Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I don't see how its physically possible to get the same (if not better?) mpg from a car with 2.0 litre engine weighing a over a ton as appose to a tiny 1.6 made from tin foil that only weighs ~800kg ...
As title says, was looking at getting one or the other but was going to go with VTS as I thought the MPG would be a fair bit better.
But parkers states the VTS as 33 MPG and a 172 as 34 MPG? Is this correct?
Thinking about getting a 172/182, how do they fare against business men in their dirty dervs?
Would love to see the look on their faces as I go past ... in a Clio :)