ClioSport.net

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!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

How far on a Full Tank?



  Impreza Wagon
295 from full tank to the light coming on, my commute is short but all A roads sat at a steady 65mph. I put my foot down a little at weekends but that's it, MPG could be better it's usually around 35mpg.

Overall I think it's great compared to other hot hatches such as CTR, Cooper S etc. People forget it's a 2.0......
 
  CBR1000RR Fireblade
Why do the 1*2 owners lie about their MPG?

It seems they enjoy over exaggerating their economy. According to some of the figures posted I would be better off driving a 2.0 16v petrol rather than a 1.7 DTI. My 182 averaged around 280 to 320 miles to a tank depending on variables, I don't believe for a second that a 1*2 can get 400 + miles to a tank. You would have to be getting over 50 mpg average to get that sort of milage from a tank.
 
Why do the 1*2 owners lie about their MPG?

It seems they enjoy over exaggerating their economy. According to some of the figures posted I would be better off driving a 2.0 16v petrol rather than a 1.7 DTI. My 182 averaged around 280 to 320 miles to a tank depending on variables, I don't believe for a second that a 1*2 can get 400 + miles to a tank. You would have to be getting over 50 mpg average to get that sort of milage from a tank.

How do you work that one out?
50l tank = 11 gallons
400 / 11 = 36 MPG.
Perfectly achievable unless you drive like a cnut everywhere or sit in a lot of town traffic.
 
  182/RS2/ Turbo/Mk1
Why do the 1*2 owners lie about their MPG?


Because the 1*2 lies to them in the first place.

Ours reads 10-15% more mpg than it actually does based on its own mileometer reading, and that probably overreads slightly too making it even worse.
The reason is that it always says its used less fuel than it actually has. So for example it says "7.9 gallons used" and then you fill it up and it takes 9!
Its like acting a fat girl how much she eats when you start taking notice of the 1*2 trip computer.



It seems they enjoy over exaggerating their economy. According to some of the figures posted I would be better off driving a 2.0 16v petrol rather than a 1.7 DTI. My 182 averaged around 280 to 320 miles to a tank depending on variables, I don't believe for a second that a 1*2 can get 400 + miles to a tank. You would have to be getting over 50 mpg average to get that sort of milage from a tank.
What size tank do you have? Ours takes over 10 gallon from totally empty to full, so 400 miles is under 40mpg not 50mpg like you are saying.
 
  182/RS2/ Turbo/Mk1
How do you work that one out?
50l tank = 11 gallons
400 / 11 = 36 MPG.
Perfectly achievable unless you drive like a cnut everywhere or sit in a lot of town traffic.

Agreed, if on a run we get the trip computer to say over 40mpg if going steady.
And typically we get low 30s in mixed driving.
20s if doing a trackday and driving to and from it.

I actually did a 100 mile trip once specifically driving to be economical (60 mph at most on the straights, lots of looking ahead and planning every junction so as not to stop etc, and on totally empty roads at time) and managed to get it to average over 50mpg on the trip computer, which is a genuine 45mpg.

Much easier getting under 30 than over 50 though of course, lol
 
  Clio 172
My ph1 if I'm lucky does 200 miles to a tank, its not my main car so mpg is irrelevant. I have done 4 trips in it in the last 3 weeks of about 40 miles each and its virtually empty. Not exactly built for economy (nor is my right foot).
 
  CBR1000RR Fireblade
I find my self baffled more and more by the average intellectual ability of this forum.

I'm out.
 
Last edited:
Yes :S
It's only a 2.0 in a car that weighs ~1050kg. Not exactly mission impossible!

If someone can't get above 30mpg and they're not ragging it everywhere or sitting in traffic doing start stop all the time then I'd say there's something wrong with their car...
 
  182/RS2/ Turbo/Mk1
Yes :S
It's only a 2.0 in a car that weighs ~1050kg. Not exactly mission impossible!

If someone can't get above 30mpg and they're not ragging it everywhere or sitting in traffic doing start stop all the time then I'd say there's something wrong with their car...

Agreed totally, the F4R 1*2 engine is actually quite efficient, getting well over 30mpg should be trivial just in "normal" driving if its mainly out of town.
 
  1.6 Focus, 1.6 122S
FLOL!

It's perfectly possible, PH33 to RG42, I did that on one tank so I know its possible. works out about 44mpg going from brimmed to empty.


Why do the 1*2 owners lie about their MPG?

It seems they enjoy over exaggerating their economy. According to some of the figures posted I would be better off driving a 2.0 16v petrol rather than a 1.7 DTI. My 182 averaged around 280 to 320 miles to a tank depending on variables, I don't believe for a second that a 1*2 can get 400 + miles to a tank. You would have to be getting over 50 mpg average to get that sort of milage from a tank.
 
  182/RS2/ Turbo/Mk1
Cruise control uses more fuael that Foot control.

Yes actually thats a fair point for some cars where the cruise control isnt well programmed as it makes much more continual adjustments which in turn can trigger the transient fuel control in the ecu to keep firing off the acceleration enrichment algorythms, but even so that shouldnt translate to a drop THAT much in fuel economy.

Not sure how well dampened the clio cruise control process is from this respect, so not sure how much effect it would have compared to some other systems. But even if its really bad you'd expect a few percent loss in economy maybe, but not 25%!
 
350-400 out of a 45litre tank in my Polo 39mpg out of the last tank

55mpg out of my dci 55litres tank 500 miles with 10-15 litres left

:D

Although I may have to get a magic rs lol
 
Last edited:

Martin_172

ClioSport Club Member
Something is wrong with your car unless it was 30 miles driven up hilll!

Ours will return 40+ doing the same thing!

my 172's would have done that no problem too but this seems about average for a 200 going by the reviews, again as i said its done 400 odd miles, so will loosen up a bit but cant see it making a massive difference only made 2 or 3 mpg difference on my dci doing 20k over brand new
 
Why do the 1*2 owners lie about their MPG?

It seems they enjoy over exaggerating their economy. According to some of the figures posted I would be better off driving a 2.0 16v petrol rather than a 1.7 DTI. My 182 averaged around 280 to 320 miles to a tank depending on variables, I don't believe for a second that a 1*2 can get 400 + miles to a tank. You would have to be getting over 50 mpg average to get that sort of milage from a tank.
On our Europe trip, i was getting 50+mpg. Tank of fuel was lasting 400 miles.. I also have the pictures and proof of another 8 people if that's not enough.

Granted it was at 50/60mph for 100's of miles but it still does it.

Over here i only get 280 miles to a full tank before the light comes on.


50mpg.jpg
 
Last edited:
  182/RS2/ Turbo/Mk1
my 172's would have done that no problem too but this seems about average for a 200 going by the reviews, again as i said its done 400 odd miles, so will loosen up a bit but cant see it making a massive difference only made 2 or 3 mpg difference on my dci doing 20k over brand new

Apologies mate, I saw the 172 bit in your username and thought you meant from a 172, yeah the 197/200 seem to be gash on fuel by comparison, by a bigger margin than even their excess weight accounts for too TBH!
 

Martin_172

ClioSport Club Member
Apologies mate, I saw the 172 bit in your username and thought you meant from a 172, yeah the 197/200 seem to be gash on fuel by comparison, by a bigger margin than even their excess weight accounts for too TBH!

yeah although i think what people, myself included is the "debatable" 30bhp more that the 200 has, your talking the power difference between your average 1.2 and 1.6 "normal" car between 2 versions of the same 2.0 16v engine that mixed with the extra (from memory!) 200kg? is going to make a difference, but imo, and you will know a bit better than me, there must be room for improvement in the mapping?

i noticed the same difference in mpg in my DCi's too going from a DCi100 clio 2 to a DCi106 clio 3
 
  182/RS2/ Turbo/Mk1
yeah although i think what people, myself included is the "debatable" 30bhp more that the 200 has, your talking the power difference between your average 1.2 and 1.6 "normal" car between 2 versions of the same 2.0 16v engine that mixed with the extra (from memory!) 200kg? is going to make a difference, but imo, and you will know a bit better than me, there must be room for improvement in the mapping?

i noticed the same difference in mpg in my DCi's too going from a DCi100 clio 2 to a DCi106 clio 3

Ive not mapped a 200 yet mate, so cant comment but I doubt there are massvie gains to be had in terms of economy TBH, manufacturers arent normally far out on petrol cars with economy as its all lambda controlled anyway.
Its not like diesels where the stupid emissions laws FORCE the manufacturers to badly map for economy!
 
  Flamer
I shall be driving from Edinburgh to next to manchester so this threads been interesting to say the least. Shall see what I get out the 172 :)
 
I shall be driving from Edinburgh to next to manchester so this threads been interesting to say the least. Shall see what I get out the 172 :)

That was my journey last week. Got there, to the forth rail bridge and halfway back home on one tank.

That was in my 182 with luggage and a passenger, 172 with just a driver should do better than that
 

NorthloopCup

ClioSport Moderator
I get over 400 miles out of a full tank on the way to the nurburgring. That's motorway driving at 70mph and iirc I stopped for fuel at 427 miles and still had 50+ on the range indicator with no low fuel light on either!!

This is in a stripped cup with passenger and luggage plus tools. Quite chuffed with it as the old car I used to do the same journey in only managed 200 miles from 50ltrs of super and was driven exactly the same way!
 
  Flamer
That was my journey last week. Got there, to the forth rail bridge and halfway back home on one tank.

That was in my 182 with luggage and a passenger, 172 with just a driver should do better than that
Really there an half way back.. Well I'm not as far as the forth road bridge I'm just at the beginning of the a1!
Il have luggage an a passenger! I'm only tiny tho tbf!! This will be interesting :)
 
  AUDI A5 s-sline
Best I have had is 418 miles on full tank around town. Averaged something around 45mpg.

Thats in my 1.2 though
 
  MCS R56
I get over 400 miles out of a full tank on the way to the nurburgring. That's motorway driving at 70mph and iirc I stopped for fuel at 427 miles and still had 50+ on the range indicator with no low fuel light on either!!

This is in a stripped cup with passenger and luggage plus tools. Quite chuffed with it as the old car I used to do the same journey in only managed 200 miles from 50ltrs of super and was driven exactly the same way!

If you can get 470 miles out a Clio Sport, I'll eat my hat. Any type of driving.
 

NorthloopCup

ClioSport Moderator
Did I say I believed what the trip computer was saying? That's why I stopped for fuel. I regularly see 47mpg on the trip computer on motorways though. According to the dash anyway.
 


Top