[Chrisbakker]

There have been so many posts on this forum about bad fuel consumption, this one is the opposite. My GMA 170 TCT now has 11 300 miles on the clock so it should be properly run in by now. In mixed driving I average upwards of 35 mpg very easily. On the open road, if I behave myself and stick to around 80 mph I manage 42 mpg without trying very hard. My previous car was an Astra 1.6 Sport and if I was lucky I'd get 25 mpg in mixed driving and 29 mpg on the open road on a good day. In my book that makes my Giulietta's consumption excellent. Granted, it can get heavy quite quickly if you nail it but if treated carefully I find the MultiAir engine incredibly efficient. A nice bonus is the fact that it is smooth, free-revving and it sounds good, very much unlike the Astra. The Giulietta feels stronger too, probably due to better gear ratios and it is quite a bit lighter than the Astra. I really rate this engine, I haven't come accross anything in its class that does it better.

 

[Cuore_Sportivo_155]

is it really lighter than the Astra, or does it just feel lighter?

Seems to me the Giulietta is heavier than the 147 and even 156 was...

Anyway, I didn't even bother looking at other cars, as there was nothing in that size or price range that was worth a second look from me.... If I had been 10 years younger (and thus not married and no child) I might have gone for a Toyota GT86 though...

I'm in love with the TCT system....

 

[KrisW]

Seems to me the Giulietta is heavier than the 147 and even 156 was...

147 5-Door Turismo 1.6: 1210kg
Giulietta 5-Door 1.4 TBi: 1280kg

So yes, it is. But it also isn't: As a bare shell, the Giulietta is lighter than 147, according to Alfa. The Giulietta's extra weight is accessories like air conditioning, VDC, airbags and so on that were options on the 147 but standard on the G, plus additional safety structures, sound damping and other "percieved quality" treatments.

Giulietta has less unsprung weight than the 147, which helps its handling and roadholding.

The GT86 is a really interesting car too. It hasn't got a stupidly large power output, but it's a pure pleasure to drive by all accounts. It's the kind of car Alfa should make (and maybe will with the Spider): Alfas never had the biggest engines with the most horses, but that never stopped them making some really fun cars.

 

[damitch300]

I drive 1 on 27.9 kilometers doing 80km/h on cruise control.
I did 2400 kilometers from den helder in the netherlands through germany (doing 180 till 220 kmh) to Bosnia hezegovina in the city Mostar with only 7 liters in 100km.
That is only 168 liters used on 2400km...
Wth???
Never had such a cheap car haha

 

[Alexdm]

I agree with the comments on the engine, my 170 manual as the smallest engine I've driven since I was 18, and, although it is not a sport car or hot hatch, performance/mpg is good. I can average as little as <25 on spirited drives and up to 40 on long journeys, averaging 29 to 34 in town (short journeys, winter morning for 29).
The MA engine is the sensible choice without owning a diesel.
Most might disagree but, performance wise, I don't think that the QV is worth the money considering the mpg

 

[F106SJ]

Most might disagree but, performance wise, I don't think that the QV is worth the money considering the mpg

It's funny you mentioning that. I am currently getting 28-34mpg in my typical driving - short journeys in the city. And it is still being run in.
I did think about the pros and cons of each, and came to the opposite of your conclusion! The saving in purchase cost of the 170 would not translate to saving in fuel economy for my typical driving, but considering performance & equipment, the QV was very much worth the extra money. And further, the QV over in this continent was recently being offered for a special price very similar to the cost of the less equipped 170. Don't get me wrong about the 170.. I seriously considered one but in the end it did not make sense to me. Each to their own I spose .. all great cars!! :thumbs:

 

[Cuore_Sportivo_155]

I suppose it's the same debate as the 105 vs 140/170 diesel. It all depends what's on top of your wish list...

My choice went between 170MA or JTDM and QV. I really wanted a TCT though (no regrets so far) so that ruled out the QV, and the mileage I do + the fact that Diesel is about 10% cheaper than petrol here ment the obvious choice was the JTDM. It also responds better to remapping than the MA...

 

[seamusobr]

Veloce 140 JTDM

I have just bought a veloce 2.0 JTDM 140 and I am getting 58mpg with very careful driving. This is at 70mph on the M4 with the cruise control on. It has only done 300 miles so this is likely to get better

 

[Rob2k28]

Something I have found after a few months of ownership is that the average MPG shown on the trip computer is about 8% high compared to actual mileage from a brimmed tank of 50 litres (11 gallon) so when it shows 43MPG I'm getting just under 40 which makes it even worse !!. Mines a 140 2.0 but it I suspect this may happen for all variants.

 

[Cuore_Sportivo_155]

Mine seems to be spot on....

 

[KrisW]

brimmed tank of 50 litres (11 gallon)

This fact won't affect your calculations, but the tank in the Giulietta is 60 litres in total, not 50.

A single brim-to-brim test only tells you your consumption for that period, wheras the computer is showing the all-time average (it is calculated over a long period, but I don't believe it's a true "all fuel ever burned divided by all miles travelled" consumption figure, for reasons to do with how computers perform arithmetic).

The interval used by the computer is much longer than one fill-up, but if you've been doing brim-to-brim tests since you bought the car, your figure and the computer's will also diverge at times.

 

[cue2]

The Giulietta trip computer has two trips , A and B . I reset A at each refill and have not reset B for ages. I don't follow the theory that the average is over a longer time starting before it is zeroed?

 

[Cuore_Sportivo_155]

it isn't. reset the trip and drive like a granny and you'll get exceptionally high MPG figures, drive like a loon and you get exceptionally low MPG figures. the longer you drive, the more this evens out

 

[Not Here]

Personally I was disappointed with the fuel consumption in my MA170, averaged 32mpg over 42k miles and was driven sensibly with a good mix of motorway, A roads and town.

I never had any tank over 40mpg, think 38mpg was my best.

The Alfa was the first car I've had that was a long way off the Manufactuer figures, previous cars were about 85% of the combined, the Alfa was less than 70%.

Got another car which has an engine 3x larger, produces 3x the CO2 figure and does 20mpg and is just about bang on the manufacturer figures.

Alfa was still a great car

 

[damitch300]

I just converted my 6500kilometer trip with 7.2L/100KM to MPG. It says 32MPG.
Average of 100kmh

 

[Cuore_Sportivo_155]

I make that 39 Mpg....

AlfaOwner calculator

 

[damitch300]

Well that is better isnt it?

 

[Marcr5]

Have been very surprised by the consumption of my Multiair, it's still only done 940 miles from new. Just calculated it at 40.8 mpg, trip says 41.1. Came to the Giulietta from a Volvo V60 1.6 diesel, which never managed better than 42 mpg.

The Giulietta is revelation in comparison, for economy to performance. Ride quality is miles better too.

Performance is getting stronger by the day too, amazed how it can pull 6th gear from such low speeds.

 

[TonyGr]

Just back from 2860 miles holiday in my 170MA Giulietta; UK to France to Verona, Italy to Tyrol, Austria and back through Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium etc. Trip computer showed 42.1mpg brimming the tank calculates at 41.74mpg. Slightly disappointed as it is less than last year which turned in 42.18mpg for the same holiday albeit slightly less miles. Over all I am getting about 38mpg but I hardly use the G for local journeys (that is what the Saxo is for).

 

[Cuore_Sportivo_155]

Well to put thing into perspective I'll share the mileage my 2.0 TCT managed today..

going towards the dealer this morning, incl some traffic jams I managed 65 MPG, coming back I managed 67 MPG

40 mile trip, each way...