Renault fuel "issue"?

eeloe

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?

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.................

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

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

Henry Ford III

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

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.

porsche boy

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

V8 Interceptor

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

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.