Print

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

[amigov6]

Yup, the 2.0 autos are silly on fuel but it's to be expected. My best was 35.2 on way home from last years lakes, 80/90 & the odd squirt here & there as you do. Not going nuts but not trying hard either. Most of my mileage is short journeys & whilst i mostly potter about i do enjoy 2nd to 3rd (up to 90 & back). Hav'nt checked ave. mpg for ages, just gone out & checked now........
    Shows 23.6....2.5 manual. (not bad for a biggun, & the car!!!!!!)

[philhoward]

A 2.0 Auto is only silly on fuel if you try and make it go quickly...which it won't!

I get 30mpg daily (31mpg is the best on a long run...) and did wonder (previous thread) if a 2.5 Auto would be more economical.  Sadly, 25% of my mileage is town driving; the rest 50-70mph stuff so I guess not in my case!

Strangely, this car seems to do 30mpg, no matter what driving i do - town, commute, long runs...OK, i've got 28mpg once when the old engine was on its last legs (water usage was 1 litre every 6 miles).

Anyone do a similar commute (35 miles each way, 25% of that through towns) in a 2.5?

[jackherer]

interestingly i've found that there are apparently  2 "plateaux" for fuel economy on the v6 3.0, this applies equally to my sintra and miggy, one at around 65-70, and another at about 92

Yes I can definitely believe that, one of the biggest issues with economy with petrol engines is pumping losses due to a mainly closed throttle, this is one of the reasons diesels are good for economy. Pumping losses will peak during part throttle full load conditions so sometimes it is more economical to change down a gear and open the throttle almost totally, enough to reduce pumping losses but not enough to activate the ECUs full throttle enrichment (the equivalent to an old carbs accelerator pump) which after a bit of practice becomes second nature.

I suspect there is a further plateaux lower down though, 65-70 seems quite fast to me for economical driving   (I can't believe I just said that, my other car is a modified trackday 205 GTI that I never drive slowly or economically so this is all new to me!)

meaning one gets better econmy with cruise at 92 , than at 85.

You can get MUCH better fuel economy without using cruise control, its better than normal driving if you aren't thinking of economy but its far from efficient. The main issue is it will accellerate up hills then back off on the way down which is the opposite of what I would do.

[amigov6]

A 2.0 Auto is only silly on fuel if you try and make it go quickly...which it won't!

I get 30mpg daily (31mpg is the best on a long run...) and did wonder (previous thread) if a 2.5 Auto would be more economical.  Sadly, 25% of my mileage is town driving; the rest 50-70mph stuff so I guess not in my case!

Strangely, this car seems to do 30mpg, no matter what driving i do - town, commute, long runs...OK, i've got 28mpg once when the old engine was on its last legs (water usage was 1 litre every 6 miles).

Anyone do a similar commute (35 miles each way, 25% of that through towns) in a 2.5?

To be fair the only 2.0 autos i drove were as taxis when the first were nearly new & i was,nt paying for the car or fuel so could'nt expect much really.  

[jackherer]

I've just got back home after driving as frugally as I possibly could without being pulled over for going too slowly and erratically and I couldn't believe my eyes when I switched to the average mpg and it said 51.1!

Never again though, it was hard work, and I don't think there is anything more to find now...

[pete1666]

I did a short run down the M5 60-70 and got 34.8 mpg , around town and school run about 20 mpg now but before the summer 18.9 mpg ??