dnac 0 Posted February 5, 2007 Hi, been measuring the MPG from my rado, it is averaging 25mpg, and that is not thrashing it, just my journey too and from work (7 mile each way) If I thrash it or use it around town it is terrible. Do you think 25 is too low, and if so, what do you suggest I look at? Its just had a new head gasket, timing belt, spark plugs and air filter If I can't get it up to 30 ish, I am gonna have to sell it and get a diesel Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nocrap 0 Posted February 5, 2007 According to the MFA mine rarely goes above 27, this is from varied driving.....I usually get about 350ish miles from a £45 tank. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted February 5, 2007 I get about 330 miles from £50 if i'm lucky. Last weekend I managed just over 400 miles from a full tank of Ultimate - and that was predominantly spent being sensible at 70MPH on the motorway! 2.0 16v just seems to be a woefully uneconomical engine, even when compared to the much more powerful and refined VR6 :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davidwort 0 Posted February 5, 2007 According to the MFA mine rarely goes above 27, this is from varied driving.....I usually get about 350ish miles from a £45 tank. 350ish miles from a £45 tank that would actually be just over 30mpg then? dunno what's going on with you guys on KE-jet 2L cars, I've yet to get less that 330 miles from a tank and mines only 55 Litres! - I'm curently averageing about 33-34mpg per tank. granted the 16v's aren't the best on short journeys or around town, but I get stuck in my fair share of traffic commuting and when the road does clear I tend to put my foot down. I blame it on the CATs, root of all evil this emissions stuff ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dnac 0 Posted February 5, 2007 According to the MFA mine rarely goes above 27, this is from varied driving.....I usually get about 350ish miles from a £45 tank. Thats 30mpg which is all I would expect I get about 330 miles from £50 if i'm lucky.. And Thats about 26mpg Hmm, something to think about I guess Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyman9000 0 Posted February 5, 2007 I get about 330 miles from £50 if i'm lucky. Last weekend I managed just over 400 miles from a full tank of Ultimate - and that was predominantly spent being sensible at 70MPH on the motorway! 2.0 16v just seems to be a woefully uneconomical engine, even when compared to the much more powerful and refined VR6 :( My 1.8 valver is the same, usually get about 180-200miles for £30. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dnac 0 Posted February 5, 2007 Damn!!!, I wonder if I could put a diesel in the Rado? Get the best of both worlds! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walesy 0 Posted February 5, 2007 It has been done matey, and it's what i'll have when I can afford the conversion! I get around 28ish from my 16V, i've got better MPG out of my G60's and they were all fettled and had far more power. Like Jim said, they also seem to get around the same MPG as the VR6, if not less :? I bought my 16V to try and keep my running costs down, it's been a pig to fault find on and cost me far more to run than my previous rados. All in, it's not a great engine IMO :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nocrap 0 Posted February 5, 2007 According to the MFA mine rarely goes above 27, this is from varied driving.....I usually get about 350ish miles from a £45 tank. 350ish miles from a £45 tank that would actually be just over 30mpg then? dunno what's going on with you guys on KE-jet 2L cars, I've yet to get less that 330 miles from a tank and mines only 55 Litres! - I'm curently averageing about 33-34mpg per tank. After Jims last economy rant i think we worked out that we have somthing stupid like a 20litre reserve! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dnac 0 Posted February 5, 2007 It has been done matey, and it's what i'll have when I can afford the conversion! I get around 28ish from my 16V, i've got better MPG out of my G60's and they were all fettled and had far more power. Like Jim said, they also seem to get around the same MPG as the VR6, if not less :? I bought my 16V to try and keep my running costs down, it's been a pig to fault find on and cost me far more to run than my previous rados. All in, it's not a great engine IMO :( Thats just great that, when I was looking for a rado I passed loads of G60's and VR6 cause I though the valver would be better. I should have just looked with my loon head on and gone the whole hog, I always wanted a G60 anyway :cry: Whats involved in the diesel swap? will it bolt straight to the sub frame etc? do the drive shafts fits?, Theres a 1.9 TDI on the ebay now for about 200 quid!! could be a summer project!!. :twisted: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walesy 0 Posted February 5, 2007 I did say 'IMO' there.. In My Opinion :) Some people love the 16V, it's just not my cup of tea. I did the same as you and bought a valver thinking it would save me money, but i'd recomend the 2.08v rado for people looking for a cheap daily hack because its such an economic engine, it might not be the quickest of cars but it's not *that* much slower than the 16v, it's only really the top end that you feel the difference with the 16v.The 8v is also pretty much bomb proof in my experience of them. With regards to the engine conversion, you're asking the wrong guy mate - like I said, i'll have to wait untill I can afford to pay for the conversion to be done cos i'm no good with spanners etc :lol: Supercharged on here has a TDi Corrado with a PD engine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted February 5, 2007 Well it just peeved me on the trip to Germany when my valver was averaging about 29MPG on the autobahns at steady speeds and the VR's were all averaging mid to high 30's. Its complete pants. To be fair I don't doubt that there are probably some duff old sensors giving incorrect readings on mine to cause the bad economy but the cost of new sensors from VW just makes it so prohibitive to go on a mass find and replace. And breakers never want to part with engine sensors as they wanna sell the lump as a whole.. so you're stuck between a rock and a hard place! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CazzaVR 0 Posted February 5, 2007 My first two valvers were excellent for economy- used to see mid to high 30's on longer journeys. My last one however, was more like a VR in economy. Hardly ever managed 30mpg on the way to work. Best I got was around 34. My new VR is around the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bally 0 Posted February 5, 2007 My 1.8 valver with spaceship mileage not to bad on fuel... pic from last year.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bosshogg 0 Posted February 5, 2007 Diesel this aint a cool move man 8) just think of the noise and smell, a cool car with a distintive rattle under the bonnet. What would that be like with s/s exhaust. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted February 5, 2007 The Corrado handles a diesel engine well. Supercharged has a 1.9TDI (AJM) in his Corrado and not only does it shift, its incredibly frugal. The noise takes some getting used to but thats about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jekvr6 0 Posted February 5, 2007 i had a 2.0 16v corrado b4 my vr6 i remember my mpg went right low and the started to run bad it ended up being the ecu temp sensor when i replaced it my mpg changed as the ecu thought it was running colder than it was Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jekvr6 0 Posted February 5, 2007 sensor you can get from gfs not to dear from there just need to take your old one in Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted February 5, 2007 Yeah - I really think this sensor is duff on mine but the problem is the cost of the damn thing from VW. Its about £62 - I can't really justify buying it on the chance that it might be faulty. Its more food for thought though... cheers :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eatthis 0 Posted February 5, 2007 iv got 24 mpg over the last 900 miles in a charged vr6 lol 25 sounds crap from an na 2l mate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lippy 0 Posted February 5, 2007 Jim, been reading through some old posts about MPG in the 9a. coolant temp sensor (ecu) seems to be a reaaallyyy common prob - apparantly GSF do them quite cheap...? None of the posts hint at a 0 quid part, its just a switch/sensory thing. Is this just old posts or has the price nowadays skyrocketed??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 1 Posted February 6, 2007 Yeah - its definately an expensive part. As I say, I enquired at VW and they came back with, I think, £61+VAT or something insane for it. I was going to change it as a matter of course but when they said that I sort of thought "stuff that!". It just sucks cause its such a tiny part and probably doesn't have a huge amount going on inside it.. why so darn much! :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jekvr6 0 Posted February 6, 2007 I AM SURE THEY ARE AROUND 20 POUND FROM GFS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
G60SC_Stoney 0 Posted February 6, 2007 hehe, im getting about 30MPG out of my charged and cam'd vr6!! puts my G60 to shame, i get about 200miles out of 12gallons of petrol out of the G60! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dnac 0 Posted February 9, 2007 I AM SURE THEY ARE AROUND 20 POUND FROM GFS The sensor is 18780 priced at £ 36.50+vat so with postage and VAT its almost £50!!!, still cheaper than VW, but not much I wonder if there is a way to check if it is working without buying a new one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
