General GP MPG - What are YOU getting?

[Shauncorwyn]

It seems to me a lot of people are slagging off the 1.9 turbo lag.
I would like to put this straight - in my car there is very little lag - the car will pull away in any gear from about 1100 rpm - if this is not acceptable i would say your in the wrong gear.

 

[Ulpian]

I know what you mean - even in the 1.9 you have to watch this situation. Not as bad though I guess.

The problem with the 1.3 is, as T said, that it's a small engine and until it comes on-boost you are running with an unboosted 1.3 diesel, in a heavyish car. No-one ever made one of those before. I expect Fiat will sort it out one day though. I'm certain they are working on it.

As for the dual supercharger/turbo - VW have just such a small (1.4) petrol motor. But this is an expensive option and superchargers consume power, and fuel. VW also makes the same motor without the supercharger to overcome these problems. Like the new Fiat T-Jet then. I prefer mechanical simplicity.

By the way, I heard last week - from the horse's mouth so to speak - about a brand new VW Passat diesel that broke down on its first outing. Family on board, important meeting and miles from home. Angry customer apparently!

Perhaps Fiats aren't so bad then

 

[Ulpian]

PS. I was replying to Arseby.

There is lag with the 1.9, but you can work round it. However, moving from standstill simply isn't as quick as with a non-turbo petrol of similar power, and dropping the clutch at 1100 revs is not to be recommended. Surfing the torque once on the move though, IS, as you say, the trick to having immediate, and good, response.

 

[Aresby]

PS. I was replying to Arseby.

LOL Er..Arseby My arse! It's Aresby (as in R-S-B, my initials. geddit?). ROFL.

There is lag with the 1.9, but you can work round it. However, moving from standstill simply isn't as quick as with a non-turbo petrol of similar power, and dropping the clutch at 1100 revs is not to be recommended. Surfing the torque once on the move though, IS, as you say, the trick to having immediate, and good, response.

Yes, the 1.9 (according to reports here) doesn't seem so bad (as the 1.3), and every turbo diesel can exhibit the lag. But as I've driven a petrol for the last 10 years it's going to take some time to adjust to the new, required manner.

Hah! Just think of the problems I'll have if I ever go back to a petrol engine! Screaming wheelies from every junction! In fact, that is just what happened after I went from an automatic gearbox to a 2-litre 120bhp Astra GTE -- on the test drive! Dealer looked a bit pale afterwards!

 

[Ulpian]

You made me laugh there.

Sorry, hadn't noticed the spelling

 

[Punto-Grande]

Lately i've been getting 54+ sometime 56 on my 1.3 Multijet 90 Bhp 6 speed

 

[Aresby]

Lately i've been getting 54+ sometime 56 on my 1.3 Multijet 90 Bhp 6 speed

How many miles do you have on the clock?

The best I've ever got is 56.2 (as shown somewhere in this thread) but it's not bad at all the mpg I'm getting now with 6,500 miles from new.

 

[tommo]

Still only about 3k on the clock, but i'm getting about 45mpg from normal work'n'back driving, and about 49-50mpg from some nice motorway driving in my 1.9 dzl. Not really noticed much of a turbo lag.

I'm sure if I started driving like Miss Daisy I'd get some real good figures... but that's hardly why I got a 130bhp turbo-tractor is it? lol!

 

[minnnt]

well, we went on a trip to the lake district on sunday, got back yesterday... covered about 650 miles in total.

on the way there the my GP averaged................................ 59.8mpg!!!! hehe!! i was absolutely amazed, and impressed with this! overall after driving around whilst we were there it now stands at 54.9mpg.

cars covered about 2800 mile now.

more than happy, seeing as my meggy would have averaged about 29-30mpg! haha!!

 

[Aresby]

59.8mpg!!!!

Wow! :worship: Impressive.

According to my "B Trip" meter, which has been running for the last 3000 miles (nearly) I'm averaging 49.1 mpg. Which is not bad, but not brilliant. I would consider 55mpg to be fantastic. Anything higher an aspiration!

But consider this: on my old Astra I was getting a steady 40mpg. Which means, for every 10 gallons I got 400 miles.

Now with my GP I get 500 miles for every 10 gallons.

As I do about 15,000 miles a year that is one hell of a saving (he said, not able to work out the exact figures).

Any mathematicians out there?

 

[jamesgamby1989]

if your car is more powerful should you expect higher mpg figures than smaller engines, so would a 1.9 get more mpg than a 1.2 as the doesn't have to work as hard?

 

[RichC]

if your car is more powerful should you expect higher mpg figures than smaller engines, so would a 1.9 get more mpg than a 1.2 as the doesn't have to work as hard?

Its hard to tell. If the 1.9 wasnt a diesel then the mpg would be much much lower than it is. For example, you obviously wouldnt expect a 1.4 petrol to be getting the mpg figures that a 1.4 diesel would get.

According to parkers the mpg is almost exactly the same with the 1.2 petrol and the 1.9 diesel. Amazing really when you consider the 65bhp difference from what is only a 65bhp car in the first place.

In general the answer is no, the bigger the engine the worse the economy.

Rich

 

[maharg null]

Its hard to tell. If the 1.9 wasnt a diesel then the mpg would be much much lower than it is. For example, you obviously wouldnt expect a 1.4 petrol to be getting the mpg figures that a 1.4 diesel would get.

According to parkers the mpg is almost exactly the same with the 1.2 petrol and the 1.9 diesel. Amazing really when you consider the 65bhp difference from what is only a 65bhp car in the first place.

In general the answer is no, the bigger the engine the worse the economy.

Rich

A great deal has to do with the type of journey, my 1.3 6 speed 90 delivers an average of 64 over the past month
71.19
64.8
62.26
67.34
57.11
63.61
67.05

64.76571429

and this simply because the car has motorway journey each day for 110 miles round trip

 

[RichC]

Yeah of course, the type of journey is probably the most important factor. For examples sake assume that both cars are taking the same journey.

Rich

 

[minnnt]

sometimes this is not the case... for instance, when i had my 1.2 corsa sxi, the 1.4 models had better economy. im guessing it was due to power to weight ratio?? the 1.2 produced 75bhp and the 1.4 produced 90-100bhp?? iirc.

 

[Aresby]

An underpowered car (eg a GP with a 1.0 litre engine) is always going to have to work that engine really hard which will negate any possible frugality.

On the other hand, stick a V6 3.5 litre in the same car and the inherent inefficiency of that engine will also cause the mpg to fall through the floor, no matter how gently you drive it.

There is obviously an 'optimum' sized engine for any sized car and the 1.4 16v petrol and the 1.9 Mjet are probably it for the GP! Different beasts but more or less the same economy (especially when driven 'economically', we're not talking Brands Hatch style driving here!)

That's why there's been an upsurge of small, multi-valve engine cars recently - low(er) capacity but a bigger return (in BHP/torque) for the amount of fuel burnt.

A few (well, more than a few, when I started driving) years ago, a standard 1.6 litre petrol engine could barely manage 80 BHP - nowadays you can get a 1.6 16v to produce 120Bhp or a 1.4 16v to produce 100bhp. Now that's efficiency.

 

[minnnt]

i wouldnt imagine that the 1.4 engine would be able to produce the same mpg as the 1.9 diesel... but i agree that these size engines are probably the 'correct' size for the car.

 

[corsakid]

Aresby, are you aware that Shell V-power is a gas-to-liquid product and (from what I have read) boasts a higher cetane number but probably has lower density than standard fuel.

A common theme reported by forums I have seen is lower mpg than standard diesel, up to 10% less mpg in a lot of cases.

You should try standard fuel (or BP ultimate if you want to pay premium prices :nutter

 

[Superboy]

Guy's.......I'm hoping that all these mpg figures that you're quoting are not just being read from the cars mpg dashboard read out display.
You are resetting the BTrip, driving, then filling the car back up to the brim and dividing your mileage covered by the number of gallons you've just put in?
I do this because I have found the on-board job to always show WAY more mpg....
It's not very accurate.

 

[maharg null]

Guy's.......I'm hoping that all these mpg figures that you're quoting are not just being read from the cars mpg dashboard read out display.
You are resetting the BTrip, driving, then filling the car back up to the brim and dividing your mileage covered by the number of gallons you've just put in?
I do this because I have found the on-board job to always show WAY more mpg....
It's not very accurate.

I never alter my B Trip and it shows an average of 62.1 over 7000 miles. The accurately recorded figure over the past three months is 64.2. I would expect to use more fuel in winter. maybe the on borad computer isnt so far out after all