Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all. Had this car @ 6 weeks now and have done @1400 miles. Even in 'natural' mode and driving feather-footed, I struggle to get an average consumption much above 30-34 mpg, which is a LOT worse than the quoted figures. Just interested to know how others have fared with their fuel consumption, with a 1.4 MA engine, particularly if owned from new. I was expecting the consumption to be down for the first few hundred miles, but was expecting an improvement by now! My driving is mainly urban, with the odd motorway journey. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
I have a MA (but manual not TCT) - I have averaged just under 40mpg driving mostly A&B roads. I will say that the car is very economical at up to 60mph but the economy does go downhill quickly after that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
I average about 36mpg in my manual car and have seen 42 on a long run driving gently. If you hoof it and get the turbo to kick in the economy suffers badly but if you change up early and accelerate gently the economy can be very good.
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I average about 36mpg in my manual car and have seen 42 on a long run driving gently. If you hoof it and get the turbo to kick in the economy suffers badly but if you change up early and accelerate gently the economy can be very good.
That's about right I would say maybe you will get a few more. I always look at the quoted mpg and knock off 20%. My 2.0 jtdm only gets 38ish!
Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,714 Posts
I'm getting 39.5 at the moment on MA petrol. It was 10 percent improved by changing from 18" to 16 " wheels for winter. Trouble is , the shell station is running out of the Ferrari lego cars! Shoulda left the big wheels on...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
After 5000 miles, I get about 31-32mpg in my TCT normally. But my "normal" trip is 2 to 3 miles and as soon as I do a long trip, the average soars. Clearly the official figures are done with a warm engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,304 Posts
I noticed an improvement over distance when I bought my 1.4MA (manual). It was an ex demonstrator with 2300 miles. I do very little urban mileage, mostly A road and motorway journeys of 40 + miles each way. I always brim the tank and record the mileage. The resultant mpg figures for individual fills do vary but initially a rolling average over five fills was 34.5 - 37.0 mpg upto 6000 miles. After that it seemed to improve such that I am now averaging 38 mpg and summer holidays (to Italy and Austria) have achieved 42 mpg. Best individual result was this summer returning through Germany when I got 45 mpg. However I had filled up on the Austria/German border at about 900 m above sea level and the next fill was the Luxembourg/Belgium border at about 400 m so it could be argued it was a downhill journey:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,714 Posts
Mine has averaged 41.3 since refuelling with Shell V-Max 100km ago on a mixed route to and from work . Still cheaper per litre than diesel!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,304 Posts
but the prevailing wind is from the southwest and you were travelling against the winde (most likely anyway)
Not really. North to Munich and then northwest to Luxembourg and filled up at Capellen.

But yes the comment was "tongue in cheek". :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Thanks very much all, for your replies:). So, it seems that my car is no worse than normal, with regard to the fuel consumption, although I was expecting more than a 5-10 mpg improvement over my Brera! I realise that I was never going to get the quoted figures, but this consumption is nowhere near to the 'official' figures, so I struggle to understand how we are all getting so much lower consumptions - maybe a misprint? :D Plus, the TCT is supposed to be slightly better on fuel than the manual. Cue2 - interested in your use of the higher octane fuel. Does your car run the same, or better, on that? My Brera ran like a pig when I tried it in that, so a bit nervous of trying it in the Giuli.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
38.5 mpg with average speed of 47mph, so a few long runs.

p.s. This is from new and has not changed that much (I do think my foot has got heavier)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,304 Posts
Have a read here
The fuel consumption testing scheme
It is difficult to tell exactly but the acceleration used in the test seems very low. For the extra urban (part two) it would seem from the diagram that it takes 40 sec to go from 0 to 45mph (73kph) which is nothing like the way we would drive a car like the Giullietta and then the remaining steps have a less steep gradient which would indicate an even slower acceleration.
I am sure it as been said before but the test is the same for all cars and has to accomadate those with the least power output so is totally unrealistic for higher powered cars driven in a more normal way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,088 Posts
I reckon most people could do the urban part of the test on a bicycle and meet the acceleration limits. The test just hasn't kept up with developments in car technology.

Slow, steady acceleration is the key to low consumption. If you use the pedal as a two-step controller (on/off), you'll go through petrol like there's no tomorrow. Short-spaced traffic lights are a killer for this, especially where you're trying to jockey for lane position in between the stops (Hangar Lane in London, for instance).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
945 Posts
Jees thats really the test too get manufacturer economy quotes?

Urban:
The maximum speed is 31 mph (50 km/h). The average speed 12 mph (19 km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4 km).

Extra Urban:
The maximum speed is 75 mph (120 km/h). The average speed is 39 mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3 miles (7 km).

so 7 miles on a rolling road is the test?

Can you imagine medical scientists releasing an expected antidote for a diseases after saying "well we tested it on 1 quite healthy subject who had a very mild strain of the disease and monitored them for 7 minutes and they didn't die so it's fine to say anyone is okay to use this!

That just wouldn't be enough to publish results as facts anywhere else
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,786 Posts
for the mixed cycle one of the tests has to be completed 3 times, and the other once... can't remember right now which is repeated as it doesn't matter anyway as it's still ********
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
The test method is under revision for Europe and new test methods were due to be brought in next year which will better reflect "real-world" consumption. In reality this is more likely to be 2017/

Of course this will make it very difficult to compare new with older vehicles as they will be two totally different sets of figures.

" The unrealistic drive cycle and variations permitted in the test procedure mean that the difference between official fuel consumption figures and real-world operational figures are too large.

A recent study from the International Council on Clean Transport (ICCT) showed that the average discrepancy between the two figures rose from less than 10% in 2001 to 25% in 2011. The increase was especially pronounced after 2007-8 when a number of European Member States switched to a CO2-based vehicle taxation regime and a mandatory EU CO2 regulation for new cars was introduced."
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top