Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[philhoward]

Perhaps I should have asked this question before looking for one..

I bought a 2.0 (16v) to be more economical, but although being an Auto I get 30mpg on the daily commute - best ever has only been 32 on a run to Scotland.  Have to confess was hoping for a little bit more - yet i hear of 2.5's doing 34-35mpg!

I don't gun it anywhere, although my gearbox does "slip" on 4th lockup when warm, meaning i do about c.2300rpm vs c.2000rpm at 50-55mph (which is most of by journey - plus crawling through towns).

Given the price of petrol, it might be cheaper to "upgrade" to a V6 at this rate..anyone got "real" mpg figures?

[Dazzler]

2.0 is more economical around town, but 2.5/3.0 on a run will do about 33 ish which is all the 2.0 will give back too.

[philhoward]

Thats what i suspected - although i have know the smallest engine in some cars being less economical than the next step up.  Usually when it comes around a tax break...

[TheBoy]

Depending on how you drive 2.0 should be a tad more economical, though often not much in it.

Slipping box will kill mpg

[Danny]

Depending on how you drive 2.0 should be a tad more economical, though often not much in it.

Slipping box will kill mpg

being a tad less economical is well worth it for the sound of the V6 though

[TheBoy]

Depending on how you drive 2.0 should be a tad more economical, though often not much in it.

Slipping box will kill mpg

being a tad less economical is well worth it for the sound of the V6 though

I agree.  But if you hoof it everywhere, the v6 is thirsty, esp in 3.0l form

[philhoward]

Agreed - I do miss the V6 soundtrack and if there was only an mpg or 2 in it, i'd suffer...but probably be too tempted to gun it!  £70 a week on fuel is a crippler as it is..

Need to get the soldering iron out and get cracking on the LPG wiring pretty quickly..but the other 3 cars have been neglected recently with the Mig's isues of late.  I need at least two cars on the road at all times..

[TheBoy]

Agreed - I do miss the V6 soundtrack and if there was only an mpg or 2 in it, i'd suffer...but probably be too tempted to gun it!  £70 a week on fuel is a crippler as it is..

Need to get the soldering iron out and get cracking on the LPG wiring pretty quickly..but the other 3 cars have been neglected recently with the Mig's isues of late.  I need at least two cars on the road at all times..

I wish my fuel bill was only £70 a week  

[JamesV6CDX]

My engine of choice is a 3.0 V6 - which I find overall to be better on fuel than the 2.0, unless you drive like a grandad...

I've said it many times, the 2.0 is not economical.

Having said that, I've only ever had auto's and I now have a manual, I'll be interested to see if that's any better..

[Tony H]

As a general rule of thumb a manual can be up to 10% more fuel efficient

[Elite Pete]

As a general rule of thumb a manual can be up to 10% more fuel efficient

Unless its mine which is about 30% less fuel efficient

[Tony H]

As a general rule of thumb a manual can be up to 10% more fuel efficient

Unless its mine which is about 30% less fuel efficient

That'll be down to pressing the "slurp" peddle too hard

[Richie London]

ive gone from 20 quid a day to about 70 a week now in my 2.5.  shes running  

[psychnurse]

I find my 3.0 v6 very economical. average of about 30mpg, even 37mpg on some motorway runs at **mph. It seems to give the old 2.0 laguna a run for its money on fuel economy.  

[JamesV6CDX]

I find my 3.0 v6 very economical. average of about 30mpg, even 37mpg on some motorway runs at **mph. It seems to give the old 2.0 laguna a run for its money on fuel economy.  

That's only cos it's now it's timed up correctly