159 1.9 JTDm - 47.9mpg - REALLY????
Discussion
Is anyone actually achieving anywhere near this figure on the combined cycle in the real world.
My right foot is certainly not made of lead and I consider my commute to be a fair representation of the combined cycle. i.e. 12 miles of A road and 2 miles of rush hour city traffic. My average in just over 3 weeks of ownership is a fairly low 38.3, now I know this isn't horrific, but I was at least hoping for a figure starting with a 4.
Anyone else, just a little disappointed with the real world fuel consumption of the 1.9 JTDm?
My right foot is certainly not made of lead and I consider my commute to be a fair representation of the combined cycle. i.e. 12 miles of A road and 2 miles of rush hour city traffic. My average in just over 3 weeks of ownership is a fairly low 38.3, now I know this isn't horrific, but I was at least hoping for a figure starting with a 4.
Anyone else, just a little disappointed with the real world fuel consumption of the 1.9 JTDm?
I guess the general weight of the 159 won't help economy.
I used to get mid-40s out of my Stilo Multiwagon JTD (with the 8 valve version of that engine) but that included plenty of motorway driving albeit at sensible empty motorway speeds
If you look at the latest edition of CAR mag for the long termers they've started putting in their own actual mpg AND the combined figure and the only ones that get close are the Lexus ISF (5 litre V8) and the VW campervan thing.
From memory nothing else gets within about 25%.
I used to get mid-40s out of my Stilo Multiwagon JTD (with the 8 valve version of that engine) but that included plenty of motorway driving albeit at sensible empty motorway speeds
If you look at the latest edition of CAR mag for the long termers they've started putting in their own actual mpg AND the combined figure and the only ones that get close are the Lexus ISF (5 litre V8) and the VW campervan thing.
From memory nothing else gets within about 25%.
Edited by TimR69 on Tuesday 24th March 12:16
TimR69 said:
I guess the general weight of the 159 won't help economy.
I couldn't agree with you more, but why then should Alfa be able to publicise what is a fairly misleading figure.Don't get me wrong, I love the car and wouldn't change it for the world and I have always known that Manufacturer's figures are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I have always achieved within 10% generally, but with this, it's nearly 20% lower.
TimR69 said:
I used to get mid-40s out of my Stilo Multiwagon JTD (with the 8 valve version of that engine) but that included plenty of motorway driving albeit at sensible empty motorway speeds
Like you say, a different version of the engine producing a lot less power, and without a DPF restricting the exhaust.TimR69 said:
I guess the general weight of the 159 won't help economy.
These are some interesting figures that someone posted on another forum, regarding weight:Toyota Avensis 2.0 D4D 1450
Audi A4 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat CC 2.0 Tdi 1466
Renault Laguna 2.0 D 1480
Ford Mondeo 2.0 TD 1481
ALFA 159 1.9 JTDm 1490
Volvo S40 TD5 1490
Jaguar X type 2.0 D 1502
BMW 320D SE 1505
Peugeot 407 2.0 D 1505
Saab 9-3 1.9 TiD 1510
Mazda 6 D 1530
Opel Insignia 2.0 D 1540
Honda Accord 2.2 D 1540
Mercedes C200 D 1560
Citroen C5 2.0 D 1608
Ford Mondeo 2.2 TD 1613
So it's heavy in absolute terms, but it's broadly competitive compared to other new cars in the class.
jamieboy said:
TimR69 said:
I used to get mid-40s out of my Stilo Multiwagon JTD (with the 8 valve version of that engine) but that included plenty of motorway driving albeit at sensible empty motorway speeds
Like you say, a different version of the engine producing a lot less power, and without a DPF restricting the exhaust.TimR69 said:
I guess the general weight of the 159 won't help economy.
These are some interesting figures that someone posted on another forum, regarding weight:Toyota Avensis 2.0 D4D 1450
Audi A4 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat 2.0 Tdi 1460
VW Passat CC 2.0 Tdi 1466
Renault Laguna 2.0 D 1480
Ford Mondeo 2.0 TD 1481
ALFA 159 1.9 JTDm 1490
Volvo S40 TD5 1490
Jaguar X type 2.0 D 1502
BMW 320D SE 1505
Peugeot 407 2.0 D 1505
Saab 9-3 1.9 TiD 1510
Mazda 6 D 1530
Opel Insignia 2.0 D 1540
Honda Accord 2.2 D 1540
Mercedes C200 D 1560
Citroen C5 2.0 D 1608
Ford Mondeo 2.2 TD 1613
So it's heavy in absolute terms, but it's broadly competitive compared to other new cars in the class.
sixpot said:
That is interesting. If you had asked me 10 mins ago I would have sworn the 3 series was a lighter car and as for the 407 well I'm amazed.
It's one of those things - "everyone knows" that the 159 is grossly overweight, ignoring the fact that compared to its rivals it really isn't.One other thing to consider is that all Alfa engines, but especially the JTDs seem to need a lot of miles on them before they give of their best. Certainly a 2.4 with 25,000+ on it drives much better than a brand new one, so don't despair you might get 40mpg eventually. I agree though that the figures are misleading. I suspect somewhere there is a carbon fibre bodied single seat Brera running on 115/90/14s at 80psi and that was the model they used for the "official" mpg tests. They certainly didn't use mine...!
jamieboy said:
sixpot said:
That is interesting. If you had asked me 10 mins ago I would have sworn the 3 series was a lighter car and as for the 407 well I'm amazed.
It's one of those things - "everyone knows" that the 159 is grossly overweight, ignoring the fact that compared to its rivals it really isn't.As Dave Brand mentioned, the published MPG or l/100km figures are for a very controlled environment and do not reflect or attempt to reflect real-world driving conditions. The reason for that is to provide as fair a standard as possible so that direct comparisons between vehicles can be made. Perhaps they erred by using actual units for these measurements, it's easy to understand where the misconception about these numbers comes from.
sixpot said:
I wonder where that consensus has come from, it doesn't feel lardy when you drive it, so what is it? why is it that people think it's heavy?
I think a lot of people just focus on the fact that it's heavier than the 156. Which it should be, given that it's a) very nearly the same size as the 166, and b) a much more solid car than the 156.Include that in a couple of lazy reviews, and factor in that lots of people just want to knock Alfa for no real reason, and it becomes a "fact".
Remember there was shock and outrage in the magazine industry when the 159 got released initially because the weight of the 3.2 with 4wd was something like 1700kg but you wouldn't really expect any of the car mags to revisit that and sort things out would you?
In addition to the weight list I'm sure the BMW 135i 2 door coupe thing weighs well into 1600kgs which is pretty terrible for something the size of a Mito.
In addition to the weight list I'm sure the BMW 135i 2 door coupe thing weighs well into 1600kgs which is pretty terrible for something the size of a Mito.
TimR69 said:
Remember there was shock and outrage in the magazine industry when the 159 got released initially because the weight of the 3.2 with 4wd was something like 1700kg but you wouldn't really expect any of the car mags to revisit that and sort things out would you?
In addition to the weight list I'm sure the BMW 135i 2 door coupe thing weighs well into 1600kgs which is pretty terrible for something the size of a Mito.
I think the problem with the 3.2 is it is relatively underpowered compared to rival BMWs and Mercs - 3.2 250BHP but with 4WD = pretty sluggish. They need 300BHP + to make them feel properly fast.In addition to the weight list I'm sure the BMW 135i 2 door coupe thing weighs well into 1600kgs which is pretty terrible for something the size of a Mito.
johnalfanut said:
Sorry to rub it in but I'm getting over 46 mpg average from my 1.9 JTDM GT, including loads of stop- start motoring. I'm not careful with the right foot, and I have been amazed at the fuel economy.
Swings and roundabouts I guess - the new cars seem to be a lot better built than the 147/156/GT and a lot less flimsy*, and despite being bigger and heavier the 1.9d 159 gives more or less the same performance as the 1.9d GT (slightly better, according to Alfa) along with lower emissions, partly just through being cleaner and partly due to the DPF.No question, though - if fuel economy is your prime concern, the 159 may not be the right car for you.
The new diesels look like they'll be better, but still not best in the class. * 'Flimsy' is too strong a word, but I often drive the two back-to-back and the difference is pretty noticeable - as you'd expect, given the age difference between the platforms.
'Official' consumption figures bear little if any resemblance to driving in the real world. Its not the manufacturers fault and they are required to publish them. I always look at the urban figure and reckon on bettering that by a few mpg in the real world in day to day driving (I don't do cities btw, living in Devon).
We have an Audi A3 tdi which gives about 38mpg on the daily school run, shopping etc but will push up to high 40s on an extended run (real world Mway speeds
). My Alfa 156 1.8TS gives mid 20s day to day and low/mid 30s on a run. The only car which breaks the rule is my Elise which gives 37mpg almost regardless (alright, not on track!). I used to have an X-type diesel which again gave mid-high 30s day to day but could give 50+ on a good run. I think there's a pattern there!!
Back to the OP. The 12 mile commute is barely time for the car to warm up so it would be unfair to expect to get the best out of it economy wise. It doesn't sound to bad to me.
Incidently, I'm glad I read the post: the 159 has gone back on my 'next car' list. I was under the impression it weighed over 1700kg!!
We have an Audi A3 tdi which gives about 38mpg on the daily school run, shopping etc but will push up to high 40s on an extended run (real world Mway speeds
). My Alfa 156 1.8TS gives mid 20s day to day and low/mid 30s on a run. The only car which breaks the rule is my Elise which gives 37mpg almost regardless (alright, not on track!). I used to have an X-type diesel which again gave mid-high 30s day to day but could give 50+ on a good run. I think there's a pattern there!!Back to the OP. The 12 mile commute is barely time for the car to warm up so it would be unfair to expect to get the best out of it economy wise. It doesn't sound to bad to me.
Incidently, I'm glad I read the post: the 159 has gone back on my 'next car' list. I was under the impression it weighed over 1700kg!!
Thought I'd add my 2p to this thread...
I picked up my new 159Ti 2.4JTDM the other week and had a good run down to the New Forest over easter...
On the motorway at 80ish mph the best I was seeing was 38.2mpg... Im quite happy with that, but it took some very light footed driving.
On my normal commute (M-roads/A-roads with a bit of town) Im getting about 33mpg... not so good.
But who cares, I love it!
Gassing Station | Alfa Romeo, Fiat & Lancia | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff