tom wrote:That has to be a rough 'un Richard. I've never known one dip below 50 MPG and I have always found the 1905 to be the sweeter of the two engines - or were you using it as a starter motor for the 16V

Perhaps the TD in question was a rough'un
I actually meant to put 45+mpg but you beat me to it before I could edit!
I've only really ever properly worked out the economy once. Managed to squeeze about £41 in after driving on the light for a day or two. Obviously the N/A has a smaller tank than the TD, otherwise I'd have got a bigger bill.
I drove around for a just over a week to work and back. Then to AndyC's in Redditch. Picked a gearbox, an engine, a cyl head and various spares up from his garden and returned home with them. Drove around for another day or two before it wanted more fuel. The clock read 484miles since the last fill up. I took it back to exactly the same pump and managed to fit £40 in it again. I worked this out to be about 47mpg, but I'm not one with numbers. And this takes into account how I drive the thing, which is as if I stole it! Journey times in the estate are quicker than the 16v
Don't think its a rough one myself. I've had rough cars before (xantia!). This sounds noisy when cold, and quite noisy when warm But its always smooth, and only seemed slightly less refined compared with a friends TZD Turbo hatch. Mind you that had done 80k miles rather than 190k!
Rich