Just a quick one

Dansrockin · 9th March 2012, 15:42

Hi, I'm just wondering what makes the 2.0 v6 so thirsty? Having seen a few people on here quoting the 2.5 getting 25-28mpg round town, why do I only seem to get around 18-21 or even less in my 2.0?
I would have thought that the more powerful engines would be less economical but that doesn't seem to be the case. I've got a vis tester and they both seem to whir away when checked, anything else I can check or is it just the nature of the beast?

David3807 · 9th March 2012, 16:35

Having driven both types:

Heavy car and 2.00v6 engine a little underpowered but beautifully smooth.
2.00 needs higher revs/lower gears to make progress.

2.5 more power thus lower revs and higher gears.

Just my opinion of course

Colin David Day · 9th March 2012, 16:41

I agree, heavy car, under powered, better on longer journeys.

Dansrockin · 9th March 2012, 16:52

Is there anything that can be done to improve economy at all? I used to have a 206 gti180 that averaged about 26mpg, but in that I found I actually got slightly better mileage when I kept the revs up slightly. If I crawled along at 2.5k I'd actually lower my economy by around 4-5mpg than if I kept at 3-3.5k. Obviously with an auto I can't hang in a higher gear unless i use the sport mode. Would that work or is that a definite fuel killer?

David3807 · 9th March 2012, 16:59

Lighter right foot perhaps ??

And try not to come to a dead stand if at all possible. Using first gear in the auto 2.00 (and the 2.5) always uses a lot of fuel

chris75 · 9th March 2012, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dansrockin

Hi, I'm just wondering what makes the 2.0 v6 so thirsty? Having seen a few people on here quoting the 2.5 getting 25-28mpg round town, why do I only seem to get around 18-21 or even less in my 2.0?

Unless you have a very heavy right foot , 18-21 is very low for the 2 litre in my own experience

Is the car well serviced with good exhaust, tyres fully inflated and brakes not binding etc ?
I have no problem matching the 25-28 range quoted for the 2.5

If you do have a very heavy right foot , you're doomed

Dansrockin · 9th March 2012, 17:18

I like to put my foot down normally but since having this car I try to be as economical (boring! Lol)
Tyre pressures seem ok, cars not due a service for another 5k, and everything else obvious seems ok. At the min I'm prob averaging around 21-22 mpg with a combination of short town journeys and 20 mile each way commutes to work along fairly straight NSL a roads. Using the cars computer the highest I've had is 25.9 and the lowest was 18.4, and I'm prob averaging around 280 miles from full to red light. I used to get around 270 in my pug but that had a smaller tank. My last car was an old 1996 passat 1.9td and that got around 650-700 combined!

Bolin · 9th March 2012, 17:35

The fuel computer is known for not being accurate, but usually it is optimistic.

Personally I'd do brim-to-brim tests (yes, it does mean filling it right up and applying for a second mortgage!) and work it out manually, then compare to the computer. Perhaps yours is the other way around from normal and you are actually getting better MPG than the computer says?

Edit: 280 miles from full to low level light doesn't sound as good as mine so perhaps the computer is sadly right?
Second edit: that's on a long run on mine so not sure around town. Rarely fill to the brim, tends to induce psychological distress when looking at the price on the pump!!

stocktake · 9th March 2012, 18:05

Unfortunately auto's are thirsty around town, check the manufacturers figures, my 2.5 shows in the book at 17mpg, and annoyingly it's about right

Dansrockin · 9th March 2012, 20:00

well today i have covered 40 miles, 20 of which were sat at around 60 on a roads, the rest round town, and i have used exactly a quarter of a tank! it was just above halfway this morning, and now it is at the same point above the quarter full mark! 160 miles to a tank?

i normally brim it when i fuel up, ill keep track of the numbers over the next week and try to work it out.
i love the car but im seriously starting to regret the choice of engine/gearbox!!
and to top it off, the tax is due in a couple of weeks, so that will be another small fortune to pay out!
its a good job its such a nice car! lol

9th March 2012, 15:42	#1
Dansrockin Posted a thing or two MG ZT number 1 of 25 celestial!! Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Banbury Posts: 1,967 Thanks: 208 Thanked 242 Times in 166 Posts	Just a quick one Hi, I'm just wondering what makes the 2.0 v6 so thirsty? Having seen a few people on here quoting the 2.5 getting 25-28mpg round town, why do I only seem to get around 18-21 or even less in my 2.0? I would have thought that the more powerful engines would be less economical but that doesn't seem to be the case. I've got a vis tester and they both seem to whir away when checked, anything else I can check or is it just the nature of the beast?

9th March 2012, 16:35	#2
David3807 Posted a thing or two 2002 R75 Conn SE 2.5l Auto Tourer, 2001 R75 Conn SE 2.5 Auto Saloon Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gravesend Posts: 1,897 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Having driven both types: Heavy car and 2.00v6 engine a little underpowered but beautifully smooth. 2.00 needs higher revs/lower gears to make progress. 2.5 more power thus lower revs and higher gears. Just my opinion of course Last edited by David3807; 9th March 2012 at 21:27..

9th March 2012, 17:35	#8
Bolin This is my second home Rover 75 2.5 V6 Connoisseur SE 4dr manual Wedgewood Blue 2 04-05/06/2001 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: N.E. Hampshire Posts: 4,617 Thanks: 289 Thanked 308 Times in 243 Posts	The fuel computer is known for not being accurate, but usually it is optimistic. Personally I'd do brim-to-brim tests (yes, it does mean filling it right up and applying for a second mortgage!) and work it out manually, then compare to the computer. Perhaps yours is the other way around from normal and you are actually getting better MPG than the computer says? Edit: 280 miles from full to low level light doesn't sound as good as mine so perhaps the computer is sadly right? Second edit: that's on a long run on mine so not sure around town. Rarely fill to the brim, tends to induce psychological distress when looking at the price on the pump!! Last edited by Bolin; 9th March 2012 at 18:48.. Reason: More stuff

9th March 2012, 18:05	#9
stocktake Vis Whiz Rover 75 2.5 auto Saloon Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: LEEDS Posts: 20,587 Thanks: 2,057 Thanked 3,056 Times in 1,621 Posts	Unfortunately auto's are thirsty around town, check the manufacturers figures, my 2.5 shows in the book at 17mpg, and annoyingly it's about right __________________ Dave... Lost a few stones and a Gall Bladder and part of a bile duct and all of my dignity in the suppository incident

9th March 2012, 16:41	#3
Colin David Day Regular poster Rover 75 Tourer Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Leighton Buzzard Posts: 97 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I agree, heavy car, under powered, better on longer journeys.

9th March 2012, 16:52	#4
Dansrockin Posted a thing or two MG ZT number 1 of 25 celestial!! Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Banbury Posts: 1,967 Thanks: 208 Thanked 242 Times in 166 Posts	Is there anything that can be done to improve economy at all? I used to have a 206 gti180 that averaged about 26mpg, but in that I found I actually got slightly better mileage when I kept the revs up slightly. If I crawled along at 2.5k I'd actually lower my economy by around 4-5mpg than if I kept at 3-3.5k. Obviously with an auto I can't hang in a higher gear unless i use the sport mode. Would that work or is that a definite fuel killer?

9th March 2012, 16:59	#5
David3807 Posted a thing or two 2002 R75 Conn SE 2.5l Auto Tourer, 2001 R75 Conn SE 2.5 Auto Saloon Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gravesend Posts: 1,897 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Lighter right foot perhaps ?? And try not to come to a dead stand if at all possible. Using first gear in the auto 2.00 (and the 2.5) always uses a lot of fuel

9th March 2012, 17:18	#7
Dansrockin Posted a thing or two MG ZT number 1 of 25 celestial!! Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Banbury Posts: 1,967 Thanks: 208 Thanked 242 Times in 166 Posts	I like to put my foot down normally but since having this car I try to be as economical (boring! Lol) Tyre pressures seem ok, cars not due a service for another 5k, and everything else obvious seems ok. At the min I'm prob averaging around 21-22 mpg with a combination of short town journeys and 20 mile each way commutes to work along fairly straight NSL a roads. Using the cars computer the highest I've had is 25.9 and the lowest was 18.4, and I'm prob averaging around 280 miles from full to red light. I used to get around 270 in my pug but that had a smaller tank. My last car was an old 1996 passat 1.9td and that got around 650-700 combined!

9th March 2012, 20:00	#10
Dansrockin Posted a thing or two MG ZT number 1 of 25 celestial!! Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Banbury Posts: 1,967 Thanks: 208 Thanked 242 Times in 166 Posts	well today i have covered 40 miles, 20 of which were sat at around 60 on a roads, the rest round town, and i have used exactly a quarter of a tank! it was just above halfway this morning, and now it is at the same point above the quarter full mark! 160 miles to a tank? i normally brim it when i fuel up, ill keep track of the numbers over the next week and try to work it out. i love the car but im seriously starting to regret the choice of engine/gearbox!! and to top it off, the tax is due in a couple of weeks, so that will be another small fortune to pay out! its a good job its such a nice car! lol