MPG too low? Funny noises?

reeac

s_b wrote: »

really
whenever i get a car with sticking brakes i cant push the thing so i would suggest your theory is ever so wrong:)
i suggest a thorough brake check and possibly a full service and try from there OP

Well what I wrote was based on personal experience some years ago so my theory was "ever so right" in that case and might be also in the case under discussion.

Strider590

broke=skint wrote: »

Thanks.
Its only a 1.1, I drive sensibly but I only ever do short journeys...maybe 20 minutes driving at the most everyday.

For a start, short journeys are going to reduce your MPG quite heavily.

Does the heating get warm quickly by the way? if it's very slow, then you may have a faulty thermostat = engine stays cold for longer and uses more fuel.
I think this is a very likely explanation........



Then the other thing is, it's 1.1 litre engine in a car that weighs just over a tonne. That's a lot of weight for such a small engine to be hauling around.

The poster above states 35-38 in a 1.6.
A 1.1 driven at the same normal/leisurely pace as a 1.6 will use more fuel.

(If anyone wants to dispute that i'll post the link the the Prius versus BMW M3 fuel economy test )

I had a 106 1.1 around 10 years ago and those weighed in at 750kg, that's 1/4 of a tonne less than your car, with the same engine and even then it needed a hammering to keep up with the pace of "normal traffic".

reeac

I assumed my garage had already done that when I took it in with the exhaust problem.
If I get it checked would it be better to take it into a Peugeot dealer rather than my local little garage? Would they have better equipment?

Thanks all for your suggestions and input![/QUOTE]

Difficult to answer your question re. exhaust analysis. Depends upon both the equipment and the skill and cooperativeness of the operator. I like the idea of a sticking thermostat and engine running temperature could be measured by the equipment at the same time just to check that point.

Hammyman

I drove a 1.1 Pug 206. It was the most underpowered gutless thing that I ever drove that needed its neck wringing off to get anywhere. Like Strider 500 I would reckon that the fuel economy on that is going to be worse with that engine than the 1.6 simply because it is too small for the weight of car.

Also I have done identical journeys in a truck to another driver and beaten his fuel economy by over 1/3 with a journey time difference of 2 minutes over 200 miles simply by the way I drove.

z3phyr04

Hammyman wrote: »

I drove a 1.1 Pug 206. It was the most underpowered gutless thing that I ever drove that needed its neck wringing off to get anywhere.

You haven't experienced the displeasure a 1.0 Vauxhall Corsa (newest shape) then. Would have been quicker to push it up a hill.

reeac

z3phyr04 wrote: »

You haven't experienced the displeasure a 1.0 Vauxhall Corsa (newest shape) then. Would have been quicker to push it up a hill.

You've seen nothing! The first car that I owned in this country was a 1932 Standard Little 9 which had a 1 litre 20 bhp. engine and a 3 speed non-synchro. gearbox. Required some skill to get up hills when we went to the Lake District e.g. on Honister Pass the 3 passengers had to get out and walk. Subsequently we sold the car, went to California and bought a 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 with the Thunderbird Special engine which was 5.2 litres with a 4 barrel carb. .... 12 times the horsepower.

Indout96

TBH if you have a garage telling you several times that there is nothing wrong then I would except what they say. You say yourself that you know nothing about cars and from reading on here you must know that plenty of garages would be rubbing their hands and making that wonderfull sucking noise when they "spot" somthing expensive wrong.

LandyAndy

Has the OP actually measured the mpg using the brim to brim method? It's not clear from the OP and that calculator site. Once that is done and we have a proper mpg figure we could hazard a guess at how good the consumption is.

Presumably if it is burning a lot of extra fuel (as opposed to leaking it) it would show up in an emissions test?

forgotmyname

400 miles on £40, You would have to AVERAGE over 60mpg to get that far.

With an underpowered 1.1 engine i doubt that very much unless you can find a road thats 400 miles
very level or slightly downhill all the way.

260 - 300 miles would be more realistic.