bhp vs mpg

corkcity

looking at buying a new car

2.0 deisel 140bhp

does it cost more in deisel to run if the bhp is higher as the same car is available in
163bhp

bazz26

No noticeable difference in fuel economy but a bit of extra power when you need it. In fact the higher bhp version could be a little better on fuel. However if you have a heavy right foot then naturally you will use more fuel.

Foxhole Norman

Usually negligible if there is. Maybe 2/3 MPG at most.

rowanh

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/

Mpg figures should be on there.

pa990

BHP wins every time

MuppetCheck

Insignia is it? I preferred the higher powered engine.

HandsomeDan

If there is a corresponding increase in torque it could potentially save you fuel as you could cruise in a higher gear. If not, as is sometimes the case, then accessing the extra power will lower your economy - but then only marginally so.

R.O.R

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Insignia is it? I preferred the higher powered engine.

I'd guess Insignia as well, and I'm done economy runs in both engines, with a 0.2l/100km difference.

Unless the Insignia 163 is in stock, you won't get one. Engine now not available to order and will be replaced by a 170 version. No pricing yet, but a fairly hefty hike is expected, so will be much more than the current 700 difference. I

corkcity

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Insignia is it? I preferred the higher powered engine.

yes .i want the 163bhp car = sri model in white

Noccy_Mondy

corkcity wrote: »

yes .i want the 163bhp car = sri model in white

Brand new, or used?

corkcity

Noccy_Mondy wrote: »

Brand new, or used?

brand new

lomb

I wouldn't worry about the mpg difference. If cost was all that important why buy new? It will of course use more fuel but the more powerful engine would actually be enjoyable to own. Ive driven the new shape Passat with 1.6 tdi and actually far prefer an older b6 2l 140 bhp with 95 k on the clock. In fact I would regard the 1.6 to be 'useless'.
Once you've experienced a bit of power youd never want to go back. The only thing I suppose is 140 is enough for most people but another 23bhp when you need it cant hurt. I would have no interest in remapping as the manufacturer is going to know a heck of a lot more than some guy in a shed with a laptop.

Blazer

lomb wrote: »

n some guy in a shed with a laptop.

who still knows a helluva lot more than you do..
I've remapped my last 2 cars and it's made a helluva difference with no problems to the car. If you actually read up on it you'd know that most cars are downgrades to meet emission tests/ fuel economy etc.

lomb

Blazer wrote: »

are downgrades to meet emission tests/ fuel economy etc.

exactly fuel economy so remappers advertising improved mpg is difficult to believe.
the other reason manufacturers downgrade performance is to stay within the envelope of the drivetrain for longievity.
Look at the Audi TT mk1, there were two main versions the 180 and 225 and although the 180 could be mapped upto 225 the 225 had two intercoolers as opposed to one, two exhausts as opposed to one, upgraded pistons, conrods and a modified camshaft, a bigger k04 turbo as opposed to a k03, all had 6sp gearboxes as opposed to some having 5 speeds etc
Why would Audi go to the trouble of that if they could have just chipped the 180 ?
It is true though that some manufacturers produce a few versions to get more cash out of people who want a better model where the difference is very small like I think Merc on their diesels and a remap may be fine.