Going from 182 to 197/200

[mikeh]

Thanks for the heads up - I'm actually looking for something a little better built, and more solid/compliant on the road, hence why I'm considering the 197/200. With the different ratios for the 200, can anyone give me the ratios?

As for MPG, I really couldn't care less. One thing I will say, though - if you're only getting 24MPG out of a 197/200 then you will not be achieving 24MPG in an M3 with the same driving style.

 

[jon_r]

Disagree with that. My 8 mile commute to work results in 26mpg average and thats driving pretty slow and half of it is dead straight road. I did a 320 mile motorway journey in it then other week and achieved 31.8 according to the computer. Thats driving between 70 and 75 as it really is tiresome going any faster on a long cruise due to the noise/revs it's doing.

That said, it's a far better place to be sitting in than any mk2 i've ever owned and the chassis inspires much more confidence. It does corner quicker than any mk2 and it's a safer place to be. Is it more fun though? Not sure. They are entirely different machines imo.

If you can afford a 200, i'd certainly stretch to one.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Acceleration is very bad for economy, so is sitting at high speeds, so the two things to avoid are continually changing speed, or doing 80+

 

[gez 172]

Disagree with that. My 8 mile commute to work results in 26mpg average and thats driving pretty slow and half of it is dead straight road. I did a 320 mile motorway journey in it then other week and achieved 31.8 according to the computer. Thats driving between 70 and 75 as it really is tiresome going any faster on a long cruise due to the noise/revs it's doing.

That said, it's a far better place to be sitting in than any mk2 i've ever owned and the chassis inspires much more confidence. It does corner quicker than any mk2 and it's a safer place to be. Is it more fun though? Not sure. They are entirely different machines imo.

If you can afford a 200, i'd certainly stretch to one.

your mpg is so poor probably because the cars not even having a chance to warm up properly.
It probably needs a good clear out/loosen up from doing such minimal mileage. The mpg would soon creep up after a few long stretches.

this is when buying low mileage cars is a put off, when chances are they've been driven on cold start for most of their life, and they make less power judging by some of the threads off here, it's the high miler and mostly used ones that make the better hp.

 

[Martin_172]

Is it more fun though? Not sure..

this was my big question I always asked myself when I first got mine until I started to really get used to it, considering its bigger and heavier I could get so much more lift off oversteer than I could on a 172/182, it was comedy.

The levels of grip are simply awesome and as mentioned above, the confidence it inspires is brilliant, I genuinely don't think they corner *that* much quicker than a 172/182 its just you have so much confidence in it that you can push harder than you probably would in a 172/182.

brakes are epic!

only car ive ever owned that ive not modified, just simply didn't need it!

oddly enough too, I had some quick 172's but they always had days when they felt a bit slow and I got the itch for something quicker, but the 200 never, it always felt quick and I never got the itch for more power.

 

[Filippo]

What's this about MPG?? Dunno what you're all talking about

My 200.....

​

His best photo to prove the cars economy...and the bloody petrol light is on!

 

[Richyy182]

Hahahahaha