i thrash my mr2 so keep breaking it, so had a lot of hire cars lately. I didn't realize how s%$t some new cars are they have all been very new 1 year old max. My MR is 11 years old but on my 200 mile commute it costs about £20 when sat between 90 and 120mph, yet i've had astras, corsas, golfs, fords.. all 1.6 ish and they all are shockingly under powered and still drink as much fuel..i go along at 80 in them dropping to 60 on the hills, the 1.4 auto corsa drunk £24 .. why do people buy 'economical little cars' it's bull. 11years of technology in economy car oppose sports cars and they drink more and do less, what wrong? I've told the miss's a baby seat will fit behind the passenger in the mr now..

 

Hope you wont be doing 120 with a baby onboard!!!

 

While I can't imagine a modern 1.6 car would do that bad for mpg (certainly around 30-35mpg in "normal" driving I'd have thought), I doubt those figures were based on you doing 80-120 when any small engined car will struggle because it's probably near the limiter even in the top gear.

If you are that concerned, why not hire a more powerful car and see how they perform at "cruising" speed!


[Edited by jonmorris - 12/13/2003 4:21:09 AM]

 

Agree with Jon morris,

Small engined cars are designed to save fuel on city commutes..

It is very possible that a 2.0L car may well be more fuel effiecent than say a 1.3 or 1.6 on a motorway run.

Usually (Not always!) the larger engine will be running lower revs for the same speed which can in turn lead to less fuel used.

As soon as your back in stop start traffic the tide turns in favour of the smaller engine very quickly!

Plums.