Page 1 of 1

114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:40 am
by RenoHuskerDu
My E70 is in for 125k km service (80k miles) and the loaner is a new 114d with only 3k miles on the clock.  The average fuel  mileage so far is a little less than 40mpg.  I was certainly expecting better!  Our Polo averages around 50mpg.

Now, if the 114d had some power, I could understand it. But it has noticeably less grunt than our Polo.  There is no use taking the revs up either.

Something is wrong with this picture. I am very ready to pick up my E70 this afternoon.

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:26 pm
by 5wany
At 3k its still needing run in & as a loaner its probably been screamed in every gear by previous drivers.  Try resetting trip comp.

I just bought a new Scenic Xmod 1.5dci as a 2nd car with combined at 69mpg but only getting 50 on dash but brim to brim has been 5-6mpg higher.  Now done 1600 miles & Renault advise at least 4.5k as run in (on mileage), we'll see  :noexpression:

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:13 pm
by Horizon
I have had several new company cars and vans over the years and would say you don't start to get the best MPG out of an engine till its past 20/30,000 miles.

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:19 pm
by 535dboy
[quote="Horizon"]
I have had several new company cars and vans over the years and would say you don't start to get the best MPG out of an engine till its past 20/30,000 miles.
[/quote]

this

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:08 pm
by pvr
My Audi is supposed to give a decent MPG, and we only get 32 out of it. Book is about 56 or so.

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:04 pm
by RenoHuskerDu
I can buy that it's not fully broken in. But it's years newer than our Polo, and it has all that Efficient Dynamics stop/start shiit on it. I took the Polo out to fill it with fuel later today and confirmed that it has more power.

But then yea the BMW will be safer in a wreck and it has iDrive and yeah if I had the spare quid I would trade the Polo in ... but on a 118d not a 114d. Better yet, wait for the 3cyl model to come out.

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm
by Finglonga
The 1 Series is Golf size & weight so the tiny Polo will give much better mpg even when the 114 loosens up.

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:15 pm
by 535dboy
well it depends how you drove it really

There is a different style reqd

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:23 pm
by Horizon
My son has a 116d (59 plate ) it has the 2.0 engine as does the 118 and 120, Jason said they are the same engine in different levels of tune/ mapping. My lads116d is £30 PA to tax, my Golf 2.0 TDI is better on fuel and is £125 to tax, also the Golf is a better drive.

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:04 pm
by 535dboy
[quote="Horizon"]
My son has a 116d (59 plate ) it has the 2.0 engine as does the 118 and 120, Jason said they are the same engine in different levels of tune/ mapping. My lads116d is £30 PA to tax, my Golf 2.0 TDI is better on fuel and is £125 to tax, also the Golf is a better drive.
[/quote]

Really

Always found the rear drive 1er much more fun than the FWD VAG stuff

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:43 pm
by RenoHuskerDu
[quote="Finglonga"]
The 1 Series is Golf size & weight so the tiny Polo will give much better mpg even when the 114 loosens up.
[/quote]

From my 6'6" pov (point of view) the 114d was about as big inside as our Polo, except that I had more legroom. But the outside does seem to be between  Golf and Polo.  The last two Polo generations are built on the Golf platform, which is a good thing imho.

Re: 114d loaner - disappointing fuel economy

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:08 pm
by Horizon
[quote="535dboy"]
[quote="Horizon"]
My son has a 116d (59 plate ) it has the 2.0 engine as does the 118 and 120, Jason said they are the same engine in different levels of tune/ mapping. My lads116d is £30 PA to tax, my Golf 2.0 TDI is better on fuel and is £125 to tax, also the Golf is a better drive.
[/quote]

Really

Always found the rear drive 1er much more fun than the FWD VAG stuff
[/quote]

I agree with you there, that the rear wheel drive configuration usually gives a better driving feel. But when manufacturers are trying to squeeze MPG out of their cars the DRYVING DYNAMICS ARE LOST. The 120d is a different beast than the lesser tuned 116/114. At 170 bhp the 1 series is a fun drive.
I respect your comments as you have had the experience of driving many top end cars. I'm only commenting on my restricted experience with cars that I have driven.
I fancied a 130 at one time as I owned an E60 530i before the X5 (E53 ) and I thought that was a fantastic smooth and well proven engine.
I've always had firms cars and vans from being 17, so all of my cars have been a weekend runaround, so have had the problem of justifying spending big bucks on my cars.  :'(