Which engine for fuel effeciency?

[sexybourbon 0]

On long runs my old 2.0 16 v was rubbish it just constantly seemed to be reving hard , the vr on the other hand is smooth and sits nice at 70 ,80 ... Short cold runs in the vr tho is not so good tho but can still manage to get about 27mpg by the end of my 5 mile commute from cold

This was last year full loaded on the way back from camping with just the gf in the front and all the crap in the back and it was country roads for about 70 miles

[CazzaVR 0]

8v is by far the best! As said above, the others are all capable of decent figures, but have to be babied. My best in a VR was a long trip down to Dorchester and I got 37mpg. Its averaging 26mpg at the mo for the 20 minute trip to work.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

My R32 averages 18mpg on short journeys :lol:

[dr_mat 0]

My R32 averages 18mpg on short journeys :lol:

 

I've seen NINE mpg on the clock at the end of a 1 mile journey across Reading centre at 8am in -5 degrees..

These days I walk!

[davidwort 0]

I'm starting my 3 cylinder 1.4TDI conversion which will be shod with 4 space saver wheels soon, that way I figure I won't need to bother with wiper conversions or headlight upgrades either.

[Walesy 0]

Hi mate, as others have said, If I were you I'd be aiming for an 8v if you can find one! I live in Cubert so just around the corner from you, and up until last week when it was written off near Monkey Tree campsite, my wife was using her 8v for local and long distance runs and it was giving an overall average of 38mpg.

 

If you can't find an 8v (they're the most difficult to find) then I would just go for the best condition Corrado you can find, having owned and lived with every variant there really isnt much between them MPG wise.

[captainredeye 0]

I'm with the thinking if your that concerned about fuel economy and saving money don't buy a corrado, my vr get maybe 35 mpg but I get around 24 in the cold weather mainly because I didn't buy a car with 2.9 liters to save the environment (sorry mother nature) or my bank balance but to put my foot down and enjoy it, that's what I figure sporty cars are for.

You could get a bike or a second car but that will cost more! To hell with fuel economy and enjoy the bloody thing.

[4eyes2wheels 0]

Today I did 40 miles round trip through town, cross country, average speed 20, mpg 27 plus 140 mile round trip on M25 and fast a roads, average speed 61 and 35 mpg. Not bad for a VR6 but to be fair she has just been serviced.

[dr_mat 0]

If economy if your aim, you should definitely get either an 8v or look for one of the ultra-rare TDi conversions.

[Abdul 0]

For the 2 or 3 mpg less you'll get around town I'd get a 2.0 16v. It's just better.

 

All corrados are hit n miss.

 

My first valver did 25+ around town no probs and 37-8 on a run. 2nd valver did 20mpg around town and would struggle for more then 33-4 mpg on a run. My VR did 20-23 around town and matched the first valver on a run with 37-38 not easily doable. My current 24v VR is useless on fuel but that's because I can't stay off the loud pedal lol.

 

Seriously get a late 16v.

 

Sorry but I don't understand the appeal in a corrado that would get blown away by a 1.4 polo (Tdi with a map, 16v 6n etc).

Edited March 4, 2012 by Abdul

[northG60 0]

Most of corrado owners will only use V-power so filling up is getting jolly expencive and i dont really watch the economy of the thing instead im always keeping an eye on water and oil temps...... lol

[Walesy 0]

For the 2 or 3 mpg less you'll get around town I'd get a 2.0 16v. It's just better.

 

All corrados are hit n miss.

 

My first valver did 25+ around town no probs and 37-8 on a run. 2nd valver did 20mpg around town and would struggle for more then 33-4 mpg on a run. My VR did 20-23 around town and matched the first valver on a run with 37-38 not easily doable. My current 24v VR is useless on fuel but that's because I can't stay off the loud pedal lol.

 

Seriously get a late 16v.

 

Sorry but I don't understand the appeal in a corrado that would get blown away by a 1.4 polo (Tdi with a map, 16v 6n etc).

 

Have you owned or driven an 8v? There's really not a lot in it power wise between the 16v and 8v, and the cost of owning and running them is night and day.

[Pat_McCrotch 0]

My VR6 gets 32mpg. But you have to fuel it properly (98RON) and at the moment that's costing me £94 a tank

[Abdul 0]

Have you owned or driven an 8v? There's really not a lot in it power wise between the 16v and 8v, and the cost of owning and running them is night and day.

 

Driven one on plenty of occasions. My mates old car in fact, he just about pulled away from my 100hp mk3 Tdi at the time.

 

It was slow sorry. The torque is great but in reality it's not much torquier then a valver if at all. The only reason it seems it is because it has no top end.

 

Ive never had any issues to sort on either of my valvers other then the usual service items (dizzy caps, ht leads etc) so Im not sure where you've gotten this impression that the running costs are so different.

 

---------- Post added at 8:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 8:47 PM ----------

 

If you buy a dog it's going to need work but that applies to all corrados. The only advantage with the 8v is that it's less likely to have been ragged throughout its life due to its all show no go nature.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Abdul

[Walesy 0]

I've owned 6 valvers and 3 8v's over the space of 11 years - that's were I get my 'impression' from ;)

 

---------- Post added at 7:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 7:09 AM ----------

 

Oh, and I can guarantee you none of them have been 'dogs' too.

 

---------- Post added at 7:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 7:10 AM ----------

 

I can't seem to edit my post! :lol: but again, look at all the people on here that have actual first hand experience of owning all variants - there are now a few of us in that position, and every single one of us say the same thing, surly that says it all - I appreciate that you like your valvers, but it's not fair to give out 'advice' and opinions when you're not in a position to do so based on anything other than having a drive of a mates one, especially when you're discounting the views of others that have actually got first hand experience.

 

What I'm saying isn't based on opinion of which i prefer driving, it's based on the facts derived from cost of ownership over a large period of time.

[KIPVW 0]

Walesy has pretty much said what i was going to say too, you really need to own an 8v to fully appreciate it. using the but its not as fast as this or that is bull sh1te really, you know it isn't a fast car and thats the point, it doesn't need to be but then ask any of the other forum/ccgb members if my 8v was struggling to keep up on the whole of the scotish trip we did in 2009 the answer would be a definate NO.

 

If you want to race shopping cars down the dual carriage way then the 8v aint the one, but if you want to keep up with a highly tweaked vr6 over the some scotish mountains and return nearly half as much again to the gallon as the vr6's were doing then i'd definately buy one.

 

Owner of a VR6 a 1.8 16v & 2.0 8v :)

[Yandards 0]

G60s in stock trim can be pretty thrifty, I did manage 300 miles and filled 30 litres of fuel (so 45 MPG) but that was driving it like an OAP on a Sunday.

 

As most folks have already touched on, fuel economy is all about how you drive it and not necessarily what you drive.

 

Never owned the 8v but used to get around 350 miles of range out of my 1.8 16v on my commute to and from work so around the 32 MPG mark.

 

As for the age old 8v vs 16v and torque feeling, some members of club GTi have invested some serious time and effort into this one, a 16v lump makes more torque than an 8v throughout the entire rev range - end of. The reason the 8v feels more torquey than a 16v below 3.5-4k is that the 16v produces a lot more torque at that point.

 

If you really want good fuel economy then fit a diesel instead.

[dr_mat 0]

I suppose it's inevitable that on a sports car forum the discussions around a mere TWO LITRE version of the car focus on how slow it is ..

Back in the real world, outside the world of company cars and petrol head enthusiasts, there's plenty of people driving around in modest cars and not giving a crap about the fact that so-and-so has a wotsit that'll do 0-60 one eighth of a second quicker than you.. :)

A two litre, even a lowly 8v with 115bhp (IIRC) can produce a rewarding drive in a ~1 ton car with a low centre of gravity and a wheel at each corner.

 

This is a similar problem, and why I won't listen to high-end hifi any more. If I listen and like it too much it destroys the enjoyment of the high-end hifi that I've got at home..

Edited March 5, 2012 by dr_mat

[owen g60 10]

Glad Yan touched on the G60's.

 

even a reasonably modified one can produce some respectable MPG, had a discussion with the other 2 that turned up to stealth R/R day.

 

on a 200 mile trip to get there i managed 48 MPG... most of that spent following Charlies VRT.

 

I believe Jon (JMC) was getting about 35 from his, althought he has had a fair bit more work done 1.9 bore out etc.

 

 

 

There is also a 1.8 16V by me... bored out to 2.1 running bike carbs.. he recons about 40 MPG when running on V Power.

 

 

 

So all in it depends on the work done AND a suitable map... even a stock engine with a re tuned map will return better MPG .

 

 

Its really down to the health of the engine and how well suited the map is to that particular engine.

 

 

I bet if 2 identical cars had been tested straight out of the factory their MPG would vary by a fair bit

[tony_ack 0]

 

That was the VR6 after a journey across Leeds (2 miles) in rush hour.

[davidwort 0]

 

That was the VR6 after a journey across Leeds (2 miles) in rush hour.

 

might be better if you put some oil in it :)

[Walesy 0]

I'm not making any judgments about what car has more torque or which will beat XY or Z off the lights - neither the 8v or the 16v are 'quick' cars, and for that matter neither are the G60 or VR6 in real terms, it also depends largely on your driving style - It seems that it's a difficult concept to grasp that not everyone buys a Corrado because they want to race it against every Tom Dick or Harry.

 

I wouldn't dream of wading in and offering advice to someone who has asked for info on a 24v Corrado as I've never owned one, let alone tell someone who has that they're wrong and I know better than them! It's not as if I'm on my own, there are a number of long term members who have owned each variant who ALL agree that the 8v is seriously underrated (by people with no experience of them) and is easily the most economical of all rados, why can't it be left at that? :lol:

[Wullie 1]

My name is Wullie and I'm a Corradoholic. I've got a 1.8 16v and to be honest I just put petrol in it without spending most of the trip looking to see what the fuel consumption is. I don't really care as long as it starts, takes me where I'm going and gets me back which it has done faithfully over the years I have owned it. If it does 10 mpg or 120 mpg, if I like it I buy it. Trouble is I can't see past my older, slower version of the C as it does what it says on the tin..

[davidwort 0]

so the fastest one burns the most petrol, the slowest the least, can we finish this now???

[sexybourbon 0]

 

That was the VR6 after a journey across Leeds (2 miles) in rush hour.

 

Thats alot of miles lol gotta be one of the highest surely ??