topcat5
Established member
1.9 sx 51 plate 40 to 42 mpg driving fairly carefully. ie up to 70 but more often than not 55 to 60. Millers additive and Shell regular diesel.
1.9 sx 51 plate 40 to 42 mpg driving fairly carefully. ie up to 70 but more often than not 55 to 60. Millers additive and Shell regular diesel.
It's always been my belief that MPG quoted is achieved in a warehouse on a rolling road - so as soon as the wheels turn it's straight to 5th gear & a computer governs the speed (like cruise control).
Real world figures are different.
However, I also believe that a larger engine will be more fuel efficient than a smaller engine (in the same car).
Whenever I fill up, I start out with good intentions to get best MPG - then some chav hacks me off & have to show him what a real turbo does
So, 1.9td, 105hp. Best I can get is 400 miles to the fill - always about 10 gallons (45 - 46 litres).
They don't do real world driving.
One guy wrote in to say that most cars can easily achieve 70+mpg through careful driving.
I asked him if he could substantiate this & he sent me links to Government tests.
Or people don't to test condition driving
I've beaten all MPG figures on all Panda's Fiat have done, just not on a long run in my Stilo yet as I haven't tried, but suspect I could
It's all to do withdriving style also.
I'm sorry but I just can't drive the way the government or anyone else tells me to, it's too boring.
I'd rather spend a few pounds extra on Diesel and enjoy my driving.
Fiat's Diesel engine isn't meant to be driven like that, it produces peak power and peak torque at very high revs for a Diesel.
If you're driving like sloth on mogadons to save money then fair enough, but I can't do it...but if you're doing it to "save the planet :nutter:" then get a bicycle.
:yeahthat:
I think the 1.3 is probably too small