Clio 172/182s - Petrol Consumption?

osc89er · 24 Mar 2006 at 15:21

Here are my figures for 10000 miles at 90 pence per liter.

Calculation used is 10000 / mpg * 4.54 * 0.9

40mpg 1135L £1021
37mpg 1227L £1104
36mpg 1261L £1135
35mpg 1297L £1167
32mpg 1418L £1276
31mpg 1464L £1318
30mpg 1513L £1362
29mpg 1565L £1408
28mpg 1621L £1459
25mpg 1816L £1634
20mpg 2270L £2043

Pigeon · 24 Mar 2006 at 15:22

Yeah.. maybe it's coming from a Rover Metro world. The people with GTi's never got less than 34mpg and the people with the 1.8VVC's claimed even better economy. Personnaly my GTa never retrned less than 38mpg!!!. I expected the Clio to be similar!

[TW]Fox · 24 Mar 2006 at 15:22

Pigeon said:
Fox did you do a comparison between a 40mpg petrol, and a 30mpg petrol ?

No, can do later if you like. It's basically the same, but the saving is marginally bigger becuase petrol is a few pence cheaper per litre.

Matblack · 24 Mar 2006 at 15:43

Pigeon said:
Personnaly my GTa never retrned less than 38mpg!!!. I expected the Clio to be similar!

Because its a similar car :/

The Clio is a 2l car which is usually driven at reasonable pace (hard not to tbh

)

The information you are getting here is correct, the MPG is good for a car of its type especially when compared to mid level Jap turby stuff which it isn't far off pace wise and much more fun.

MB

Nathan · 24 Mar 2006 at 15:55

Gilly said:
Are you arguing with me about my cars consumption?

Its a hot hatch that returns 30+mpg from a long mixed (half spirited half normal) drive.

How many do you know will do that?

Nope, im saying its impossible with normal driving. No one on the cliosport website has ever stated 50mpg :/ Im seriously looking at getting a 53 Plate cup with 13k miles

Fusion · 24 Mar 2006 at 16:03

Nathan said:
Nope, im saying its impossible with normal driving.

It's not, you just need the magic touch

james.miller · 24 Mar 2006 at 16:10

Fusion said:
It's not, you just need the magic touch

getting out and pushing it isn't what he had in mind

Matblack · 24 Mar 2006 at 16:20

I've had 47mpg on a run down to Wales, I zero'ed the computer once underway, did a steady 70 and everytime I touched the accelerator the consumption dipped it was hell but it did give an amazing fuel return. Never driven it like that since. Gilly's car is lighter and he'd lighter, its a pain to do but with a bit of luck and a following wind I wouldn't say it was impossible.

MB

Oakesy2001uk · 24 Mar 2006 at 16:23

Well I only get 30mpg out of my 1.6 focus so I want one of these even more now! Well impressed thaught It would be 30 or less. (it does get driven briskly backlanes every morning night and 2nd gear overtaking is neccesary often, the 182 would be a stroll in the park)

Hagel · 24 Mar 2006 at 16:38

My '05 182 gets around 34mpg on sensible long drives. But the truth is that it's such a spirited car it would be a shame to drive it like that too often. It drops considerably when I'm in the mood for having more fun....oh that'll be every time I drive it then. My 182 is guaranteed to raise a big grin across my face everytime I drive it.

Nathan · 24 Mar 2006 at 16:44

if i can get 47mpg i ll be

all round if i get a cup. Looking on cliosport though this does not seem to be the case, many at 40 - 45 though

Hagel · 24 Mar 2006 at 16:56

Nathan said:
if i can get 47mpg i ll be all round if i get a cup. Looking on cliosport though this does not seem to be the case, many at 40 - 45 though

40 - 45mpg??!! You'd be driving it like a girl and definitely not getting the max fun from a Cliosport. Oh the shame!

Oakesy2001uk · 24 Mar 2006 at 17:22

any more than 35 not on a run you shouldn't be buying one! you dont buy these cars for economy, the fact they aint bad on fuel is just a bonus.

MacX · 24 Mar 2006 at 17:25

Oakesy2001uk said:
any more than 35 not on a run you shouldn't be buying one! you dont buy these cars for economy, the fact they aint bad on fuel is just a bonus.

Seconded, thirded etc...

Never more than 33mpg for me...

Gilly · 24 Mar 2006 at 17:38

Nathan said:
Nope, im saying its impossible with normal driving. No one on the cliosport website has ever stated 50mpg :/ Im seriously looking at getting a 53 Plate cup with 13k miles

I said 45-50.

[TW]Fox · 24 Mar 2006 at 18:37

50mpg from a 172? Errr you've been driving down hills looking at the instant fuel computer readout again havn't you Gilly

Gilly · 24 Mar 2006 at 19:01

As I said previously, if I keep it below 2500 revs than I see 45-50 mpg from it.

Unless you think the trip comp is lying?

[TW]Fox · 24 Mar 2006 at 19:03

Gilly said:
As I said previously, if I keep it below 2500 revs than I see 45-50 mpg from it.

Right.... whats the best MPG you've had from a full tank, verified by filling up, doing the trip, filling up again and calculating the fuel used?

Unless you think the trip comp is lying?

Yes, I do. Becuase 50mpg from a 2.0 16v 182bhp petrol car at anything other than exactly 56mph on a slight incline is beyond the realms of possibility. I could *just* believe 45mpg, after all, my less powerful Mondeo can pull 43... but 50?

Gilly · 24 Mar 2006 at 19:11

[TW]Fox said:
Right.... whats the best MPG you've had from a full tank, verified by filling up, doing the trip, filling up again and calculating the fuel used?

Why would I do that when I've a calculator doing the sums for me? :confused:

Besides which I could never go an entire tank driving at less than 2500. Thats where driving starts in my car.

[TW]Fox said:
Yes, I do.

Fair enough. I'm sure you're more accurate than my trip comp

Its 169 bhp by the way, not 182.

[TW]Fox · 24 Mar 2006 at 19:14

How do you know how accurate your trip comp is if you've never checked its accuracy properly?

Some of them are quite far out, the trip computer in the 320Cd I borrowed for a few days was over-reading by 4mpg.