Washing

[cpjitservices]

If I can speak from Experience, the 1.6 Focus at work (Mk1 Faceliftg 3 Door) has a poor Autobox, Think its only a 3 speed and isnt the greatest on fuel, Dont get me wrong it does the job but for a daily driver it'd be dreadful. If you whack your foot on the floor (the right one) a lot of noise ensues and you dont really go any faster nor quicker. 

 

It's A 1.6 Petrol, with approx 150k on the clock so it is going to be getting tired.

 

My 3.0 L Jag S Type I believe was a 4 speed Auto and that achieved about 21-22 round town and about 32-33 on a long run and you knew about it if you put your foot down, an Autobox is defo better bolted to a bigger engine.

 

However one of the cons with an Auto is, when it goes wrong... expect a large amount of money to be deposited from your bank balance.

[Bianconeri]

We have a Hybrid in the household its a hateful car with a CVT

We had talked about 1 daily that!

It too goes back 1 year after mine wont be soon enough..................

My modern is a hybrid and it's bloody marvellous. Kia don't use a CVT though.

[dollywobbler]

I was never able to work out the MPG of the Colt auto, but I reckon it probably wasn't brilliant. A little engine needs to work harder. The 2-litre engine in my S-MX can be very revvy and powerful, but it's also very, very good at ambling along below 3000rpm, which I think is why I've managed to get 34mpg out of it. Or even better if I keep the speed below 60.

[Richard]

.

[406V6]

Answering your question in the thread, always go for the bigger engine unless it has a silly price. Life's too short to mess about with a slow car. Watch out for high road tax, though, on big-engined later cars.

 

Traditional type torque coverter absorb a certain amount of power and need a bigger engine to maintain easy progress. So check the type of autobox as well.

The fuel consumption of my 3 litre V6 auto 406 is only about 1 to 2 mpg worse than a 2.5 litre V6 manual Vectra which in turn was only about 2 mpg worse than a 1.8 litre petrol manual Astra.

[carlo]

Answering your question in the thread, always go for the bigger engine unless it has a silly price. Life's too short to mess about with a slow car. Watch out for high road tax, though, on big-engined later cars.

 

Traditional type torque coverter absorb a certain amount of power and need a bigger engine to maintain easy progress. So check the type of autobox as well.

The fuel consumption of my 3 litre V6 auto 406 is only about 1 to 2 mpg worse than a 2.5 litre V6 manual Vectra which in turn was only about 2 mpg worse than a 1.8 litre petrol manual Astra.

 

On a slightly different note did you catch that immaculate 406 V6 automatic saloon on Autotrader last month?  Sold within a day, looks like they're starting to appreciate at last!  Rarer than Coupes too.

 

I think 2.0 autos are a good compromise, and there's loads of cheap examples from different manufacturers to choose from.  Personally I find a 4 cylinder's torquey nature more appealing than the more peaky V6s, although perhaps I've been driving poorer examples.

[Junkman]

It doesn't really make any difference. My 6.4 litre Chryslers needed exactly the same as my 6.9 litre Imperials the way I drove them.

Sometimes the effect is adverse, my 5.0 litre Caprice needed more than my 5.7 litre one did.

Besides, considering TCI of car ownership, the monetary difference between two cars' OMGMPG is the most negligible factor.

[Jack D]

In my experience they really do need a bigger engine.  

 

Had the misfortune of being given a Nissan Joke 1.6 Auto hire car last year.  What a hateful wheezing gutless piece of shit.  

My Mercedes is a 3.0 I6 old school slush box with no lock up on any gear.  Feels pretty pedestrian, even with that engine you need to really provoke it to go fast.  25MPG on a run, 17 or so around town and A roads.  

 

My BMW is more economical despite having a much larger engine (4.4 V8)  and a huge weight penalty (2 portly tonnes).  Probably because of the lock up clutch and extra gear ratio.  

 

There isn't a rule for all,  some engine gearbox combinations just work better than others.  

 

Owned a Volvo with the VAG 2.5TDi which was mercilessly thrashed in very hot weather across Europe several times full of people and things at its top speed.  Now theres a combination that works well.  220K miles on it too.  Think it has been reccommended earlier in this thread.   

[Ghosty]

Did a couple of hundred motorway miles in the Rover today, 1.6 auto.

 

Do not recommend, the economy is BALLS.

[Guest Hooli]

Saab seems to have done about 33-34mpg today which considering the amount of tiny roads/proper hills & passes I went over seems pretty good to me.