159/Brera 2.4 Fuel Consumption

[mikeyw]

Good example Zulu - as Alfa owners we are meant to accept that if we drive a good looking car it can't return reasonable mpg.....beyond me mate

[BoltfromtheBlue]

The BMW diesel six in line 3 litre in the 330D, 335D, 530D and 535D is top of the pile now. Beats everything.

I sold an 2003 A4 2.5 TDI auto to move to the 159 2.4 JTDm 210. The A4 did 29-32 mpg. The 159 does 36-38 mpg. Same driver, same routes. The 159 is not as good as I hoped, but better than the Audi.

Right now BMW has the best motor over 4 cylinders and 2 litres. And the highest resale prices. A BMW 330D at the same price would have been 18 months older or over £5,000 more money at the same age. You pays your money and takes your choice.

[Red Arachnid]

I expected from previous vehicles that I have owned that the combined cycle of 41.5 would give me an actual 38. The figure I am achieving seems to be 36 all things considered, so a little disapointing. I have now covered 15,000 in the car.

I use fancy diesels, but I have just read the Consumers Association's report and they found little if any economy advantage in fancy fuels (and little if any difference in emissions).

Incidentally, they sought an expert view. The expert expressed the view that if you intended long term ownership, then the fancy fuels might well be kinder to the engine (but it would take years to see any payback).

I tend to feel that the car is more responsive on the dearer fuel.

So back to the main issue, I reckon that I get 5% less economy that I thought.

She is beautiful though.....especially with the top down (now where's that service station?...)

[George K]

I have now had my 159SW 2.4 for almost a year (14,500 miles) and in that period have logged my fuel consumption in a spreadsheet on a cumulative basis at 36.8. My previous car, a Volvo S60 D5 - 2.4, 5 cylinder diesel returned 43.7 over 114,000 miles, follwing exactly the same journey pattern and average sppeds - in both cases most of the mileage is long commutes out of town - cruise control set at just over 80. Out of interest the milometers read with 0.1 miles in 120 - thus well within reasonable experimental error.

Analysing the differences between the cars, the obvious things are weight (Alfa 1725 kg plus - Volvo circa 1,500 - despite their reputation for being a tank, it had alloy engine, bonnet and boot lid), Alfa has DPF and EGR, and possibly marginally worse aero (headlamps not faired in and rounded rear end). If I pro rate the fuel consumption to the weight (a reasonable , albeit crude first pass, as work done is a function of mass, if we ignore drag)- the answer is very revealing - -43.7 x 1500/1725 = 38.0, which is most of the difference. The other 1.2 could well be down to a combination of the other three factors.

I have noticed the effect of the DPF regen, but as most of my driving is out of town it does not occur too often - so probably not worth removing.

To reduce the pain, the on cost in 15,000 miles per year is about £350 - the loss on changing the car would take years to pay back, so I have learnt not to worry. Now just need time to fit some bespoke springs and dampers and then all should be happy for a while.

[Borman]

Hi all, that's my first post here. After reading a lot of feedback from 2.4 owners on their consumption numbers/driving patterns I ran into an article on a german automotive web site that I'm sure everybody will be surprised to read. It's in German, but you just need to scroll through the slide show of images and look at the descriptions for every car model to the right of the image. They give a manufacturer's quoted average consumption, actual numbers after their test and the difference in %. I can not give more comments on the article main body text as I do not understand everything there, but the comments to the slideshow are self-explanatory. In short, we see a shocking difference from 20 to 40% between what's quoted by a manufacturer and actual consumption. A couple of Alfa MiTos spotted in the list as well. I'm pretty sure most of "not happy" 2.4 diesel alfa owners will have quite a relief after reading it
Here's the link:
Herstellerangabe gegen Testverbrauch - Die große Verbrauchs-Lüge - News - autobild.de

[lanceshaw]

Managed Great MPG yesterday. I had a blow out Sunday night so had to fit my space saver wheel so max 60mph( I think it advises 56mph on the tyre). Went on a 160 mile journey to Richmond N.Yorks as as you can see from my readout, I got over 50mpg. Done all this in 6th gear - slight issue - on the way home, Engine Light came on - poxy DPF. Could not thrash it as had Space saver tyre on, so knocked it into 4th and stayed at 2500 revs all the way home. This cleared the DPF as got my power back again , but Engine light remained on.

This morning had to get a new tyre as puncture was in the wall (nail) and paid £52 a my local Indy to put out engine light. Although out of pocket - a happy chappie again..... May consider AHM's DPF removal.

I normally average 44mpg at 70mph. First DPF issues since remap - 14k miles ago, but this could have been because only chugging at about 1500 revs for 3 hours. Shouyld have stayed in 5th.

[159john]

Originally Posted by George K

I have now had my 159SW 2.4 for almost a year (14,500 miles) and in that period have logged my fuel consumption in a spreadsheet on a cumulative basis at 36.8. My previous car, a Volvo S60 D5 - 2.4, 5 cylinder diesel returned 43.7 over 114,000 miles, follwing exactly the same journey pattern and average sppeds - in both cases most of the mileage is long commutes out of town - cruise control set at just over 80. Out of interest the milometers read with 0.1 miles in 120 - thus well within reasonable experimental error.

Analysing the differences between the cars, the obvious things are weight (Alfa 1725 kg plus - Volvo circa 1,500 - despite their reputation for being a tank, it had alloy engine, bonnet and boot lid), Alfa has DPF and EGR, and possibly marginally worse aero (headlamps not faired in and rounded rear end). If I pro rate the fuel consumption to the weight (a reasonable , albeit crude first pass, as work done is a function of mass, if we ignore drag)- the answer is very revealing - -43.7 x 1500/1725 = 38.0, which is most of the difference. The other 1.2 could well be down to a combination of the other three factors.

I have noticed the effect of the DPF regen, but as most of my driving is out of town it does not occur too often - so probably not worth removing.

To reduce the pain, the on cost in 15,000 miles per year is about £350 - the loss on changing the car would take years to pay back, so I have learnt not to worry. Now just need time to fit some bespoke springs and dampers and then all should be happy for a while.

Great post It's always worth converting the extra fuel used into an actual cost - I am certainly always surprised at how little it amounts to; £350 is only the cost of two pints a week . I for one would willingly give up 2 pints a week to drive 15,000 miles in the Alfa!

[nmike]

Dear All,

Usally in the morning I go to work with my love Brera (2,4 JTDm) and than I drive home.The whole trip takes 16km but I can't get better than 23.522mpg. I really drive nice, never above 2000 rev.

Please advice. Can I get better and if yes how?

Is it just need to be optimised?

Please help me.

[Mr-T]

Originally Posted by nmike

Dear All,

Usally in the morning I go to work with my love Brera (2,4 JTDm) and than I drive home.The whole trip takes 16km but I can't get better than 23.522mpg. I really drive nice, never above 2000 rev.

Please advice. Can I get better and if yes how?

Is it just need to be optimised?

Please help me.

Try using more than 2000 rev's.

You may be labouring the engine.

[lanceshaw]

Originally Posted by 159john

great post It's always worth converting the extra fuel used into an actual cost - i am certainly always surprised at how little it amounts to; £350 is only the cost of two pints a week . I for one would willingly give up 2 pints a week to drive 15,000 miles in the alfa!

+ 1

[keithglos]

Originally Posted by nmike

Dear All,

Usally in the morning I go to work with my love Brera (2,4 JTDm) and than I drive home.The whole trip takes 16km but I can't get better than 23.522mpg. I really drive nice, never above 2000 rev.

Please advice. Can I get better and if yes how?

Is it just need to be optimised?

Please help me.

2 5 mile drives, with 2 warm up daily? If so, the warm-up is using extra around .4 litres per day, the mpg when warmed up is about 30 mpg.
Extra revs will not help.
Bear in mind that a hilly route will punish the mpg. If you do 20 mpg for a mile uphill, then 80 mpg for a mile downhill, the average is 32 mpg.

Based on my 2.4 auto Croma warm-up consumption.

[nmike]

Originally Posted by keithglos

2 5 mile drives, with 2 warm up daily? If so, the warm-up is using extra around .4 litres per day, the mpg when warmed up is about 30 mpg.
Extra revs will not help.
Bear in mind that a hilly route will punish the mpg. If you do 20 mpg for a mile uphill, then 80 mpg for a mile downhill, the average is 32 mpg.

Based on my 2.4 auto Croma warm-up consumption.

Does remap would help?

[keithglos]

I don't do enough miles to be worth a remap, although it could help you. Some remaps still give problems with the DPF regen, and EGR valve.

[Mr-T]

Originally Posted by keithglos

Extra revs will not help.

Not strictly true. In a modern intelligent engine optimum mpg does not necessarily always occur at low rev's.

[George K]

Watching the boost gauge is probably as accurate as an instantaneous fuel consumption read out - low revs could certainly lead to higher boost. Staying under .6 bar would be a challenge, but may well be the answer, irrespective of rpm.

[nmike]

So I consider this mpg as normal?
I should stay under 0.6 bar and also between 1500-2000 rev.
This would be the conclusion?

I refuse to believe that my 2,4JTDm engine consumption is equal with 320CDi engine.

There must be something wrong

It is not true that Italians can't do good engines, just see Lamborghini.

[George K]

[QUOTE=nmike;3268583]So I consider this mpg as normal?
I should stay under 0.6 bar and also between 1500-2000 rev.
This would be the conclusion? Revs probably matter less than boost (which relates to pedal postion) so from where do you get the 1500 - 2000

I refuse to believe that my 2,4JTDm engine consumption is equal with 320CDi engine. Weights are similar - see my post re effect of weight.

[Red Arachnid]

I have looked at the German website (only the first 40 vehicles). As everyone realises our UK government test means that to get 40mpg (around 7 litre/100km I think) out of an executive car it is driven at exactly the speeds and accelerations as a much smaller economy orientated car. The reality is that most people won't have this degree of restraint.

So what were our motoring journalists doing during their tests? They were hopping from a Porsche to a Mini One. I guess that the Mini may have got driven fairly enthusiastically? I'm not suggesting that the testers were being anything other than perfectly responsible, but they would have been surely trying to drive as they see cars typically driven on the road?

I was talking to work colleagues about fuel consumption. I admitted to my 36 mpg (around 8 litres/100km I believe) out of my 2.4 Spider. An Audi A3 2.0 Diesel owner claimed 58 mpg on his commute to work (similar to my journey), but then admitted that he didn't drive above 50 mph (on the clock I assume).