General 1.6 MJet vs 1.9 MJet

Currently reading:
General 1.6 MJet vs 1.9 MJet

georgios1976

Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
371
Points
86
Location
Swansea
Having read some good reviews about the new 1.6 MJet engine variant, I would like to know what sort of fuel consumption figures the new engines gives.

I have the 1.9 MJet Sporting and covered 44k miles before remapping the engine, during which period the fuel consumption was about 45mpg in mixed driving conditions. The best I ever got was on a gentle run to Heathrow (170 miles at 60-70mph), which was 58.5 mpg.

Has anybody got anything better than that? Is the 1.6 MJet giving 20% better fuel consumption than the 1.9?
 
I do Swansea to Heathrow quite a lot :D Never got 58mpg though... That said, I rarely plod along the motorway at 60mph lol.

I am led to believe that the performance in standard form is pretty similar, but the refinement on the 1.6 is greater. Remap potential, I think there are figures for the 1.6 in other models and it's not quite as good as the 1.9? I am sure I'll get corrected in due course though...
 
Well, perhaps it's a little early to say as I've only had my 1.6 Mjet for a few days.

However, I intially got 42mpg just trying it out (gently) but on Friday I drove to work (20 miles each way) more-or-less as I would do normally on a mixed route (some town, some empty dual carriageway) and I got 53mpg.

I kept to 70mpg on the dual carriageway (helped by the cruise control) and didn't welly it or anything at other times, I am after all, still "running it in". No more than 2,500 rpm.

Having said that, it was still noticeably quicker than my old 1.3 90 with which I was pretty happy but could not go back to now!!!

My mpg increased noticeably in my 1.3 over the years I had it, so I'm expecting good things from my 1.6 (if I can keep my right foot from being tempted!). I have a thread here on the forum somewhere called "What mpg are YOU getting" if you're interested.

Oh yes, before I forget, the 1.6 Mjet has the same (standard) bhp as the outgoing 1.9 120 (and 10 less than the 130) but considerably more torque, at an even lower rpm setting, according to the specs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top