Our new 1.2 Chevy only does 36mpg :-(

[Guest]

SCTSH_ANDY has this theory that older, well maintained engines make better economy figures than those originally published because of the constant improvement in modern fuels. There might be something in that - he's got 40 out of the 460 on a long run, and I've managed 38MPG on Shell V-Power, which is 98 or 99 depending on where you are.

[Split_Pin]

Its first service is due 1 year or 15k.

 

I'm really not into this new car stuff at all any more. I like to find out how I can fix things not worry about warranties being voided lol!

 

My wife used my old 2L Vectra for a week to and from her work when the Corsa was leaking oil and thats 64 miles over 5 days and she did that on a tenner (thats how I seem to end up measuring things like this!). We toured the Peak District in it last year too, for a week and I dont recall fuel being an issue at all.

[garbaldy]

SCTSH_ANDY has this theory that older, well maintained engines make better economy figures than those originally published because of the constant improvement in modern fuels. There might be something in that - he's got 40 out of the 460 on a long run, and I've managed 38MPG on Shell V-Power, which is 98 or 99 depending on where you are.

 

I tend to agree with that statment, The old colt mirage i have is 33 years old and it can do 50mpg, that is only 1 mile short of our new fangled supposedly economical dizzler seat looks like the development of new cars has taken a step backwards

[cms206]

The motability car my mother has is a 1.8TDCi Mondeo on a 60-plate (run out 1.8 before the choice became 1.6 or 2.0TDCi) with a 5-speed box, average according to the computer is about 43.5mpg. It took me a while to "adapt" to driving it as below 2000rpm there is absolutely fuck all in the way of torque; as a result anything up to about 65 in a steady cruise is actually more economical in fourth than fifth, then theres a patch of roughly 35mpg until you finally hit fifth's sweet spot at about 83mph. Normally 56-62 in fourth brings a decent mid-high fifties, which is roughly what the brochure said it'd do at a steady 56.

[Junkman]

I have to agree with Studebaker Hawk.

With the old cars I never need as much as they are supposed to, with new cars, I never achieve the advertised figures.

I get 22.5 mpg from my 1975 Rover V8, which is advertised 18. I got 40 mpg from a 2011 Clio diesel hire car, which is advertised 70.6 (!)

 

In a way I can understand it. In a way. Due to the taxation on CO2 emissions, the manufacturers want to keep this figure as low as they possibly can, "in the interest of the customers". And low CO2 translates directly into low petrol consumption. Logical. If I burn less fuel, less CO2 is created.

But it is a sword with two blades. I might save 150 quid in tax a year, but depending on how many miles I do in the same period, this can badly backfire.

I'm in the lucky position that I do very few miles a year, maybe 3-4000. There it doesn't matter, how much petrol my car needs. I could do this in an 8.2 litre Cadillac and it would not make me a poor man. But for people who do their 20k miles a year, the calculation is entirely different.

 

The bottom line is however

 

- the entire CO2 global warming hoax is a lie.

- if you base taxation on a lie, what will be the consequence?

 

One lie leads to another. CO2 figures get 'enhanced' downwards, hence fuel consumption figures become unrealistic, hence people get deceited.

This is how the Soviet Union 'worked' and we all know how this ended.

 

Let common sense prevail. The cars (also small cars) have added considerable weight over the past 20 years. A new VW Golf weighs about 100 kg MORE (!) than a 1985 Ford Granada MKII 2.8 Ghia X. Moving such a mass is not done with warm water. It requires petrol. Period.

A lot of the progress in engine efficiency has been offset by adding ever more bulk to the cars.

 

How much you say that Chevy Aveo weighs? 1200kg? A MK V Cortina tips the scales at 200kg LESS (!) than that. It's a wonder you get 36mpg - in a way.

 

But first and foremost - do not trust the figure of your computer readout. Fill her up, record the miles, fill her up again and do your own maths.

I also believe the figure will come down once the car has 3000 miles on it.

[PhilA]

Yeah, my truck was abysmal on fuel for the first 5000 miles, the book 19/21 (23/25 UK) city/highway was closer to 15/18. By 25,000 miles it'd loosened up nicely and now returns 14/25 realistically (check my signature, lots of small trips) which still isn't too bad from 3 ton and 5.3 liters.

 

It will probably improve a little, but driving style impacts small car economy hugely. I never got the book mpg from any small car I ever owned.

 

-Phil

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

1600 miles is far too early for it to have loosened up.

 

The key thing when running an engine in is not to treat it too gently. Sure, you don't want to be using the top of the rev range yet, but you should vary your revs with occasional shifts up to 4000 or so, and vary the load you put the engine under. If you're doing a long motorway cruise that isn't ideal for running in because it's a bit too constant - unless you keep giving it some welly and occasionally drop down a gear. "Babying" an engine during these early stages could, if you're unlucky, ensure a lifetime of poor fuel economy and oil usage.

[Justin Case]

Interesting article from Autocar, with some research to back it up:

 

http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/tester%E ... onomy-woes

 

Looks as if it's pretty universal in small capacity low power petrol engines It seems that the answer is a bigger torquier engine, eg VW 1.9 tdi engines seem to do very well in Golfs, Jettas, Octavias, etc, etc and a lot better than any of the real world figures for the petrol tiddlers

[Volksy]

Fifteen-year-old, 181,000-mile, 2.5-litre TV2 does 34mpg in mixed driving, and I have a heavy right foot. It sounds like there's something not quite right with your Chevy.

 

Wow, I used to be able to get my 2.5T down to single figures!

[HillmanImp]

The bottom line is however

 

- the entire CO2 global warming hoax is a lie.

- if you base taxation on a lie, what will be the consequence?

 

One lie leads to another. CO2 figures get 'enhanced' downwards, hence fuel consumption figures become unrealistic, hence people get deceited.

This is how the Soviet Union 'worked' and we all know how this ended.

 

You are Norm. AICMFP.

[M'coli]

The bottom line is however

 

- the entire CO2 global warming hoax is a lie.

- if you base taxation on a lie, what will be the consequence?

 

One lie leads to another. CO2 figures get 'enhanced' downwards, hence fuel consumption figures become unrealistic, hence people get deceited.

This is how the Soviet Union 'worked' and we all know how this ended.

 

You are Norm. AICMF€.

FTFY If it were Norm, the only thing to wind him up more would be 5 ¥.

[BillyBedford]

Hope your chevy mpg improves, but if its anything like the daewoo's oh dear.

i've had a (and a mate had one) a Lanos 1.6 2000 vintage and you be lucky to get anywhere near 30..... end of

 

The other half recently changed her 2010 Fabia 1.6TDi which started off doing 60+ but after 30k miles would only do 50+ on the same route. (trip computer & tank to tank confirmed)

She now has a Citygoo 1.0 (3-pot pez) 75bhp, less than 1k on the clock but averaging 65+ on the same route ( yet to comfirm tank to tank figures)

 

Personally i'm thinking these new fangled diesels aren't much cop, another mate got fed up with his skoda 1.6Tdi's constant DPF regen shake he chopped it in for a Nissan joke.

 

I'm currently using a 205 1.6 Auto, '92 vintage, 44k on clock, averaging high 30's mpg on fast A & B road 55 mile commute.

And i have a 4trak 2.8TDi which does about 35mpg on a Tesco's veg/diesel combo.

[Rocket88]

All cars seem to have a natural "sweet spot", a natural cruising speed. Finding it is the key to good mpg, especially on large engined stuff. My old 3 litre Senator was more economical at 70 than it was at 55. Lard, as has been stated before, is also the enemy of good fuel economy, a big engine in a small car rather than the other way round always seems to do the trick, especially on a long run.

[Shep Shepherd]

Fifteen-year-old, 181,000-mile, 2.5-litre TV2 does 34mpg in mixed driving, and I have a heavy right foot. It sounds like there's something not quite right with your Chevy.

 

Wow, I used to be able to get my 2.5T down to single figures!

 

I can get the 'instant' consumption down to single figures if I want to

 

However, I have never got less than 25mpg overall, even on the Autobahn

[trigger]

I'm looking for a smaller newish diesel myself, my heart was set on a Focus 1.6TDCi but after all these horror stories about DPF I've decided against one now which i'm a bit gutted about, it's as if modern diesels have took a step backwards again.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

I rented a 1.4 Corsa 2-3 years ago. It did about 35 mpg overall, absolute crap.

[Spiny Norman]

Isn't it just a case of people who should know better falling for the marketing guff spewed out by the manufacturers?

 

I'm pretty sure these 'advertised' figures will A) be achieved in a lab, not a road, will be 'massaged' and 'targeted' by car companies in the same way as they're designing them to achieve 5 NCAP stars rather than crash well, and C) they'll be the 'touring' figures or whatever they call it nowadays, and no way applicable to what you'll get in a normal mix of town/A road & motorway driving, IE the sort of driving most of us do.

 

If a car is advertised as doing 70mpg, that'll be done at some unfeasibly low speed in top gear at a constant throttle opening, not whanging it up and down the gears and idling at traffic lights.

 

Hate to quote the Daily Fail but this is a bit relevant....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135884/Why-drivers-rely-miles-gallon-figures.html

[alf892]

I nearly got caught on this small petrol engine thing when we were selling my father in law's 1.2 Micra. The Wench used it for running around for a week or two and it seemed to sip fuel.

 

Wench decides that my old 530d should go.............and be replaced by said Micra to save LOADS of cash. It seemed an OK thing for commuting so I used it for my 35 mile commute which is pretty much 35 miles of dual carriageway. It saved nothing........... Like someone said you have to welly it nearly all the time to keep a reasonable speed (and I only mean about 65/70) whereas the old Bemmer just cruised along and returned a pretty easy 39 to 41 mpg.

 

If you spend more on the vehicle there is no doubt you can save in fuel............but then that isn't really a saving unless you want (and have cash not finance) to buy the newer one in the first place. No matter how much others will try to convince you......

 

 

Mind you I now commute in a diesel Bini with the 1600 psa engine (prepares for death by keyboard) but it is bloody good on fuel and has cut our weekly spend...........but the bit of cash in the bank has gone. The wench won in the end...........

 

Real shiters way has to be the 106/205 one...........go for non turbo on indirect injection though. If direct injection (early golf TDi Audi 80 Tdi type stuff) and the turbo improves consumption. I had L reg 80Tdi for 9 years and it never went under 50mpg. And yes I do wish I had kept it......

[wuvvum]

I agree with that Autocar article. I found that with the Innocenti (659cc, 30bhp) - when I was using it to potter to work and back (average cruising speed on the open road bits about 50, with a fair bit of town / traffic included) I was averaging around 50mpg; on the run down to Stondon / Luton, where it spent several hours on the dual carriageway at +/- 70mph, the economy dropped to about 42mpg - purely because the engine was constantly having to work at or near full load just to keep up with the traffic.

 

Conversely, my Cadillac STS (4.6 litres, 305bhp) did about 17mpg on the drive to work and about 24 on the motorway - town and B-road pottering just never allowed the engine to get into its stride, and in fact the instant consumption readout on the computer was better at a steady 70 than it was at 50.

[Junkman]

Lard, as has been stated before, is also the enemy of good fuel economy, a big engine in a small car rather than the other way round always seems to do the trick, especially on a long run.

 

My speech since '33.

To save the environment, the planet, humankind, the non-fucking Panda bear and the universe, everybody should drive a Cobra with a 427 Side Oiler.

[willswitchengage]

The bottom line is however

 

- the entire CO2 global warming hoax is a lie.

 

That's not true, but I just don't care about it. I'll be dead before anything serious starts to happen. Scientists vs people on the internet, airline lobbyists and conservative Americans... can't work that one out.

 

Anyway, my 22 year old, 150000 mile 1.2 carburettor 4x4 gets a pleasant 42mpg in heavy commuting and has achieved 55 at a steady 60mph on the motorway (at which point it's doing nearly 4000rpm - not built for speed!)

 

Tbf I wouldn't say this is too much to worry out - my friends with a new-ish Ka and Fiesta 1.25 have never got out of the thirties.

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/aveo

[Spiny Norman]

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/aveo

 

From that page, just now...

 

huntermcp fueled-up their Jeep Wrangler. (13.0 MPG) 2 minutes ago

 

Way to go...

[richardthestag]

Found this

 

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/mmyers1/prius

 

I bet this owner is the absolute biggest pita to follow on a narrow road for any distance. But I am going to call Walter Mitty on him/her

 

I am amused that average across all these dog wank stain vehicles is not that far north of what I get out of a fully loaded grand Picasso 1.6hdi being driven like I stole it to the south of France and back. With a properly autoshite roof box on top and a boot full of 2euro bottles of red.

[DaveAspley]

Now I now i'm pretty fresh around here but i have to comment.

The dealer will find nothing wrong because there is nothing wrong. Korean cars are massively thirsty, always have been. This comes from experience of being a daewoo/chevrolet tech and then a hyundai tech. The figures are achieved in a perfect lab environment with no wind at a constant 50 in 4th. No real person will ever achieve book figures on a modern car unless you drive downhill everywhere. Thats why my brothers hyundai coupe is in the highest tax band possible and does fuck all to the gallon. Its designed for the yank market and it he sees 30 mpg its a good day. Oh and all korean cars have the mpg meter in imperial US gallons FACT.

Sorry.

[gtd2000]

Dave is the Hyundai Coupe the V6 version?

 

I had a couple in Canada years back, around town they were pretty awful on fuel but surprisingly economical on a long run.

[Micrashed]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20201950

 

Korean car manufacturers in Bullshit Fuel Figures Scam.

[R9UKE]

Very true about the motorway trip - small engines just don't like 'em!

 

I brought a 1.1 Citroen C2 over to Birmingham last month. It was doing 45 MPG around town here and dropped to 35 MPG on the 300 mile trip from Cairnryan to the Midlands - not a fun drive at all. In contrast, the 3.0 V6 Diesel Vel Satis did 48 MPG on the same trip home

[Pillock]

My 1.6tdci Focus advertises 73mpg as the top whack. I never expected to get anywhere near that, and I was never disappointed as I never have.

I average 57-59mpg on a run, and 54mpg if I include some town work. That's at least 15mpg better than the Leon so I'm fine with that. It means my car costs around 11.5p per mile on fuel, and as my company gives me 12p per mile driven on work business, sorted.

[Split_Pin]

Its now up to 38mpg.

 

Yay.

[Spiny Norman]

The last fill-up in my Saab has yielded 39mpg.

OK, so a couple of 40 mile round trips at 60-70mph helped, but still not bad for an old 2 litre turbo.