(T) fuel consumption

to be honest, I dont find it that exciting to drive, I tend to cruise at around 85, only floor it if im in a hurry. Maybe if it gave me more of a buzz I'd use more fuel. But I suppose the track is for the thrills and and a car like the stilo is a good cruiser as far as im concerned.

I get average road/motorway miles 36mpg in my 1.6 Stilo. Have seen 40.1mpg on an all motorway trip at 70mph. But as my day goes with a mixture i average 36!

Sounds very poor fuel consumption for a 1.6, take it to the garage. If it was an Abarth you'd have an excuse!

Stiloboy, I do not stick my head in the sand, you should take yours out of your bum!

Ok, my 1.6 has always returned between 23 and 28mpg, this was before all the modifications I made to it and it has remained stable even with all the changes. I average 26mpg under normal everyday driving conditions, if I boot it that goes down to 21/23mpg and if I'm Driving Miss Daisy I can actually get it up to about 28mpg!

I questioned the dealership about this when I took it for a service and they told me after they checked it out, that all is in order.

The Brava I owned before had the same engine and returned the same sort of consumption figures, so I am putting it down to this power unit, regardless of what anyone else says. You have to remember that this engine is long in the tooth, it dates back to 1990 when they used to stick them in Tipos, so it's never going to be a cutting edge, high performance, high economy unit, unlike the 1.2, is it???

I hope this answers all your questions and remember, if it's fuel economy you want, you should have purchased a Diesel, or (to keep SB happy) a fantastic six speed 1.2.

Thank you!

Somebody said to me the other day that when they have their air con off they get better fuel economy i dunno whether theyre talking a load of sh*t, but maybe you could try a tank in your car and dont have the air con on and see if it makes any difference? Or you may want to wait a while before you try this because its f*cking freezing

If this does make a difference to your economy then maybe its down to the air con unit? I dont have a clue how they all work, so maybe im completely wrong

if your engine has to drive the air-con unit you will use more fuel, a fact!

Indeed, having air con on knackers the economy on any small engined car, although not such an issue on larger cars [coz already fooked...]

The clutch engages the aircon compressor, which reduces power available to the engine - this in turn means you put your foot down more to get the same performance, therefore increasing fuel consumption. However, if it is cold out, the aircon will not engage anyway.

So does that mean this isnt causing the problem then?

My old mans saab 95 2.3 turbo has its air con on constantly and still returns around 32 - 36 mpg so is there another way to run the air con unit?

Fair enough TC, the age of the engine etc... not cutting edge etc... all fair and valid points but doesnt answer how the majority of 1.6 owners get 34/35 even 40mpg on journeys?!

I too owned the same engine in my 1.6 Bravo and got the same 35/36 mpg...

Somethings not adding up!

weighs considerably more than the Bravo.......................................

Yet the consumption is the same!!!

Fantastic! My point exactly!

How can you get 26 - 28 mpg from a 1.6 engine? The 2.4 Abarth is the worst car I have ever owned from an mpg point of view and get approx 28-30mpg combined. The Alfa 2.0 TS I had previously managed more mpg. Having owned a couple of 1.6 cars in the past I would expect mid to late 30's unless you drive like a Chav boy all day long.

Take you car to a different dealer and moan.

we must all be drivin like Chav Boys innit???

old engine, fair enough, if by that you mean the low end part of the engine with the 8valve head (yup, had that engine in our tempra 1.6sx). that Managed 35mpg as well average.

as I recall only the 2ltr Sedicivalvole model had a 16v head on it on the entire range

Well no, most of us get mid to late 30s which is quoted and expected. And yes I drive hard.