Quote:
Originally Posted by john.wigley
Whether the fuel consumption 'issue' is a concern or not is a personal matter, 'RailwayRev'. It is what it is. If you do a low annual mileage <5K say, the cost differential is unlikely to be significant. If you do >20K it is probable that it will be.
I have no experience of the 2.0 engine, but understand that it is no more economical than the 2.3 in day to day running on account of the greater work that it has to do.
I did run a '91 (H) 940GLE 2.3 Saloon as a business car for 58,509 miles over which it returned 29.0111 MPG. In contrast, my '87 740GLE 2.3 Estate (not a 940, I know, but close enough) did 27.3148 MPG over 62746 miles. Both cars were automatics, so manuals might have done a little better, but I think these figures are realistic.
For business purposes, the boot of the 940 offered me greater security, and the car was slightly quieter and more refined to drive over long distances, while the estate scored for it's load carrying abilities .
It is always difficult to give advice in these situations. I think, on balance and given that you do not specifically need an estate, mine would be to stick with the 'devil that you know'!
Regards, John.
|
I quite agree with the idea of 'the devil you know'. It is the attraction of a lower mileage, more modern car that is tempting me and I am sure I can fill an estate.
I was only slightly concerned regarding the mileage as I know there are occasions when the difference between similar engines and set ups can mean a huge difference in MPG (Landrover V8 on carbs vs fuel injection for example)