Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163

Honest John Back Room » Technical matters
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Wed 20 Jun 2012 17:21
Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163 - Hughm

Trying to understand the vast differences between the fuel consumption figures (and to a lesser extent the performance) of a 2.0 hdi Manual and a 163 hdi Auto. Surely the difference is not simply explained by the transmission losses and extra weight of an automatic box?

I'd love to buy the Auto/163 but cannot justify the hit that I'd take with the fuel consumption. Unless I'm missing something?

S/H prices seem to indicate that the 163 is not so popular. I can understand why!

Can anyone shed any light on this please?

Really sorry if this is a stupid question or if it has been covered elsewhere.

Hugh

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 21 Jun 2012 11:03
Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163 - Peter.N.

I don't know what these figures are but auto's always have quite a hefty fuel penalty which is one of the main reasons why I wouldn't have one, but I do have experience of two Hdi engines that give vastly different fuel consumptions.

I have a 2.0Hdi . 406 and a 2.2Hdi C5, The 406 whith my very delicate style of driving will return 60+ mpg in fact on one 10 mile stretch recently it did 70.7mpg, the C5 driven in an identical manner will not exceed 50 mpg and in fact is average is in the low 40s, the 406 about 55.

There is no real reason for a larger diesel to give a worse fuel consumption unless the extra power is being used, although if it has more cylinders there is extra friction loss, in fact it theoretically should be better and in practise often is as the gearing is usually higher and you are generally running at a smaller throttle opening so more efficiently. In the case of the 2.0 versus the 2.2 the latter is either badly designed or set up, its not just my engine, many have complained about them.

I know this doesn't really help you a lot but if you look on 'Parkers guide' at owners reviews you should be able to see if this is general.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 21 Jun 2012 15:59
Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163 - Happy Blue!

Its is well known that marrying a torque converter auto to a high torque turbo diesel reduces the efficiency of the drive train quite significantly. Lots of losses in the system due to high torque and the reason why until recently so few diesel automatics were available - the gearboxes could not take the torque, whereas they could take the power of a large petrol engine.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 22 Jun 2012 18:01
Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163 - dieselnut

Peter, all the 2.2 engines came with a DPF. The DPF is located half way along the car so needs a lot of extra fuel to keep it hot & regenerating. All the latest diesels have the DPF as close as possible to the turbo to keep losses down. If you can find someone who can make a good job of deleting the DPF i've no doubt it would be almost as effiicent as the 2l engine. My current 2l CR Passat with DPF is quite capable of excellent MPG, Went down to Watford earlier this week, 150 miles, 70.5 MPG keeping to steady 68MPH on cruise although down to 50MPH through 20 miles of roadworks on the M1. Like you, I was never able to get over 50MPG from the 2.2 C5 I one owned, even when driven like a nun :)

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 22 Jun 2012 22:16
Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163 - Peter.N.

Thanks dieselnut, I was thinking of having a go at doing that but I have posted on a couple of forums enquiring of anyone that had done it and how much the fuel consumption improved to see if it was worth doing but have had no firm commitments yet.. I only paid £300.00 for the car and really want to get a 2.0L so don't know if its worth the hassle.

Peter

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 28 Jul 2018 02:53
Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163 - keith40

I know I am 6 year late answering this but it might help other people

I have owned 2 Peugeot 3008 1.6 e-hdi semi auto and 2.0 hdi 163 auto fuel consumption in real world driving the 1.6 averaged 42 mpg and the 2.0l averaged 40mpg this figure has remained constant over 3 year 60k miles on both. I would not have 1.6 e hdi because unless you drive super frugile and do not go above 60mph accelerate like a snail you get no fuel advantage the 2.0 is much more relaxed on the motorway it handles better in corners due to the addition of hydrolic system connected to the rear suspension which only come on higher bhp vehicles.

The automatic gear box is much better on the 2.0 l engine for me a person who do town country and motorway drivingnmostndays of the week the 20 163 bhp make more sense than the 1.6 you do not work the engine hard it's happy at motorway speeds unlike tge 1.6 which has to be driven hard to mantain motorway speeds

1.6 e-hdi is to small for the car.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 28 Jul 2018 08:42
Peugeot 3008 - Fuel Consumption and Performance: 150 vs.163 - gordonbennet

For a while SWMBO had a Citoren C2 VTS with the 1.6HDi engine, you would think it would be super frugal but this was only the case if you drove gingerly.

I imagine the short dumpy shape of the C2 didn't help (though the 1.4HDi is markedly better, no DPF mind) because it was reasonable on fuel up to about 65/70, once you got up to 80 or so economy dropped sharply, but it never gave the motorway economy figures others claimed from their C5/407's with the same engine, can only assume they were better at cutting through the air.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link