Ok. I don't want to get in to deliberations on this. this is some general info !!!, I worked at a main Vauxhall dealer ship for a few years not as a technician just a lackey !!!, I'm still in touch with a long severing technician 26 years service, I still get mates rates and collected some sill protectors yesterday £38.99 bargain. the question I asked while I was there. will my Corsa 1.4 T LE use more fuel than normal because its new, the answer was definitely yes. the engine will need to do a few thousand miles to settle down before you get a true MPG. its not the case of running in at 30mph for 500 miles just sensible driving. on another note, I owed a brand new 11 plate VXR Corsa for 2 years, I prefer 1.4T LT hands down. its far better equipped and Vauxhall have done a great job from the previous Corsa.
CORSA E FUEL CONSUMPTION MPG !!!!
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
2,902 Posts
LOL, all engines loosen up after a few thousand miles and will get better mpg over time as long as engine is not abused. That is common knowledge and has been true since I/C engines were invented. Does amuse me sometimes how these things crop up as 'news' ;-)
My last diesel pickup truck actually took 25K miles before it started to give consistently high mpg. My 1.4T is still improving after 5K miles.
Running in has never been about going slow for first 500/1000 miles. The idea is not to labour engine, not to exceed 3K rpm (or whatever is recommended manufacturer) and to vary the rpm to avoid creating 'memory' on camshafts etc while they are bedding in. In the past new engines had special watery thin running in oil so lacked full lubrication quality.
Modern synthetic oils mean running in oil is no longer required. If you have the right gearing you can happily do 70mph while running in as I did, engine rpm being just 2K rpm.
My last diesel pickup truck actually took 25K miles before it started to give consistently high mpg. My 1.4T is still improving after 5K miles.
Running in has never been about going slow for first 500/1000 miles. The idea is not to labour engine, not to exceed 3K rpm (or whatever is recommended manufacturer) and to vary the rpm to avoid creating 'memory' on camshafts etc while they are bedding in. In the past new engines had special watery thin running in oil so lacked full lubrication quality.
Modern synthetic oils mean running in oil is no longer required. If you have the right gearing you can happily do 70mph while running in as I did, engine rpm being just 2K rpm.
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
This is interesting, because this morning I was looking at owner reviews on Reevoo via the Vauxhall site on my tablet (which is very different to the main website) and a lot of people with Excite models said that they are not getting the advertised mpg and that the car is very fuel hungry. I have not seen anyone on here mention that. It makes me wonder what engines they have (most of them didn't say which engine, just the trim level).
Joined
·
2,902 Posts
Leachie, I would take with a pinch of salt those sort of reviews. If you look at the wider picture and look at the pricing of the trim levels you'll find the excite is popular amongst the younger generation because they perceive it is well equipped for its price. That demographic tend to thrash their cars and have little understanding of how to drive for economy, they drive in abrupt movements, don't look far enough ahead, brake sharply and like to scream their engines rather than use the gears properly (as I did when I was 18 too!). They will also tend to do very short journeys and lots of them. The result is cr*p mpg that doesn't come close to official figures.
I've managed to beat the official figures in every single vehicle I've driven (other than the Fiesta) which suggests it is not a fault with the engines but with the drivers. 90% of the general public are simply bad drivers.
Once you hit 30, have a mortgage, wife and kids and find that you are permanently skint it focuses your mind and you suddenly realise that driving carefully and getting 50mpg is preferable to thrashing it everywhere and only getting 25mpg
I've managed to beat the official figures in every single vehicle I've driven (other than the Fiesta) which suggests it is not a fault with the engines but with the drivers. 90% of the general public are simply bad drivers.
Once you hit 30, have a mortgage, wife and kids and find that you are permanently skint it focuses your mind and you suddenly realise that driving carefully and getting 50mpg is preferable to thrashing it everywhere and only getting 25mpg
Joined
·
1,357 Posts
My car is still technically running in and yet I'm getting 46mpg average, my 1.0 agila (dont ask) managed 40mpg on the same daily journeys.
I suspect I'll be seeing 48-50mpg regularly once the engine is 'run in', which for me, for a 1.4 Turbo engine is impressive.
Leachie, like mud4fun stated, those reviewers probably had the 1.2 engine or similar, which is a horrifically uneconomical engine for it's size.
Round here the model of choice (according to my dealer) for the younger drivers is actually LE or SRi VX-Line, due to the body kit/black wheels.
I suspect I'll be seeing 48-50mpg regularly once the engine is 'run in', which for me, for a 1.4 Turbo engine is impressive.
Leachie, like mud4fun stated, those reviewers probably had the 1.2 engine or similar, which is a horrifically uneconomical engine for it's size.
Round here the model of choice (according to my dealer) for the younger drivers is actually LE or SRi VX-Line, due to the body kit/black wheels.
Joined
·
2,902 Posts
I thought the LE would be popular but from many comments on FB the price of the LE seems to have put off many younger folks and they have opted for excites and stingsLimeyUK said:
I guess the 1.4T will also be quite expensive to insure compared to the 1.2 so many younger drivers are opting for the 1.2. This compounds the economy issue as lower power cars require much more skill to get good mpg or performance from compared to higher powered cars. Inexperienced drivers will not have built up that skill set so will suffer worse mpg. Underpowered cars need good judgement of distances, judging gears etc well in advance of overtakes, hills or junctions. The turbo cars have so much power that you can get away with miss-timed gear changes or even no gear changes at all on even quite steep inclines.
Joined
·
2,902 Posts
It does annoy me though when people state that the 1.2 is dangerous and undrivable.
It has something like 70hp at the wheels in a car that only weighs 1300Kg, a power to weight ratio greater than most of the cars I've ever owned.
I've driven classic Land Rovers all over the country without issue and my wife drives one daily that has just 30hp at the wheels and weighs 1700Kg!
Most of these comments are from people that have very little driving experience or are poor drivers. They don't need more power they simply need to learn to drive properly and utilise the power efficiently.
It has something like 70hp at the wheels in a car that only weighs 1300Kg, a power to weight ratio greater than most of the cars I've ever owned.
I've driven classic Land Rovers all over the country without issue and my wife drives one daily that has just 30hp at the wheels and weighs 1700Kg!
Most of these comments are from people that have very little driving experience or are poor drivers. They don't need more power they simply need to learn to drive properly and utilise the power efficiently.
Joined
·
1,357 Posts
Yea, the 1.2 is not undrivable at all. Its just a high emissions engine, which as you state, does need extra care in order to get decent mpg.
I completely forgot about the sting! I'm sure that is also a very popular model for the younger demographic. Its that or the Adam - which I think is ugly :lol:
I completely forgot about the sting! I'm sure that is also a very popular model for the younger demographic. Its that or the Adam - which I think is ugly :lol:
Joined
·
2,902 Posts
Yes I actually quite like the Sting R in Lime green with black stripes and black wheels. It does look great and is a fair bit cheaper than the LE so I can understand the attraction to those on a tighter budget than me.
I took a 30 second look at an Adam but walked away and would not consider one. Too small, too expensive and nowhere near as attractive as the Corsa. Yes they share many styling cues but they work better on the longer Corsa.
I took a 30 second look at an Adam but walked away and would not consider one. Too small, too expensive and nowhere near as attractive as the Corsa. Yes they share many styling cues but they work better on the longer Corsa.
Joined
·
1,357 Posts
The fact that the sting was so cheap actually put me off :lol: Plus the stripes didn't do it for me.mud4fun said:
I originally was looking at a Viva due to the amount of tech in it for a low cost, but then I saw the Corsa wasn't too much more, and was a much better choice.
For me the Adam is definitely a more feminine car, the fact you can configure every panel to your liking confirms that for me :lol:
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
I posted this a while ago - some lovely colours available on the Viva!LimeyUK said:Proved my pointLeachiE said:
I've not actually seen a Viva yet, only via the configurator!
http://www.corsaeforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=305&p=2710&hilit=viva#p2710Bought the car three days ago with 7 miles on clock. From dealers to home, incl. Dartford crossing and mainly motorway, was 70 miles and not exceeding 65mph. Yesterday another 30 miles driving around town and countryside. So having completed just over 100 miles the readout is now 50.1 mpg. Not bad for starters. Only complaint is Easytronic box doesn't feel as smooth as 'normal' automatics - a bit notchy in changing up particularly.
Hi! My Corsa 1.4 automatic fuel consumption is 28 mpg in the city. Is it normal or too high? On highway 38 mpg, it's also high, but in the city the fuel consumption highly increases. My average mpg after 800 miles is 31 mpg, because I use it mainly in city. What do u think, it will be better after more miles or do you have similar values?
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Join the discussion
