With the petrol / diesel price differential getting worse instead of better as it should in the summer months, it might be heloful if between us we could come up with examples of particularly fuel-efficient petrol engines - clearly not the 1.6 Ford Focus as the current thread shows!
I'll kick off with:
Honda Jazz - a hard worked 1339 cc engine but people seem to get mid to high 40s with ease
New (08 model) Mini - SWMBO's Cooper does 40 mpg in town and 46 on a long run, about 5 mpg better than the'06 Mini One she had before.
|
|
These are good figures. With our absurdly high fuel prices any car that can't better 40 mpg is starting to look like bad news. My wife's 1.25 Fiesta nearly makes it. The computer claims a consistent 39 mpg or so.
Edited by AlanGowdy on 28/05/2008 at 00:53
|
My old Ford KA can do upper 40's on a good run, or even lower 50s on Super UL!
Simpler mechanicals too!
My previous motor the Ford Fiesta 1.4 Zetec would be a good economical choice if it weren't for the problems I had with it :-( like it had a new cat converter, which after it was fitted did 51mpg, due to it's taller gearing compared to the rest of the rivals. ie. 3k rpm @ 70 mph.
But due the bad experiences with the techical gremlins I wouldn't recomend one unless it's a 1.25 or even a 1.6 (not Zetec-s due to short gearing). They had duratec engines not the Zetec.
My current MG ZR (1.4 103bhp) can do 43 mpg on a long mway run, but does a dissmal 34 mpg around town on one tankfull :-(
If you want a little economical car & don't carry passengers around, why not a Smart fortwo? 60mpg if you don't thrash it to pieces.
|
The new twin cylinder petrol engines in the small Fiat and VW (UP) forthcoming range will raise the bar I think. I seem to remember around 90mpg was being claimed for the prototypes.
Maybe quite soon small common rail diesels managing to scrape a fuel consumption of 70mpg will look very dated?
|
Aygo/C1/107 - 45 round town, 60+ on a run.
I'd be interested to hear what any owners of VAG cars with the new 1.4 TFSI engine are getting. This is finding it's way across a wide range of cars and it could be a viable alternative for the diesel units if you need something which is fuel efficient and is larger than a city car.
I do have concerns about using turbos and blowers to squeeze every last drop of power out of small petrol engines though.
|
Aygo/C1/107 - 45 round town 60+ on a run.
I thought that it was more like 70+ on a run? I think these cars probably have the best fuel consumption.
|
|
53 plate Daihatsu Charade just posted 59.7 average of mainly town work and some A-roads between the villages, hoping for much more when I go on holiday and have some steady driving.
|
|
|
|
|
The new Mini Cooper D is capable of 72mpg combined cycle using a 1.6HDi 110bhp engine. Not a slouch either! Having driven a 1.6HDi in a C-Max and got easily 50mpg out of it on a 250 mile trip, I'd say those figgures are potentially realistic for a far lighter car.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking about selling my R Reg 1.8 Toyota Carina with 115,000 miles on the clock.
My daughter has a 1.0 Nissan Micra which does 42mpg in general town motoring (not during rush hour).
The problem with my Carina is that there isn't a problem! It's a very useful big family car which I've owned for the last 6 years, bought with 46,000 on the clock and it's been trouble free since. Fuel consumption is high 30s, low 40s mpg. I've never had less than 36mpg from it. That's during winter starts and a 5 mile journey to work or driving in the summer with the air con on full blast.
Non-motorway normal driving gives 38 mpg and on motorway runs it's always 40+mpg, normally 42. The best I had with a family of four aboard was 46mpg on the motorway (hell of a tailwind mind!).
So if I do sell it, what combinaton of big car/good fuel consumption is there? There isn't any rust on it either so I think I'll stay with it until 200,000 miles!
|
Don't sell it! Keep it till it dies on you. In the meantime keep your money in the bank and have a good look around.
I'd be as interested as you to hear what people say about big car and good fuel consumption. Yours sounds extraordinary and I don't think another like it has been invented. Are you thinking new or used?
Good luck.
|
|
I would only ever buy used 'cos I'm tight and don't want to lose money on depreciation!
|
Well, if anyone has an up to date copy of "What Car?" they could compile a list quite quickly.
I am assuming that efficiency refers not just to mpg but also to bhp?
|
|
Skoda Octavia 2.0TFSI vRS - 200 bhp, reasonably low emissions (25% tax bracket) 40mpg on a run, nudges 30 mpg around town and includes as standard "space and pace."
|
|
|
|
|
I'd go with VAG's 2.0T FSI to be honest. Consistently my TT returns 33-35mpg in town and 39-45mpg on a run, that's pretty good for something that fast. I'd also suggest the VAG 1.4 TSI would be even more so due to starting from a more economical base line. For the record I'm now beating the government average for the TT by 2mpg over 9100 miles from new.
|
C1 petrol. Just got for daughter to learn to drive & as runabout. 57 urban on every fill so far & best was 74+ on a very long steady run. Car's only just got to 1500miles so it may improve yet! I have to say at 35 road tax & group 1 ins & 60mpg I can put up with jokes. I just smile when I go to the pumps at the end of the week & £12 fills it back up for my week commuting.
IJ
|
Yep, I reckon the C1 is the way to go. My son's GF has got a C1 - I must have closer look at it and see how much room there is for the driver. I'm 6'2" and son is 6'4" and he seems to be able to manage OK.
Nothing personal, but how tall are you ID, and can you comment on comfort?
Edited by Waino on 28/05/2008 at 19:43
|
|
I have a 2002 Primera 1.8 which is currently doing 32 mpg (urban-ish figures). Previously I had a 2000 1.8 Mitsubishi Carisma - this always did 40 mpg urban and often 45 mpg urban if I was lucky. I didn't realise how good this was till I started looking at other cars.
|
|
The 2008 BMW 1 series has some efficient engines, the 1.8 petrol with all the extras will do a shade under 50mpg on the combined cycle. The 1.8 diesel is 60mpg combine with really low CO2 that makes the VED £45.
|
OK - here's my research, based on official figures. I think it is accurate . . .
10 most economical cars
Toyota Aygo etc - 61.4 - (67 bhp)
Smart - 60.1 - (61 bhp)
Daihatsu Charade 1.0 - 58.9 - (58 bhp)
Daihatsu Sirion 1.0 - 56.5 - (68 bhp)
Kia Picanto 1.0 - 55.4 - (60 bhp)
Kia Picanto 1.1 - 54.3 - (64 bhp)
Chevrolet Matiz 0.8 - 54.3 - (50 bhp)
Toyota Yaris 1.0 - 52.3 - (67 bhp)
Hyundai Getz 1.1 -51.4 - (73 bhp)
Honda Jazz 1.2 -51.4 - (76 bhp)
3 more powerful superminis that are economical
Daihatsu Sirion 1.3 - 48.7 - (86 bhp)
Honda Jazz 1.4 -48.7 - (82 bhp)
Toyota Yaris 1.3 -47.1 - (86 bhp)
Larger cars with efficient engines
BMW 118 -47.9 - (141 bhp)
BMW 318 -47.9 - (141 bhp)
Honda Civic 1.4 -47.9 - (82 bhp)
Honda Civic 1.4 I-SHIFT -49.6 - (82 bhp)
Honda Civic 1.8 -44.1- (138 bhp)
Honda Civic 1.8 I-SHIFT -47.1 - (138 bhp)
|
Nice list Tyro, I think the problem is that you don't take into account car weight. A Jazz amy be 82 hp, but if you've ever driven one you'll know that it's anything but fast - I presume as it's heavy.
Any chance someone could add weights to that list to give an idea of real world performance (relative at least)?
|
Gordon, you are quite right. My apologies.
(I also fear that my list is slightly out of date - I was using a copy of 'What Car' from last year.)
Anyway, here is what I have come up with.
Toyota Aygo - 790 kg
Smart - 750kg
Daihatsu Charade - 720 kg
Daihatsu Sirion 1.0 - 890 kg
Kia Picanto - 852kg
Chevrolet Matiz - 775 kg (excluding driver)
Toyota Yaris - 980 kg
Hyundai Getz - 998 kg (excluding driver)
Honda Jazz 1.2 - 1,015 kg
Daihatsu Sirion 1.3 - 940 kg
Honda Jazz 1.4 - 1,041 kg
BMW 118 - 1340 kg
BMW 318 - 1435 kg
Honda Civic 1.4 - 1,212 kg
Honda Civic 1.8 - 1,251 kg
Edited by tyro on 28/05/2008 at 22:04
|
|
|
|
|
Hyundai i10 - 1.1 - 56.5mpg (65 bhp) - 1008kg
Edited by Zub on 28/05/2008 at 21:36
|
Toyota Prius - 1.5 - 65.7 mpg (110bhp) - 1325 kg
|
|
|
|
I suggest someone creates a list that shows bhp/ton then lists them in descending order of MPG to get a realtive view of how powerful these economical cars really are. Can't be bothered myself mind you
|
With regard to speed, of the small cars on my list, the Daihatsus post the best 0-60 times.
Toyota Aygo etc - 13.7 secs
Smart - 15.5
Daihatsu Charade - 12.1
Daihatsu Sirion 1.0 - 13.5
Kia Picanto - 16.4
Kia Picanto - 15.1
Chevrolet Matiz 0.8 - 17.8
Toyota Yaris 1.0 - 15.4
Hyundai Getz 1.1 - 15.7
Honda Jazz - 13.4
Daihatsu Sirion 1.3 - 10.9
Honda Jazz - 12.4
Toyota Yaris - 11.2
Honda Civic 1.4 - 14.2
Honda Civic 1.8 - 8.6
(& BMWs broadly in line with the faster Civic)
Toyota Prius - 10.6. (Suddenly, the Prius looks like a good idea!)
Edited by tyro on 28/05/2008 at 22:28
|
I can vouch for the great punch of the Charade, its a very urgent feeling car and proof that weight is where the gains can be made for both performance and economy.
My misses new Picanto auto is like 19 seconds to 60 - think ill be taking the Daijitsu :-)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad this thread has produced some really helpful replies - particular thanks to Tyro.
Good to see the VAG 2.0 TFSI engine mentioned - it has lots of low-down torque so that if needs be you can drive it gently and be selective in when you use all the power.
Someone asked what was meant be 'efficient' - I had in mind an engine which gives the best possible economy for one's normal driving. In my case that means not being a boy-racer (at 59!) but getting a move on and enjoying the vigorous acceleration that my car can give me (VW 2.0 TDI), doing 20,000 miles a year.
People will willingly go green if they can do so without the fun-factor being taken out of the equation. A lot of the cars in the 'most economical' list are very little fun to drive - Stu's Daihatsu clearly being an exception. Is that a 1.3, Stu?
The Jazz is excellent in many ways but no ball of fire, whereas the 1.3 Yaris is nippy and lively - a matter of weight presumably.
Interestingly, Mike Rutherford in today's Auto Express implies that a diesel car will cost half as much to run as a petrol, purely comparing 50 mpg with 25 mpg. Too simplistic, as he always is, but the challenge is for makers to produce engines not just for small cars but for Golf / Passat size also that will give 40 + mpg in normal driving.
I agree - more experiences of the VAG 1.4 TSI engine would be interesting - particularly whether low-down torque is a strength or a weakness.
Edited by Avant on 29/05/2008 at 00:29
|
|
No, the Charade is just 1.0, but it has one of those burbling 3 cyl units unlike the weak sounding units found in Vauxhall/VAG cars that my neighbours have, so revving it makes a fairly pleasing sound.
|
|
|
I agree - more experiences of the VAG 1.4 TSI engine would be interesting - particularly whether low-down torque is a strength or a weakness.
Audi Driver mag has a review of the A3 1.4TFSI this month. It's 120PS and is a re-engineered version of the supercharger/turbocharged unit to increase low down torque and dispense with the S/C and it seems to drive well.
Downside was average fuel consumption on their 1000 mile test of 38 mpg and it needed superunleaded.
|
Downside was average fuel consumption on their 1000 mile test of 38 mpg and it needed superunleaded.
From what little I know of frequent car testers, they tend quite unconsciously to drive in a fairly heavy footed way using plenty of revs (I don't mean yobbishly or noticeably of course, just winding the engine up a bit). It's because they don't pay for the fuel or the cars, so money is no object.
Of course they are undoubtedly capable of driving economically. But it won't come all that naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
clearly not the 1.6 Ford Focus as he current thread shows!
As an aside to dissappointing economy figures, why are air filter change intervals so long? I felt the economy on my own car tailing off in the 2 yrs I've had it. A look at the air filter shows its quite grubby so I changed it.
I actually changed it for a new K&N replacement filter and my mpg has soared by nearly 15%. I can't believe the OEM filter could have stayed in place for 4 yrs 40k miles +. The £50 cost of the K&N will be paid back within 4 months and I can clean it and use it for years.
|
|
Have your insurance company increased your premium now you have fitted the K&N?
|
Have your insurance company increased your premium now you have fitted the K&N?
Nope, not interested in my consumables.
|
We had a mk4 1.4 Fiesta with the Zetec-SE engine, and that was very frugal. 40 mpg was a given unless mercilessly thrashed, and 45 mpg was easily withing reach, driven a bit more carefully. Went well too.
The Rover K-series engined Elise is another good example - 45 mpg easily achievable in real world driving conditions.
Cheers
DP
|
|
On the K-series, the MGF was known for giving very good economy figures - my sisters was a regular 45 mpg.
|
K&N replacement filter
I hope you've notified your insurance company of this modification.
These type of filters increase noise output whereas motor manufacturers have to comply with emissions and noise issues, some after market stuff doesn't comply. Also theses type of filters are not as good at keeping out fine dust particles from entering the engine.
In general air filters are not changed frequently enough, it's to do with calculations of cost to service that manufactures supply etc. Anyone who wants their engine to perform as efficiently as possible needs to ensure the air filter is changed more frequently to ensure good air intake into the engine.
|
|
|
The K-series warmed up faster than any engine I've ever seen before. Elise was 'off choke' within a minute of a cold start, and showing 90°C on its temperature readout a minute or so after that.
|
|
That's because the radiator held about as much water as a teacup and the lack of coolant caused head gasket failure (as indeed has Andy Murray today).
|
This particular example had 105,000 miles on the clock when sold and the engine had never been apart. Still went like stink and sounded sweet as you like. The rest of the car was falling apart around it, but the engine was fine.
I agree though, this engine's record is pretty appalling.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 01/07/2008 at 10:10
|
|
|
|
>>On the K-series, the MGF was known for giving very good economy figures - my sisters was a regular 45 mpg.
Driven normally my TF 160 achieves this quite easily. Using all of those VVCs and it drops to mid 20s though :-(
Girlfriend is still using our old 214 to go to work and back and over a typical week of 450 miles she is getting about 46mpg according to my calculations - about 380 miles on 37 litres is pretty typical.
|
|
|
|
|
