Washing

[Joloke]

Powder

[eddyramrod]

2.0 should be perfectly adequate for daily duty.  I'm running a 2.0 auto and although I don't keep a specific eye on MPG it isn't out of order.

 

How much are you prepared to pay to buy your 2.0 and what kind of work is it going to have to do?

[NorfolkNWeigh]

This time last year I had a 96 C200 , a 92 e34 520i and an 89 Audi 100. All were 2.0 automatics, the Audi was doing around 30 mpg even on long high speed Autoroute trips, the Merc about 35mpg even with my most lead footed daughter abusing it, the bloody e34( the only one I still own) barely does better than 20odd mpg, on a run it might manage 30 . Whether this is down to it being a six cylinder , I don't know. But I'm sure if it was a 525 or even 535 the consumption wouldn't much worse.

[djimbob]

My family fleet include Kia magentis 2.5 v6 auto, Saab 900 2.5 V6 auto, Kia Magentis 2.9 derv auto, Transit 2.5 derv auto, and Lexus RX 300 3.0 auto V6 - and they're all decent on the fuel apart from the Lexus, which is a bit of a monster! The Saab and the Magentis have wonderful engines which are great on juice for the size of the cars, on runs and urban too

 

I'm becoming a big fan of the V6, they seem bomb proof, nice and revvy/responsive, and affordable to run, go for a bigger car every time for me if you can, they are better engineered usually and understressed, usually with all the toys for silly cheap money

[tommytwo]

FWIW, I have a 2.0 litre petrol Mondeo Auto Estate and on a recent fully loaded trip of 250 miles, the MPG worked out at 42.8, not hanging about. 168 k on the clock but it feels just about run in. What kills MPG with many cars is stop/start traffic and short runs where the engine never reaches full operating temperature. But you know that anyway. Short runs and the MPG drops to 28-30.

[GoGently]

What about these hybrid 1.5 Yoko-omos they are all automatics  or Volvo 340 off yer go

[JayW]

4 litre is a good size, and in a Jag it does a healthy 18mpg round town

[Guest Lord Sward]

Always go the biggest engine.

[SiC]

Bigger engine for sure, especially if a slush box. You have to hammer a smaller engine to make progress and then it ends up being thirsty. Also the bigger engines tend to have better spec boxes - i.e. 5spd instead of 4spd and more gears it locks up on.

 

Most modern boxes have lockup on the upper gears. The Laguna V6 I had would lockup in 3rd/4th/5th. Basically making it similar to a manual.

 

That car, around town, did 18mpg when I drove, 22-25mpg when the wife drove and 31+ mpg cruising on the motorway.

[GoGently]

Have a laugh in a Daf 

 

 

currently on Evilbay.

 

[eddyramrod]

Jodie, have a look at this Rover that I've bid on.  I've been outbid now but if you got it, at least it'd be in the fold.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1995-ROVER-820si-automatic/232401722008?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1431.l2649

But if you fancy it, move fast, there's less than an hour on it!

[Tamworthbay]

I have a 318i touring auto (1.9 m42 engine) and have heard so many stories about how underpowered they are that it makes me laugh. I am not planning on pipping LH to Pole at Silverstone this afternoon but it's plenty fast enough for normal use. It recently did 1400 miles in a week four up to Scotland and back with a boot loaded to the roof. Even up steep hills there was no issue. On a run it will do 45-48mpg around 70mph but it is crap around town and will only give high 20s. I can get it into the 30s if I use the box in manual mode but where's the fun in that. A guy at work has the same car with 3.0 straight six up front and it is quicker but not by as much as you would think and it never gets over 30mpg (but he is a crap driver to be fair).

[bub2006]

My experience is smaller engines not so great on fuel. 1.7 Volvo 440 was low 20s as was the KIA carens 1.8. Focus 1.6 auto was mid 20s and vectra b 1.6 was high 20s. Folk have told me in the past that a larger engine 2.0 plus would more than likely be better on fuel. All my driving was mixed town and bypass ,not so economical driving but not thrashing it everywhere

[danthecapriman]

With an auto, especially older torque converter auto you want a bigger engine really.

A 2.0 imho is the absolute minimum really. As said above, if you run a small engine with an auto you have to work the engine much harder to get going so the mpg will suffer, plus you'll get pissed off with the lack of grunt. I used to work on K11 Micra 1.0 auto and it was utterly gutless awful drive. The manual equivalent is fine though.

 

A big engine has the torque to take better advantage of the auto box so it doesn't have to work as hard to shift the car or make progress. My Volvo 740 is a 2.3 auto and that is a great drive and even does half decent mpg (not that I care about that anyway!).

I wouldn't worry too much about the difference in mpg between say 2.0 upto 3.0, it won't make that much difference really, plus the bigger engines will handle the box better than the smaller one.

Of course, it also depends on driving style too! If your driving a 2.9 V6 Granada and booting it everywhere the mpg won't be much good at all! I tend to drive mine quite gently so the mpg is ok.

[RayMK]

My experience with autos:

Large(ish) saloon car, 2litre V6, conventional auto: 33mpg on average, 27mpg around town and 38mpg on a run. Comfortable, roomy, ultra-refined engine and they are cheap if you can find one (1996 Nissan QX). 

Small(ish) hatchback: 1.6litre 4cyl, conventional auto: 33mpg rising to 36mpg on a run.  Comfortable, practical, quite spritely, rust resistant and fairly readily available (my current daily - Peugeot 205 auto).

So-called 'city car.'  Compact (dimensionally similar to a Citroen C1), 660cc 3cyl, conventional auto: 45mpg. Very few owners could achieve the 54mpg quoted on brochures. Remarkably spacious compared with similar sized competition, performance good when one-up and will cruise at 70mph without struggling. I often cruised at 80mph plus on private motorways. Small turbocharged engine won't last as long as a larger engine.  Mine started to misbehave expensively at 83,000 miles despite being owned from new and meticulously serviced by Mitsubishi throughout. They also rust (Mitsubishi i)

Classic auto, Volvo 66 saloon and estate, 1.3litre 4cyl, variomatic (CVT and rubber belts), 28mpg.  An unusual and enjoyable driving experience - we have had one saloon and one estate. 

Citroen Xsara diesel, conventional automatic. Engine size - can't remember. Quite pretty looking as a hatchback and 48mpg when it worked.  Autbox problems caused it to be scrapped at 72,000 miles, just 4,000 miles in to our ownership. Body and interior were in superb condition but fixing a £700 car with £1500 of replaced autobox killed it for us.  Would not risk one again.

[Bren]

Most 4 pot/auto combinations will never be great on fuel. We had laguna/ galant 2.0 autos - low 20's around town and low to mid 30's on a run.

 

You could buy a six pot with slightly higher fuel consumption but it will be a more pleasant experience.

 

Never had an auto diesel.And never will.

[Lacquer Peel]

Never had an auto diesel.And never will.

 

Volvo with a VAG 2.5 TDI and Aisin 4-speed is a good combination.

[rantingYoof]

The 4spd auto in the Astra MotherYoof has, which is mated to the peppy 1.8 VVTi engine (140hp), gives it a good amount of grunt and is very easy to use.

 

However, the car has averaged 22mpg over its lifetime. I've eaked it to 42mpg on a long run, but it's being used as a runabout on short journeys mostly so I think reasonably 30mpg combined is a realistic expectation. My five cylinder turbo-charged Volvo with a manual 'box manages the same, just for information.

 

 

 

Would there be a difference between a 4spd and 5spd auto? Does it just depend on how it's geared?

[Steve79]

DO NOT i repeat DO NOT whatever you do get a 1.4 Corsa B with an autobox. Had a '94 model and the best that could be got out of it was around 32mpg, irrespective of how you drove it!

[Guest Hooli]

Go bigger. I might have mentioned it before but my Saab 95 2.3t auto does damn near 40mg on a run (the day I collected it from SiC it was showing 39.7mpg when I got back to Doncaster from Bristol, cruse control on 70mph all the way). In normal use I'm getting 27-28mpg & that's 50/50 town/motorway.

[loserone]

Am I the only one reading this and repeating 'ls400' to themselves?

[Guest Hooli]

Am I the only one reading this and repeating 'ls400' to themselves?

 

Yes. The rest of us see it as an excuse to get a XJ40.

[loserone]

I don't think scaryoldcortina would thank me for buying an xj. He's probably pretty fed up with my 405...

[Honey Badger]

Yes. The rest of us see it as an excuse to get a XJ40 enjoy shitty build quality and rust.

 

Edited that for you, your welcome.

 

I've run V6 and 4 pot autos and the V6s are better to drive in my opinion, they seem to suit an auto much better, I had an auto 2.0 Mondeo several years ago and you had to work it hard sometimes and it wasnt great on fuel either, the V6 Accord and the Lexus RX only do 2 or 3 mpg less and are nice to drive and certainly shifts when needed, plus the auto box grenaded on a full history well maintained Mondeo at 80k so if it was me I'd run away from Ford Autos (just Fords in general really).

 

I'd think in your situation that if you want a saloon then the last generation Camrys make a strong case, good ride quality, nice interiors and Toyota engineering for under a couple of grand is a pretty good combination, they come in a 2.4 4 pot and the Same V6 as you get in the RX.

 

 

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201707077157674?onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%20New&onesearchad=New&sort=sponsored&model=CAMRY&advertising-location=at_cars&make=TOYOTA&postcode=nn84sa&radius=1500&page=1

 

 

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201707016965194?onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%20New&onesearchad=New&sort=sponsored&model=CAMRY&advertising-location=at_cars&make=TOYOTA&postcode=nn84sa&radius=1500&page=1

[vaughant]

I think with a smaller engined auto it's always best to look at something with less gears, ie 3spd over 4spd etc etc.

 

My mother's only ever been able to drive auto so had had a few plus we've had one or two as well so my thoughts.

 

Toyota Corolla auto:

 

After a small auto? Look no further, 1.3 16v engine, always above 40mpg,3spd auto, nippy to sit at comfortably 80 mph on the motorway, never break because Toyota.

Really excellent cars, hardest bit is finding one because every used one in the world ends up in Africa and I say this from experience of working out there not just internet BOLLOX.

 

Volvo 240 auto:

 

Built like a tank but drive like one to, anything over 20 mpg is a massive achievement. Don't break but totally and utterly boring, avoid.

 

Astra mk3 2.0 l auto:

 

Again pretty excellent, only fault on this one was that it filled up with oil in the plugs due to a Rocker cover gasket fail. Ok on fuel and plenty of performance although this does again sick to the theme of a big engine for an auto being a good thing

 

Merc ml 270cdi auto:

 

Great combo, the manual is hideous to drive as I find most Merc manuals to be.

200k in and the box hasn't been touched but looking back I think a v6 pez would have been 100%* trouble free motoring as the only real issues I've had with mine are diesel fuel system related issues.

Would recommend.

 

Hyundai i10 auto:

 

Another great shout for a low number of gears box, 4 SPD originally awful on fuel but then after a good run in now returning 40mpg pretty much at all times. Nippy enough too but economy drops rapidly once over 80mph, it's weird because it's almost like a switch !!! 78/79 ok, 80/82, crap!!!

 

E36 325 auto:

 

Entertaining as so easy to get sideways, bit too easy really!!! 30 mpg achievable but in practice I would say 25 realistic with normal driving use, if you're one of these people that drives at 60 down the motorways I'd say 35 is possible. Also had a few e34 2.0 and they were total crap on fuel, anyone who claims 30mpg is either never going over 55 or lying to themselves, they struggle to do 25/27 on a run and round town just hideous.

 

My formula would be:

 

Smol car: 3/4spd max, 1.3/1.4 min engine size sans turbo

 

Med car: 4/5 spd, 1.8/2.0l min.

 

Large: 5spd, 2.5/3.0l min sans turbo.

[cpjitservices]

Jodie, have a look at this Rover that I've bid on.  I've been outbid now but if you got it, at least it'd be in the fold.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1995-ROVER-820si-automatic/232401722008?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1431.l2649

But if you fancy it, move fast, there's less than an hour on it!

Im presuming you didnt win it Ed.?

[JayW]

 

That car, around town, did 18mpg when I drove, 22-25mpg when the wife drove and 31+ mpg cruising on the motorway.

Wow, that's lousy!

 

Exactly the same figures for the aforementioned 4 litre Jag and that weighs 1800kg!

[Ghosty]

No auto less than a 1.6 is worth considering really, they're glacially slow.

[eddyramrod]

Im presuming you didnt win it Ed.?

You presume correctly, sir.  Never mind, we've got a Roffle on Wednesday.

[cpjitservices]

You presume correctly, sir.  Never mind, we've got a Roffle on Wednesday.

It went for a pretty number. Still, someone has a bargain. But we may never know whether it was Petrol or Diesel haha