197's/200's really that bad on fuel

[Mr Burns]

I test drove a 200 around Silverstone while I owned my 197 and the only difference I noticed was the quicker steering. I couldn't really compare the ride/handling as my 197 was on coilovers, but everything else seemed pretty much the same.

 

[JCC]

LOL at all the shite in this thread. They're no worse on fuel than their rivals. They're just heavier on fuel than the 1*2s were, but they're a much better car than the 1*2s as well. Or at least, the 200 is, I've never driven a 197.

 

[gez 172]

Thank god someone else agrees.

its just the moaners who think they have the best of the Rs range sticking to the 1*2's for economy lol

 

[Sir_Dave]

same pace as a standard golf r32 3.2 v6! Golf cost double on tax and is 1000X times worse on fuel

They arent anywhere near as quick as an R32 lol. And i got the same mpg.

For reference, my GP, which has 'terrible mpg' is also doing far better than my 197 ever did

 

[gez 172]

They are. Fact. Maybe not after 120+

Then there was something wrong with your 197 to be returning that Mpg.

i drove to Bath yesterday and back for Castle Combe Action day, and I only used £35 in fuel. 220 miles. My friends astra Vxr used £55


terrible mpg, and still better than the 197? Hole in the tank by the sounds of it, either that or you sit in traffic and don't come out of 1st gear

 

[Sir_Dave]

They are. Fact.

Have you owned both? Or perhaps used them for exactly the same journey day in day out? 100 miles, motorway, sat at 75-85.

I have btw.

 

[gez 172]

I won't listen to your view. if your mini that is 'terrible' on fuel, but is still 'far better' than your 197 was, something wasn't right with your 197. And if it was nowhere near as quick.

 

[Sir_Dave]

I won't listen to your view. if your mini that is 'terrible' on fuel, but is still 'fast better' than your 197 was, something wasn't right with your 197. And if it was nowhere near as quick.

No, you're missing my point, everyone assumes the GP has terrible mpg (it doesnt btw, im getting 34), but it is considerably better than the 28-29 i got from the 197. It would also rip a 197 a new ar5ehole. The difference is, whilst the R32/M3 justified their sub 30 mpg by being quick (the M3 especially), a 197/200 simply dont.

3 weeks mine lasted lol, massive shame, i wanted to love it.

 

[Mr Burns]

I never had any issues sitting on the bootlid of Mk5 R32's in a Clio. Not once. Ever.

 

[Nick172Cup]

Mk3 RS fuel consumption is appalling, fact.

What's funny is my 3.2 M3 with 4 people and luggage, sat at 85mph returned over 34mpg. And would destroy the majority of cars talked about in here...

 

[gez 172]

Ripping it a new arsehole is a bit extreme..? Chris Harris even mention how half hearted the GP is.

I do love the Gp's, I nearly bought one. But it was just for the rarity, nothing else.

This is where this thread gets divided down to just being people's opinions. My 200 is always seeing 33+ mpg. So it's brilliant on fuel IMO. 400 miles out of a tank in a hot hatch.

The R32 is a heavy V6 barge with 240Hp, before you even put it through the 4 wheels. It's just the sound that makes up for its performance lack.

thats my opinion, and yours is different. So this thread is never going to be agreed at how bad/good the mpg is

 

[Sir_Dave]

Just out of interest, what sort of speeds do you have to do to get 33mpg. Normal motorway speeds or slipstreaming trucks at 65?

 

[gez 172]

Lol... 70-75 on cruise control funnily enough.


i suppose these cars engines are similar to the 1*2's? You get your good ones and your bad ones.

And thankfully I have a good one.

 

[Mr Burns]

I thought there was a common train of thought that the 197/200 MPG ranges from high 20's if driven sensibly and low 20's if driven keen??

That's a theory I can agree with.

 

[Sir_Dave]

Lol... 70-75 on cruise control funnily.

Thats makes sense then, circa 66-70 on gps then, which is ok for the 197/200's relatively short gearing, explains your better than usual mpg

 

[Munson]

TBF I can manage 33mpg from a 3.0 twin turbo straight six. I wouldn't class the 200 as being "brilliant on fuel". But there you go. They're a fair chunk heavier than the 182 with not a lot more torque, so you have to kick their head in to get them to move. Plus you're in vtec at 70 mph in sixth lol. Hardly surprising.

 

[gez 172]

I drive mine hard. When I do, it goes under 20, but when I drive normal, it returns normal car mpg figures, like the ones I've stated.

i don't have to drive like a fairy to get those figures. I just drive at speed with the traffic, that's why I don't get these horror stories.

my friends CTR and Astra Vxr are worse on fuel than my Clio, so I don't see the issue

 

[Craig.]

I didn't think my 197 was that bad on fuel when i first got it last year but the more I've drove it the worse i think it is tbh, i use it as my daily for work & i never see more than 28mpg, on a run ill see about 35, but as soon as you touch the throttle it starts falling quickly lol. The 182 we have is loads better on fuel & even the supercharged 172 is the same if not a little better on fuel than the 197 when driven at steady speeds.

When ive had the 197 on track i get it down to 18/19mpg i cant compare this to the 182 as i havnt had that on track yet.

200's will be a little bit better than 197s on fuel due to the better gearbox ratios.

 

[E500 TAT]

When I was looking for a 197 I never once thought 'umm, I wonder what this will do to the gallon?'

 

[car.crash]

When I was looking for a 197 I never once thought 'umm, I wonder what this will do to the gallon?'

But you dug out a 5 year old mpg thread.

 

[E500 TAT]

I didn't have to dig too far, it was near the top of the page when I was on the 197/200 thread.

 

[Mr Burns]

It's the Mpg to performance ratio that hurts most... I owned a Megane 225 after the 197 and it was significantly better on fuel, and a fair bit faster.

 

[Goodj]

Well, this has convinced me that a 197/200 isn't going to be my next daily.

 

[Greeny.]

It's the Mpg to performance ratio that hurts most... I owned a Megane 225 after the 197 and it was significantly better on fuel, and a fair bit faster.

Completely agree with this, I don't mind having low MPG if I was driving it hard but as a standard car which I used as a daily, driving at normal speeds the MPG is shite, especially compared to my older 172's, however if I was to have another I wouldn’t be to bothered as the price to purchase them is so low anyway.

 

[Matt W]

Having owned several different cars since 2013, I would like to revise my statement that clio 200’s are good on fuel. My megane 250 was much better and my M3 is only slightly worse but with double the power

 

[_Tom]

Having owned several different cars since 2013, I would like to revise my statement that clio 200’s are good on fuel. My megane 250 was much better and my M3 is only slightly worse but with double the power

That's it, rub it in again that you have an M3. ?

 

[imprezaworks]

Really love the look of them, look way more modern than the 182.

Would i ever really buy one, mmm it would have to be a really nice one. Too many negatives sadly.

 

[Touring_Rob]

No, you're missing my point, everyone assumes the GP has terrible mpg (it doesnt btw, im getting 34), but it is considerably better than the 28-29 i got from the 197. It would also rip a 197 a new ar5ehole. The difference is, whilst the R32/M3 justified their sub 30 mpg by being quick (the M3 especially), a 197/200 simply dont.

3 weeks mine lasted lol, massive shame, i wanted to love it.

TBF to the above the R32 is a slow boat, completely different league to an E46 M3. I like R32's, they sound like the devil has farted down a pringles pot but they are shockingly disappointing pace wise, which for me means they cannot justify their poor mpg while the M3 can.

Just to add to the totally off topic thread My M3 does 21 round town and will just about do 32 on a run, driving like a saint. My 182 does 30mpg with ease on the same round town journey with me being really horrid to it and 41mpg with me being really careful.

As a MPG vs fun prospect the 1*2's take some real beating.

 

[Touring_Rob]

And I've just realised that I quoted a post from 5 yrs ago - fool

 

[Marky_]

And I've just realised that I quoted a post from 5 yrs ago - fool

At least it's to someone who's still in the club ?

 

[hsustyle]

I was getting 30-32 mpg avg indicated on my old 200. Had a Remap at Engine Dynamics after mid silencer delete, that may have helped Economy a bit. I would have another in a heartbeat.

 

[imprezaworks]

Liked yours then?

 

[hsustyle]

Liked yours then?

Loved it! Firm ride but just so engaging to drive.

 

[Sir_Dave]

And I've just realised that I quoted a post from 5 yrs ago - fool

Haha! Always good to drag back old posts

True re the R32, the noise that thing made was incredible for a standard car. One of the very few cars that id own a second time i think.

 

[Pauleds]

My 197 is getting 27mpg average but I much prefer the look of it, enjoy driving it and it goes quite well when I wind it up. It just feels more refined and grown up.
The previous 172 cup (not the rally car although that is better on daily fuel too) wipes the floor with it on economy
which got 36mpg daily average, 40+ on a sensible long run and performance wise the 172 is nippier.
The wife even likes to drive the 197 too as she wasnt a fan of the 172.
I just think its a nice looking well specced car that goes quite well for not a lot of money. Ticks boxes for me.

 

[massiveCoRbyn]

Got 36mpg over the last couple of hundred miles in my mate's 197. Much of that was A-roads and duel carriageways, but a few short, stop-start journeys too. Seems quite reasonable for me for what it is. Yes it's worse than a 1*2, but it makes up for it in many other ways in my view.

 

[DaveL485]

My 197 competes with my V6 for shittest fuel economy. Both low 20's.

Ironically my modded 21 Turbo would 1)dust both of them on speed and 2)returns 30% better mpg for equivalent driving despite being heavier AND 17 / 12 years older respectively.

Also why my daily driver is a diesel Volvo

 

[atgregory]

My 172 cup is in a different League to my 200 cup. If i'm having a tight week my 200 stays in work Recently drove to west Cork in the 172. Last year took the 200 Notable difference.