ICS MPG Accuracy

I know that this has been mentioned in the past but worth bringing up again.

I have been relatively happy with my mpg in the 3.2, seemed to be the same or a bit better than my 3.0 BUT that was according to the ICS - Calculated it myself after filling up and realised that the ICS is reading 3 to 4 mpg more than the real figure The 3.0 ICS was fairly accurate, the 3.2 not. I just filled up and checked again - ICS said 30.7mpg, calculated out at 27mpg! The half tank before that was only 20mpg

Oh well - annoying that I cant trust it. Probably worth checking yours!

i switched the cruise control on and set it at 70 mph on the M4 and got 37.5 mpg showing on the ics. Is this a record for an alfa V6?

if you reset the milage and mpg counter it will say that but mine at 70 mph on cruise reads about 27 - 28.5 once it settles down, not seen much better but is good enough for me though!

I have noticed this aswell, thought it was too good to be true and it is! 3-4 mpg out as you say, just done a gentle 160 mile round trip (75-80) on dual carridgeway/motorway and ICS shows 31.5, this will be about 27-28 i reckon when i work it out for real which without going really slow is the best you'll get i reckon. I'm averaging about 25 (real mpg) so far, similar to the 2 guys at work with M3's

Originally Posted by Dougie166

I know that this has been mentioned in the past but worth bringing up again.

I have been relatively happy with my mpg in the 3.2, seemed to be the same or a bit better than my 3.0 BUT that was according to the ICS - Calculated it myself after filling up and realised that the ICS is reading 3 to 4 mpg more than the real figure The 3.0 ICS was fairly accurate, the 3.2 not. I just filled up and checked again - ICS said 30.7mpg, calculated out at 27mpg! The half tank before that was only 20mpg

Oh well - annoying that I cant trust it. Probably worth checking yours!

Interesting... mine seems accurate though.. wonder if they can be calibrated when the examiner computer is plugged in?

Originally Posted by midlifecrisis

i switched the cruise control on and set it at 70 mph on the M4 and got 37.5 mpg showing on the ics. Is this a record for an alfa V6?

Wow... was the aircon off and were you coasting with the wind. .. cos mine is always set to l/100km so when at 70mph about 110km/h for me, with the aircon off she shows 10.9l/100km and if i switch the aircon on then she shows 11.4l/100km.. dunno what this is in mpg.. i will have to do the settings change thingy on the ICS and tell you...

When i fill up the tank after i have been driving constantly at 10.9 - 11.4l/100km then the ICS reads to 590 -630 km range for a full tank.. on fill ups at the local petrol station..

I think you're car is running very well. Out of interest how many kilos do you get on a full tank in your car?..

Mine is the 2.5 V6 and had just been fitted with a new air filter and an oil change. I did'nt have the aircon switched on and i always check my tyre pressures so they are spot on.

Im not sure about kilometers but a full tank shows about 450 miles on the ICS. Switch your ICS to mpg(UK) for a couple of days and see what you get.

Averaging 26 mpg in my 3.0 sportronic which I guess is much better than the ALfa claim of 21.5 overall.............
That's for a mix of motorway,town and mountain driving...

My ICS actually seems to read lower than the MPG I actually get. I've been sad enough to brim mine at the pumps and measure the MPG on every journey for the last couple of years and i get a fairly consistent 26 MPG. Have managed a high 29, but also a few low 20's!

Cheers

Philip

i have manged to get 27mpg cruising at just over 80...(obvioulsy on private land.....)

Bastard.............22mpg, oh well!!

Yup....my 3.0 Super gave 22mpg over a 200mile journey with in town/London driving and fairly high M4 cruising speeds. Why did everyone with a push-bike go to Richmond Park on Monday....took me 35mins to get from Kingston gate to Richmond gate....doh! I'll never go back and live in London again!

I'm going to change the air filter (52K miles and I bet it's the original), so that may help but it's not going to go to 30mpg is it?!

And....why is that the Alfa 3.0 has probably the lowest mpg, and in % terms by quite some way, of any of the competition (BMW, Audi, Merc, Lexus etc etc). Don't get me wrong, I love it to bits but wouldn't it be great to get near 30mpg on a combined run instead of low 20s.

Originally Posted by Wejboy

And....why is that the Alfa 3.0 has probably the lowest mpg, and in % terms by quite some way, of any of the competition (BMW, Audi, Merc, Lexus etc etc). Don't get me wrong, I love it to bits but wouldn't it be great to get near 30mpg on a combined run instead of low 20s.

I was stunned with the 24V 3.0 V6in the 166 as far as 'economy' goes - I got an average of 27mpg over a long trip. The same long trip in my mighty old 164 - which has a 12V 3.0 V6 - gave 40mpg. Yes, 40... 7.1L/100km! It helps that my 164 is a manual, but it definitely leaves a sour taste that for all the years of progress (and an extra 12V), the torque peak has moved up and thus the economy suffers. I suppose if you want the 240+km/h top speed, that's the price you pay.

So I have to say that I can't love my 166 while I still have my 164... and the 164 has a towbar, so the other week I towed a FIAT Uno on a car trailer - 280km round trip and less than half a tank of fuel. I don't think my 166 could have managed that!

-Alex

Yes the Alfa V6 is thirsty but that noise from 4000 rpm is why we drive them. Everytime i go out in mine is try to drive like Miss Daisy and get good fuel economy but i just cant do it. The car's personality takes over makes you drive it and not just sit there cruising! When did you last see a german executive car driver with a grin!

Originally Posted by alexGS

I was stunned with the 24V 3.0 V6in the 166 as far as 'economy' goes - I got an average of 27mpg over a long trip. The same long trip in my mighty old 164 - which has a 12V 3.0 V6 - gave 40mpg. Yes, 40... 7.1L/100km! It helps that my 164 is a manual,

I agree - Most never believed me that I could get 40mpg out of my 164 3.0 12v. As soon as I moved onto the 164 24v the figures dropped drastically! Thats progress for you - The same basic engine with a 24v head and a move from 192bhp to 210bhp and a drop of around 10mpg at least! The 12v sounded great also and I would not say that performance was noticeably different! Both had the sudden 4k rev rush!

Originally Posted by Dougie166

I agree - Most never believed me that I could get 40mpg out of my 164 3.0 12v. As soon as I moved onto the 164 24v the figures dropped drastically! Thats progress for you - The same basic engine with a 24v head and a move from 192bhp to 210bhp and a drop of around 10mpg at least! The 12v sounded great also and I would not say that performance was noticeably different! Both had the sudden 4k rev rush!

Yes - it's the torque peak that's the problem. It's right up at 5000RPM for the 166 and I expect something similar for the 164 24V. Even though my 166 is higher-geared than the 164, it seems that the 164 is cruising at its 'sweet spot' for economy because it is more or less at the torque peak (not below). I'm pleased that someone else sticks up for my experience, because I was beginning to wonder if there was something wrong with my 164

I used to have an Uno 60 (long ago) and that had no fifth gear. Constant 3500RPM at cruising speed. However it was very economical because the engine seemed to be at its most efficient. The versions with five gears were only more economical at 120km/h - same economy at steady 90km/h.

There must be some sort of balance though, because if you knocked the 166 down a couple of gears so it cruised at 5000, that would probably use even more fuel.

I notice you have the ultimate Ti version of the 166 and that's probably lovely as a nice new car. For me and my old 166 though, I really do feel happier in my 164 - something about the power delivery of the 164 is more satisfying - as you said, the almost-40bhp deficit (230 in my 166?) hardly seems noticeable!

Even things like the window line of the 164 make it a lovely place to be. Back in the 80's, cars were designed with big windows so you get a better view out.

I notice a little more wind noise in the 164 than in the 166. Don't know where exactly but seems to be around the mirrors. So I guess there is some progress in the 166's shape, which most people find a lot more attractive. For me, though, beauty in the 164 is more than skin deep

-Alex

Your 166 will be 220 bhp if post 2001, 226bhp if pre 2001. My 3.2 is upto 240bhp but does not really seem much of an increase in the 15 years of development from the 3.0 12v! Especially as the economy has dropped so much.

Yeah the 164's are lovely - But times move on! Too old for me now

I've just filled up with VPower - £77.67!

Christ!

my ics shows 21.9mpg for my 1.8ts, on a steady run, actually doing 36, ics is there to fill a hole in the dash

i get quite a difference between 98 and 95 octaine, on 98 i´m getting about 26, on 95 its more like 22

bearing in mind i live in milton keynes, where we have 60 and 70mph zones, seperated by roundabouts everywhere, so its not ideal for consumption.

I am running on 99 ron fuel.