159/Brera 2.4 Fuel Consumption

[Cannavar]

I get less than 25mpg from my 2.4 I mainly do short trips though. But still.

[hardy]

35-37mpg for me. Computer is more or less spot on too.

[Nickt1976]

does anyone have a feel for the economy penalty imposed by the Q4 system? My 159 2.4 Q4 seems to do 31-32mpg...

[bunyarra]

2.4 Brera with 34k on the clock. Was getting up to 37mpg on my 90% motorway journey.

Switched to Vredestein tyres and now get 34-35

[RicksAlfas]

My computer typically shows 26/27 average. My previous 2.4 156 showed 33/34 for the same type of driving. It's disappointing but when I look at it like that, I've got more power, more weight, and the dreaded DPF so it's not going to be better is it?

The real killer is the huge hike in diesel prices over unleaded.

[Fraser]

Had a call from ARUK - they are contacting my local dealership to get them to check the car out. Will keep you all informed.

[mikeyw]

Originally Posted by Cannavar

I get less than 25mpg from my 2.4 I mainly do short trips though. But still.

Shheeeite - that is a disgrace for a diesel engine....with the rip off price of diesel that equates to about 21-22mpg driving a petrol engine.

I'm starting to think the JTS is a far better option when you take into account the chepaer purchase price and fuel price.

[toshy]

yup, and don't forget the sound of petrol engines...

[gingerscotsman]

I am watching this thread with interest. In the market for a 159. The head says 1.9 and the heart (not to mention all my mates) say the 2.4.

Seems though that there is quite a wide range of economies available from what is essentially the same engine. Why should there be such a difference? There are examples from some in this thread who drive gently and still only get low 30's mpg where others get 40+ without even trying? Such a difference must have a reason surely?

I must admit I would be very disappointed to be getting low 30s when book says 41 !!

Of course any salesman worth his salt will tell you that the 159 he is selling is a 40+ mpg model. Bit of a minefield this 2.4 mpg it seems

[nomad]

I drive mine hard and get 32mpg average

[k3lvc]

Originally Posted by nomad

I drive mine hard and get 32mpg average

A fair assessment - I can get less but only in heavy traffic and a very heavy right foot.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by gingerscotsman

I am watching this thread with interest. In the market for a 159. The head says 1.9 and the heart (not to mention all my mates) say the 2.4.

Seems though that there is quite a wide range of economies available from what is essentially the same engine. Why should there be such a difference? There are examples from some in this thread who drive gently and still only get low 30's mpg where others get 40+ without even trying? Such a difference must have a reason surely?

I must admit I would be very disappointed to be getting low 30s when book says 41 !!

Of course any salesman worth his salt will tell you that the 159 he is selling is a 40+ mpg model. Bit of a minefield this 2.4 mpg it seems

I think the 210bhp motor is noticibly better, that may be where the difference comes from. Also, like Nomad, I get 32 mpg on hard-driven A-roads and motorway, but urban really screws the consumption up. too much effort to spool that big turbo up in the 200bhp 2.4.

[mikeyw]

Are you saying the 210 engine gives better economy than the 200 ?

[cj romeo]

Got a 210, mostly urban, 31mpg

[Fraser]

That seems to be the case from early reports. Part of the thing with the 210 is the turbo spools up earlier in the rev range so you don't need such a wide throttle opening.

[gingerscotsman]

My 2.2 Hdi 406 gets about 39mpg. This does drop significantly in town though. But I can't get much more even when I try really hard. Despite this there are some on the 406 forum who get high 40's without trying.

Seems to differ car to car.

Have asked Western Alfa for a loan of a 2.4 to have a go and see what its like fuel wise. they agreed so just got to arrange a time. Unfortunately they don't have 1.9 demonstrator to compare it with.

[mikeyw]

That's more acceptable CJ - i'm an urban dude and would take that as a minimum on the overly taxed diesel engines.

[cj romeo]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Part of the thing with the 210 is the turbo spools up earlier in the rev range so you don't need such a wide throttle opening.

Its true that it moves off with effort, but it suffers more lag when you floor it, but it holds maximum boost for longer.

And in identical circumstances, my 1.9 done about 38mpg, so you dont need a demonstrator!

[Fraser]

ARUK have been in touch by phone and they are arranging to have the car checked out next week.

[nomad]

Good news F

[Fraser]

True, but I suspect the answer will be there's nothing wrong.

[nomad]

Originally Posted by Fraser

True, but I suspect the answer will be there's nothing wrong.

Well there's a very high probability of that mate yes

[dpat]

Originally Posted by gingerscotsman

I am watching this thread with interest. In the market for a 159. The head says 1.9 and the heart (not to mention all my mates) say the 2.4.

Seems though that there is quite a wide range of economies available from what is essentially the same engine. Why should there be such a difference? There are examples from some in this thread who drive gently and still only get low 30's mpg where others get 40+ without even trying? Such a difference must have a reason surely?

I must admit I would be very disappointed to be getting low 30s when book says 41 !!

Of course any salesman worth his salt will tell you that the 159 he is selling is a 40+ mpg model. Bit of a minefield this 2.4 mpg it seems

I have (like CJ) owned both. The 2.4 is a fantastic and powerful engine but too thirsty IMO.

I don't think the 210bhp model returns any better mpg figures than the 200bhp if you look at what people are posting. My 2.4 suffered from surging and there was a noticeable lag setting off in first gear but once in second everything disappeared behind you

The 1.9 is underrated by many I feel. Sure it is not as gutsy as the 2.4 but pulls very well and in my case actually feels smoother with its power delivery than the 2.4 I drove. It still leaves a lot of other cars standing at the lights but then it depends on what and who you are up against

Fuel economy is about 8 mpg better per run or per average tank (brim-to-brim) than my 2.4. A tankfull in the 2.4 lasted me about 440 miles but the 1.9 is more like 600 miles.

Don't be afraid of the 1.9, try one if you can and then decide.

[gingerscotsman]

Originally Posted by dpat

I have (like CJ) owned both. The 2.4 is a fantastic and powerful engine but too thirsty IMO.

I don't think the 210bhp model returns any better mpg figures than the 200bhp if you look at what people are posting. My 2.4 suffered from surging and there was a noticeable lag setting off in first gear but once in second everything disappeared behind you

The 1.9 is underrated by many I feel. Sure it is not as gutsy as the 2.4 but pulls very well and in my case actually feels smoother with its power delivery than the 2.4 I drove. It still leaves a lot of other cars standing at the lights but then it depends on what and who you are up against

Fuel economy is about 8 mpg better per run or per average tank (brim-to-brim) than my 2.4. A tankfull in the 2.4 lasted me about 440 miles but the 1.9 is more like 600 miles.

Don't be afraid of the 1.9, try one if you can and then decide.

It probably will end up being the 1.9 I go for but I can't help but want the extra guts of the 2.4.

The 1.9 is more powerfull than my 2.2 Hdi so I am sure I will be happy enough with it.

Just need to find the right one now....

[Fraser]

Dpat is right - the 1.9 is smoother than the 2.4 but it has less character. The 2.4 sounds wonderful under load - it has a really meaty growl.