Running cost of a 166 2.0

[Pope]

Hi everyone

I'm thinking of changing to a 166 as I've always wanted to own one. It'll be a 2.0 (2002) and I'm trying to work out how much extra it's going to cost to run over my 156 1.6. Can anyone who owns a 2.0 166 tell me how many miles on average they get to a tank of petrol, assuming mostly open-road driving with very little town/city driving? Also I assume timing belt changes are every 36,000 miles?

Thanks in advance, and apologies for the long-winded post.

Pope

[NFM]

My driving tends to be a mixture which includes town driving, motorway & Regular A and B roads.

I've never measured miles per tank but the onboard computer always seems to tell me I get maybe 27 to 29 mpg over the course of a month.

I don't take it easy as a rule but once I obeyed the rules of the road (only once) and averaged 33 mpg on a motorway engine. The Twin Spark engine needs to be revved for proper driving but the consumption doesn't seem to suffer as much as non-alfistis would expect.

Just my personal experience, I'll be interested to find out what some of the others think.

[NFM]

I meant "motorway run" not "motorway engine"!!!

[Richard Cooke]

I get 420 miles to a tank if I push it, which is about 29-30mpg. I've never managed to get more than 65 litres in the tank, even when right on empty.

I do mainly motorway, and when on them I 'keep up with the traffic', if you know what I mean...

Cambelt every 36k miles.

My main costs have been (other than the belts): Rear shocks (65k miles), various suspension bushes and arms (50k - 60k miles), power steering pipe rotted out, and the odd random electrical niggle.

Other than that it's ok. Not an efficient engine by modern (last 10 years) standards, but nice and smooth with enough power for most uses.

[niallmoran]

running costs probably not much more than the 156 TBH - i've gone the other way and am running a 1.8 156 and i'm not getting much better mileage from it, although it does tend to lend itself to more spirited driving than the 166

Other costs will also be roughly similar (or less) as the 166 is built far better than the 156 and working on the 166 is actually much easier....

[a17esh]

Can we close this thread, it's upsetting me.

25mpg on a good run!

£80 = 280miles!!! Not good eh!

[alexGS]

Originally Posted by a17esh

Can we close this thread, it's upsetting me.

25mpg on a good run!

£80 = 280miles!!! Not good eh!

Lol, I was upset at the "not good by modern standards" comment
I have a 2.0TS engine in my 156. It gives sensational economy of around 42-45mpg on average (6.0-6.5L/100km), I even managed 5.7L/100km on a 140km trip but that was the day after a particularly dodgy party and I was driving very cautiously never exceeding 100km/hr and maintaining generous following distances, not using the brakes. It was a very tiring drive with so much concentration and I was still hungry as well.

Even driving around town I get 7.2L/100km with a worst of 8.4L/100km.

6.5L/100km is better overall than a friend gets in his Honda Civic Hybrid, and that's a modern enough yardstick for me

The 166 is heavier than a 156 so won't do as well, but if not 40+ mpg I'd still be expecting at least 35-40mpg.

-Alex

[Richard Cooke]

I've had 37mpg doing a steady 60mph around the M25, but that was a total, total one-off with no stopping, traffic lights or even changing gear.

With a bit of town driving, a few traffic lights and then say a steady 85mph on the motorway (not that I'd ever drive that fast you understand) you're not going to see much better than 30mpg.

40mpg in any petrol 166 is fantasy island, sorry to say. Maybe in NZ with little traffic, but in the south of the UK - forget it.

[Pope]

Thanks for all the replies. I went to see the car this evening and it's mostly positive, but one major black mark is that the ICS was showing an "Air Conditioner fault" message and the air con was dead - no fan at all. Is there any chance that this could be something simple?

Pope

[A-team]

Originally Posted by alexGS

The 166 is heavier than a 156 so won't do as well, but if not 40+ mpg I'd still be expecting at least 35-40mpg.

I could get 15km/l in my V6... by driving down a mountain.

By the way you brits and New Zealanders talking about mpg. Watch out with those silly non-standard units. Mpg is different in different countries.

[petergar]

Originally Posted by Pope

Thanks for all the replies. I went to see the car this evening and it's mostly positive, but one major black mark is that the ICS was showing an "Air Conditioner fault" message and the air con was dead - no fan at all. Is there any chance that this could be something simple?

Pope

Mine does that.....but only now and then. A bash of the dashboard seems to fix it!

[niallmoran]

probably dead fan - bit of a PITA to swap....

[Pomeo]

Originally Posted by a17esh

Can we close this thread, it's upsetting me.5mpg on a good run!

£80 = 280miles!!! Not good eh!

Naw ya LPG convert yee. See the end

Originally Posted by alexGS

Lol, I was upset at the "not good by modern standards" comment
I have a 2.0TS engine in my 156. It gives sensational economy of around 42-45mpg on average (6.0-6.5L/100km), I even managed 5.7L/100km on a 140km trip but that was the day after a particularly dodgy party and I was driving very cautiously never exceeding 100km/hr and maintaining generous following distances, not using the brakes. It was a very tiring drive with so much concentration and I was still hungry as well.

Even driving around town I get 7.2L/100km with a worst of 8.4L/100km.

6.5L/100km is better overall than a friend gets in his Honda Civic Hybrid, and that's a modern enough yardstick for me

The 166 is heavier than a 156 so won't do as well, but if not 40+ mpg I'd still be expecting at least 35-40mpg.

-Alex

Sorry alex Ah um LSD £,s & d.

Originally Posted by Pope

Thanks for all the replies. I went to see the car this evening and it's mostly positive, but one major black mark is that the ICS was showing an "Air Conditioner fault" message and the air con was dead - no fan at all. Is there any chance that this could be something simple?

Pope

Something simple ...something simple...Where's my headnag heid against the wa smiley.

Fan no work..Knock 2k off asking price.This used to be the criteria for the cars no having the master key.

Originally Posted by A-team

I could get 15km/l in my V6... by driving down a mountain.

By the way you brits and New Zealanders talking about mpg. Watch out with those silly non-standard units. Mpg is different in different countries.

Where are you from Hannibal..the Alps Different MPG settings ..See below.

Originally Posted by petergar

Mine does that.....but only now and then. A bash of the dashboard seems to fix it!

Gosh pG that went oot wie the ark that technique. well in oor hoose the 60's ..Auld black n white tele wie a wire coat hanger as an aerial.



So I have wan (a fotae )somewhere when I bought Lacey mega mileage extremely big and averaged 22. summit MPG UK.

The following fotie tae when I goat Tia....shows



BUTT (Well yeese awe ken me ken....it wiz set oan MPG and no MPG/UK.....A check this morning showed 17 mpg as 22 MPG/UK.




DSCF4097.jpg


Pomeo No bad furra 3.2 full bhoona.

[JFT89]

I get about 27 in town and about 34 on the motorway, Im not sure wheher this will affect MPG but mines the 6 speed version is that a one you are looking at or is it the 5?

[hami]

My 2.5 V6 always returns 415-435 miles per tank every time (63/64 litres). Read-out for past 15,000 miles is 30.3.
I avoid city driving as i hate it!
I'd say the TS should be 10% better.

H

[niallmoran]

pretty much spot on hami - my long term average was about 33 with a mix of longish drives (25 miles) mixed with some shorter (5 miles) ones....

[marktodd]

My old 2.5 v was pretty much the same, on a good easy run on motorways, 32-33 mpg at a nice steady 68 mph. With my F/L twinny I get 37-38 on similar runs at same speeds.

[CCOVICH]

Originally Posted by hami

My 2.5 V6 always returns 415-435 miles per tank every time (63/64 litres). Read-out for past 15,000 miles is 30.3.
I avoid city driving as i hate it!
I'd say the TS should be 10% better.

H

Is the tank in the 2.5 smaller than the tank in the 3.0 or do you tend to have 5/6 litres left when you refill?

[marktodd]

Originally Posted by CCOVICH

Is the tank in the 2.5 smaller than the tank in the 3.0 or do you tend to have 5/6 litres left when you refill?

The tank is the same size regardless of engine size and model

[CCOVICH]

Originally Posted by marktodd

The tank is the same size regardless of engine size and model

That's what I thought alright.

[purple145]

Originally Posted by niallmoran

and working on the 166 is actually much easier....

I would echo that, the 166 is almost a joy to work on compared to a 147

[Mufasa]

Originally Posted by CCOVICH

That's what I thought alright.

Ciaran if I remember correctly its a 72 litre tank but I think the most I've got into it on refill is 67 litres. I've gotten 450 miles (could have been 460) with a significant amount of motorway driving...

[CCOVICH]

It's a 69 litre tank according to the book and this agrees with the time I let the V6 run out of fuel!