BX MPG Chart 1991

Brian · Post by **Brian** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:39 pm

In the light of the rising fuel costs, I dug out the Fuel Consumption Test showing the BX and others.

I am sure some of you have this information, but for those who don't, may be of some interest.

I have scanned and reduced to a reasonable size, I think it is just legible.

stuart_hedges · Post by **stuart_hedges** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:14 pm

I misread the topic as MP3 chart - I had no idea what the thread was going to be about!

My TZD Turbo Estate does rather worse than the chart suggests in town, but better at 75 - which is what I tend to use it for, so that's good. I have no intention of ever finding out what it achieves at a steady 56mph, life's too short!

velosolex50 · Post by **velosolex50** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:12 pm

Interesting how good the autos are compared to equivalent manuals. Much better than the 10% extra consumption usually quoted.

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:18 pm

stuart_hedges wrote:I misread the topic as MP3 chart - I had no idea what the thread was going to be about!

My TZD Turbo Estate does rather worse than the chart suggests in town, but better at 75 - which is what I tend to use it for, so that's good. I have no intention of ever finding out what it achieves at a steady 56mph, life's too short!

Show me the figures!

Mine did 41mpg on the last tank, which was fast motorway, and a piss-poor 36mpg the previous tank (urban and 'making time' motorway work...)

My previous BX, a TD hatch used to do about 44 on average, with 47 if I was going as gently as I could be arsed on a long run.

I'm sure I can do rather better with this one, just been doing lots of high-speed miles lately...

stuart_hedges · Post by **stuart_hedges** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:01 pm

Sorry, Jonathan, I don't keep precise figures - I just brim the tank every time I fill it and calculate the mpg over the last tank. As a general rule I manage around 44-45mpg, a bit better if I happen to have done a lot of motorway miles on that tank and a lot worse if I've done a lot of town driving. Lowest I;ve ever seen was 32 on a tank where I drove across London three times...

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:22 pm

stuart_hedges wrote:Sorry, Jonathan, I don't keep precise figures - I just brim the tank every time I fill it and calculate the mpg over the last tank. As a general rule I manage around 44-45mpg, a bit better if I happen to have done a lot of motorway miles on that tank and a lot worse if I've done a lot of town driving. Lowest I;ve ever seen was 32 on a tank where I drove across London three times...

Sounds about right, although that 32 must have hurt

I'm not (quite) sad enough to keep records either, just keeping a constant general monitor by brimming whenever I fill up and working it out just out of interest. To be fair, reseting the milometer gives a good guide; under 500 miles = bad, nearer 600 = good...

Post by **mat_fenwick** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:39 pm

Most I've managed is around 550 - the light was starting to come on at times. (That was with the standard 1769cc engine).
Now I have started to keep track of the mpg I get mid to high 30s typically, with a best of 46mpg with mostly motorway driving. Worst I've seen from a tank (with the boosted 1.9) was 310 miles before the light came on...ouch.

DavidRutherford · Post by **DavidRutherford** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:50 pm

stuart_hedges wrote:As a general rule I manage around 44-45mpg,

Is that all? Pah!

*runs*

toddao · Post by **toddao** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:39 pm

I think that I've got a pretty economical BX - the bloody thing does run on fumes. Being a relatively 'new' 1.9 n/a ( 40,000miles since 1985) I put in €35 ten days ago and I've covered almost 600 kms since then and it's on quarter - must be almost 60 to the gallon in Uk terms or 4.5 litres per 100km.

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:18 am

toddao wrote:I think that I've got a pretty economical BX - the bloody thing does run on fumes. Being a relatively 'new' 1.9 n/a ( 40,000miles since 1985) I put in €35 ten days ago and I've covered almost 600 kms since then and it's on quarter - must be almost 60 to the gallon in Uk terms or 4.5 litres per 100km.

I'm pretty sure the older square port engines were a tad better on diesel. For a time the parents had two diesel BX estates, one square port, one round port, and the square port one was consistantly better on fuel with the same usage.

DavidRutherford · Post by **DavidRutherford** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:28 pm

jonathan_dyane wrote:I'm pretty sure the older square port engines were a tad better on diesel.

They were, mainly due to being 6hp less powerful. That's the reason that 1.9D 309's were so economic: They stuck with the square-port engine right up to 1992, and so always looked more economic than they would have been if they'd changed to the oval port engine.

MULLEY · Post by **MULLEY** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:19 am

Yellow low fuel light is now permanantely on, reading 670 miles on odometer, quite good? Thats in the txd by the way.

Kitch · Post by **Kitch** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:10 am

25mpg urban? I can beat that! Got 18mpg the other day!

I've used £20 up in less than 115miles. Due to these slightly cheaper fuel costs, gone are the days where I could burn £20 of the planet's resources off in less than 100miles. I'll have to fire the TVR back up me thinks!

jonathan_dyane · Post by **jonathan_dyane** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:16 am

MULLEY wrote:Yellow low fuel light is now permanantely on, reading 670 miles on odometer, quite good? Thats in the txd by the way.

That's quite exceptional, particular as the TXD didn't have the 'long range' tank. Wish I had the self control...

DavidRutherford · Post by **DavidRutherford** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:29 am

jonathan_dyane wrote:
MULLEY wrote:Yellow low fuel light is now permanantely on, reading 670 miles on odometer, quite good? Thats in the txd by the way.
That's quite exceptional, particular as the TXD didn't have the 'long range' tank. Wish I had the self control...

I suspect this car must have the long range tank, otherwise that's over 75mpg average, which I don't believe is physically possible.

With the long range tank it would be about 50mpg average, which seems much more like it.