Peoples thoughts on a Clio MK2 DCI 100...

Firestar_3x said:
The difference between an average of 38mpg and 80 or whatever was originally being banded about is somewhat monumental.

Best i managed in real world driving in a 1.5 DCI clio 80 and a lower powered van was low 60's and low 50's, this is mixed country roads and motorways.
Click to expand...

50s and 60s is fine, but its a bit different to the "youll be lucky to get half that" comment that started this all off (aimed at the claim of 70mpg). If that were true it would make a small diesel engined Clio less economical than my 172!

So once all the egos are put aside, the argument in here appears to be that he won't get around 70mpg, he will get around 60. If you lot are seriously putting this much effort in arguing over 10mpg then I suggest you get a different hobby.
 
It's not arguing about 10mpg though, it's arguing against the claims he'll see 60-70mpg under 'normal' driving conditions. It's possible for certain types of driving he could get up to those figures for short periods of time, but it would be with a concerted effort and a less than normal approach to driving. In reality he will be seeing less than that on a regular basis.
If it was possible to be getting 60-70mpg consistently on daily driving then the entire industry would have adopted the 1.5dci engine. Not unsurprisingly they haven't.
 
I find it quite amusing that there's one set of people that constantly moan that manufacturer mpg claims are grossly exaggerated and another set that swear blind that they can constantly defy the manufacturer claims and average well over the quoted figures over a large mileage.
 
Luke said:
It's not arguing about 10mpg though, it's arguing against the claims he'll see 60-70mpg under 'normal' driving conditions. It's possible for certain types of driving he could get up to those figures for short periods of time, but it would be with a concerted effort and a less than normal approach to driving. In reality he will be seeing less than that on a regular basis.
If it was possible to be getting 60-70mpg consistently on daily driving then the entire industry would have adopted the 1.5dci engine. Not unsurprisingly they haven't.
Click to expand...

But he has posted undeniable proof......undeniable I tell you!!! How very dare you suggest that driving like an grandad constantly is not normal :D
 
Last edited:
Janesy B said:
I find it quite amusing that there's one set of people that constantly moan that manufacturer mpg claims are grossly exaggerated and another set that swear blind that they can constantly defy the manufacturer claims and average well over the quoted figures over a large mileage.
Click to expand...

+1.

Welcome to the world of 'averages' :D.
 
Driving 55mph for 170 odd miles in a small french hatch only to achieve 71mpg.

That sounds like hell to me. I usually cruise at 65 and still feel im dragging along.
 
If I drive sensibly in my wifes meganne 04 -1.6 petrol I can get 39 mpg, in comparison the same driving style gets me 65mpg in a Peugeot 308 1.6d, so 60+ mpg in the clio should easily be achievable!
 
Philz0r said:
Driving 55mph for 170 odd miles in a small french hatch only to achieve 71mpg.

That sounds like hell to me. I usually cruise at 65 and still feel im dragging along.
Click to expand...

I think you should re-read the thread. That is the stationary to stationary average including the urban driving at both ends. I stated clearly earlier that my usual cruising speed is 65mph.

Some of the other people in this thread need to consider what they are contributing here, I'm providing useful info others are just wading in with neigh saying.

I have posted what the car is capable of and under what circumstances. Now the tune has changed from"its not possible"to "its not possible under normal driving".

Normal is different for everyone so I didn't use such a vague term, I stated how it was done. If 70 mpg was a freak occurrence for I wouldn't have mentioned it but it isn't.

I achieve it regularly, even with 180k on it.
 
Ok, lets put it another way. I simply don't believe you.
Now it's out in the open, no subtlety, no fancy wording. I believe that you will say anything to justify your position. I think that your claims of 70mpg being normal are utter cobblers. Your proof to me is meaningless as it is not credible in my eyes.

Obviously this is the internet and ultimately it doesn't really matter, but I'm calling shenanigans on your claim.
 
This car is the second coming. We are all wrong. This thread has gone from daft to boring.

I can get 46mpg in a 2.0T under very specific circumstances, good for me. Not very helpful to anyone wanting to buy one.
 
Last edited:
Luke said:
Ok, lets put it another way. I simply don't believe you.
Now it's out in the open, no subtlety, no fancy wording. I believe that you will say anything to justify your position. I think that your claims of 70mpg being normal are utter cobblers. Your proof to me is meaningless as it is not credible in my eyes.

Obviously this is the internet and ultimately it doesn't really matter, but I'm calling shenanigans on your claim.
Click to expand...


If you've watched the clip I put on youtube then unless you think I found a 166 mile long hill to roll down then I can't imagine what you must think. If we assume I haven't hacked the OBC the facts are there 166miles, 55mph average over THE WHOLE distance, at 71mpg. As I've said the car overestimates by 2 mpg. I didn't use the vague term "normal conditions", I was clear about the 65mph. Which is incidentally normal for me.

If you chose not to believe your eyes or think I have a motive to fake this that's fine. There's nothing more I can say. In the end I posted my experience for the OP that asked for it, not people whose only contribution is to call people a liar even though they have no basis for their disbelief.

Minstadave said:
This car is the second coming. We are all wrong.

I can get 46mpg in a 2.0T under very specific circumstances, good for me.
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm/humour is an attempt to gain support. A continuance of the bullying theme of this thread.

The fact that you all find it so unbelievable confuses me. Especially when much bigger cars with bigger engines are capable of 50-60mpg at a 65mph cruise, I find it unsurprising that a 1.5, 1000kg car can do this.
 
Hmm, wonder what mpg one of these stripped would be. Obviously the road noise and lack of sterio would be pointless, just curious lol.
 
Janesy B said:
I think he was asking the OP, Mr Defensive.
Click to expand...


Maybe, maybe not. Since he doesn't have one though (and I do) I thought I would answer.

Defensive if you call reacting to being called a liar then yes. I do like a good debate though, especially against a gang. A gang with no experience of the subject matter.

Thanks for another non-postive contribution. "Mr.Nothing useful to say".
 
daveski said:
In comparison to a DCI 100, yes it does.

Most of the Clio 172's power is above 5.5k revs due to the VVT.
Click to expand...

Don't know if it's already been covered here but if you're thinking that the Clio has a VVT system a la Honda's VTEC/Toyota's VVTI you're mistaken.

VVT on the Clio has nothing to do with power, it's for emissions and to aid the tickover/low rev running.

VVT engages at approx 1500rpm when the engine is up to a certain temp to aid the above.

And whilst it's no turbo/FI the Clio is relatively fine at lower revs, just that it comes 'on cam' as they used to say at around 5k revs which gives it that distinctive kick.

But that's nothing to do with any VVT activation or the like, a common misconception.

Anyway, I digress..
 
Last edited:
Ben Cole said:
Maybe, maybe not. Since he doesn't have one though (and I do) I thought I would answer.

Defensive if you call reacting to being called a liar then yes. I do like a good debate though, especially against a gang. A gang with no experience of the subject matter.

Thanks for another non-postive contribution. "Mr.Nothing useful to say".
Click to expand...

0qKqc.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom