1.6 16v VTS MPG worse than a 2.0 16v 172?

[Byard]

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?

 

[Waitey]

Both about the same in real conditions.

 

[Sir_Dave]

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?

Parkers is all theoretical/manufacturers figures.

Id say the vts is probably better, but the 172 is a very economical car to run.

 

[Revels]

I get about 28MPG from my GTi :approve:

 

[Byard]

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 ...

 

[Revels]

It doesn't weigh 800kgs for a start.

The Clios are actually very economical.

 

[DMS]

My 106 GTi was worse on fuel than my 172 was when it was still standard.
That wasn't to say the 106 was bad on fuel, it wasn't.
The 106 did seem to over-fuel slightly though. When I fitted the Raceland manifold and Pugsport straight through exhaust with the integrated de-cat it stunk of petrol, whereas the Clio never did after the de-cat was fitted (and still doesn't, except when it's on the choke for the first minute or so after starting it up).

 

[swordjo]

I don't see how it's not possible. Don't need to work the engine as hard and can sit at lower RPM etc.

 

[DMS]

The 1*2 has more torque at lower revs too, so you don't need to rev the engine quite as much to speed up slightly.
Plus it's a more modern engine. Advancements are made in engine design and fuel economy all the time, so things like VVT, inlet design, gearing, the cam profile and the ECU map will all help make the car more frugal.
That said, the TU5J4 engines are pretty good - they love to rev and respond very well to basic breathing mods.

 

[Russ_16v]

its not just weight and engine size, its to do with a lot of other factors, including how efficient the fuel management system is etc

 

[Sir_Dave]

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 ...

Are you just copying & pasting your responses from Sax-P?

 

[Byard]

Are you just copying & pasting your responses from Sax-P?

to Sax-p :rasp:

Have to get both sides of the story.

 

[Damo_Sport]

Are you just copying & pasting your responses from Sax-P?

I was jst about to say the same thing..

 

[Dunn]

i get 35 mpg in the 172 daily

 

[Nick_P]

I got 52mpg the other day

 

[Jason_E]

Surely the Clio engine has more low end torque therefore It's easier to get the MPG up?

 

[gaz44]

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?

I'd say it's about right.

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

I found my VTS and GTi worse than my 172

Ask anyone thats owned one, they love to be revved and as such return pish fuel economy

 

[DMS]

I found my VTS and GTi worse than my 172

Ask anyone thats owned one, they love to be revved and as such return pish fuel economy

Yep. Probably because they lack low down torque and don't make much power until after 4k rpm.
Epic fun though. Much more enjoyable to drive quickly than a 1*2 IMO.

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

Yep. Probably because they lack low down torque and don't make much power until after 4k rpm.
Epic fun though. Much more enjoyable to drive quickly than a 1*2 IMO.

Definatley mate, im an avid fan of the J4 engine.

People that dont like them have either never driven one or associate them with chavs/local cunters etc and thats fine

The bottom line is IMO they are just as capable as a 1*2

 

[Jason_E]

My engine is exactly the same tbh. It's carrying a lot more weight than it does when in the twingo too. So just to pull away you need more revs than you do in most cars.

VVT y0.

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

My engine is exactly the same tbh. It's carrying a lot more weight than it does when in the twingo too. So just to pull away you need more revs than you do in most cars.

VVT y0.

You pull away @ 5,000rpm?

Got launch control?

 

[swordjo]

I still think it's sh*t clutch control TBH. I've said it before, if my dads S40 with a 1.6 can pull away with no issues and excessive revving, a Clio can.

 

[mini-valver]

I used to get 100 miles to a tenner in the VTS driving steady, that was when fuel was just over a quid a litre IIRC.

 

[Russ_16v]

My old hybrid used to do 100 miles to a tenner and ran 13.8 quarters.

Why the f**k did i sell it

 

[mini-valver]

I'd still have the VTS if I hadn't crashed it, lol. 1.1 is going strong, even after a run in with the rear of a RR Sport! 109k and counting....

 

[tyranical]

Byard - First name Andy?

 

[Budgie]

Not much difference, I've found.

The VTS/GTi just beg to be pushed hard, though. I see about 29/30mpg from my XSi 16v.

 

[Jason_E]

You pull away @ 5,000rpm?

Got launch control?

3,000rpmish tbh. But the car has nothing unless its above 5K. VVT just kicked in at around that point IIRC.

 

[Iain C]

my 172 cup used to give me 40mpg, my swift sport 1.6vvt used to get 33mpg for the same journey, same driving style....

 

[SteveS Cup]

Yeah my 106 GTI was about the same if not worse than my 172 on petrol... But I was 18/19 when I had the GTI therefore I drove like a c**k.

 

[jdh91]

im actually suprised that the 2.0 clio can give the same fuel economy as a 1,6 saxo/pug, but as already stated the low end torque proberly does help.

 

[Joshua.J]

I drive like my nan so i normally get 36.1mpg on the motorway i get 43.1mpg from £25 fill up i get 170miles in the tank

 

[Brett]

My old hybrid used to do 100 miles to a tenner and ran 13.8 quarters.

Why the f**k did i sell it

To be fair petrol used to be a lot cheaper.

When petrol was low 80p's a litre about 18 months ago you'd only need 38ish mpg to get 100 miles to a tenner.

That same 38mpg will now get you 72 miles.

In reality at todays prices if you get a 172 to do 60 miles to a tenner your doing ok.

 

[DMS]

I remember the days when you could put a tenner's worth of fuel in the car and go pretty much anywhere in the country on it. Nowadays it barely gets me off my driveway :race:

 

[kev182cup]

My 106 gti was def worse. Thirsty little things.

 

[JoedotwasT5phy]

i do 40mpg in the Trophy all the time

 

[Soulless]

i do 40mpg in the Trophy all the time

Same,
always hovering around 35-45mpg.


I've owned 2 x VTS, 1 x 106 GTi (same engine)
1x 172 cup 1x trophy,

the clio's are marginally better on fuel.

 

[D15CO]

i have a 172 the mrs has a vts the vts is about thesame but the clio is a much better car and will take more abuse, hers is starting to fall apart...

you will spend more fixing the saxo if you like driving....

 

[Russ_16v]

I used to get 100 miles to a tenner in the VTS driving steady, that was when fuel was just over a quid a litre IIRC.

I'd still have the VTS if I hadn't crashed it, lol. 1.1 is going strong, even after a run in with the rear of a RR Sport! 109k and counting....

Lol fair play mate! Glad its still doing you well

To be fair petrol used to be a lot cheaper.

When petrol was low 80p's a litre about 18 months ago you'd only need 38ish mpg to get 100 miles to a tenner.

That same 38mpg will now get you 72 miles.

In reality at todays prices if you get a 172 to do 60 miles to a tenner your doing ok.

I worked it out at the time, it used to hit 48mpg quite easily

I get about 75ish miles to a tenner in the 172