[Closed] What do you call good MPG?

1.6 HDI berlingo.

Average about 45mpg which is not bad for something with the aerodynamics of a brick.

Someone doing 15k a year in a diesel shit box will use far more fuel than I do in my 25mpg petrol. They'll also release far more harmful pollutants. Btw breeding is about the worst thing you can do if you care about the environment.

Yeah so lets all not have any children and save the planet for future generatio.... oh wait! 🙄

1.9 tdi 130ps Passat estate

Average over lifetime of 41mpg. Average over the last few thousand miles I've owned it of 43.

Its 'good' mpg to me because it's a very comfortable place to be, it will do that mpg whilst doing 80-90mph on the commute or loaded with bikes and kids and dogs. It's smoothness, 6th gear and stability at speed is worth more to me than its lack of low end torque (80% of the time anyhoo)

How very presumptious molly 3000 miles between mots at 25mpg vs doing 10000 at 50mpg ...... Very few short ( <10 mile journeys)

Ill live with 25 mpg and choosing to live near my work so i can cycle instead of that extra bedroom and en suite another 20 miles away

To get a 4 x4 twith a 2 tonne tow capacity that does 40+ mpg id have to buy a very modern car - my old one would probably go to scrap - wonder what the fossil fuel needed to build a new car would be ?

pmindmap3 - Member
I'm always happy with our 330 which does mid 20's around town and 30 and a bit on a longer run (motorway and fast country lanes).

However I'm permanently disappointed in my diesel Fiesta that just about scrapes 54 despite a claim of 67 and getting an easy life on the motorway sitting at around 70. Not only that but it sounds horrible and stinks when it's started up.

It's not a claim, that's what it did on the test which is completely unrealistic. It only spends 10 seconds at motorway speeds for example and there is no hard acceleration at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

Aye our old 1.4golf did about 45 mpg round town - but thanks to really low gearing to let such a small engine move such a heavy crap car it would drop to 25 on motorway @ 70 anyway.

Might of been better had it had a 6 and 7th gear ..... It needed them .

I can only dream of 40mpg from any of our vehicles!

Mrs Mini Cooper S R53 does about 23-30mpg depending on how it's driven, does 3-4000 miles a year, generally around town, most of the time she commutes by bike.

My Peugeot Expert work van does about 35-37mpg in the real world, most of my jobs are within 20 miles of home and I need to carry a load of tools and materials, I have to keep a roof rack on it for the few times I need larger materials on site. This does 7-8000k miles a year.

The T5 Camper does around 38mpg real world figures, mainly on long motorway/continental trips, and averages around 8000 miles a year.

I could sell the Mini I suppose and swap it for a more frugal car, however it's not worth a lot so selling it and adding several grand into the pot to save £500 a year on fuel and tax not really worth it. Maybe when it's knackered we might consider a more economic car but it'll be a good while yet hopefully.

I'd happily save fuel on the work van but not possible at the mo, I'd switch to electric/hybrid if available.

[i]Quite right molgrips I hope they have a clear conscience when their grandkids have no fossil fuels to use because people drove stupidly thirsty cars so they can get to 60 about 3 seconds faster than most others. [/i]

A few cars ain't got nothing on these guys:

And Vectra TD auto at 40mpg and Freelander 2 TD (190bhp) auto at 30mpg

[i]No one needs a car. If you're that much of a tree hugger then change your lifestyle so you don't need one or need to do as much as 10k a year [/i]

You've never need to travel with your job then? I use to 40k pa.

Why on earth do people think thus is a valid argument? 15,000 miles at 50mpg is indeed using more fuel that 3,000 miles at 25 mpg, well done.

However 3,000 miles at 25mpg uses more fuel than 3,000 miles at 50mpg. So it's still not as efficient s it could be, so you are still wasting it.

Regardless of how many miles are fine, if they are done in 25mpg boy racer, you ate wasting fuel. This is of course not the only way to waste fuel.

Show me a 50 mpg 4x4 with at least a 2 tonne tow capacity ? That costs 2grand.

We are not all taking tarquin to dance recital.....

Show me a 50 mpg 4x4 with at least a 2 tonne tow capacity ? That costs 2grand.

We are not all taking tarquin to dance recital.....

The point you completely missed in your bubble is that first step to saving fossil fuel is to minimise usage. Which i have done .

BMW 320d ED - long term average 63mpg, on a motorway run 70+ (Which seems ok from an 8 and a bit second 0-60 car)

S-MAX 2.0d163 - new yet but 40-41 on average.

I'm a bit out of touch with all these super-efficient modern vehicles; I reckon on about 32mpg average in my 2002 Toyota Hi-Ace van.
Rather than costing mpg I calculate my running costs at 39p/mile based on 8000 miles/year (excluding depreciation and not having any finance costs).

Been looking at changing my Fiesta for a while now and the whole MPG comparison is doing my head in!! I get 45 mpg out of it all day despite it being a 1.25 with 133k on the clock and chipped to 100bhp from the 74 standard since I got it. I do 17K annually, mostly long runs as I ride to work, so on the cusp of the petrol/diesel argument. Looked at various small cars and the figures just don't add up for buying the eco models most of the time.

Take the Fiat 500 as an example. I can get a 1.2 Pop for £9k locally which will do 45-50mpg whereas the TwinAir is over £14K!!! Even taking into account the better fuel economy (test car was showing 65mpg after a good test drive) it would take me 11 years to be better off with the TwinAir. Depreciation doesn't come into it for me as I buy new and run them until they are no longer viable (well serviced etc). I'm guessing the extra premium on having the trendy eco models skews the figures a bit! So far I'm better off by a mile keeping the Fiesta until it dies a horrid death 😕

Even taking into account the better fuel economy (test car was showing 65mpg after a good test drive) it would take me 11 years to be better off with the TwinAir.

The price of tax dont you mean ?

Why on earth do people think thus is a valid argument? 15,000 miles at 50mpg is indeed using more fuel that 3,000 miles at 25 mpg, well done.

However 3,000 miles at 25mpg uses more fuel than 3,000 miles at 50mpg. So it's still not as efficient s it could be, so you are still wasting it.

Regardless of how many miles are fine, if they are done in 25mpg boy racer, you ate wasting fuel. This is of course not the only way to waste fuel.

Because if you already own the car, that you don't use much, it's still more economical than using a load of fossil fuels in the production of a new one, lest we forget the actual cost in buying the new one.

We have a 23mpg car that's worth £3k that gets driven less and USES less fuel than someone doing 30,000 in a 50mpg vehicle. we still use LESS fossil fuel than they do. what's the point in having a brand new £20K 50mpg car sat on the driveway?

[i]Depreciation doesn't come into it for me as I buy new and run them until they are no longer viable (well serviced etc). [/i]

Of course it does. It's a cost, just like fuel.

trail_rat - Member
The price of tax dont you mean ?

Indeed but then once we stop using loads of fuel( right) - what will the goverment tax then ? food? Sunlight?

trail_rat - Member
Indeed but then once we stop using loads of fuel( right) - what will the goverment tax then ? food? Sunlight?

mikewsmith - Member
Is that taking into account fuel prices rising 3 times a year every year until it's gone?
[img] [/img]
br />

On the same page that image was taken from is the inflation adjusted version, which tells a different story:
[img] [/img]

There is so much sanctimonious and ill-informed opinion from certain individuals on here with newer and more economical cars. I'd be fascinated to know how their carbon footprint compares to that of those us running older less economical cars but doing lower mileage and flying infrequently and cycling to work and living in a well insulated fairly cool house and working in a barely heated business unit (delete as applicable).

I'd be fascinated to know how their carbon footprint compares to that of those us running older less economical cars but doing lower mileage and flying infrequently and cycling to work and living in a well insulated fairly cool house and working in a barely heated business unit

Why?

We have a 23mpg car that's worth £3k that gets driven less and USES less fuel than someone doing 30,000 in a 50mpg vehicle. we still use LESS fossil fuel than they do.

Yes, that has been made clear. However buying a 50mpg does not mean you HAVE to do 30k miles a year. Your argument makes no sense. If you buy a car that does 23mpg and isn't a van or something you need, then every mile you drive is wasting fuel. There are plenty of old cheap 45mpg cars out there.

Because if you already own the car

Why buy it in the first place? And even if you bought it used, someone bought it new.

The way some people talk you'd think this was a competition to gain moral superiority, rather than reduce emissions and conserve resources.

depends what old means to you ....

and many of those older that do 45mpg really suck the fuel up when you go on the motorway.

speaking of conservation - anyone with their thermostat still in the hall or running 100watt filament bulbs needs to get off their high horse.

do you suggest we just scrap all cars that get less than 50mpg then ? you should run for prime minister if that's your plan - be just about as good as our governments other ill thought out schemes

someone has to drive them because like it or not they already exist and you can moan till the cows come home but you will not change the fact that the car already exists. - scrapping them would be a carbon footprint nightmare - bit like the scrappage scheme was.

I agree we shouldn't buy new ones - but till they are gone they are still greener than building a new car from diminishing resources - btw have Toyota figured out how to make the prius environmentally friendly yet ?

I'm abit late in the conversation but as others have pointed out fuel is only a proportion of running costs. In most cars, within reason (excluding the extreme ends of the spectrum of high cost cars), in my experience the total running costs of a car is approximately 12-15p per mile excluding fuel based on 15k a year. When you're comparing a car that does 40mpg on petrol or 55mpg on diesel the actual total running cost difference between them is much smaller once you add the running costs. Plus don't forget to value your time in the vehicle you are driving.

I spend a good amount of time in a my car, and while what I drive today is a boring cheap petrol car it atleast has a modest bit of power and doesn't require shifting gear all the time to hit that magic diesel powerband. When I last bought a car, the petrol lower mpg cars were less than half the price of an equivalent diesel. The petrol car was much nicer to drive for the budget I had. I can handle paying a few more pence a mile to not drive something dire.

However if you're spending a larger amount of money on a car, those good mpg diesel have a lower running costs as the depreciation is so much lower.

If I were spending below £3k on a car I'd say an average of 36mpg or better is good, go for a petrol as the mileage on the car will be lower.

If I were spending over £8k, I'd want over 45mpg and diesel. I'm not interested in a 60mpg crazy efficient machine as I still want something that isn't dull to drive and will actually handle being driven fully loaded for long journeys.

There are some ridiculous cars for sale these days that hold their value much beyond common sense, like 10yr diesel fiestas with 90k on the clock for £4k as the average person thinks mpg is all that matters.

My current car cost me £1500 with 80k on the clock, today it's got 115k on the clock, still worth a grand and does 36mpg average and ~40mpg on a run. IMHO that's good.

do you suggest we just scrap all cars that get less than 50mpg then ?

Of course not. But there are plenty of 45mpg cars going to scrap and 25mpg ones being bought.

have Toyota figured out how to make the prius environmentally friendly yet ?

Yes. Do some research and you will find out how.

I'm not interested in a 60mpg crazy efficient machine as I still want something that isn't dull to drive and will actually handle being driven fully loaded for long journeys.

Passats can carry plenty of stuff and still do 60mpg. A BMW 5 series touring should be able to too. Not at all out of the question for a big diesel on long trips.

A good week is 35mpg thats for a 2.4 alfa oil burner.
Pressing the right pedal is addictive but overtaking and watching the trip computer drop to 16mpg isn't.

Got a turbo capri that will get worse mpg with roughly the same power.

[i]in my experience the total running costs of a car is approximately 12-15p per mile excluding fuel based on 15k a year. [/i]

Doubt it, try doubling it (tax, insurance, tyres, servicing, breakdown-cover etc).

Our best was a Clio 1.5dci would often get up in the 80s and averaged over 62 in our ownership but it was one of our most unreliable cars and the money spent on it made it more expensive to run than a Scooby, which was often low 20s and hard to get 28 but only needed servicing and nothing else.
Full life costs on three of our cars
Clio 1.5dci 30,000 miles - 44p per mile (did 62mpg overall)
VW Passat 1.9tdi 142,000mies 32p per mile (did 42mpg overall)
Citroen Xantia 1.9hdi 240,000 24p per mile (did 38mpg overall)
Our typical driving is brisk but not foot to floor, motorway miles at 80ish.

Currently our Old Vito is doing rather well (high 30s, 40ish on a run, low servicing costs and little else) especially for a van but our Aygo (annoying little thing) is not doing so well (currently averaging 38, mostly short journeys but same as Clio above, but keeps going wrong, clutch at 30k, new discs, new exhaust and cat) especially for a newish small hatch.

So many factors and unless one is doing the miles mpg is not the most significant in our experience.

Ps bikes more extreme 100 plus out of Honda Cub but struggle to get much more than 35 out of my big old beamer. Reckon the racer is easily in the teens, poss low teens but flat out two stroker.

My current car cost me £1500 with 80k on the clock, today it's got 115k on the clock, still worth a grand and does 36mpg average and ~40mpg on a run. IMHO that's good.

what is it?

Have had a couple of VAGs with figures like that, but could be a Volvo etc, unlikely to be a Ford or Vaux though!?

chiefgrooveguru - Member

There is so much sanctimonious and ill-informed opinion from certain individuals on here with newer and more economical cars. I'd be fascinated to know how their carbon footprint compares to that of those us running older less economical cars but doing lower mileage and flying infrequently and cycling to work and living in a well insulated fairly cool house and working in a barely heated business unit (delete as applicable).

I run an 18yr old car that does an actual 50mpg average, which I do very few miles in.

Do I win a prize? 😀

Late to the fight but thought i may add to the post:

I have a 8 month old 3L V6 TDI Mercedes and it does an average of 38mpg (sports estate)

my wife has a 2 month old Mini countryman 1.6 TDI it is meant to do around 45-50mpg but struggles to do 35mpg ???

?

Vauxhall Corsa 1.4 litre Auto Average 60 mpg. Driven normally, not too slow and not pedal to the floor.

Honda CBF 125 motorbike 100 mpg I use it for commuting

Suzuki Gsr 600 35mpg average that gets thrashed when it's dry.

Skiboy - engines take a long time to loosen up - up to 20k miles sometimes. Also remember the quoted figures for mpg are not what you should expect. If in a year's time you are not getting 45mpg around town in that car I'd have a look at your driving style tbh.

20k miles to loosen up an engine . Its not 1972 anymore.

TDI (sports estate)

The dealer saw you coming

😉

Is it the e350 cdi - 320 ish bhp - with the amg sports pack it handles and goes much nicer than any of the blandboxes folk love so dearly on here.

Loved my parents one.... One of te few conventional cars id entertain these days after finding the joy of vans!

Having spent most of the time since I got a licence with a series / defender
Anything above 20 seems cheap to run lol was very happy with my Renault master doing low 30s
But I don't do many miles by car each year

But getting bored going slow so time for another fun/ quick ish car this year

sbob - Member

I run an 18yr old car that does an actual 50mpg average, which I do very few miles in.

Do I win a prize?

No, you are destroying the world by wasting this resource- you should give it to someone who will drive more miles and therefore save more fuel. You scum.

Both our cars are 2.0t petrols and both average between 30 & 35 mpg which I think is good for what they are (Ford S-Max and Saab 9-5 Estate). I certainly don't feel the need to change them for diesels.

My old V8 Range Rover is the least economical car I've ever owned. IIRC I think it was averaging around 12-15 mpg, but I was only doing a couple thousand miles per year so it didn't bother me.

I run an 18yr old car that does an actual 50mpg average, which I do very few miles in.
Do I win a prize?

If you have a tall enough stepladder you get to push molgrips off his stratospherically high horse and claim its saddle. 😉