Mitsubishi Galant - 2.0 Auto - Fuel Consumption

[Tican]

I bought a Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 Auto, and the seller said that it uses fuel due to the Air Flow Sensor, apparently this was diagnosed via the on board engine management system. The light is NOT on.

Now I ran a test, albeit only a small one to get an accurateish reading. I ran it to the fuel light coming on, put £20 in @ 127.9 per litre (15.63 litres?). I got 90 miles until the light came back on. I then put another £20 in and this time only got 70 miles until the light. Driving is the same every day, to work and back. Same traffic conditions. Looks like it works out to around 20 to 26mpg, Parkers seems to think around 30mpg for this car (1998 2.0 GLS Auto with Air Con). Currently trying a full tank to empty.

My route to work goes 30 to 40 to 30 to 40 and finally to 50mph limits. With roundabouts, traffic lights and dual carriageways, approx. 5 miles each way. I try to use Cruise Control where possible and avoid heavy breaking and hard acceleration.

Could the Air Flow sensor be at fault? There are no problems in the running of the car at all. Certainly none I may expect with a dodgy sensor (my last car ran lumpy with a dodgy air flow sensor)

Thanks in advance.

 

[Haggisman]

Does it have an aftermarket air filter on it? Using a cone filter on these can apparently throw off the airflow reading.

Also, head over to http://www.clubvr4.com/ where there's a huge wealth of knowledge on these cars, including the fault codes and how to read them using a paperclip

Saying that, my old GLS (manual) used to get ~400 miles of mixed driving from a tank, which iirc was 60L, so that's about 26mpg if my maths are right? So you're not that far off, especially with the losses from the auto-box.

 

[Tican]

Does it have an aftermarket air filter on it? Using a cone filter on these can apparently throw off the airflow reading.

Also, head over to http://www.clubvr4.com/ where there's a huge wealth of knowledge on these cars, including the fault codes and how to read them using a paperclip

Saying that, my old GLS (manual) used to get ~400 miles of mixed driving from a tank, which iirc was 60L, so that's about 26mpg if my maths are right? So you're not that far off, especially with the losses from the auto-box.

Nope, no after market air filter. And as I say, the Engine Management light is not on, so would the paper clip test show anything?
Thanks

 

[Sone]

Old fashioned autobox, heavy car and small engine.

Doesn't sound that wrong to me.

 

[Tican]

Does it have an aftermarket air filter on it? Using a cone filter on these can apparently throw off the airflow reading.

Also, head over to http://www.clubvr4.com/ where there's a huge wealth of knowledge on these cars, including the fault codes and how to read them using a paperclip

Saying that, my old GLS (manual) used to get ~400 miles of mixed driving from a tank, which iirc was 60L, so that's about 26mpg if my maths are right? So you're not that far off, especially with the losses from the auto-box.

So from the paper clip test I got:

Nothing from the Transmission.

Engine light is showing 13 (it would be 12 for the air flow sensor)
13 Inlet temperature Sensor System (Intake air temperature sensor )


ABS is also showing:
23 Wheel-Speed Sensor (RR) System (or Sol.RF-SHRT Right front solenoid Short circuit to +12 volt for the RF- solenoid )
24 Wheel-Speed Sensor (RL) System (or Sol.RF-OPEN Right front solenoid Open circuit or short circuit to GND for the RF- solenoid )


Transmission is showing nothing.

 

[Axeboy]

Fuel on these is typically quite poor in my experience.

ABS sensor issues are quite common but they can be swapped out easy enough (if my memory serves me well)

 

[Haggisman]

So from the paper clip test I got:

Nothing from the Transmission.

Engine light is showing 13 (it would be 12 for the air flow sensor)
13 Inlet temperature Sensor System (Intake air temperature sensor )

Incorrect air temp reading would possibly have the same effect as incorrect flow?

But as I mentioned, ~26mpg is what I was getting in my manual, so if you're getting 20-26 in an auto, it sounds about right.

 

[Mr_White]

Old fashioned autobox, heavy car and small engine.

Doesn't sound that wrong to me.

Yeah, I remember checking them out when they were new and they were **** on economy then.

 

[Confused]

Firstly - you're doing your fuel calculations wrong.

Don't trust the fuel light.

Fill the tank to the brim, drive it around, then fill it to the brim again. THEN work out your fuel consumption.


Additionally, a 1998 will probably have the 4 speed automatic box (unless it's got the tiptronic) - the fuel consumption on the 2.0 isn't that much better than the 2.5 V6, and the autobox, whilst a reasonable box (for a torque convertor autobox), doesn't do much to aid the fuel consumption.

I used to work on the basis of ~23mpg around town (aka stop/start), and ~33mpg on a run from the manual V6. From an auto 2.0, I'd be expecting around the same.

 

[Tican]

Fuel on these is typically quite poor in my experience.

ABS sensor issues are quite common but they can be swapped out easy enough (if my memory serves me well)

Thanks, I need new rear pads and disks anyway, so will investigate once the weather gets a bit better/I get access to a garage

Incorrect air temp reading would possibly have the same effect as incorrect flow?

But as I mentioned, ~26mpg is what I was getting in my manual, so if you're getting 20-26 in an auto, it sounds about right.

I won't worry too much about it then, just the previous owner said that the fuel economy was worse in recent months and it was diagnosed as that? I don't want to waste £40 on a second hand part if it won't help

Yeah, I remember checking them out when they were new and they were **** on economy then.

Firstly - you're doing your fuel calculations wrong.

Don't trust the fuel light.

Fill the tank to the brim, drive it around, then fill it to the brim again. THEN work out your fuel consumption.


Additionally, a 1998 will probably have the 4 speed automatic box (unless it's got the tiptronic) - the fuel consumption on the 2.0 isn't that much better than the 2.5 V6, and the autobox, whilst a reasonable box (for a torque convertor autobox), doesn't do much to aid the fuel consumption.

I used to work on the basis of ~23mpg around town (aka stop/start), and ~33mpg on a run from the manual V6. From an auto 2.0, I'd be expecting around the same.

It appears that the fuel light doesn't work at all. I was running down to Empty, which I know isn't the right way to do it. I need to look at the fuel light.

Yeah, it does have the 4 speed auto box.
Excellent, I am working on the first full tank now, so should know more in a couple of weeks. Roughly, how many miles did you get to a full tank in the V6?

 

[Haggisman]

It appears that the fuel light doesn't work at all. I was running down to Empty, which I know isn't the right way to do it. I need to look at the fuel light.

The fuel light on these is great, it will go on and off as you accelerate/brake/go up/down hills

 

[Tican]

The fuel light on these is great, it will go on and off as you accelerate/brake/go up/down hills

Mine doesn't come on at all - Not sure if this is a good or bad thing

 

[Haggisman]

Mine doesn't come on at all - Not sure if this is a good or bad thing

It means one of two things.

Your fuel light (or associated sensors etc.) is broken.

You have a magic infinite fuel car.

Drive it without filling up and find out which!

 

[[TW]Fox]

5 miles each way, from cold, in a 15 year old 2 litre petrol automatic?

Your figures sound spot on. It is NOT going to be economical in that usage profile.

 

[Confused]

It appears that the fuel light doesn't work at all. I was running down to Empty, which I know isn't the right way to do it. I need to look at the fuel light.

Yeah, it does have the 4 speed auto box.
Excellent, I am working on the first full tank now, so should know more in a couple of weeks. Roughly, how many miles did you get to a full tank in the V6?

On a run, I was getting around 400 miles per tank. Purely around town, around 250. My typical usage however was a mixture of both, so around 350 miles was average - but it was 4 years ago now I had it, I've had the VR-4 since then, so even 250 miles on a run is good!


As Fox says though, 5 miles each way, twice a day, in traffic, in a heavy car like a Galant with a small engine and an automatic gearbox - the fuel consumption will never be good. The engine and gearbox will hardly get up to temperature, and that's one of the thirstiest ways of driving a car.

 

[Tican]

It means one of two things.

Your fuel light (or associated sensors etc.) is broken.

You have a magic infinite fuel car.

Drive it without filling up and find out which!

5 miles each way, from cold, in a 15 year old 2 litre petrol automatic?

Your figures sound spot on. It is NOT going to be economical in that usage profile.

I got the miles slightly wrong, it's 8 miles each way. Not a massive difference though.

On a run, I was getting around 400 miles per tank. Purely around town, around 250. My typical usage however was a mixture of both, so around 350 miles was average - but it was 4 years ago now I had it, I've had the VR-4 since then, so even 250 miles on a run is good!


As Fox says though, 5 miles each way, twice a day, in traffic, in a heavy car like a Galant with a small engine and an automatic gearbox - the fuel consumption will never be good. The engine and gearbox will hardly get up to temperature, and that's one of the thirstiest ways of driving a car.

I got around 400 miles on the last full to empty tank.

I don't tend to travel long distances (saying that I have done around 800 miles since I picked it up, just under a month ago - that includes the 150 mile drive back).

My driving is usually to and from work, and occasionally a 30 mile round trip of A roads to pick the financée up from her work place. Due to my shifts, only one way of the journey has any traffic (as I either start at 7am or finish at 11pm).
The last owner only covered 1000 miles between the MOT's of town driving, so I bet that doesn't help?

I won't bother replacing the part at the moment as it doesn't seem to be doing anything for the fuel economy.

 

[Confused]

The gearbox utilises what Mitsubishi call INVECS - Intelligent & Innovative Vehicle Electronic Control System - essentially it "learns" your driving style, and will adjust how the gearbox works

If you're a sedate driver, and use little throttle, and tend to accelerate slowly, then the gearbox will take slightly longer to shift, and will shift up earlier - giving a smoother driving experience.

If you tend to rev it higher, then it will hold the gears for longer, and make the gearshift a little quicker, to give it more of a "sporty" vibe.


My dad was a mechanic at Mitsubishi whilst they were selling the Galant - a number of them who were owned by (typically) older gentlemen used to come in for a service, and as part of the test drive, they would naturally be driven a little harder than they're used to. The gearbox would adapt to this, and the customer would go away noticing a big difference in performance, mostly because the gearbox had been given an inkling of what >3000rpm felt like!


Around 400 miles on a full tank sounds just about right. You'll get to learn how it does on fuel, and how inaccurate the fuel gauge can be I used to find that the top 1/4 seemed to last for ages, 3/4 to 1/4 went in no time at all, and 1/4 to empty took a reasonable distance. The low fuel light comes on when it feel like it, with no sense of reason

 

[Tican]

The gearbox utilises what Mitsubishi call INVECS - Intelligent & Innovative Vehicle Electronic Control System - essentially it "learns" your driving style, and will adjust how the gearbox works

If you're a sedate driver, and use little throttle, and tend to accelerate slowly, then the gearbox will take slightly longer to shift, and will shift up earlier - giving a smoother driving experience.

If you tend to rev it higher, then it will hold the gears for longer, and make the gearshift a little quicker, to give it more of a "sporty" vibe.


My dad was a mechanic at Mitsubishi whilst they were selling the Galant - a number of them who were owned by (typically) older gentlemen used to come in for a service, and as part of the test drive, they would naturally be driven a little harder than they're used to. The gearbox would adapt to this, and the customer would go away noticing a big difference in performance, mostly because the gearbox had been given an inkling of what >3000rpm felt like!


Around 400 miles on a full tank sounds just about right. You'll get to learn how it does on fuel, and how inaccurate the fuel gauge can be I used to find that the top 1/4 seemed to last for ages, 3/4 to 1/4 went in no time at all, and 1/4 to empty took a reasonable distance. The low fuel light comes on when it feel like it, with no sense of reason

I drive to the conditions

The fuel gauge is doing the same on mine!!

 

[Haggisman]

The gearbox utilises what Mitsubishi call INVECS - Intelligent & Innovative Vehicle Electronic Control System - essentially it "learns" your driving style, and will adjust how the gearbox works

If you're a sedate driver, and use little throttle, and tend to accelerate slowly, then the gearbox will take slightly longer to shift, and will shift up earlier - giving a smoother driving experience.

If you tend to rev it higher, then it will hold the gears for longer, and make the gearshift a little quicker, to give it more of a "sporty" vibe.


My dad was a mechanic at Mitsubishi whilst they were selling the Galant - a number of them who were owned by (typically) older gentlemen used to come in for a service, and as part of the test drive, they would naturally be driven a little harder than they're used to. The gearbox would adapt to this, and the customer would go away noticing a big difference in performance, mostly because the gearbox had been given an inkling of what >3000rpm felt like!

And then you change the battery/leave the lights on, and the gearbox loses its memory, and gear changes feel like you're hitting a brick wall for the next couple of hundred miles...