MPG on 1.6 vvti

[kmarty]

'Plate' only refers to UK cars.

Ah, that explain everything . Thank you

My was built (and registered) in Jul-Aug 2005.

[Mat]

So yours would be an 05 plate then.

In the UK, car's registered march to August numbers start 0 and then the year so this year was 06. September to February start in a 5 and then the year that the september was in so that would be a 56 plate, even if registered in Feb 07

[silencer51]

I seem to be getting atrocious mpg when driving around in city traffic (in 1st & 2nd gear mostly)... I get around 27mpg.

When driving on the motorway with 4th and 5th I get about 40mpg, maybe 42 - with speeds around 120-140 km/hour.



But I am beginning to suspect that the trip computer's reading might be a bit off...

[jim-boy]

Hello all. Re fuel consumption, I have a 54 plate tourer and the worst ever consumption was about 30-33 mpg when I did a lot of short journeys to work or around town. On a longer trip, i.e. Glasow to York at Easter, I got 48.5 according to the computer. I have got over 50 mpg a couple of times but that was driving with a very light right foot. I am a miserly git after all.
Hope this doesn't upset you too much but unless you are very heavy footed, there must be something wrong somewhere.

[kmarty]

...there must be something wrong somewhere.

When I am outside town, I have consumption about 6l/100km (47mpg). But in town I have often about 10l/100km(28mpg). I take it as "normal" state.

[MaRaNtZ]

(and loud annoying warning tone that makes me nearly crash) comes on.

I've silenced that nasty buzzer easily using a piece of sponge fitted in the small piezo hole inside the panel. It now whines softly and not so loudly...
the tachyometer panel should be removed and opened in the back, but it's an affair that the dealer can sort out in few minutes. Reccomended!

[JohnBoy]

Never believe the figures provided by Renault as I did, and unless you own a petrol station never buy a 1.6vvt automatic.
I am lucky to get 32 mpg extra urban and 28 mpg urban.
I bought my 07 megane 2 months ago and now wish I had stayed with the Astra SXI sporthatch 1.6 manual (56 plate) I had previously, it too was not so good on fuel consumption, but better than the megan, a lot quicker and a lot more fun.

[kmarty]

.. it too was not so good on fuel consumption, but better than the megan, a lot quicker and a lot more fun.

Ehm, sorry, but I think I don't understand you. You choose automatic transmission with torque converter, which is commonly known with higher consumption and lower acceleration (especially with low-cubature engines), and now complaining here that it have higher consumption and lower acceleration? Is it correct?

[Privilege]

.. it too was not so good on fuel consumption, but better than the megan, a lot quicker and a lot more fun.

Ehm, sorry, but I think I don't understand you. You choose automatic transmission with torque converter, which is commonly known with higher consumption and lower acceleration (especially with low-cubature engines), and now complaining here that it have higher consumption and lower acceleration? Is it correct?

I quite agree with the above, if you choose automatic you have to expect higher consumption than a manual car - its the penalty you pay for not having to change gear and its one that I gladly accept.

I had an 06 1.6vvt Proactive Privilege and I only got between 28-32 going to and from work (mostly urban), but on a long trip to London I could just get over 40MPG. Obviously on long trips its not having to change gear, therefore it does much better MPG

When I look at MPG figures in brochures I always look at the Urban figure and if I am happy with it anything I get above is a bonus. I always ignore the other figures.

As for it not being so much fun, then again an automatic never will have the fun element of a manual...... did you not test drive the car before you purchased?

[JohnBoy]

.. it too was not so good on fuel consumption, but better than the megan, a lot quicker and a lot more fun.

Ehm, sorry, but I think I don't understand you. You choose automatic transmission with torque converter, which is commonly known with higher consumption and lower acceleration (especially with low-cubature engines), and now complaining here that it have higher consumption and lower acceleration? Is it correct?

No that is not correct, and there is no need to apologise for your lack of understanding, perhaps if you had fully understood the content of my posting, you would have realised that the complaint made was with regard to the figures published by renault, and in particular the extra urban figure. (the quote of 47.1 mpg given by Renault being somewhat optomistic !!).

[JohnBoy]

.. it too was not so good on fuel consumption, but better than the megan, a lot quicker and a lot more fun.

Ehm, sorry, but I think I don't understand you. You choose automatic transmission with torque converter, which is commonly known with higher consumption and lower acceleration (especially with low-cubature engines), and now complaining here that it have higher consumption and lower acceleration? Is it correct?

I quite agree with the above, if you choose automatic you have to expect higher consumption than a manual car - its the penalty you pay for not having to change gear and its one that I gladly accept.

I had an 06 1.6vvt Proactive Privilege and I only got between 28-32 going to and from work (mostly urban), but on a long trip to London I could just get over 40MPG. Obviously on long trips its not having to change gear, therefore it does much better MPG

When I look at MPG figures in brochures I always look at the Urban figure and if I am happy with it anything I get above is a bonus. I always ignore the other figures.

As for it not being so much fun, then again an automatic never will have the fun element of a manual...... did you not test drive the car before you purchased?

See reply to kmarty

[kmarty]

... and there is no need to apologise for your lack of understanding...

This is a little bit complicated. I really don't know english well (most of my posts are with invaluable help of dictionary .

you would have realised that the complaint made was with regard to the figures published by renault, and in particular the extra urban figure. (the quote of 47.1 mpg given by Renault being somewhat optomistic !!).

Ehm ... (some problems with understanding again . I hope I answer correctly) ... Renault itself saying that consumption of my Megane is approximately:

• 6.0 l/100km (47mpg) outside city (is it "extra urban" in english?) - I agree with that, because one and half years ago I was on more than 300km long way where I drove it completely on side roads through Czech and after that I was average consumption 5.7l/100km (49.56 mpg). Unfortunatelly it was last time when I saw it . But it is only my false, at normal circumtances I don't driving with "veery relaxed" style.
• 10.7 l/100km (26.40 mpg) in city (urban?) - I also agree with this value, my highest consumption in city was 10.79 l/100km (26.18 mpg).

So where Renault lying? He wrote very similar values which I was (or have).

Nevertheless consumption should not be main criteria when you choose automatic transmission .

P.S.: Consumption value in my signature is my average consumption in town after almost 6000km (I driving only in town (except few weekends) - my average speed is often about 27km/h)

BTW.:

...test drive the car before you purchased

I waited more than 7 months until Renault dealer had 1.6 automat for test drive . Only because I didn't want buy a 2.0 when 1.6 could be enough. As I said, I driving often alone and in the city, so higher power (with higher consumption and higher acquisition price - difference was about 1200£) is not needed, so I waited for test if 1.6 will be enough. Now, after test drive and two years usage, I can say: Yes, it is enough.

[kmarty]

Oh, I forgot one thing (maybe well known) which I learned with my first automatic transmission (it was Ford Taunus 2.3 with "classic" 3gears transmission and its price was 360£ :

You can drive at 16l/100km (17.6 mpg) and 10.5l/100km (26.9 mpg) same way at same speed. Difference is only how you control transmission (with gas pedal).

[72uoba]

Renault aren't lying about the consumption! As far as I'm aware, any manufacturer's fuel consumption figures are based on standard prescribed European tests and are not allowwed to be declared by the manufacturer themselves.

And, as mentioned above, it is commonly most sensible to refer to the 'urban' figure.

[FlatTyre]

Our 2003 1.6 VVT had terrible fuel economy, which we found was getting gradually worse before we got rid of it.
.......
If we had kept the car, it would have been due a service this month. Wonder how much a lack of maintance would contribute to poor fuel consumption? It would only be its second service in nearly 4 years, and I don't think they did an awful lot to it last time.

How lucky have you been? This is one used car I would not like to buy

Loving our new car (performance and economy), which is a diesel and not a Renault.

You might find a diesel engined car to be slightly less forgiving if you neglect the maintenance in the same way as you did the megane