Alfa Romeo Forum banner

159 1750 TBi Economy

28K views 162 replies 59 participants last post by  epsonix 
#1 ·
What sort of economy are people seeing from the 1750 TBi engine...?

I have covered 500 miles in my 159 1750 TBi Ti Saloon so far... and have yet to see the Average MPG go above 25 mpg...

This is a combination of town and motorway driving... (around town only it drops to around 20 mpg...)

I saw 28 mpg when I had my BMW 325i SE Coupe... so was expecting at least the same.

I understand that the car's new... so maybe it'll improve... but wondered what other people were seeing...?
 
#3 ·
I dont own one so cant say for sure but ive taken a couple for test drives that had several thousand miles on the clock. They were both demonstrators so im sure they had been well thrashed but one was showing about 25mpg for whole life and the pther about 23.5. Looks like the new engines havent cracked fuel economy yet till they pop the multiair system on the 1750
 
#4 ·
I had one as a loan car recently, it had covered about 4K, it was achieving around 28mpg, that was mixed A and B roads, no Mway, so I would expect to see 30mg once the novelty had worn off!
 
#22 ·
we've just got hold of a 1750 sw. its a great car. but the economy... not what i was expecting.
a mainly motorway round trip of 280 miles returned just about bang on 30mpg. average speed about 60, both according to the computer.
about the same as everyone else reported.
the car has done about 2.5k miles, so not brand new, and still a little loosening up to do.
pretty poor compared to the quoted stats...

why mention it, odd but true its about exactly the same as our other car - an M3.
A full fat 8 year old 3.2l 323g c02 super unleaded monster. I must of done this journey 20 times over the last 4 years. the M3 has never been worse than 27mpg or better than 32. the lowest mpg trips are about 60 mins faster than the best mpg. or another way. i pay an extra £4 in petrol for 60 minutes less in the car. a true bargain.

must say i was expecting a new super duper special 4 cylinder to be a little better than the old gas guzzler....
 
#24 ·
why mention it, odd but true its about exactly the same as our other car - an M3.
A full fat 8 year old 3.2l 323g c02 super unleaded monster. I must of done this journey 20 times over the last 4 years. the M3 has never been worse than 27mpg or better than 32. the lowest mpg trips are about 60 mins faster than the best mpg. or another way. i pay an extra £4 in petrol for 60 minutes less in the car. a true bargain.
Funny you say that, I could get 30mpg on my GT V6 3.2 when I did a long motorway run, at motorway speeds!
 
#26 ·
It is just as well that the engine is so flexible... otherwise it would be a nightmare...

Although... there is no point putting MPG figures in brochures when they can be out by so much...

If they said the car had 19" alloys... and it rolled up with 18" wheels... they wouldn't be allowed to print the brochures like that. So why does it apply to MPG...?

I know they are supposed to follow the same 'scientific' test as all the other manufacturers... but, still...

They should just grade the cars A-B-C-D-E-F... like they do with fridges... and forget the actual figures... as they are misleading.
 
G
#27 ·
Thats the whole point - the test IS standardised to give comparable results.

If you read the long-term test reports in magazines such as Autocar/Autoexpress etc you will notice that they never achieve the manufacturers figures in real life.
 
#28 ·
That's fair enough...

But when Alfa put statements in the brochures like:

"Even more power. Even better fuel consumption."

and

"Engine development never stops at Alfa Romeo and today’s engines offer better than ever performance in terms of power and consumption."

Then they go on to talk about the new 1750 TBi engine... it does give potentail customers a certain impression...

And, from a personal point of view... it is not the impression that the engine will struggle to average 25 MPG.

Bearing in mind... as someone above has already mentioned when talking about their 3.2l BMW M3... there are a lot of older engines, with bigger capacities and the same, or more, power... that match or beat the 1750 TBi engine's economy figures.

I know that to be true... as I had one... :)

It isn't the end of the world... just disappointing. And a shame, when other manufacturers are getting great performance AND economy from smaller capacity turbo-charged engines...
 
#29 ·
It seems that all the manufacturers are banging on about their newer models being super efficient but few ever seem to get close to claimed figures - Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, Alfa, whoever. Seems older cars have more accurate ratings.

It's like school exam results, kids aren't getting more intellligent, they're simply getting better at passing exams!

Sorry to bring up politics, but this just so happens to be an all-pervasive symptom of the current UK administration, things don't necessarily get any better but they always manage to measure things in a way that looks good!

Could this have anything to do with tripling the spend on spin merchants since the last lot were in power?! :lol:
 
#30 ·
I now have a Scirocco and my wife has a Golf, we can both achieve the figures for the combined cycle put out by VW.
I did have a BMW before the Brera and I could never get the BMW claimed figures but the VW's we can meet quite easily.
 
#52 ·
HEAR HEAR ..... I reckon If people are worried about consumption etc as most are nowadays (understandably) then buy a hondapriusinsightwingoiqthingy?????? turn into a sipper and drive at sunday driver speed everywhere??? my 2.2 36k on the clock steady 28-9 mpg worth every penny and its still 10000000000 times more economical than a bently and looks better :cool:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top