Jump to content
Hendry

Small Cars- Cheap To Run BULLSHIT!

Recommended Posts

What is all this pish the media tell us about small cars being cheaper to run, what's all the hype about it with the general public and where does it stem from?

 

I had a 1.8 petrol Astra until March 2012 when it was written off, was not impressed with the shit greedy sub 35 mpg the trip computer said I was getting and the constant fuelling it only for it to not be that quick or fun to drive when a VXR wasn't that much more expensive to run with much more power and more fun, better in every way, so I thought next car I buy will be cheap to run then at least even thought its slow and boring I won't be that bothered, so bought into all the media hype, bought a 1.2 Clio, paid probably as much for that as a better equipped comfier more refined barge could've been had for. I for the life of me cannot see why, once on an 800 mile round trip it saw 42 mpg, the rest of the time its as poor as the Astra, 35/36mpg at best, it gets out accelerated by milk floats, is no fun to drive, its cramped and unrefined, so why are Corsas/Fiestas/Clios/Polos so sought after/hold money better than the likes of Astras/Focus/Mondeo/Vectra/Passat etc when they are infinitely better for similar running costs and as cheap if not cheaper to buy, this whole everybody is downsizing because its too dear to run a big car is a load of bollocks, it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have somehow always thought that small cars were cheaper to run, small car + small engine = cheap motoring, people have thought like this for many years. As it has been like this for so long, its too difficult for people to use thier brains and realise that you can run a bigger engined car for less.

 

Take for example; A Rover 820 (2.0) vs a Rover 825 (2.5) automatically people will choose the 2.0 in the mistaken virtue that it'll be cheaper to run, smaller = less fuel consumption. Not so, everyone seems to forget that both engines are basically pulling the same car (if fwd, or pushing for rwd) The stronger engine will find it easier to pull the big Rover along whereas the smaller engine will probably struggle a little but more, hence using more fuel to compensate, so you'll get the same or often more fuel usage out of the smaller engined car than you will from the same car with a bigger engine.

 

Thats probably an over simplified way of looking at it so I may be talking bullshite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, I've had mondeo 2.0 and a 1.8, the 1.8 did 3 mpg less and was slow as fuck. I can't honestly recommend the 1.8 over the 2.0 that did 33. However if I compared it to a focus 1.6 that would do maybe 36-38 the difference would be hardly anything given my 8000 miles a year annual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I suspect that I have cocked up picking a 1.6 Scirocco over a 1.8

although I was swayed by going on a skid pan course with a selection of Sierras.

1.6 wank,

2.0 overpowered

1.8, a reasonable compromise

 

Yes

 

On oil over water.

 

In real life....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People obsess about a point or two of MPG.  I think it's needless.  Bloke over the road has a FWD diesel Volvo estate, I think it's a V40... 2003 anyway.  He claims he can get 60 MPG out of it.  I have, as we all know, a RWD petrol Volvo estate, a 940 from 1996.  I doubt I can break 30 except on a long run at moderate speeds.  And you know what?  I don't care.  I get a driving experience from my car that suits me down to the floor.  The V40 simply can't give me that.  It's worth far more than the difference in MPG to me.  Buy cheap and spend the difference at the pump, I say.

On the question of engine size in the same body, I'll always choose the bigger option, for the reasons put forward by His Lordship above.  Less stress = better economy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming shiters aren't talking about new cars with warranties I'll say that in my experience the cars that cost most to run are the ones that break down a lot, or always need bits replacing on them, which can be either a total lottery or the skill of buying a good used car, depends on how it goes for you.

 

Some of the most expensive cars I've owned have been little 1200cc superminis because I've bought them so young that the depreciation has hit me for a grand a year before I've even turned a wheel in it.

Conversely the E class Merc I have just now costs maybe £5-600 a year more in insurance & fuel than a 1600 Focus would, but in the two years I've had it (touch wood) it's survived on one £250 MOT & service and another £150 service. It'll be going in for another MOT soon so it may yet wipe the smile off my face, but even if it does, it's worth £2-300 as scrap so the depreciation for two years will be about £300 a year.

It's yer Donald Duck I think, I've spent a grand on a car and chucked it in the bin after a couple of months so some you win etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate of mine obsesses over MPG, as well.

As long as my Mondeo returns over 45ish and I don't have to sit behind wagons and accelerate like the Vicar on his bike, I couldn't care less if he averages another 10-15 over me.

 

My car will settle in and bang out high 50's-low 60's @ 70mph on a run, so as long as it can do it when required, that is all I need. My TUD5 106 used to return 60ish all of the time and I know which I would rather drive.

 

Life is too short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me wishes I'd stuck with the 2 Sciroccos I had about 7-8yrs ago, one for daily use and one for Sunday best ;) They were both 1.8 inj and always averaged low 40's mpg on a run, which is what I do with work.

I'd have saved a fortune if I'd just stuck with them, instead of messing around with loads of other chod. I sold the scruffier one, and stuck a less economical engine in the one I kept.

 

I think most modern cars are tuned to get omgmpg on paper, in tests or at 56mph, in the real world they rarely seem to do much better than their older counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say the 1.4-litre Renault Scénic I had last year was shit on fuel (38mpg on a run, driven carefully), purely because the car was far too heavy for the engine.  My neighbour over the road was getting better mpg than that out of his 2-litre version, and my much older 1.8-litre Carina E gets high 40s on a run - largely, as already mentioned, because the engine isn't having to make much effort to keep the car rolling.

 

Having said that, the diesel AX would easily do 70 out of town, so the equation does sometimes work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2.0 Sierra averages 35 ish on a run   but its 23 years old cost me less than the price of an mot test but  its comfortable and slowly going up in value .

I havent got lots of money and i  can accept the fact almost any modern car will out accelerate and give more mpg    .   i look at it this way   low purchase price & moderate fuel bill  vrs  high purchase price and low fuel bill    In the long run they all cost the same

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has took my sister about four cars to understand that 'small' cars with small engines do not always equal great MPG.

 

Case in point being she bought a (all cars are new) a Corsa B, C and D. All 1200 16v petrol engines. Which, at a guess, are all the same engine in a progressively heavier car.

She moaned that the Corsa D was shite on fuel, so replaced it with a 1200 16v Clio, wouldn't buy a used DCi example. Still, it's better than the 3 banger Corsa D she nearly went for!. :L

 

She then realised that was shite and, as she wanted a MINI, finally listened to me and bought a Cooper D - she does the miles to make this worthwhile.

 

We got there in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horses for courses,  too...My 190E does a lot better round town than my 260E did but not that much better on a motorway run of any length, involving, say, the fuel tank range.   Its working harder,  of course, and power-weight ratio comes  into it too as well as gearing.    I had an unofficial and very unscientific comparison with a Smart and my 2.0 dohc Granada manual on a run from Southampton to Nottingham.   Both cars averaged the same - 37mpg.  Difference was I travelled in comfort (if not style) and my mate went in a tupperware box that sounded like a mixer.   Add a passenger or two and the whole deal fell  down for the Smart.    MPG is  only a small part of the cost and effectiveness of a car....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have somehow always thought that small cars were cheaper to run, small car + small engine = cheap motoring, people have thought like this for many years. As it has been like this for so long, its too difficult for people to use thier brains and realise that you can run a bigger engined car for less.

Take for example; A Rover 820 (2.0) vs a Rover 825 (2.5) automatically people will choose the 2.0 in the mistaken virtue that it'll be cheaper to run, smaller = less fuel consumption. Not so, everyone seems to forget that both engines are basically pulling the same car (if fwd, or pushing for rwd) The stronger engine will find it easier to pull the big Rover along whereas the smaller engine will probably struggle a little but more, hence using more fuel to compensate, so you'll get the same or often more fuel usage out of the smaller engined car than you will from the same car with a bigger engine.

Thats probably an over simplified way of looking at it so I may be talking bullshite.

Nope that's spot on, that's why I'm getting similar mpg from my 1.2 Clio as my Astra as I've got to but the 1.2s arse to get to 70 or to make any progress, overtake etc and it revs to over 3500rpm at 70, the 1.8 Astra cruised along at probably 1000rpm less at 70, got there more easily and didn't need thrashed to stay there/make progress. Think I've learned a small petrol is not for me with the motorway driving I do, only ideal for town/urban driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running a 2003 Focus ST170 at the moment. According to Internet Folklore they're massively shit on fuel, every buyers guide and thread about the things says how awful they are on fuel. In reality it's not that different on fuel from the 2.0 Ghia Estate I was running recently. The estate would do 24-27 around town, the ST does 23-27 on the same runs. The estate would do 43 mpg on a long motorway cruise, the ST does 45ish. They're both geared around the same in their respective top gears, but the ST needs less loud pedal to keep the momentum. ST has averaged exactly 30 mpg over the last tank. Which I'm perfectly happy with.

 

Mate of mine has a 2004 Focus 1.6 Zetec, around town I get the same MPG as he does. £10 is basically 40 miles of city driving in either of them. a 1.8 Zetec would quite probably manage 45 miles / £10 and be more fun than the 1.6. 

 

Way I see it is if a car can make you smile when you get heavy with the loud pedal it's worth a few quid more a week than some miserable econobox. I really don't see "I get 48.4 mpg from my Spagthorpe DrizzleMaster even around town" as anything other than a declaration of exactly how tight someone can be. You know they're not gonna order Naan bread with a curry or extra toppings on a pizza because their tightwad tendencies mean the idea of spending a quid on something that "only costs them pennies to make" is enough to make the miserable Scrooge-like sods moan about it non-stop for a month.

Nuts to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post, but isn't the words we are looking for "whole life cost"

 

Except if you have negligible depreciation, you can afford £1000 a year extra on fuel.  

 

My Previous car was a £350 S40 sport with a rattle from the vvt top end, that did about 30 mpg.  Just before the gearbox went bang, I came into some money, calculated that if I spent £4500 on a Honda accord 2.2 Deisel, which might do 55 mpg It would pay for itself in 3 years in fuel savings (I do 18000 miles a year).  Well yes.  3 years on I have a car with 150K which is next to worthless, and needs £500 in parts.  Cost per mile is about the same as that Volvo (I sold it for £350 needing a new gearbox, so deporeciation was zero)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it matters a tinkers toss what MPG any car does, I'm sure it's possible with all our technical advances, we can fake putting a man on the moon blah blah, to build a car to do 200+ to a gallon of old paint, brylcream and dishwater, but when we can't move because the roads are rammed solid with stupid little cars then we're all doing zero MPG.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 62 plate Chevy Aveo 1.2 only does 39mpg. The car which is about the same size as a Juke is far too big for the engine. My old 2.0 Vectra used about the same amount of fuel. My wee 1.0 Corsa on the other hand runs if you just fart in the tank. I do about 70 odd miles a week and it costs one crisp tenner.

 

My Astra Coupe 1.8 was perfectly quick for what it was, you just have to keep it serviced. No idea on mpg though but the close ratio gearbox did not help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of you, BUT my missus has a 52 1.0 yaris which does 44+ mpg easily, can do more, as she bats along in it nicely, had it 6 years, done 70k in it. Needed two sets of front tyres one rear set. And it failed it's first mot last year on a wishbone bush. Needed nothing else apart from plugs, pads etc. it takes something daft like 3.7 litres of 5w30 once a year, hasn't got a renewable fuel filter, plugs and filters are dirt cheap.

 

It's never even hinted at breaking down, running rough or misbehaving it's self. It's been in two crashes, both not* her fault.

 

She does 300 mile a week going to work, she don't like cars at all, so it's pretty much perfect for her.

 

I can't think of a better car for her to use??? Bigger would surely mean more money? I love big cars and have often run them and I run a stag to work as often as I can afford to fuel it.

 

We might of lost a bit in depreciation but these hold the money pretty well, and it didn't cost 12 grand or anything daft like that when we bought it. I reckon we have got our monies worth.

 

But she would probably chop my cock off if I said " yeah sold the yaris, got you a marina instead"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

small cc= smaller insurance (thats the only reason i can think of spaxos,corsas and festers being saught after)

My Last Reliant averaged 63mpg

but my last mini averaged 35mpg (shit)

wierdly i seem to remember my 1500 allegro estate being rather good,or in as much as i cant remember moaning about putting fuel in it

My current Honda C90 averages 160mpg,flat out all the time lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micrashed gives about 43MPG

C8 about 38 MPG

 

Given that the C8 is larger by a metric shitload, faster, more comfortable and I can sleep in it too when the wife is on one its a wonder why I put myself through the pain of running the Micrashed at all?

 

Oh yes... The Micrashed is buttons to insure ( £198 FC Vs £650 of the C8) Slightly cheaper to tax ( £140 Vs £230 of the C8), cheaper on consumables (£20 a tyre Vs £140 a tyre of the C8) and a damn sight easier to park.

 

Its not all about MPG.

 

Oh and the Cherry for what its worth is cheaper still than the Micrashed to run. So far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I didn't care much about MPG, but I do. The Golf Mk2 proved that. 30mpg from a 1.6 was bloody hopeless. So I went against the OP's bold statement and bought a tiny, 1-litre car. The absolute worst the Sirion has managed is 43mpg with me thrashing it everywhere, so it's better on fuel than the Golf, sounds better than the Golf and is more fun than the Golf. Small car wins!

 

The Sirion can do 50+ quite easily, even with me driving. I reckon it'd top 60mpg with my wife driving it. On the other hand, I once got 40mpg out of a Citroen BX 16v and my Alfa Romeo 164 V6 could reach 30mpg on a run. Problem is that those two drank fuel like it was blue WKD at a teenager's party once you started enjoying yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...