Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Renault fuel "issue"?

Options
  • 17-01-2019 9:36am
    #1
    eeloe
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 3,713 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Right, i'm not sure where to go with this one, but i'm having a bit of an issue...i think.

    I had a 162 Renault Megane GT Line 1.6 140hp diesel, loved the car, it was returning 5.4l/100kms pretty much all the time, getting 700kms-900kms for a tank of diesel, depending on the driving i was doing.

    It was in for repair(o2 sensor) a couple of weeks before Christmas and while i was in the garage, i spec'd up a new car, low and behold, the car i spec'd was actually in stock...so signed the paper work and picked up my new Megane on Jan 2nd.

    This is a 191 Renault Megane iconic, 1.4 Petrol 140hp(i'm aware there is a massive difference in torque between both models, but with the driving i'm doing it shouldn't make a difference)

    Now at the moment i have 490kms on the clock in just over two weeks, but i'm just about to put in my 3rd tank of fuel....the car says it's returning 8.9l/100kms.

    Surely something isn't right here? the 1.4turbo petrol engines should be economic enough in this day and age? they're the same engines that are in the new Nissan machines, and they're getting great MPG. i'd say when i fill up the car later today i'll have 500-510kms on it, so 250kms from a full tank of fuel is a bit insane? that's Mazda RX7 and Nissan Skyline territory, surely?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    as you say, the torque is different, and that's more than half the issue: I'd say you'd be lucky to beat 7l/100km ever on it tbh, so until it's bedded in and you've adapted to it, you're not that far off what it's going to be.

    And no, you're nowhere near RX-7/Skyline consumption.................

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #3
    GavMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭GavMan


    There would be a bit of bedding in to be done but that does seem awfully low.

    Is the tank smaller than the diesel by any chance?

    I can easily get 600km on a 1.6 petrol Alfa 147 with about 50L of fuel


  • Options
    #4
    GavMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭GavMan


    Maybe if you brim the tank
    Take note of the litres it took
    Zero the trip meter
    Run down the tank
    Brim it again
    Note the number of litres it took and the mileage on the trip meter and then we can work out the L/KM


  • Options
    #5
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    31.7mpg in old money. Not great but it's a new car.


  • Options
    #6
    kerten
    Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭kerten


    If you enjoy the turbo on a diesel, it doesn't bite you in fuel pump much but same can't be said for turbo petrols.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    porsche boy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭porsche boy


    Turbo diesel -v- Turbo petrol
    As different as different can be
    Turbo charging small cc petrol cars will never be fuel efficient.


  • Options
    #8
    V8 Interceptor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭V8 Interceptor


    It sounds very bad. Unless you're hooning it around you should be getting at least 40mpg.

    I used to get mid 40's from an NA 1.6 Laguna.


  • Options
    #9
    DaveyDave
    Registered Users Posts: 6,190 ✭✭✭DaveyDave


    The WLTP figure on Renault's site is 6.2-6.3L, you might not get that but you'll get somewhat close to it now that the consumption figures are now somewhat realistic.

    When my Golf was new I was getting 7-8L, it wasn't until around 6,000km when I started getting around 6.5L. That's exactly what the official WLTP combined figure is.


  • Options
    #10
    ZiabR
    Registered Users Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭ZiabR


    porsche boy wrote: »
    Turbo diesel -v- Turbo petrol
    As different as different can be
    Turbo charging small cc petrol cars will never be fuel efficient.

    Thats nonsense. VW are doing it. They dropped a cylindar from 4 to 3 and put a turbo onto it and it is breaking records. And this is all with a 1 litre engine.

    Petrol done the right way can be a perfect solution.

    Personally I don't like Renault, while they have gotten better in recent years they still suffer from electrical problems.


  • Options
    #11
    Renegade Mechanic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    eeloe wrote: »
    Right, i'm not sure where to go with this one, but i'm having a bit of an issue...i think.

    I had a 162 Renault Megane GT Line 1.6 140hp diesel, loved the car, it was returning 5.4l/100kms pretty much all the time, getting 700kms-900kms for a tank of diesel, depending on the driving i was doing.

    It was in for repair(o2 sensor) a couple of weeks before Christmas and while i was in the garage, i spec'd up a new car, low and behold, the car i spec'd was actually in stock...so signed the paper work and picked up my new Megane on Jan 2nd.

    This is a 191 Renault Megane iconic, 1.4 Petrol 140hp(i'm aware there is a massive difference in torque between both models, but with the driving i'm doing it shouldn't make a difference)

    Now at the moment i have 490kms on the clock in just over two weeks, but i'm just about to put in my 3rd tank of fuel....the car says it's returning 8.9l/100kms.

    Surely something isn't right here? the 1.4turbo petrol engines should be economic enough in this day and age? they're the same engines that are in the new Nissan machines, and they're getting great MPG. i'd say when i fill up the car later today i'll have 500-510kms on it, so 250kms from a full tank of fuel is a bit insane? that's Mazda RX7 and Nissan Skyline territory, surely?


    Do 6,000 km then report back. Give her a chance to cut her teeth lad, and well wear!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    V8 Interceptor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭V8 Interceptor


    Why does a brand new car return worse mpg than one worn in?


  • Options
    #13
    Renegade Mechanic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    V8 Interceptor wrote: »
    Why does a brand new car return worse mpg than one worn in?

    Piston rings form the seal in the combustion chamber. While they - and the cylinder bore they're in - are manufactured to incredibly precise standards these days, there's simply no way to make them seeal as good as doing a thousand miles at a thousand degrees at hundreds of psi will make them.


    In short, as the rings bed in, the compression ratio improves. Compression increases, meaning you can use less fuel to reach the same temperatures. This also means an increase in the expansion stroke, converting more energy and all with the added benefit of lowering the exhaust temperature; important in an engine with egr as hotter gasses also impact the AFM quality.

    Older engines required the full 6k to bed in, nowadays it's maybe 2,500 or 3k. But it's still necessary, this "pre-bedded" from the factory stuff is bull****. And it's still prudent to change the oil/filter at 6k, just in case you get the one engine with a few filings, then carry on with normal service regime but nobody does that really any more.

    There's also two schools of thought in how to bed an engine in. Drive it easy or drive the absolute hole out of it the minute it's warm.
    The latter works, if you plan on being in Mondello a lot. The prior is perfect otherwise.


Advertisement