|
Anyone own one and what's your actual mpg. Seen on the real mpg here people getting over the 64 mpg claimed. But on most cars for sale pictures of dash say 48mpg. I'm getting 42 from my current car bmw xdrive so looking to improve mpg in next car considerably if I'm to swop (due to high fuel prices). Any other recommendations welcome. Budget max 12000
|
|
Not a lot of difference between 48 and 42. You could easily loose the monetary difference changing cars. 4x4 on your BMW does not help. 64 mpg for any petrol sounds a bit far fetched. The only experience of good mpg that I have is a consistent 52mpg from a 1.4 A1 125bhp. This is 90% motorway and not exceeding the speed limit over some 15k miles
|
You could easily lose the monetary difference changing cars.
+1. Unless you know a way to avoid dealer profit you will have to find an extremely un-thirsty car to save enough fuel costs, even at present prices.
|
|
True. Which would probably rule the 2017 onwardsuzuki swift out with the price of this model. May just stick as i am struggling to work out a better option really
|
|
|
|
|
I had the previous generation swift ( 2017 '15' plate 4x4), from memory it averaged around 50mpg.
Edited by paul 1963 on 05/07/2022 at 17:30
|
|
Spritmonitor (a large European mpg database) gives mean of 55 mpg from the 1.2 2017 onwards, from a sample size of 50 odd. So looks pretty good. Don't forget the swift is made of lightweight high strength steel so is very light, hence good mpg and nippiness.
|
|
When What Car ran the Ignis mild hybrid a few years ago through their real world MPG test, they got around 58mpg. The Swift is a little heavier, but its aerodynamics are a little better. So overall I'd expect the Swift to manage around the same, or just slightly less.
|
|
I can only agree with Bazza, despite only having around 100 bhp to play with it did get down the road surprisingly quickly and went round corners on rails, certainly had more grip than I had gentleman's parts, I'm seriously thinking about a swift sport next...
|
|
|
|
Don't forget the swift is made of lightweight high strength steel so is very light, hence good mpg and nippiness.
I doubt that will make much difference to anything except acceleration, as the main energy needs are to overcome wind and rolling resistance - tho I guess the latter might be marginally reduced.
|
|
E10 petrol u getting 10 percent less
|
E10 petrol u getting 10 percent less
Quit peddling that urban myth - Ethanol does have 25% less energy than pure unleaded but E10 is just 5% different to E5 so 5% of 25% is just 1.25% - that's just 0.5 mpg at 40 mpg.
|
|
Someone at work has one, 2016 I think. She gave me a lift once back from the office. It certainly shifted, it might have been the 1.4. It cornered nicely, just as well since she didn't slow down for bends. I was quite pleased to get out! I thought the seats were comfortable but I recall the dash seemed quite high.
|
Someone at work has one, 2016 I think. She gave me a lift once back from the office. It certainly shifted, it might have been the 1.4. It cornered nicely, just as well since she didn't slow down for bends. I was quite pleased to get out! I thought the seats were comfortable but I recall the dash seemed quite high.
The 1.4 Boosterjet came out in 2018. Before this, fastest Swift would have been the 1.6 Sport which was, in the opinion of the motoring press anyway, more fun to hustle.
|
Someone at work has one, 2016 I think. She gave me a lift once back from the office. It certainly shifted, it might have been the 1.4. It cornered nicely, just as well since she didn't slow down for bends. I was quite pleased to get out! I thought the seats were comfortable but I recall the dash seemed quite high.
The 1.4 Boosterjet came out in 2018. Before this, fastest Swift would have been the 1.6 Sport which was, in the opinion of the motoring press anyway, more fun to hustle.
Trust me, all swifts are fun to hustle, the engines love to rev.
|
|
I had a 2006 swift with the 1.5 CVT engine and it's brilliant do drive handled like a gokart
|
|
|
Think you'll find the 1 litre Boosterjet was the second fastest not the 1.6 n/a. Lighter it was a rewarding drive . We owned a 68 plate SZ5 example in Speedy Blue.
|
Think you'll find the 1 litre Boosterjet was the second fastest not the 1.6 n/a. Lighter it was a rewarding drive . We owned a 68 plate SZ5 example in Speedy Blue.
I didn't say the 1.6 was the second fastest Swift, I said it was the fastest before the 1.4 Boosterjet appeared (which was the next generation), because it was!. For the record, the 1.0 Boosterjet was also the fastest Swift for a short period because the n/a 1.6 wasn't carried on into the third generation and the 1.4 Boosterjet didn't arrive till the following year.
The 1.0 Boosterjet may well have quicker in gear acceleration, but the 1.6 Sport does 0-60 1.7 seconds quicker than the 1.0 Boosterjet (in fact the 1.4 Boosterjet is only 0.3 seconds quicker to 60mph than the 1.6)
|
The first of the 1.4 Boosterjet Swift Sports were quicker than the current, 48V mild hybrid version.
I had one for a week when they were launched and loved it - cross country, you’d be working quite hard in a more powerful car to stay with it on a twisty trans-Pennine road.
I’d have one tomorrow but for my aversion to cars with three pedals - frustratingly, Japan do get an automatic Swift Sport.
|
The first of the 1.4 Boosterjet Swift Sports were quicker than the current, 48V mild hybrid version.
Mild hybrid version is 10bhp down and, presumably, a little heavier.
|
The first of the 1.4 Boosterjet Swift Sports were quicker than the current, 48V mild hybrid version.
Mild hybrid version is 10bhp down and, presumably, a little heavier.
The engine is slightly de-tuned but it's more than made up for when you take the electric motor into account, as your aware I've got a hybrid vitara and it's certainly not lacking in the go department.
|
|
I drove a Skoda citigo over 15,000 miles (1.0 litre) and achieved 65.9 mpg calculated on full - full readings. Savings can be possible, but it requires some constraint when it comes to your right foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
