C30 - Petrol fuel economy differences

[super josh]

Hi Guys,

What differences in fuel econony can I expect between the 1.6 and 1,8?

Does the extra torque of the 1.8 make it a nicer drive in the real world?


Cheers,

Josh

[Daim]

Fuel economy differences are huge. The 1.6l petrol is a slug. And that is said friendly! It is worse than a 1.6d and I think even pushing it would be more pleasing

But now back to normal... The differences in the metric factory consumption are 0.3l/100 km. BUT the 1.6 needs its guts reved out of it. You'll find the (slightly) lower revs in the 1.8 more pleasant. On top of that, the extra 25 ponies are noticed easily.

I'm used to my 2.0l in my C30. I had to use a 1.8l for a few days, as my car was being repaired. It wasn't that much different. Before I had to use a 1.6l petrol and I basically thought I was parked. From the economy I achieved, I'd put it in the following order:

2.0l - 1.8l - 1.6l

From pleasure driving:

2.0l - 1.8l - parked up - 1.6l

You can expect around 35 mpg (with a steady gas foot) or say a 27-28 mpg with normal driving in the 1.6l. The 1.8l will do (with a steady gas foot) around 40 mpg or an average of around 31-32 mpg.

Thrus, the 1.8l has less stuff to service and less parts which will go wrong - sounds stupid but it is right, as the 1.6l has issues with the coil pack (Ford Zetec SE design fault) and it has a cambelt rather than a service free chain (chain requires an inspection after 150.000 miles/12 years, the cambelt I think requires a replacement around 100.000 miles/5 years - that is an I think though!).

I would always pick a 1.8 over a 1.6l... Simply because it just gets on better... The 1.8l was dropped because it's power output was too close to that of the 2.0l (which is less troublesome). The 1.6l was dropped not long ago because it isn't as economical as Volvo claims...

[super josh]

Daim thanks for the entertaining reply

So 1.8 over the 1.6 then What about 1.8 compared to the 2.0?

Originally Posted by Daim

it's power output was too close to that of the 2.0l (which is less troublesome).

Do you mean the 2.0 Duratec is less troublesome than the 1.8?


Thanks again for your reply

Josh

[Daim]

Originally Posted by super josh

Daim thanks for the entertaining reply

So 1.8 over the 1.6 then What about 1.8 compared to the 2.0?


Do you mean the 2.0 Duratec is less troublesome than the 1.8?


Thanks again for your reply

Josh

Yes, the 2.0l is less troublesome. The 1.8 has somewhere in it's genes a mapping fault. When you are rolling (say at 60 mph) and press the clutch, the idling goes haywire!

+ YouTube Video

+ YouTube Video

On top of that, it does suffer from some starting issues, where it will fail to start. Volvo seems to be getting it sorted, but the updates they have don't sort ALL cars out. Some carry on doing that...

The cold start issue is, when you start the car, it will plod along at ~400-500 rpm shaking it's balls off and then sometime later stalling.

When warm, it can also stall when you come say off a dual carriage way and stop at a set of lights. You press the clutch on the last feet and plock - stalled.

The 2.0l does nothing like that. The only thing I had after more than 70.000 trouble free miles, was a stickey throttle body, which simply needed a clean up and done... All sorted.

Fuel economy for the 2.0l was the same in 2007 as the 1.8l. In metric figures that is 7.3l on 100 km (both the same!). From 2011 onwards, the consumption has lifted, due to the Euro 5 emissions regulations. More fuel is burnt, to get the emissions right (doesn't make sense for the common mind, but that is fact).

The 2.0l also has a better gearbox ratio. The 1.8l will do 3.000 rpm at around 62 mph. The 2.0l will do 3.000 rpm at around 70 mph. Those 10 mph aren't much, but enough to quieten the interior down a good bit.

If I had the choice again, I'd take the 2.0l (again) as it is the best from the 3 4 cylinder petrol engines.

Performance wise, the 1.8l isn't much worse than the 2.0l. But that doesn't mean much, as it gets gutless at higher rpm (is a square engine pattern (stroke and bore basically the same) where as the 2.0l is a short stroker and loves to keep the rpm high - if you want it to). The difference in power isn't much, only 20 hp and 25 nm (by metric system), but you notice every little pony

[GusGecko]

I can vouch for the 2L. Good engine. I've done 75k miles. Zero issues.