Increase in engine size, will it be less fuel efficient

greenplain · 28-02-2011 4:43pm #1

Hi,

Looking for some advice. I currently drive a 1.4 2001 Renault Megane (100,000 on the clock)

I am considering changing this car for a 1.5 2004 Nissan Almera

With the increase in the engine size will I see an big increase in fuel consumption ? in other words will i be shelling out more money on petrol.

I use the car every day going over and back the M50 (45 mile round trip ) for work.

EPM · 28-02-2011 4:46pm

It's 100cc. You won't even notice. I'd even guess the Almera will use less fuel.

Cionád · 28-02-2011 5:23pm

According to parkers.co.uk, they have the same combined MPG figure.

Almera 1.5 E 42 mpg

Megane 1.4 16V Authentique 42 mpg

CiniO · 28-02-2011 5:23pm

According to survey drivers average fuel consumption your megane is between 6.6 and 8.7 l/100km.
And Almera would is between 7.3 and 9.3.

So almera is just a small bit worse.

Better go for Almera 1.5 16v
It will be more economical (between 7.1 and 8.8 l/100km)

Ardennes1944 · 28-02-2011 7:08pm

well, im driving a 1.4 astra and im buying a 1.8 mazda 6 this week

dr.fuzzenstein · 28-02-2011 7:47pm

You might find that a 1.6 will sometimes use less than a 1.4, since in a 1.4 you are just standing on the gas pedal, revving the nuts of it to get it to move, while the 1.6 will have more torque to get you along and you won't have to give it that much stick.
1.4 to 1.5, no great difference I'd say.

greenplain · 01-03-2011 9:07am

thanks for all the advise

spoon77 · 01-03-2011 9:18am

greenplain wrote: »

thanks for all the advise

If its fuel economy your after and you have a 45 mile round trip (in dublin area, traffic etc) then why not go for diesel? :eek:

Max Power1 · 01-03-2011 9:33am

spoon77 wrote: »

If its fuel economy your after and you have a 45 mile round trip (in dublin area, traffic etc) then why not go for diesel? :eek:

:rolleyes:

Perhaps because diesel is not as efficient as petrol for driving around town in traffic?

mullingar · 01-03-2011 9:48am

Max Power1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Perhaps because diesel is not as efficient as petrol for driving around town in traffic?

EEhhh??

Diesel is always more efficient that petrol. City or Motorway driving.

The only time Petrols are more economical than Diesel is the overall running costs (tax/purchase cost/depreciation etc) if you do less than 10k miles per year

challengemaster · 01-03-2011 9:51am

mullingar wrote: »

EEhhh??

Diesel is always more efficient that petrol. City or Motorway driving.

The only time Petrols are more economical than Diesel is the overall running costs (tax/purchase cost/depreciation etc) if you do less than 10k miles per year

TDIDIDIDIDIDI fanboy perhaps? :pac:

mullingar · 01-03-2011 9:52am

challengemaster wrote: »

TDIDIDIDIDIDI fanboy perhaps? :pac:

Nope, I luve my 3.0 petrol

:D

Max Power1 · 01-03-2011 10:01am

mullingar wrote: »

EEhhh??

Diesel is always more efficient that petrol. City or Motorway driving.

The only time Petrols are more economical than Diesel is the overall running costs (tax/purchase cost/depreciation etc) if you do less than 10k miles per year

SO even in stop start city driving? At low revs? Not so much.

What happens when the turbo blows or the DPF/DMF gives out because it hasnt been driven fast? Will diesel still be more efficient then after shelling out on repairs?

Hows the VAG 1.9 Tididdly Eye working out for ya?

Increase in engine size, will it be less fuel efficient

Comments