PDA

View Full Version : 440/460 Diesel Economy?


iCraig440
Aug 24th, 2008, 22:42
Hi Guys,

With the price of fuel these days am looking at something more economical.

And wondered what kind of fuel economy people get out of the 1.9 Diesel units in the 400 series.

Cheers

Craig

bvs
Aug 31st, 2008, 10:07
Havent done a check on mine recently but usually about 48mpg,do not expect any refinement from the engine,it is basically an old renault van engine !!
One description that I read called the engine 'crude but effective',the car ride/handling is usually described as 'indifferent'.
Mine is a little uncomfortable on bumpy back roads but a great motorway cruiser (2600 rpm @ 70mph )

cheers baz

marne
Sep 5th, 2008, 22:22
I usually get around with 43mpg when not revving over 2600rpm:

have a look:
http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/detailansicht/260515.html

jlgrosvenor
Sep 21st, 2008, 11:01
These are surprising figures. I always fancied the 1.9 diesel for the economy.

I have a B18U engine (1.8 injection) and I get 35mpg with town driving. 43/44mpg commuting to work with a small amount of town driving and lots of dual carriage ways. On the way back from holiday in Cornwall this year, I got 50.5mpg over the 350 miles (I filled up when I got back to see what it had done). The car has done 110000 miles, and petrol is 10% cheaper than diesel, giving the equivalent diesel economy figure of 55mpg for the same price at the best mpg figure.

People are getting really hung up on diesels being 'efficient'. I worked out that over 3000 miles, my car uses 71 gallons of petrol (at 44mpg) i.e. £340 (at £1.10 per litre).
A modern diesel doing 62mpg (Mondeo TDCI is rated at 61.4mpg extra urban) uses 48.4 gallons, which is £263.85 (at £1.20 per litre).

In other words, you might get to save £80 every 3000 miles if you buy a diesel AND can get 62mpg out of it. This doesn't apply to the 400 series because they are almost worthless (poor Volvo 400's :pea_cry2eh: ) but loads of people pay £1000-2000 more for a diesel for the economy, which means after 30,000 to 60,000 miles they have broken even with cost (not including the potential more frequent servicing of a diesel). Just doesn't make sense why everyone is buying diesels, particularly 2nd hand as diesels really do command a premium.

bvs
Sep 21st, 2008, 11:24
Just got back from a tour of the western isles/outer hebrides and got 51.5 mpg during a mix of cruising at 80 on the M6 and x - country B roads.
Touring round the islands where it was mostly longish distance but cruising 45 -50 (if good roads,still fair bit of single track) got 56.6 mpg.
This calculated by zeroing the mileometer at every fill up (have to....bloody fuel guage not working !!) and noting next refuel amount and mileage gone.
But i suppose it rather depends on the accuracy of the mileometer and fuel pump readout.
I drive diesels because i like them,one does not really have to try and be frugal on driving techniques,although i never exceed 3000 rpm because it is not required and wastes fuel.I religously change oil/filter at 5000 miles(on 440),change air filter every MOT and fuel filter annually.
One generally does not get so many niggling faults with a diesel but when they do go wrong it can be in a big way.
3000 rpm = 80mph

cheers baz

jlgrosvenor
Sep 22nd, 2008, 20:18
Ahhhhh, these are more like the figures I would expect. I guess if you push a diesel it will have poor economy, just like a petrol.

Diesels tend to excel at great mpg once at a speed and staying there, but are bad during lots of stops and starts (as I am sure you all know).

St Pain
Sep 22nd, 2008, 22:26
My 23 year old daughter has one and loves it. Noisy diesel but gets over 50mpg (on a long steady run nearer 60mpg)