Honda Accord auto 1999 1.8 – 32.2 MPG over 40,000 miles. Nissan Note auto 2008 1.6 – 42.3 over 3800 miles. Ok a bit boring but I’m very old now and have done all the RS and V6 stuff.
How and what. It has a tuned-up 2-litre turbo, with a dated engine design and is running an aftermarket exhaust system. It won't ever be good on petrol, but i am surprised at just HOW thirsty it is.
Come on, B, if Nox is going to do those mods to the engine, etc, I hardly think he'll be driving it for economy - I reckon that 14 is probably quite reasonable in the circumstances....
That car, in that tune, should be doing 20 mpg, imo. But it's quite old, it's seen a few owners and will probably be juicy with any driving style. I used to average 22-25 mpg with my Focus RS, driving hard most of the time. But that was a more modern engine.
Just shy of 50mpg on average over the 5,000 miles I've owned the car. 40mpg if I push it hard for the entire tankful, 55mpg if I take it easy on a long run. I know that you should probably expect slightly more than this from a diesel on a run but it is a little more performance orientated, without sacrificing too much economy - a happy balance I think!
coupe fiat 20v turbo averages 26mpg driven fairly exuberantly!!!...(but this is with a didgy thermostat so car rarely reaches optimal operating temperature)
cinquecento sporting average 38mpg thrashed mercilessley everywhere...
smart for two 599cc average 50mpg in mixed driving, mostly stop start short trips.....actaully pleased with that, the most econmical car iv ever owned
..as for the range rover..i expect to get 12-16mpg.....
Originally posted by b308: Come on, B, if Nox is going to do those mods to the engine, etc, I hardly think he'll be driving it for economy - I reckon that 14 is probably quite reasonable in the circumstances....
I don't thrash it every where at all actually Blair.
1) It has 220lb/ft of torque from 2000 RPM, so no need in normal driving
2) It's very long geared, so even redlining it in second would see me doing an indicated 85mph. I will not do any thing near that unless on a road that allows those kind of speeds.
I'm the third owner and the car has been looked after. It's an old school 2.0 turbo engine from the same kind of area and performance as the Cosworth lump, which is slightly tuned now. The block itself dates back to the 1970's 0 series design, much like the Pinto based YB. It's never going to be good on fuel, considering the higher boost I'm running.
thats a dreadful figure nox, particualry if your not ragging it everywhere....overfuelling perhaps???....iv owned a good few turbo cars and even the old school saab 900 t16s managed over thirty mpg on runs...and thats an engine that goes back even further than the rovers.....
as you rightly point out, the thumpfull of torque low down makes a good turbo car relaxing to drive, the fiat has 229lb ft quite low down the rev range, and im delighted with the fact that here is a car that can run 6 dead to sixty and touch 160mph**, runs a quarter mile at 14.5secs and 100mph, could see off an escort cosworth in a straight line when new, yet can return 26mpg in daily, mixed driving, including the odd..ok, frequent foray to the red paint on the tacho....
** test figures varied for the 20v t, some mags took as 'long' as 6.4 secs to get to sixty, some actually broke the magic 6 sec mark, and top speed was reported as being anything from 152mph up to 160mph..obviously, being a coupe owner, il just claim the best of all the figures!!!..car certainly feels fast...
Sorry, Nox, but I am not convinced re your driving style - but we'll have to agree to differ - I'll stick with the reason for the low mpg being your driving syle and modifications made to it rather than the age of car - you will not convince me otherwise btw!
TBH I rather expected a reply along the lines you have as I feel this thread was a wind-up - in one way your reply was a bit of a disappointment as it confirms my opinion - why would anyone who is into tuning and performance start up a thread on Economy unless to wind up someone else?!
At the moment averaging 28.2 on the computer. Pretty typical for the type of driving I normally do although have seen 37.6 average after lots of motorway work.
Air Medic - Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning Service
Originally posted by b308: Sorry, Nox, but I am not convinced re your driving style - but we'll have to agree to differ - I'll stick with the reason for the low mpg being your driving syle and modifications made to it rather than the age of car - you will not convince me otherwise btw!
TBH I rather expected a reply along the lines you have as I feel this thread was a wind-up - in one way your reply was a bit of a disappointment as it confirms my opinion - why would anyone who is into tuning and performance start up a thread on Economy unless to wind up someone else?!
This is the same line of thought, Blair, that meant you could not make a single objective point in the TDi vs TSi debate. Your credibility took a huge blow when you were defeated by that.
I am merely genuinely interested to see what kind of MPG members are getting and from what engine/cars. Sorry!
My 96 Camry 2.2 just got 38.7mpg on a good run, though normally closer to 30mpg combined driving.
The GSX1100F gets about 39mpg on average (mostly enthusiastic driving) but I can get upwards of 45mpg if I can be restrained with my throttle hand (only happened on one tank haha).
Originally posted by Knockside: I am merely genuinely interested to see what kind of MPG members are getting and from what engine/cars.
Ok if you are genuinely interested, then its currently just over 60mpg from, as you know, a 1.4TDi Fabia, but I honestly don't know why you are asking, perhaps you can elablorate as it surely goes against the grain of your driving? (When I raced cars I never thought about mpg, and can't for the life of me think why anyone who mods cars for performance (ie speed) would want to know either??)
