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?
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.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.
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.
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...
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.
sat on the cruise control today @ 70mph for 30 miles and managed 29mpg!
Cruise control uses more fuael that Foot control.
Something is wrong with your car unless it was 30 miles driven up hilll!
Ours will return 40+ doing the same thing!
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.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.
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!
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
334 miles last week showing 41.4mpg but worked out at genuine 38mpg, not bad at all
LOL Yeah, it is pretty good as I do the same journey each day to work and know the mileage is pretty right based on my other cars I have done it in over the yearsGenuine if you believe the number of miles your car claims to have done
350 to a full tank of m'way driving, passenger + luggage. Nae too bad
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
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!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
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!
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.