159 1750 TBi Economy - Page 3 - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
steffoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
County: -
Posts: 1,138
Images: 13
One thought:

What petrol octane do you use? I normally use 95. When I use 98 my GTs consumption drop from 29 to 31 mpg. Could it be that Alfa use 99 when calculating?
steffoo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: Back in the land of the mighty gt..v6
AO Member
 
colonel sanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: Leicestershire
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadrone Rosso View Post
Sod the economy! Drive it like you stole it & enjoy it
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
colonel sanders is offline  
Status: dreaming of a 159 in Carabinieri livery!
AO Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: United Kingdom
County: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 141

Member car:

159 TBi Ti

Shouldn't the title be:

159 1750 TBi - Owners save the UK Economy with their petrol taxes!?

I love mine : )

Cannot quite understand how it is less economical than my 2.0 JTS 147, AND produces LESS CO2?!
Is the engine a more efficient combuster?
Inotrope is offline  
 
Status: sucking ginger chickens!
AO Member
 
henders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: South Yorkshire
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inotrope View Post
Cannot quite understand how it is less economical than my 2.0 JTS 147, AND produces LESS CO2?!
Is the engine a more efficient combuster?
Yes. It is what the Direct Injection is mainly for. It atomises the fuel a lot more than conventional injection systems, and its this better atomisation that gives a cleaner burn and less waste products ie. Hydrocarbons - Unburnt fuel.
henders is offline  
Nev
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inotrope View Post

Cannot quite understand how it is less economical than my 2.0 JTS 147, AND produces LESS CO2?!
Is the engine a more efficient combuster?
Because you keep banging on the loud pedal.




I think the TBi should be a lot more economical than the 2.0TS or 2.2JTS.
The problem is it keeps telling you to give it a bit more of a squirt. All of the time.
 
Status: Stealth mode.
AO Member
 
dcystar147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 420
Images: 7
Garage

Member car:

2017 Giulietta

My Tbi is currently showing 32.1 MPG.
Not at all impressed with this.
My 1.6 147 had an official combined figure of 34.3. I could get 34-35 driving normally and 40 when putting myself into economy mode.
The 159 TBi has an official combined figure of 34.9. If I drive normally I get 27-28. The current figure of 32.1 comes from saintly driving (for 2 weeks) that would have seen 40+ out of the 147.
Has the way these figures are calculated been changed in the time since the 147 was new and the TBi was launched?
If the process for the 2 was the same, then I can only come to 2 possible conclusions:-

1. Serious lying.
2. Something wrong with car.

I was only able to justify going to a bigger car (when the Giulietta was so badly delayed) with the thought that I would, at worse, acheive the same economy, if not gain a bit.
dcystar147 is offline  
Status: at the G. spot
AO Member
 
jack_mccain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belgium
County: -
Posts: 269

Member car:

Giulietta 1.4 MA

With all honesty guys, but who expects that 1.8 turbocharged petrol engine in a bigger, heavier car than 147 will have better consumption figures?!

MY TBi is not a daily driver, fuel economy is not good, especially when I compare it with our New Beetle Cabrio 1.9 diesel which is giving me 600-900 km per tank (55) liters, but I bought the car with full knowledge of the fact that the bills for fuel would be bigger. If somebody is seriously dependent on the fuel economy should have gone for diesel or Toyota Prius...

I understand that it's a pity that the mpg figures AR quotes are not met, but a) it's a case for all/most producers b) serves only for tax/CO2 figures IMHO. I would have never bought a car only on the basis of the producer quoted mpg figures.

Just my 5 cents.
jack_mccain is offline  
Nev
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sadly cars are tuned for CO2 emissions not fuel economy.

Stupid, but hey, this is the type of result you get from asinine, knee-jerk
ecology-driven regulations.*


Least the 1750s shift a bit better around town.




* See also catalytic converters.
 
Status: partying like it's 1999
Awaiting Email Conf
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Glasgow
Posts: 860
Images: 12

Member car:

166 3.0 V6 Super

I've just returned from a trip between Glasgow & Fife via Forth Bridge and returned 25mpg (admittedly because some this was on country roads stuck behind some ignorant drivers who keep you in second gear and then speed up whenever there's an overtaking opportunity )

Despite this, I choose not to complain/rant about fuel economy because a) life is too short not to be enjoyed and b) I've worked hard to buy the car I hoped for and bought it with my "eyes open", realising that it wasn't going to be economic on fuel.

I've never owned a car that matched the manufacturer's estimated mpg figures - which are based on non-realistic testing parameters anyway. There are numerous variables that effect mpg in any case ranging from weight to aerodynamics, braking frequency to driving style etc. so you'd probably be better off buying a truly economical car and driving it hard instead of having an Alfa and then attempting to eke out a few miles or criticising its efficiency.
ultraviola is offline  
Status: Stealth mode.
AO Member
 
dcystar147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 420
Images: 7
Garage

Member car:

2017 Giulietta

Don't think anybody really answered my question.
Why could the 147 easily meet, and with an effort excede it's quoted figures, when the TBi can't even match the quoted figure with 2 weeks 100% concentration on economy?
Has the process of working these things out changed?
Are Alfa lying now when they didn't in the past?
If the official combined figure is correct, then my car if faulty.
dcystar147 is offline  
Status: Breraless :(
AO Platinum Member
 
Squadrone Rosso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Neath Port Talbot
Posts: 29,980
Images: 45
Alfa do not claim the figures. Government do the tests and Alfa publish them.

I never understand the "burn more fossil fuels to achieve a lower CO2 figure" philosophy.
Squadrone Rosso is offline  
Nev
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadrone Rosso View Post
Alfa do not claim the figures. Government do the tests and Alfa publish them.

I never understand the "burn more fossil fuels to achieve a lower CO2 figure" philosophy.
.... to offset the additional CO2 pumped out by the cat.

I wonder what "unforeseen" knock-on effect they will have to
find an answer for next in the chain.
 
Status: 18" tyres cost HOW MUCH?!!?
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadrone Rosso View Post
Alfa do not claim the figures. Government do the tests and Alfa publish them.

I never understand the "burn more fossil fuels to achieve a lower CO2 figure" philosophy.
SR, does each country's govt run their own tests or do they have a central european body for the EU ... or do they accept italian govt numbers (in which case I think I spot the flaw in this plan!)

I work on a refinery so should know, but I'm not a chemist. Still, I don't get the burn more hydrocarbons to get less CO2 argument either. unspent fuel would be complex HCs not CO2, it's the burning of the HCs that produces the CO2 in the first place so more efficient combustion should produce more CO2 per litre burned leading to less CO2 per km only if fuel use was lower ... which it appears not to be.

Anyone have any details on how the testing is done? if the engine is benchtested then it's not going to be a realworld figure anyway
bomberesque is offline  
Status: Alfaless!!
AO Silver Member
 
phil-gtv6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Sussex
Posts: 3,080
Garage

Member car:

E82 125i

is it not always easier to use more fuel in a turbo charged car? as with an N/A you have to wait for the revs to rise to use more fuel, whilst with the turbo car the boost is upped and more fuel is burned straight away
phil-gtv6 is offline  
Status: bacon
AO Platinum Member
 
ACAPULCO AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 29,276
Images: 5
a wise man once said 'if you want something sensible, buy an anorak'
ACAPULCO AL is offline  
Status: Red
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
andypj's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1019
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Midlands
Posts: 5,131
Images: 30
The fuel consumption figures are calculated at a test centre, locally MIRA, using the same programme of acceleration, deceleration, stop/start. The idea is to be able to compare different cars, not achieve these results - lets face it they're achieved indoors!

Same thing in the finance industry with APR's
andypj is offline  
Status: Stealth mode.
AO Member
 
dcystar147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 420
Images: 7
Garage

Member car:

2017 Giulietta

Good to see that everyone has missed the point.
I didn't buy a 159 TBi to be economical.
I did buy a car that appeared to be as good as, if not better than the one I replaced in terms of economy.
I don't always drive for economy.
In 19 years of driving Alfas, most of which had carbs, doing an economy run every now and then was a way of doing a health check on the engine. Surely you would want to know if your engine wasn't running properly!?
So I have just completed a 2 week economy run (one full tank), which involved maximum effort for economy, and didn't even manage the combined figure. I would have expected to excede the combined figure considerably.
So:-
Has the testing method (whoever does it) changed between the 147 figures being produced and the TBi figures being produced?
Does the testing method give a more accurate figure for smaller lighter cars than it does for bigger, heavier cars?
Is anybody getting anything decent MPG wise out of a TBi?
Is there any point in going to the dealer for answers?
dcystar147 is offline  
Status: at the G. spot
AO Member
 
jack_mccain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belgium
County: -
Posts: 269

Member car:

Giulietta 1.4 MA

Dcystar:

1) Statutory instruments 2001 No. 3523 "The Passenger Car (Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions
Information) Regulations 2001" -> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/uksi_20013523_en.pdf

2) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 16 December 1980 relating to the carbon dioxide emissions and the fuel consumption of motor vehicle (see page 5) -> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...0040219:EN:PDF (consolidated version - last update in 2004)
jack_mccain is offline  
Status: -
Newbie
 
Gbain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5

Member car:

Choosing new one

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcystar147 View Post
Good to see that everyone has missed the point.
I didn't buy a 159 TBi to be economical.
I did buy a car that appeared to be as good as, if not better than the one I replaced in terms of economy.
I don't always drive for economy.
In 19 years of driving Alfas, most of which had carbs, doing an economy run every now and then was a way of doing a health check on the engine. Surely you would want to know if your engine wasn't running properly!?
So I have just completed a 2 week economy run (one full tank), which involved maximum effort for economy, and didn't even manage the combined figure. I would have expected to excede the combined figure considerably.
So:-
Has the testing method (whoever does it) changed between the 147 figures being produced and the TBi figures being produced?
Does the testing method give a more accurate figure for smaller lighter cars than it does for bigger, heavier cars?
Is anybody getting anything decent MPG wise out of a TBi?
Is there any point in going to the dealer for answers?
My wild guess is: blame Euro regulations. Euro-5 just kicked in and all manufacturers got themselves a dilemma: change an euro-4 engine in a car to a greener one ... or quit producing the car (look at Mazda RX-8 with fuel swallowing wankel engine). I guess Alfa took a third path: they made a new engine and made it look like it consume less gas. Donít take me wrong, Iím not accusing Alfa, I guess most of car producers are doing the same. Manufacturers have their little cheats and tricks to minimize the consumption during the test. Test is standardized, the same for years and engineers at factory have a lot of time to prepare the car for those specific conditions. Probably if it wasnít for Euro-regulations you would find in a brochure figures couple of miles per gallon lower. When Alfa 147 came on to the market, they were obliged to meet Euro 3 fuel emission standards. Since Euro 3 allowed g of CO/km emission for petrol cars dropped from 2,2 to 1,0. Its a huge drop.
And donít blame your dealer for that, unless he told you, you could get such figures in real life.
Gbain is offline  
Status: Stealth mode.
AO Member
 
dcystar147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 420
Images: 7
Garage

Member car:

2017 Giulietta

Thanks Jack and Gbain for some sensible input.
dcystar147 is offline  
Status: at the G. spot
AO Member
 
jack_mccain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belgium
County: -
Posts: 269

Member car:

Giulietta 1.4 MA

*** attention - slightly off topic ***

@Gbain

I will argue Blame our human nature. We always want the best, the biggest, the fastest etc. The best value for money. If not restricted, we would be driving 5 tonne SUVs (pun intended). This is individual level.

As a society, we agreed that the environment (resources, pollution, noise) is important, so the future generations can survive on this planet. From here you can go both routes. First, ban things, but bans are usually met with opposition and can be easily changed by the change in government. The other route is to change (consumer) behaviour, so he or she internalises certain patterns. This obviously takes longer but also lasts much longer too. This can be achieved by e.g. fiscal means -> high taxes for cars emitting lots of CO2. You can also do this via supply side -> Euro requirements.

We can like it or not. We all have very strong "egoistic" instincts, but once we understand what is it all about we can cope with it (e.g. we are willing to part with a seizable amount of your income to feed and educate your children, don't we?). But yes, the change is always difficult to embrace to the ones who remember good 'ol days...
jack_mccain is offline  
Status: -
Newbie
 
Gbain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5

Member car:

Choosing new one

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack_mccain View Post
*** attention - slightly off topic ***

@Gbain

I will argue ...
Think You got me wrong. I don’t mind engines and cars with better fuel economy, probably no one on this board has a problem with that (are there any Shell CEO’s present? Guess not.). I was just trying to find the reason for such a big difference between real life economy and the official figures. Personally I quite enjoy eco-driving. Its demanding (if one is not a nun) and it saves you gasoline, speeding tickets and brakes.
But since You already brought it up: the way EU tries to cut fuel consumption, CO2 emissions etc. that is a real problem. The test every car and engine must go thru to achieve certain Euro level is mildly speaking ridiculous. For instance: in case of extra-urban fuel consumption car is in laboratory conditions driving a cycle that consists of four accelerations, two braking decelerations and constant driving at five different speeds. And it last 400 seconds! Six and a half minutes! It has nothing in common with a real life driving.
Now imagine you are car manufacturer. You can construct a powerful turbo benzina engine that will allow driver to reach 40+ miles per gallon during his long everyday trips to work and back home; or you can construct an engine that will consume whatever amount of gasoline in real life, but one that will achieve a 40+ miles per gallon benchmark during a six and a half minute test. Constructing really economical engine probably is better in long term but its the hard way.

Last edited by Gbain; 27-04-10 at 15:07.
Gbain is offline  
Status: -
AO Silver Member
 
tony44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cheshire
Posts: 1,202
My question would be -

Why is it I can get the combined figure or better out of both VW's in our household (without trying very hard) but I could never get the combined from any of the 3 Alfa's I've owned?
tony44 is offline  
Status: at the G. spot
AO Member
 
jack_mccain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Belgium
County: -
Posts: 269

Member car:

Giulietta 1.4 MA

Gbain,

Agree with you. And it will stay that way as long as the tax will be calculated on the basis of CO2 emissions. But I guess for somebody who is designing standard tests it is really difficult to design something that will be repetitive, objective, standard and yet reflect different driving styles, climate/temperature, congestion, terrain configuration etc.

So the bottom line is: when you want true figures for the fuel consumption, wait until there is enough models on the market, read AO forum, ask and then buy
jack_mccain is offline  
Status: Red
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
andypj's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1019
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Midlands
Posts: 5,131
Images: 30
There are so many variables with real life fuel consumption though. Some time ago I remember top/fifth gear trying to evaluate if the low rolling resistance tyres actually improved fuel economy and when they were testing it started to rain and they found that the rain had a greater impact on fuel economy than the tyres. Personally I think unless your fuel economy is completely untenable you have to live with it.

As a side issue my father-in-law was considering swapping his 07 plate panda for an eco-panda. Apparently it would do 6 mpg more. We worked out on his mileage (minimal) the advantage would be £41 per annum - including the saving on road tax. Not worth it.

146 1.6TS, 156 2.0TS, 156 1.8TS, 147 1.6TS, 147 2.0TS, 159 1.9JTS, 147 1.6TS, 159 1.9JTDm, Mito 1.4, GT, Giulietta 2.0JTDm, Giulietta 1.4tb, Giulietta 1.6JTDm, Giulietta Cloverleaf........

Last edited by andypj; 28-04-10 at 19:48.
andypj is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Alfa 159, Brera & 946 Spider

Tags
159 , 1750 , economy , tbi

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
Replace with
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome