Renault Clio 90 HP DCI MPG

Here's a review from an owner that gets about 70 odd mpg from his diesel clio.

This is on what car.

"Even though the car isn't run in from day 1 I got 68mpg around town and I've even got to 88mpg on a motorway/dual carriageway trip to work. I got 720 miles on my first tank so roughly 70mpg!! brilliant!! OVERALL great car and package with 4 years servicing/warranty/roadside. Renault UK customer service SHOCKING!!"


Now let's not get excited with the "88 mpg on the motorway" or "68 around town" as it's the 70 mpg per the tank reading that matters.

I still would like someone to loan me a Clio diesel for a week to test it out.

My MK II 2007 can get 60-64 mpg, so this really isn't a huge leap ? I mean the Prius MK II is using 10 year old hybrid technology and is an automatic with 20 more HP and a fair bit bigger car.

Does the clio even have stop start ?

What would be impressive is a plug in clio at least.

colm_mcm

You have to bear in mind that the current Clio is a good bit bigger and in a different class safety wise than the 1998 model

I have never got anywhere near that mpg from a Prius either.

Dartz

I've that engine.

It's fine between 1500 and about 2000rpm.... after that it just wheezes. And it never gets anywhere near what it's supposed to, even on long motorway runs. While taking forever to start to heat up. Five speed gearbox doesn't help.

I once saw 4.9/100 on the morning commute - but that was a big chain of green lights and a long downhill coast in gear. I'd believe it's possible to hit 70mpg, but only under very specific and ideal circumstances. Otherwise, it's an utter bull**** figure. Normal consumption varies between 5.8-6.2, with a 60 litre tank.

Dartz

Dartz wrote: »

I've that engine.

It's fine between 1500 and about 2000rpm.... after that it just wheezes. And it never gets anywhere near what it's supposed to, even on long motorway runs. While taking forever to start to heat up. Five speed gearbox doesn't help.

I once saw 4.9/100 on the morning commute - but that was a big chain of green lights and a long downhill coast in gear. I'd believe it's possible to hit 70mpg, but only under very specific and ideal circumstances. Otherwise, it's an utter bull**** figure. Normal consumption varies between 5.8-6.2, with a 60 litre tank.

Do you have the same car thought because it would most likely make a difference ? The new model.

Engine tweaks, weight aerodynamics etc.

baldric

Hmmmm this might interest you...last summer of 2012 for the craic I drove my opel corsa (1.0 litre) 1998 ke reg from Dublin up beyond the Arctic circle in Norway and then turned around and drove down to Murcia in Spain. I know you're asking why, but I suppose I had nothing to do so I said it f*ck it why not.

Anyway I drove in total just around 7200 miles and I kept a record of mileage and consumpiton and my average mileage was 55.2 mpg, (including getting lost occasionally in the likes of Birmingham, Oslo, Berlin and Krakow) and the mpg was upto 70 at times in Norway where the speed limit was 50 mph on the open road.

Anyway Betsy as she is called cost me 500e.....and she now lives in retirement somewhere in the south of spain, )

Jesus.

That's mad. Fair play to ye Baldric!

I can't imagine it being a doddle doing such huge mileage in a one liter Corsa!

Getting 70 where the speed limit was 50 illustrates that caning a small car doesn't necessarily save you fuel compared to a larger car where she'd be just ticking over at the same speed.

I'd like to do a trip such as that at some point Baldric. Where'd you find is the nicest place to drive?

Bpmull

70mpg seem mad high. But then we had a 2007 megane van 1.5dci 90bhp and to this day it was the most economical car/ van we ever had. And I'm comparing that to a lot of the common diesel cars we had. It never ever done less than 60mpg and that was brimming it calculating the mpg properly. As a car it was just unbelievable mpg wise 60-65mpg every single tank. So a more modern smaller Clio it is possible to get near 70mpg. Specially considering we never drove the megane economically it was used as a van and was loaded with tools materials etc and was never driven that economically it was the kind of car where you would just look at the fuel gauge and it would never move 1100-1200 km to a tank before the light would come on. And considering we have had an astra corolla focus etc and all them in diesel none would even come close. Although tbh I don't expect anyone to believe my claims as I found them hard to believe how the engine could turn out that kind of mpg.

Jesus.

Bpmull wrote: »

I don't expect anyone to believe my claims as I found them hard to believe.

I believe you mate

Bpmull

Jesus. wrote: »

I believe you mate

That 1.5dci had to be one of the most economical diesel engines of that time 2007. We should have kept that megane anyway. Although the grass is always greener..... And all that:)

visual

Ive very mixed views on Renaults and having owned a few I always say I'll not buy another but their diesels are good mpg

2001 laguna done close on 50mpg motorway and 40 in city. If they could sort out build quality and reliability I be a loyal fan. As safty comford are good

Jesus.

visual wrote: »

2001 laguna done close on 50mpg motorway and 40 in city.

Not in a million years man

I'm reading the "mpg on the motorway and in the city " again !

Please only post the tank mpg.

Jesus.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm reading the "mpg on the motorway and in the city " again !Please only post the tank mpg.

But even as unreliable as those dash computers are, even if you did set it to zero whilst sat in City traffic, it still wouldn't show up anywhere near 40!

I don't know where these guys are getting these crazy figures from.

Henry Ford III

I find a huge difference in mpg between say 115kph and 135kph in motorway driving.

Jesus.

Jesus. wrote: »

But even as unreliable as those dash computers are, even if you did set it to zero whilst sat in City traffic, it still wouldn't show up anywhere near 40!

I don't know where these guys are getting these crazy figures from.

I'm not sure all trip computers are wrong, the one in the Prius is pretty damn accurate. That's calculating my tank average though, I rarely do trip readings.

However I think a lot of people are reading the trip computer wrong, for instance if you reset the computer while the engine is still hot or while you're driving it can show a much higher reading.

baldric

jesus.

there wasnt an awful lot of traffic in northern Norway and Sweden so that was pretty easy, but passing in a right hand 1 litre had its moments. I suppose Norway was most interesting, Fjords, ferries, tunnels, arctic circle stuff. The Autobahn was hairy enough when busy in the slow lane with 18 wheelers, and at night with lads pumping by at 140mph when you doing 60....scare the sh*t out of you if you weren't paying attention.

other than that its pretty straightforward, definitely worth a go when you have time, if there were two of you, all the better, I did most of it on my own.

visual

Jesus. wrote: »

Not in a million years man

1.9dci 6 speed 120bhp for 5 years all day every day. For its year 2001 it made a laugh of other 2 liter diesels that were less powerful slower and less efficent.

Maybe you quote real experience of one

Jesus.

visual wrote: »

1.9dci 6 speed 120bhp for 5 years all day every day. For its year 2001 it made a laugh of other 2 liter diesels that were less powerful slower and less efficent. Maybe you quote real experience of one

Of cars yes. And there hasn't been one invented yet that will return anywhere near 40mpg City.

I don't think you're being willfully disingenuous though, so no offence intended. I just know that a lot of people simply don't know how to accurately calculate their real mpg whether it be in M-way/Mixed or City conditions.

And 40mpg City isn't real I'm afraid.

Bpmull

Jesus. wrote: »

Of cars yes. And there hasn't been one invented yet that will return anywhere near 40mpg City.

I don't think you're being willfully disingenuous though, so no offence intended. I just know that a lot of people simply don't know how to accurately calculate their real mpg whether it be in M-way/Mixed or City conditions.

And 40mpg City isn't real I'm afraid.

That really depends on what you define as city driving. Is that stop start driving in heavy traffic for an hour. Or is it simply driving through a city built up area ie stopping at lights and roundabouts every couple of 100 metres. No wonder people get different mpg for so called city driving the reason why is its such a broad term. I live in Kilkenny so city driving to me is driving through Kilkenny City moving slow stopping at lights and roundabouts and maybe the odd 5 minute traffic delay as that's about as much as you get in Kilkenny whereas a Dublin person may sit in traffic for an hour and consider that as city driving.

air

Bpmull wrote: »

That really depends on what you define as city driving. Is that stop start driving in heavy traffic for an hour. Or is it simply driving through a city built up area ie stopping at lights and roundabouts every couple of 100 metres. No wonder people get different mpg for so called city driving the reason why is its such a broad term. I live in Kilkenny so city driving to me is driving through Kilkenny City moving slow stopping at lights and roundabouts and maybe the odd 5 minute traffic delay as that's about as much as you get in Kilkenny whereas a Dublin person may sit in traffic for an hour and consider that as city driving.

You're correct, Kilkenny is not a city by any kind of objective measure, ergo you are not doing any city driving so you should expect to get far better mileage than someone doing actual city driving.

Jesus.

air wrote: »

You're correct, Kilkenny is not a city by any kind of objective measure, ergo you are not doing any city driving so you should expect to get far better mileage than someone doing actual city driving.

This. Kilkenny is in reality a town. What BP is describing is more Mixed than City driving. In motoring terms, City driving is real City driving, IE traffic and slow moving stuff. The guy with the 40mpg reading is actually describing mixed driving also. I drive into Dublin every day and its all mixed until I get right into the City center. Its only then, when I'm averaging only a few miles per hour, that I'm doing "City" driving.

But BP is spot on in that its the vagueness of the terms and people's confusion when it comes to applying them that brings about such wild discrepancies in reported fuel consumption.

air

Manufacturers should be forced to provide fuel consumption figures at various continuous speeds - eg 30kph, 40kph .. 140kph for every car they sell.

Then people could make objective comparisons between cars on paper using data relevant to their own personal driving pattern.
This would remove a lot of the smoke an mirrors that is introduced by various artificial test cycles etc.

ottostreet

I get 28mpg from my car apparently.

Grand.

air

air wrote: »

Manufacturers should be forced to provide fuel consumption figures at various continuous speeds - eg 30kph, 40kph .. 140kph for every car they sell.

Then people could make objective comparisons between cars on paper using data relevant to their own personal driving pattern.
This would remove a lot of the smoke an mirrors that is introduced by various artificial test cycles etc.

The whole problem is the NEDC, read up on it, I think wiki have an article on it, but the test is completely farcical and only helps to make MPG and emissions levels (appear) to look much lower than they actually are.

The NEDC test is in no way a reflection of real life driving and should be abolished as it is misleading people.

colm_mcm

The NCAP is the same idea, The manufacturers designs and fine tune cars to do well in these tests.

Starscream25

I'm wondering what kind of mpg figures anyone with the new clio petrol 1.2 engine are getting?the official figure is 51.4 but I'd imagine that can be reduced in real world conditions, I have a vw 1.4 golf which gets me in and around 37 mpg. Thinking of getting a clio down the line

ba_barabus

Starscream25 wrote: »

Thinking of getting a clio down the line

That 1.2L engine in the new Clio is shockingly underpowered for a car of that size and weight. I'd be very doubtful it'll get much more MPG return than your Golf.

Jesus.

ba_barabus wrote: »

That 1.2L engine in the new Clio is shockingly underpowered for a car of that size and weight.

But the Clio's a little car!

It's the diesel I'd be more interested in seeing if I could get close to the 80 or so claimed mpg !

Starscream25

I wouldn't be too put out over the power of the clio and the weight is quite low I think around the 1000kg area (relatively lightweight) ,the golf I have is like a whale to be driving around. For me currently I wouldn't drive a whole lot so I'm flirting with the idea of one of these claimed higher end mpg cars. I think a 1.2 would suit me.
For some reason I'm mpg obsessed, always calculating and going for the highest I can get

Jesus.

Starscream25 wrote: »

the golf I have is like a whale to be driving around.

But the Golf is a small car too!

Starscream25

Jesus. wrote: »

But the Golf is a small car too!

Ya it's small enough alright but a good 300+ kg difference, throw 2 passengers in with a full tank and you'd be hitting 1500~ Kg, don't think mpg difference would be massive at all between the two cars, my 37mpg in the golf in grand, hoping to hit the mid forties or higher in whatever I get next.

The New Peugeot 308 1.6 HDI 120 hp is supposed to get 90 mpg too, for the launch, people will have to endure a paltry 90 hp. The 1.6 120 will be launched in the late spring I think .

The new 308 looks pretty decent inside too !

But even if it got 80 mpg that would be impressive.

I'd love to take the clio for a spin for a week to see what I could get.

ba_barabus

The Clio 1.2 has a lethargic 0-60 time of 14.9 seconds and a lowly 73bhp. It's nicely finished inside and looks great but the engine really struggles to move the car. Now the diesel is a different beast as it managed to almost be sporty in how it moves the car. They're like chalk and cheese if you test drive them back to back.

Having said all that if you say you aren't driving much and if you are rarely on a motorway maybe the performance will be fine. I was very shocked at just how underpowered it was however. As I found you had to drive it harder to compensate for this I doubt the MPG figures of 50+ can be achieved in real world driving.

ba_barabus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd love to take the clio for a spin for a week to see what I could get.

As economy models go the diesel was lovely to drive. A real surprise.

MuppetCheck

What about the small turbo petrol Clio? Might be a better bet.

ba_barabus

MuppetCheck wrote: »

What about the small turbo petrol Clio? Might be a better bet.

I've yet to drive one although anyone I've talked to who has driven one has loved it.

Starscream25

MuppetCheck wrote: »

What about the small turbo petrol Clio? Might be a better bet.

Ya just reading up on the turbo 1.2 aswell as the tce90, the extra bit of power would always be welcome aswell as the claimed mpg figures in the 50,s.
All I have to do now is wait the the good wait until prices on the mk4 clio come down to the ~8000 euro price range, probably another few years

galwaytt

a friend of mine bought an 01 1.1 Saxo last summer and claims to get 60mpg+ out of it with ease....got it for €1300. The tax is dumb -€330+ though...........

Starscream25

galwaytt wrote: »

a friend of mine bought an 01 1.1 Saxo last summer and claims to get 60mpg+ out of it with ease....got it for €1300. The tax is dumb -€330+ though...........

That's a fairly nice return for a petrol alright and ya the tax on such a small car is a bit mad, silly guberment. Tax the fuel more not the engine size I say.

I do seriously question how people calculate the fuel consumption of their cars.

A lot of people reset the trip computer and calculate that on that one trip their car gets 60 mpg end of story. Instead of calculating the tank average.

Having said that the saxo is a light car, so it maybe possible.

Starscream25

Deleted User wrote: »

I do seriously question how people calculate the fuel consumption of their cars.

A lot of people reset the trip computer and calculate that on that one trip their car gets 60 mpg end of story. Instead of calculating the tank average.

Having said that the saxo is a light car, so it maybe possible.

Yes and also I'm not sure do many people take into account the difference between us and imperial mpg and whether they use the right system or know what system they use.i don't have trip, I think I'm as precise as I can be , fill up to the click, drive until the light comes on ( usually get 390 -415miles)and I refill it's very close to 50 litres (my tank capacity). Then use an mpg calculator.simples.
On a more positive note for me my motorbike tank got me a lovely 75 mpg today.yah