General 1.2 vs 1.4 motorway MPG?

[fraserbottomley]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to buy a Stilo this week to use for my commute. I was originally going to go for a multiwagon, but I'm just going to get a small petrol engined hatchback now as there's plenty available cheaply in my area.

Will there be much difference in economy between the 1.2 and 1.4 at steady motorway speeds (70-80)? I know they both have the 6 speed box, but are the ratios exactly the same on both? And is 40mpg easily achieveable?

Cheers .

 

[Shadeyman]

There's not much difference as far as MPG goes but if you plan to do a lot of motorway driving get the 1.4, the 1.2 is a little under powered.

 

[neonglow]

I think it all depends on your right foot. I have achieved 40MPG on LPG with a 1.6 and mine is a MW. The board computer even showed 55MPG once (5.1 liter/100km). Currently I am averaging 28MPG exclusively urban and on LPG.



[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[MarkThompson4]

I have the 1.2 6 speed and on a 560 mile round trip from Glasgow to Leeds and back I managed to do it on just under a full tank and managed 55mpg doing 65-70mph. I reckon I could have got more out of it had I not been carrying 3 rather big passengers, 2 guitars, a cello, drum cymbals, 3 suitcases and duvets!

 

[FiatFleetFamily]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to buy a Stilo this week to use for my commute. I was originally going to go for a multiwagon, but I'm just going to get a small petrol engined hatchback now as there's plenty available cheaply in my area.

Will there be much difference in economy between the 1.2 and 1.4 at steady motorway speeds (70-80)? I know they both have the 6 speed box, but are the ratios exactly the same on both? And is 40mpg easily achieveable?

Cheers .

Whats wrong with getting a 1.9 ( 80 BHP or 115 BHP ) diesel.

1.2 is underpowered, 1.4 just an improvement on the 1.2,

In MW guise Diesel is King. which ever power you go for, besides holds it value better.

 

[fraserbottomley]

Whats wrong with getting a 1.9 ( 80 BHP or 115 BHP ) diesel.

1.2 is underpowered, 1.4 just an improvement on the 1.2,

In MW guise Diesel is King. which ever power you go for, besides holds it value better.

The diesels generally have quite a few more miles on them than the petrols £ for £ in my area (I can't be bothered travelling far for a cheap run around). Plus petrols generally seem to be more reliable, I don't know what the JTD's are like but modern turbo diesels all seem to be prone to turbo/injector issues. Diesel's quite a bit more expensive than petrol now aswell, so if a 1.2 will get well into the 40's mpg wise, diesel starts to make less sense.

Being slightly underpowered doesn't really concern me to be honest, I've got another car to have fun in.

 

[Shadeyman]

I'm not sure where you got your information from but its wrong, very wrong.

100,000 miles on a Stilo JTD is nothing, a well maintained Stilo JTD will do double that. Petrol versions can not achieve anywhere near that sort of mileage.

Out of all the Stilo engine versions the diesels are by far the most reliable and powerful(torque).

All the diesel versions acheive 50+mpg, far better than its petrol brothers.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Petrol versions can not achieve anywhere near that sort of mileage.

I beg to differ. A well maintained petrol will easily hit 150k+, knocking on about 200k before issues.

My 1.4 will turn 98k on Friday and hasn't had an engine issue to date

A Diesel I'd expect to see a min of 200k on the clock before issues, and knocking on 350-400k before I'd say it's at its top end mileage wise.

 

[Shadeyman]

I stand corrected. :worship:

 

[FiatFleetFamily]

The diesels generally have quite a few more miles on them than the petrols £ for £ in my area (I can't be bothered travelling far for a cheap run around). Plus petrols generally seem to be more reliable, I don't know what the JTD's are like but modern turbo diesels all seem to be prone to turbo/injector issues. Diesel's quite a bit more expensive than petrol
now aswell, so if a 1.2 will get well into the 40's mpg wise, diesel starts to make less sense.

Being slightly underpowered doesn't really concern me to be honest, I've got another car to have fun in.

To put things in a price perspective, when I bought my 55 plate JTD 115 MW, it has the same miles as a 56 1.6 MW for the same price!!

The 1.6 engine is a little harsh, and has known issues with coil packs and the cylinder head. A JTD is the way to go. Honestly.

 

[FiatFleetFamily]

I beg to differ. A well maintained petrol will easily hit 150k+, knocking on about 200k before issues.

My 1.4 will turn 98k on Friday and hasn't had an engine issue to date

A Diesel I'd expect to see a min of 200k on the clock before issues, and knocking on 350-400k before I'd say it's at its top end mileage wise.

I agree with what you say with a petrol, but that relies on the previous owners looking after them, but then again that applies to diesel engine Stilo's as well.

 

[Shadeyman]

I agree with what you say with a petrol, but that relies on the previous owners looking after them, but then again that applies to diesel engine Stilo's as well.

On average the diesels out last and out perform the petrol versions by far.

 

[FiatFleetFamily]

On average the diesels out last and out perform the petrol versions by far.

Very Very True. Just see how many petrols there are compared to diesels in the breakers yards, approx 8 : 1

 

[neonglow]

I own a Renault 21 with 500 000 kms on the clock.. the clock stopped working back then and I drove it for another 3 years and it's now parked in my garage. It has 1.7 carbureted petrol engine. The car holding the Guinness world record for highest mileage of a non commercial vehicle is this Volvo having 3 000 000 miles: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/top/about/news-events/pages/default.aspx?itemid=192
The engine had of course been rebuilt as far as I know, but just two times.. so it's far more than 100 000 miles. The only reason you consider a mileage of 150000miles incredible is because you guys change the oil every 20 000 miles

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

On average the diesels out last and out perform the petrol versions by far.

Agrees but it's all well having a vehicle capable of high mileage when you only clock up 10-15k a year like a lot then it doesn't stand to be much of a benefit. If its going to be a taxi or 20-25k+ a year car then diesel is indeed probably a better choice, although modern diesels when they go wrong do seem to cost more than petrols to fix when they go tits up.

Very Very True. Just see how many petrols there are compared to diesels in the breakers yards, approx 8 : 1

Or it could be down to more petrols being sold than Diesels of most cars, Or just being involved in more accidents? Lol.

 

[Shadeyman]

Agrees but it's all well having a vehicle capable of high mileage when you only clock up 10-15k a year like a lot then it doesn't stand to be much of a benefit. If its going to be a taxi or 20-25k+ a year car then diesel is indeed probably a better choice, although modern diesels when they go wrong do seem to cost more than petrols to fix when they go tits up.

Or it could be down to more petrols being sold than Diesels of most cars, Or just being involved in more accidents? Lol.

I've owned petrol and diesel cars, mileage does play a part in a vehicles longevity but what does "diesels are better mile munchers" have to do with the fact that they out last and perform their petrol brothers? Thats an added bonus IMO.

Diesels can cost more to repair when they go wrong but they go wrong far less frequently than their petrol counterparts so overall costs are about the same, diesels are far more reliable.

Or it could be they're "better" and end up in scrap yards far less.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

We'll have to agree to disagree what go wrong more Shadey, I mentioned modern diesels vs modern petrols, anything in the last decade really. When working it out in the number of diesel vs the number of petrols out there and the % of each that go wrong.

The point Im getting at about mile munching is what's the point of getting a car just because its capable of 400k+ if your only going to do 100-200k in it, which a petrol is capable of, before the car is at an age that it gets scrapped due to having next to no value?

I'm not disagreeing that Diesels generally are better, but for 90% of people a petrol is capable of doing the exact same thing for the duration of the vehicles existence but cost less to buy vs its diesel counterpart and generally go wrong less, or certainly cost less to repair if it does go wrong.

 

[neonglow]

We'll have to agree to disagree what go wrong more Shadey, I mentioned modern diesels vs modern petrols, anything in the last decade really. When working it out in the number of diesel vs the number of petrols out there and the % of each that go wrong.

The point Im getting at about mile munching is what's the point of getting a car just because its capable of 400k+ if your only going to do 100-200k in it, which a petrol is capable of, before the car is at an age that it gets scrapped due to having next to no value?

I'm not disagreeing that Diesels generally are better, but for 90% of people a petrol is capable of doing the exact same thing for the duration of the vehicles existence but cost less to buy vs its diesel counterpart and generally go wrong less, or certainly cost less to repair if it does go wrong.

And driving on LPG extends its life at least twice

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

And driving on LPG extends its life at least twice

Very true, so my 1.4 should have another 200-300k in it then

 

[Shadeyman]

Very true, so my 1.4 should have another 200-300k in it then

Now that I'd like to see.

300,000 miles on a 1.4 petrol.

:slayer: