High Performance Car Fuel Consumption

Conor79

Hi All,

I'm in the market for a high-performance car but I dont want to get saddled with a massive fuel bill every week. Accepted that the nature of high performance cars is high fuel consumption but can anyone advise which would be the best out of the following options:

Subaru Impreza WRX STi
Lancer Evolution 6
Audi S3
Honta Integra Type R (2002 model)
Alternate suggestion????

Any insight would be appreciated!

C_Breeze

type R would be the best for fuel consumption if not driving the balls of it , the rest of them will get you low 20 mpgs on a good day

unkel

ITR would use the least petrol, but it is hardly a performance car compared to the others

Idleater

Conor79 wrote: »

Alternate suggestion????

Get a bike.

500-700 hp per ton and 40 - 50 mpg.

RobAMerc

Conor79 wrote: »

Hi All,

Alternate suggestion????

S2000

rest will give you 18 - 23mpg

If you have a big hang up on this - I would take nerid's suggestion and buy a bike.

JHMEG

Probably the best way to keep consumption down as a general rule is to keep displacement down. Suggestions would be various Jap 1.6 cars that do 100 or more bhp per litre. Or even something like that 1.4 super turbo from VW, or its nemesis the Glanza:D

TCP/IP

Try a BMW Z4 3litre will give you about 26 mpg

Jimbo

JHMEG wrote: »

or its nemesis the Glanza:D

You didnt just suggest a Glanza I hope....

TCP/IP

Yeah Glanza's are for pikey boy racers

Jimbo

Agreed. Why people actually buy them baffles me. There shaped like a grannies car, they corner like an artic and even with a turbo they aint that quick. And dont get me started on dump valves..

JHMEG

jimbo78 wrote: »

Agreed. Why people actually buy them baffles me. There shaped like a grannies car, they corner like an artic and even with a turbo they aint that quick. And dont get me started on dump valves..

Are you talking about the VW 1.4 super turbo Golf, or the Glanza, or both?:D

Atomic Pineapple

unkel wrote: »

ITR would use the least petrol, but it is hardly a performance car compared to the others

show it a twisty road and it'll put a smile on your face and be quicker than 90% of other cars on the road, but on a motorway your right the other 2 are way more powerfull.

but when you compare it like bang for your buck the Integra wins hands down, good value for what you get, better feul consumtion, great looks (just dont get a white one)

if your worried about feul consumption, then the suggestion of 1.6 jap cars pushing 160 - 180bhp would be best to look at.

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

ITR would use the least petrol, but it is hardly a performance car compared to the others

The DC5 would hammer the 1st generation S3 on the track. Possibly quicker too than the 2nd generation.

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

The DC5 would hammer the 1st generation S3 on the track

I didn't remember the 1st gen S3 was only a 1.8 4-pot (just like the ITR) :eek:

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

I didn't remember the 1st gen S3 was only a 1.8 4-pot (just like the ITR) :eek:

OP is talking about a DC5 ITR, which is 2.0 litre, 220PS. DC2 which is "only a 1.8 4-pot", is considered one of the finest driver's cars ever made.

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

OP is talking about a DC5 ITR, which is 2.0 litre, 220PS

Ah right. But why would you compare a 2002 2.0l ITR to a 1998 1.8l S3?

Oilrig

Any particular reason why an M3 hasn't been mentioned here?

E92

unkel wrote: »

I didn't remember the 1st gen S3 was only a 1.8 4-pot (just like the ITR) :eek:

1st gen S3 had a 1.8 4 pot turbo. 210 bhp and I think it was 199 lb ft. Later updated to 225 bhp and 207 lb ft(aqt I think it was 5,500 rpm for the power and around 3,000 rpm for torque).

FWIW, DC5 Integra has 217 bhp at 7800 rpm and 152 lb ft at 7,000 rpm:eek: and the DC2 has 195 bhp at 7,800 rpm and 140 lb ft at 7,000 rpm.

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

Ah right. But why would you compare a 2002 2.0l ITR to a 1998 1.8l S3?

The same reason he's consideing an EVO 6 and not an EVO 10 (or 9 or whatever): the new S3 isn't in his price bracket.. it didn't start till 2006.

JHMEG

Oilrig wrote: »

Any particular reason why an M3 hasn't been mentioned here?

Hehe, funny. He says he wants low fuel bills. An M3, suggested by someone called Oilrig:D

JJJJNR

High performance Diesel?


Money no object I'd go for an Audi A4 3.0 TDi Quattro, or a the 2.5 Tdi quattro prev model.

Also check out the 330D.

MarkN

OP the new S3 will get you mid 20s but on long journeys its not bad at all, almost 500 kms on a tank could be possible with motorways included at normal speeds. My 335i costs about 7 quid more to fill and does about 20/40kms less per tank. I guess I was spending about 300 quid a month of fuel with the S3.

E92

JJJJNR wrote: »

High performance Diesel?


Money no object I'd go for an Audi A4 3.0 TDi Quattro, or a the 2.5 Tdi quattro prev model.

Also check out the 330D.

Surley the 335d can't be overlooked. The fastest diesel on sale in the country I think, the only thing I think that could top it is the Audi A8 4.2 TDI(if they even sell it here). It is certainly the only diesel I'm aware of in the country that has more power than the 335d.

Biro

unkel wrote: »

ITR would use the least petrol, but it is hardly a performance car compared to the others

A DC5 ITR would easily dispose of the old shape S3 on a tight road.
The Evo and STI are in a different league, I know of Evo owners getting 16mpg, plus there's gearbox and diff service intervals etc.
B6 A4 2.5 diesel is a boring car. Wouldn't even consider.

BostonB

Conor79 wrote: »

Hi All,

I'm in the market for a high-performance car but I dont want to get saddled with a massive fuel bill every week. Accepted that the nature of high performance cars is high fuel consumption ...

Any insight would be appreciated!

I'm curious when you consider the total running costs of a car, depreciation, servicing, tyres, insurance what % of that is fuel.

unkel

BostonB wrote: »

I'm curious when you consider the total running costs of a car, depreciation, servicing, tyres, insurance what % of that is fuel.

Good point, BostonB. For the majority of Irish car owners, fuel is NOT the biggest cost, but depreciation (and interest) is. From my experience many people here don't seem to take depreciation / interest into account. Once a car is bought outright or via monthly installments, people seem to ignore the cost of that. They then seem to focus on less relevant costs like motor tax and fuel consumption

bazz26

The thing is that depreciation for most people is not something they have to worry about day in day out. To most it is only relevant when you are selling a car. Unlike running costs like fuel, tax and insurance which people see in front of them on a regular basis.

FWITW if your in the market for a high performance car then you have to accept that there is a price to pay for owning one. High fuel bills and insurance are part of ownership.

If you are concerned about fuel bills then maybe you should reconsider what your buying into. It will only deminish the ownership experience imo.

BostonB

I kinda meant, if you've worked out a budget for buying and running a car, you'd work out the expected cost in fuel, insurance, tax, depreciation. They are all relative, as such a budget would illustrate. What you save in fuel on one car you might lose in insurance tax, or depreciation on another. If you are doing a lot of miles vs few miles, urban or not. Its all a factor.

So you have to look at the cost of everything not just fuel. Theres lots info on the web about this.

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp
http://www.wisebuyers.co.uk/motoring/car-buying/Running-Costs/14/3/
http://free2go.rac.com.au/go/buying-and-selling-a-car/running-costs

If performance and fuel cost are the sole criteria, then how about a Elise? 40mpg...

Andrewf20

Elise 1.8

cnott

All,

Thanks for fantastic response - much wisdom shared and I appreciate it.

I will defo investigate diesels for the mix of options. Brilliant suggestion on the bike but hospital bills etc would render fuel bills negligible

For record the budget is apx 20K so there are limitations!


Tks again and will update on final choice

Idleater

cnott wrote: »

Brilliant suggestion on the bike but hospital bills etc would render fuel bills negligible

erm, you service bikes in a garage, just like cars, and they are only marginally more expensive to service than a car.

galwaytt

unkel wrote: »

. They then seem to focus on less relevant costs like motor tax and fuel consumption

can't agree with that. Love my car (968), can live with the fuel consumption (23mpg), but there's no way in hell I'd call Eur 615 for 6 month's tax 'irrelevant'.........or palatable......

unkel

Ah but your Porsche will hardly suffer any depreciation now, galwaytt

The typical candidates I had in mind, would be more like the slightly ignorant owners bazz26 described