What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Motorway commuter - okay91

I'm in need of some advice...

I'm in the market to replace my (old) diesel, which is sadly reaching the end of it's life. Unfortunately, considering the uncertainty around diesel, especially around London I'll be looking for a petrol engine capable of a high mpg, most likely a turbo petrol.

I have a budget of around £10k and will be doing 15-20k miles a year.

I'm interested in a Golf 1.4 tsi or Ford Focus ecoboost, but i'm definitely open to other options

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Motorway commuter - Manatee

Check out the www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ section on this site, not all the small turbo petrols get near their offiicial test figures - last time I looked, the Ford Ecoboost's were doing about 75% of the official combined figures.

e.g. see this comparison:

goo.gl/6xdbZP (Golf 1.4TSI v. Focus 1.0 T Ecoboost)

Motorway commuter - gordonbennet

Toyota Hybrid?

Especially as you've mentioned London, these things come into their own in traffic, also at 20k a year you'll soon be knocking the mileage up and they can stand it.

Motorway commuter - SteveLee

Check out the www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ section on this site, not all the small turbo petrols get near their offiicial test figures - last time I looked, the Ford Ecoboost's were doing about 75% of the official combined figures.

e.g. see this comparison:

goo.gl/6xdbZP (Golf 1.4TSI v. Focus 1.0 T Ecoboost)

Given those small engined turbos are barely squeaking past real-word 40mpg, I'd say stuff it and buy simething more interesting, how about a Hyundai Veloster, you'll get a fully-loaded low mileage example for £10K, and it'll return 40mpg on the motorway.

Motorway commuter - Leif
It’d be useful to know what you need. In other words, how many seats, how many doors, boot space etc. In terms of mpg my limited experience is that small city cars come much closer to the official figures. However, if you do lots of short journeys you’ll struggle to get anywhere near. A Golf is quite heavy, and VW cannot bend the laws of physics.
Motorway commuter - KJP 123
A Golf is quite heavy, and VW cannot bend the laws of physics.

Only laws they don't bend!

Motorway commuter - okay91

It's mostly me in the car so boot space and seats aren't important, however, i'm tall and prefer a larger car

Motorway commuter - S40 Man

What is your old diesel? How much would it cost to keep it going? It l if you buy a new petrol and stick 30,40,000 over 2 years it will lose a lot in depreciation. Depending on which diesel you have the old one could be more economical than a newer petrol as well.

If in, say, 2 years they have clobbered diesel you can change then.

Motorway commuter - TheGentlemanThug

What is your old diesel? How much would it cost to keep it going? It l if you buy a new petrol and stick 30,40,000 over 2 years it will lose a lot in depreciation. Depending on which diesel you have the old one could be more economical than a newer petrol as well.

If in, say, 2 years they have clobbered diesel you can change then.

I agree, keeping your current car may well be the best choice, especially if it doesn't have a DPF.

Motorway commuter - okay91

Unfortunately, it needs some major repairs that are way greater than its value!

Motorway commuter - Bromptonaut

Unfortunately, it needs some major repairs that are way greater than its value!

Not necessarily a killer. You need to compare cost to fettle with cost to change and additional depreciation on newer car. £500 to keep a banger worth £250 going for another year is actually quite cheap if you know the banger's history.

Motorway commuter - Andrew-T

Unfortunately, it needs some major repairs that are way greater than its value!

Not that again ... it's a misleading comparison, just a very easy one to make. What matters is how much it will cost you to replace the car or to repair it. It may be 'worth' £500, cost £900 to fix, but £4000 to replace. A more straightforward choice.

Motorway commuter - SLO76
Your money will go much further with a Toyota Auris and the 1.2 turbo will likely stand up to your high mileage use better than the VW especially considering it’ll have less miles on it to start with. The estate holds its money better and is more practical.

Auto Trader:

www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/20180319470...5



A Mazda 3 2.0 Skyactiv will also do 50mpg easy enough and again will be utterly reliable. It’s nicer to look at and drive than the Auris but is a bit dearer.
Motorway commuter - Tester

Yes, I was going to suggest the Auris 1.2 but am glad that someone with way more experience than me got there first! I've been running my January 2016-registered Auris 1.2 hatchback since last October, when I finally got rid a of the splendid old Citroen 2.2 diesel, and have put almost 10,000 miles on it. Very smooth and quiet on the motorway with (at least to me) astonishing 'pull' for a small petrol engine, which makes it very flexible. My real MPG numbers through the colder months have almost all been around 45-46, admittedly with little true urban driving, and have now picked up a bit more. I filled up this morning and had averaged 50.2 mpg over the last 250 miles running on V-Power. The old diesel never got better than 44 and was usually a bit under 40 in the winter.

Motorway commuter - okay91

Thanks, my heads been telling me Toyota all along, just not much to get excited about!

Motorway commuter - SteveLee

I still don't get this obsession with fuel consumption, the difference between a car that does 40 or 50 mpg for a 20,000 mile per year driver is about a tenner per week. IMHO If you can't afford an extra tenner per week, then you can't afford a car.

Motorway commuter - alan1302

I still don't get this obsession with fuel consumption, the difference between a car that does 40 or 50 mpg for a 20,000 mile per year driver is about a tenner per week. IMHO If you can't afford an extra tenner per week, then you can't afford a car.

Maybe they would rather spend £520 on something other than fuel for their car? I know that I would.

Motorway commuter - SLO76
“Maybe they would rather spend £520 on something other than fuel for their car? I know that I would.”

Plus £100 or so a year in tax in this case.
Motorway commuter - Tester

Hey, don't worry about the Toyota -- it's not totally dull! Try a test drive.

I'm no petrol head and don't have experience of the various Volkswagens and suchlike that tend to be better-regarded for handling, but if I'm feeling childish then it can be amusing to leave behind assorted BMWs and their ilk on winding roads. Given a beemer with an 'average' driver and a turbo Auris being driven with perhaps a bit more skill and mechanical empathy, the Toyota can be a no-fuss surprise. Perhaps this is widely applicable, that developing one's skills can make up for some 'on paper' lack of the car's performance (within reason, of course).

Motorway commuter - Big John

Try the Toyota Auris Hybrid as well - the oily bits are very simple - it's not really a gearbox per say but and electronically controlled transaxle with an engine attached at one end with two motors/generators incorporated into it. As such there is little to wear and taxi drivers generally love them. Braking also turns then into a full on generators to slow the car down so brake pad/disc wear is also minimal. The one problem I (er the royal we ) have with the Toyota hybrids is my wife thinks they are ugly.

Saying that due to the fact I still need to fit a 6ft 5" son in the back I'm running a facelift Skoda Superb II 1.4tsi which thus far been fab, overall mpg sits at 45.8 over just short of 60k miles. I'm quite a tall driver(6ft 4") and I find it comfy - I find many other cars cramped.

Motorway commuter - skidpan

Simple answer is a Seat Leon 1.4 TSi 140 PS or 150 PS. Great to drive, great to ride in and great economy. I only averaged around 7000 miles a year in mine and still got 45 mpg, doing the OP's mileage with a majority on the motorway I would expect possibly the mid 50's. A work colleage had an Auris Hybrid the same time as I bought the Leon, in his opinion it was dull to drive, dull to ride in, very noisy and on a motorway run it struggled to beat the leon simply because it was running on a 1.8 petrol engine. But he loved it because it was costing sod all in company car tax.

The Leon is every bit as good as the Golf for less money (or spend the same and get a newer Leon. Mine never went wrong in 4 years.

Motorway commuter - Alby Back
I do get all the above, and don't for one moment doubt the soundness of most of the advice given.

But...two years ago my "old", not Japanese, not petrol, not manual, E Class estate was traded in for £8000. At the time it was 5 years old and had about 190,000 on it. I'd had it from new, it had been serviced by an MB dealer according to the recommended schedule, but had never required any additional work other than brakes and tyres. It was, I'm proud to say, truly immaculate and blemish free and was still running perfectly the day we parted company.

It was quite the most refined motorway cruiser I've ever had the pleasure to waft about in, and so it should perhaps come as no great surprise, that it's replacement was simply an updated version of the same car which has now in turn reached nearly 80,000 completely trouble free miles.

Now, I don't know what the new owner of my "old" one paid for it, but let's assume it wasn't more than £10,000.

When I recently checked the MOT history it has since had, it's now up to over 260,000 and hadn't got any nasty advisories.

Someone got a very nice 10 grand's worth it would seem. Maybe I should have kept it another couple of years !
Motorway commuter - skidpan

Given those small engined turbos are barely squeaking past real-word 40mpg,

Only just spotted this bizzarre comment which has obviously been posted by someone who has never owned a small engined petrol turbo.

Well we have owned 3 and in the "real world they are excellent. The Leon averaged 45 mpg for the 4 years we owned it. The Superb is currently on 44 mpg for just over a year and considering its size that is magic, I expected less. We ahve only had the fabia about 3 weeks but it seems to be averaging approx 50 mpg and its only done about 350 miles.

In addition we had a supercharged Nissan Note petrol 1.2 DIG-S for almost 3 years and 22,000 miles. It averaged 49 mpg in our hands.

These are all calculated and nottaken form the dash.

Perhaps the poster should buy and try before posting such nonsense.

Motorway commuter - Senexdriver
Big fan of small (and not so small) petrol turbos here too. I’m on my 4th and my wife is on her second - all VAG. I don’t normally keep a car beyond 20,000 or so miles from new, but my first covered 40,000 trouble free miles before I traded it in.

There is one blot, however. My wife’s Ibiza suffered turbo failure at 9,000 miles. I put it down to the fact that she only ever covered short journeys and the turbo - in my view - just wasn’t getting enough oil. It cost £1,000 to fix, but it was still under warranty so no cost to us.

My 1.4 turbos would return mid to high 40s mpg on a run and high 30s around town. The Ibiza is a 1.2 turbo and will go into the 50s on a run. My current car is a 2 litre turbo and will return 44 mpg cruising at 80 on a motorway run. Very impressive technology in my experience.
Motorway commuter - Engineer Andy
Big fan of small (and not so small) petrol turbos here too. I’m on my 4th and my wife is on her second - all VAG. I don’t normally keep a car beyond 20,000 or so miles from new, but my first covered 40,000 trouble free miles before I traded it in. There is one blot, however. My wife’s Ibiza suffered turbo failure at 9,000 miles. I put it down to the fact that she only ever covered short journeys and the turbo - in my view - just wasn’t getting enough oil. It cost £1,000 to fix, but it was still under warranty so no cost to us. My 1.4 turbos would return mid to high 40s mpg on a run and high 30s around town. The Ibiza is a 1.2 turbo and will go into the 50s on a run. My current car is a 2 litre turbo and will return 44 mpg cruising at 80 on a motorway run. Very impressive technology in my experience.

Cruising at 80 is in reality nearer to 72-76 mph as speedos have to always read the exact speed or over, never under (as long as the correct wheels and tyres are fitted). Most tend to read 5-10% over at motorway speeds (the higher, the larger the gap).

Often, larger engined cars perform better at motorway cruising speeds than smaller engined ones because they aren't worked that hard, particularly if the car itself is quite large/heavy (including loaded up) in comparision.

Its why some modern very small trubo petrols and diesels do very well in EU mandated testing as regards mpg but do woefully in the real world, especially when fully loaded as their engines really struggle to cope with the weight or extra demands generally. I've seen some 1.8 and 2.0 N/A petrol engined big cars return better mpg than 1.0 and 1.2 turbos (as well as 1.6 N/A like mine) in smaller ones when the cars are fully loaded with people on a decent run.

Motorway commuter - Senexdriver
Slightly off topic, but the other point about petrol turbos is that they can be more fun than an equivalent n/a engine. I drove a Mazda 3 round New Zealand for a month in February. It was a 2 litre like my Audi, but it took a while to summon up its power whereas if you want acceleration in the Audi it’s a question of hold on tight. I’ve just been driving a little Jeep around the States for a month. It had a 2.4 litre n/a engine with 186 HP, but overtaking required a little forethought and it was extremely thirsty.

When my wife bought her Ibiza she’d been driving a 1.4 non-turbo Clio and was a bit disappointed by its lack of power at crucial moments. The turbo Ibiza made all the difference and after test driving it she tried a non-turbo 1.4 version. The difference was like night and day so the 1.2 turbo was an easy decision for her.
Motorway commuter - Arrius

As I recommended this car to a friend of mine, I will recommend it to you too. Kia Optima is a great car for commuters.

"Family cars are falling out of favour with the public, but cars like the Kia Optima still have their merits. They are practical, spacious and will return better fuel economy than a similarly sized SUV."

You would definitely get your money's worth.

Edited by Arrius on 31/05/2018 at 14:29

Motorway commuter - skidpan

Often, larger engined cars perform better at motorway cruising speeds than smaller engined ones because they aren't worked that hard, particularly if the car itself is quite large/heavy (including loaded up) in comparision.

Its why some modern very small trubo petrols and diesels do very well in EU mandated testing as regards mpg but do woefully in the real world, especially when fully loaded as their engines really struggle to cope with the weight or extra demands generally. I've seen some 1.8 and 2.0 N/A petrol engined big cars return better mpg than 1.0 and 1.2 turbos (as well as 1.6 N/A like mine) in smaller ones when the cars are fully loaded with people on a decent run

Here we go again, the usual nonsese from a poster who has probably never sat in let alone driven or owned a modern petrol turbo.

Please take note of the following, all our VAG TSI's have done excellent mpg. On a trip to Scotland and back ;last week including local running (1000 miles in total) our Superb averaged a genuine calculated 54 mpg. We did not hang about either, 63 mph average for the runs upa dndown. Could you name a 1.8 or 2 litre N/A petrol the size of the Superb that could do that please.

Still early days for the 1.0 TSi Fabia but its appears to be doing about 52 mpg in mostly local running including a couple of trips the the MIL's. Just better than the Note managed after it was fully loose.

As for working hard at mortorways speeds, more proof you have never been in one. Both the Fabia and Superb are doing about 2300 at a true 70 mph in 6th gear with very little throttle needed. No drop down needed to change lane either.

Motorway commuter - Engineer Andy

Often, larger engined cars perform better at motorway cruising speeds than smaller engined ones because they aren't worked that hard, particularly if the car itself is quite large/heavy (including loaded up) in comparision.

Its why some modern very small trubo petrols and diesels do very well in EU mandated testing as regards mpg but do woefully in the real world, especially when fully loaded as their engines really struggle to cope with the weight or extra demands generally. I've seen some 1.8 and 2.0 N/A petrol engined big cars return better mpg than 1.0 and 1.2 turbos (as well as 1.6 N/A like mine) in smaller ones when the cars are fully loaded with people on a decent run

Here we go again, the usual nonsese from a poster who has probably never sat in let alone driven or owned a modern petrol turbo.

Please take note of the following, all our VAG TSI's have done excellent mpg. On a trip to Scotland and back ;last week including local running (1000 miles in total) our Superb averaged a genuine calculated 54 mpg. We did not hang about either, 63 mph average for the runs upa dndown. Could you name a 1.8 or 2 litre N/A petrol the size of the Superb that could do that please.

Still early days for the 1.0 TSi Fabia but its appears to be doing about 52 mpg in mostly local running including a couple of trips the the MIL's. Just better than the Note managed after it was fully loose.

As for working hard at mortorways speeds, more proof you have never been in one. Both the Fabia and Superb are doing about 2300 at a true 70 mph in 6th gear with very little throttle needed. No drop down needed to change lane either.

I think you need to calm down a bit Skidpan - not every comment is a personal criticism of you and your ownership and praise of TSi VAG cars. As it happens, I did test drive a VW Scirocco 1.4 TSi (122PS) and found it to be more peppy than the 2.0 N/A petrol Mazda3 I tested a few days before. Note that I was the only person in the car, no passengers or load in the boot.

I was actually talking about driving cars with 3 passengers + boot load with a small, low powered (but decent to drive/mpg when one the driver) car (often a smaller one, petrol or diesel with a turbo) that is really design for economy and not to lug 4 people plus luggage around. I've seen on many occasions such a smaller car, loaded up with people and stuff, struggle and give very poor mpg (including the smaller de-rated 1.2 TSi, but mostly other makes and small capacity turbo diesel engines) whereas a large engined car, say a 2.0 N/A petrol OR a 1.6 turbo petrol or 2.0 TD fairs much better because it can handle the extra weight without the driver having to floor it every time they need to accelerate.

When my old 1.0 N/A petrol Micra was full of people, it went from an average 50+mpg down to low to mid 30s; I've driven my Mazda3 1.6 N/A petrol (saloon) with 5 people (including me) and stuff in the boot at higher speeds and still beat that mpg. I'm sure I would with a VAG 1.4TSi in comparison as its torque is even higher, so is even better suited to the heavier load. I've seen people driving 2.0 N/A Mondeos get better mpg than my Mazda on a long run up the motorway when carrying passengers, but less if its just one person.

That's all. Oh, and BTW, on my Mazda thats 12 years older in design than your car, I've managed (in 'summery' conditions on regular fuel) calculated 46mpg (max) on the long motorway run from Hertfordshire to Cornwall when I go on holiday (with a full boot), so not bad for an older less advanced design of car that's of similar size to yours.

Motorway commuter - Ian_SW

For whatever rrason, the VAG small turbo engines seem to achieve better real life MPG than their competitors. With my near continuous hire cars for work, I think I've now driven quite a few of them on motorway journeys.

I couldn't get the ecoboost Focus much over 40mpg, however carefully I drove, but have had no difficulty getting a Leon over 50mpg with both the 1.2 and 1.4 engines. The Peugeot 308, Auris, and Astra all did mid to high 40s without much effort. I've also had the normally aspirated 1.4 Astra a few times, which also does mid 40s on the motorway but with a fair bit more noise because of the shorter gearing.

I'd be happy owning most of them apart from the Focus or the Auris. The Focus because of it's difficulty to get decent MPG, and the Auris because of the (apparently non dimmable) bright blue screen which sits between the Speedo and rev counter. It didn't display anything useful most of the time, and was very distracting driving at night in the rain on country roads. In the end, I stuck a piece of tape over it which worked fine, but I'd not want that all the time on my own car!!

Motorway commuter - Happy Blue!

The 0.9l turbo triple in the Renault Captur in our fleet has adequate economy but by no means startling. Even on a run 50mpg is considered amazing rather than the norm.

By comparison, 40mpg in my E350 estate, capable of almost 150mph and incredible acceleration, is a regular occurance on a similar run. Just done a brim to brim trip of 560 miles which included about 60 miles of suburban and urban driving with the remainder on the motorway. I used exactly 14 gallons = 40mpg.

Motorway commuter - Avant

I'm of the old-fashio0ne persuasion that therr's no substitute for cubic centimetres / inches - for the simple reason illustrated very effectively by Happy Blue.

The Captur isn't a small car - it's about the same size as my Audi Q2. I could have a 1.0 engine in the Q2 but wouldn''t choose to: I have the 2.0 but the 1.4 or 1.5 would be fine. The point is that the little 0.9 Renault engine needs to work hard, with plenty of use of the accelerator, to make good progress. Whereas the Mercedes E350 is hardly extending itself, certainly not on UK roads.

The 1.4 TFSI engine in SWMBO's A1 is an impressive combination - very lively performance yet 45 mpg in town and up to 55 on a long run.

Motorway commuter - nailit

I'm of the old-fashio0ne persuasion that therr's no substitute for cubic centimetres / inches - for the simple reason illustrated very effectively by Happy Blue.

I agree. My mazda 6 2.0ltr 165ps is averaging 45 real mpg (tank full measured) and on long runs the best has been 51 indicated mpg (2% error) and recently on a 700 miles trip real mpg was 48. This with fully laden boot and cabin and full size spare and full size 10 ton hydraulic jack. Box of beer bottles too ;-) and enough food to feed 4 hippo's!

I believe the next generation mazda engine is even more frugal too. So it seems we have a choice but its only mazda going the cubic c's route.

Nailit

Motorway commuter - gordonbennet

Luckily we don't have to buy what any particular maker wants us to, there is always an alternative, nor does a vehicle have to be bought new, when they don't make what you want the answer is simple, don't buy.