Fuel economy...

[word_easy]

In a couple of weeks time I shall be travelling to Edinburgh and back. A 500 mile round trip.

I have a choice of two cars to take, my clio 182 or the birds C1 1.0 petrol.

Personally I thought the C1 would make sense, 60-70mpg compared to 40mpg out of the clio. But then someone suggested that as the C1 is such a small engine, it would be screaming like a b**ch up the M6 and in turn use more fuel.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[Beef-Mc]

Old 1.2 clio could get 420 miles to a tank on mainly Motorway roads.

 

[richard1]

I would imagine both cars would get early 40's to the gallon

182 if your sensible

C1 if it's screaming - which it will be!

 

[-Leigh-]

No, I'd take the C1.

Once it's a 70mph it shouldn't be screaming? No more than the 182 anyway. I've never driven one, but the 1.2 clio revs a similar amount to a 182 at 70mph.

 

[mace¬]

I'd take the 182 just so when you get bored of the motorway miles you can have a little play at pace.

 

[Cliotoby]

Whichever one has cruise control.

182 isnt eaxctly quit at 70 now is it. I would imagine tht the 182 would get more to the gallon than the small engine anyways.

Mileage on her car and not yours............

 

[-Leigh-]

Whichever one has cruise control.

Interesting, as I've always found cruise control to use more fuel. As it tries to keep the car at the same speed, on inclines it will accelerate, opposed to I'd just keep my foot in the same place and not worry if I slow 2-3mph.

Be interesting to see other peoples findings.

 

[ilovewilly]

Interesting, as I've always found cruise control to use more fuel. As it tries to keep the car at the same speed, on inclines it will accelerate, opposed to I'd just keep my foot in the same place and not worry if I slow 2-3mph.

Be interesting to see other peoples findings.

I agree.

 

[Mr_P]

Take the 182 I've been using a 1.2 campus this week whislt mine has been having a few issues sorted and the fuel economy was worse on that than the 182. bigger engine wont need to be worked as hard and a good run like that will do your car good.

 

[-Leigh-]

I used to use a 182 and 1.2 16v on the same journey regularly.

The 182 averaged 36mpg, and the 1.2 averaged 48mpg. Mix of long runs, town driving, and cross country.

I cannot see how you can get worse fuel economy on a smaller engine, unless there is something wrong with it. The engine doesn't really have to work harder, you just don't accelerate as quick. I actually managed to get 52mpg over a 18 mile journey in the 1.2 the other night!! My 182 could never have managed that.

 

[Bluebeard]

Fcuk sitting in a 1.0 Citroen C1 for 500 miles.

Take the Clio!

 

[-Leigh-]

Fcuk sitting in a 1.0 Citroen C1 for 500 miles.

Take the Clio!

Good point!!

 

[Bluebeard]

Interesting, as I've always found cruise control to use more fuel. As it tries to keep the car at the same speed, on inclines it will accelerate, opposed to I'd just keep my foot in the same place and not worry if I slow 2-3mph.

Be interesting to see other peoples findings.

I've never actually thought about the reasons behind it, but my old Honda Accord (V reg 2.0 petrol) used to drink petrol when using the Cruise Control. Shockingly so!

I've never been a fan of it after that.

 

[Mr_P]

I used to use a 182 and 1.2 16v on the same journey regularly.

The 182 averaged 36mpg, and the 1.2 averaged 48mpg. Mix of long runs, town driving, and cross country.

I cannot see how you can get worse fuel economy on a smaller engine, unless there is something wrong with it. The engine doesn't really have to work harder, you just don't accelerate as quick. I actually managed to get 52mpg over a 18 mile journey in the 1.2 the other night!! My 182 could never have managed that.

I put £17.50 in fuel for 3 days driving in the campus, yet my 182 i put in £20 a week, same journeys. plus i should imagine that the clio is more comfortable.

 

[Magic Johnson]

Lol I'm using the mrs C2 at the mo, that's a 1.1 and at 70 on the motorway it sits at 4000rpm LOL. It's deafining...HMMMMMMMMMMMM.

There's no way that's economical in any way.

 

[-Leigh-]

Lol I'm using the mrs C2 at the mo, that's a 1.1 and at 70 on the motorway it sits at 4000rpm LOL. It's deafining...HMMMMMMMMMMMM.

There's no way that's economical in any way.

You think a smaller engined car revving at 4k uses more fuel than a bigger engine revving at 3.5k?

 

[word_easy]

Fcuk sitting in a 1.0 Citroen C1 for 500 miles.

Take the Clio!

lol yes but a Renault Clio is hardly refined either!

There doesnt seem to be a definative answer so I think i'll just whack the miles on the C1...

 

[AndyWilde]

182 all day long!

 

[Sargara]

You think a smaller engined car revving at 4k uses more fuel than a bigger engine revving at 3.5k?

Yes. Because the smaller engine only revs to what, 5k? 4k out of 5k rev band is working alot harder than a 182 at 3.5k revs out of 7.5k.

[edit] Ok maybe the smaller engine doesnt use more fuel than the 182 but i think the MPG gains of the smaller engine wont be as great as normal.

 

[-Leigh-]

Yes. Because the smaller engine only revs to what, 5k? 4k out of 5k rev band is working alot harder than a 182 at 3.5k revs out of 7.8k.

Pardon? Most petrol engines rev to about 6.5k. The 1.2 clio does (I'm using that as an example as I've got one) and uses less fuel sat at 70mph, than my 182 did. And a 182 revs to 7,250rpm for clarification.

The cylinders are much smaller on the smaller engine, so less fuel is going to be used. Although I don't know the science behind it all lol.

 

[Black-Clio-1.4]

Thats alot of boring miles to be done.... I have taken my brothers Punto on a long journey adn regretted not taking the 350z. :S

My 350Z usually only does 27mpg on long trips... But I usually enjoy the ride down...

So win win??

 

[word_easy]

lol Im not really interested in going for a spirited drive on the motorway, would rather hang on to my licence and save money!

 

[marinemackay2003]

i do 500 miles a weekend tust me take the 182

you will be sooo board in the 1.0 when trying to overtake ect and get up to speed

at least in the 182 you will have the power just drive sensibly and you will get roughly the same mpg

if you get board of the motorway at about carlisle take the a7 if your in the 182 good road to edinburgh if your in the c1 dont bother

 

[robo_#1]

DONT DO IT! take the 182, me and the missus did a return trip to london the other week from sheffield, took her 1.2 twingo, worked out the MPG after and it was VERY low 30's. if your nice to the 182 surely you could get close to that, not to mention it'll drive you MAD! I did a return trip to endingburgh a few months back too. I took works van rather than do all those miles in a 1.2... You wont really save anything, other than painfull driving and ear ache if you go in the 182.

 

[mullen]

take the 182, i've had a 1.2 chevrolet aveo as a courtesy car the past 5 weeks and the 182 seems better on fuel in my opinion!

 

[word_easy]

Well I took the C1 as the 182 is coming upto a major service, so thought I'd delay it as long as possible!

Anyway, filled the C1 up before we left, and filled it up again when we got there so I knew exactly how much fuel I used and how much it had cost. I drove between 70-75 all the way, with the odd 50mph roadworks for good measure.

Over the 270 miles one way...it worked out at 54MPG. The guage is in the same place on returning aswell, just havn't filled it up again, still nearly half a tank left!

I didn't feel like I was driving it particulary economically as I had to give it some beans to keep it going at 70 up some of the hills, but I still see that as impressive results.

 

[robo_#1]

Good results that, deffinately much cheaper than the clio. Best I get out of mine is 30mpg downhill with a tail wind! Still think it would have been more fun in the Clio lol. My Fiesta 1.6 TDCI nails 55-60mpg and thats THRASHING it DIESEL POWAH lol

 

[word_easy]

alot cheaper! only thing the C1 lacked was cruise control but it was nice and light to drive so I can't grumble too much!

 

[adste89]

Anyone know how many miles you should get out of a 172 on £10?

I used to have a clio 1.2 grande, it was just a known thing, £10 got you 100 miles.

I'm wondering if my new 172 will even come close?

 

[strechweaver]

Get the train then no need to worry bout fuel

 

[b1lly]

i can get similar mpg out of my 182 ( 70-80 on motorway )as i can with my wife's 1.4 scenic ( 60 -70 on motorway )............way too small an engine for the size of car

 

[TimR26]

Anyone know how many miles you should get out of a 172 on £10?

I used to have a clio 1.2 grande, it was just a known thing, £10 got you 100 miles.

I'm wondering if my new 172 will even come close?

I'd say 55 to 65 miles depending on how you drive.

 

[adste89]

Suppose the pleasure of a 172 as apposed to a 1.2 is worth it

 

[TimR26]

^^ Without a doubt!