Which 1 Get To Buy !

[skoller]

Evening Guy's,

New to the forum, I cam across the Forum through a friend.

We are in the middle of purchasing an IQ, my wife travels around 180miles a week, our Mini Cooper s is shocking on fuel although alot of fun to drive, there is not much town driving so travelling at 50/60mph quite a bit of the journey.

We have been looking at an IQ3 1.33 "59" or a IQ2 1.0 "59" ?

Can you guy's help me with mpg's on both cars, we want to achieve around 50+ mpg otherwise we might as well keep the Mini ?

Sorry for the questions, but not sure where to go from here, we have test driven a 1.0, & will be test driving an IQ3 on Wednesday which is quite a good buy, £8995 for an IQ3 1.33 with 6000 miles, what do you guy's think ?

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Colin.

[Leeky]

Weclome to the forum.

Personally the way i see it is the 1.0 engine is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, easier to get used parts for (not that you'll even need them) and performance wise is hardly any slower than the 1.33.

There is nothing wrong with the 1.33, but if you're gonna buy a small economical car then it makes sense to buy the one thats most fuel efficient and ignore the marginally better performance of the 1.33 as even with that extra little bit of power its still gonna be a slow car overall. 0-60 is only 1sec faster in the 1.33 but the 1.0 is overall 10mpg more economical which over time adds up to a lot of money.

So my vote goes to the 1.0.

I bought an Aygo brand new in 2007 with the 1.0 engine and its a fantastic little lump. Always plenty of grunt to move the car, never felt like i was beating it within an inch of its life (even when i was beating it to within an inch of its life) and always returned amazing mpg. Will happy sit there all day at 95mph (German Autobahn, not on UK roads) without sounding anything more than perfectly happy.

[cvn25]

I have had 2 iQ2s now and experienced the iQ3 for the first time as a loan car for 2 days while my car was being serviced and having recall work done.

I really couldn't feel much difference in terms of performance and the average mpg on the loan iQ3 was 48mpg and my average is 49mpg - although this is all town driving to and from work in the rush hour approx 12 miles each way.

Because of all the reason mentioned before, cheap insurance, free road tax etc etc I would stick with the iQ2 when I swap again as for me there are no benefits with the iQ3 other than increased costs.

[johnan]

I have to agree with the others who have replied.

I bought my first IQ some months before the IQ3 was even known to exist and I was annoyed because I thought if it had been available when buying my IQ2 I would have gone for it instead..more power etc.

But a couple of years on I think the IQ2 ticks all the boxes that are the reasons for buying such a car in the first place, and the IQ3 slightly misses the point because it loses out on economy and road tax and it is not THAT much better in perfomance than the IQ2.If you want a performance car you don't buy any kind of IQ, 1,2 or 3.

I get an overall average of 53mpg and over 60mpg on a run, without trying.

Suits me.

[atkiman]

hi

i have a 59 plate iq3 and currently run mostly a14/m6 360+ mls a week at around 60/65 mph. current summer mpg is 52-56 (max so far 62 today 57),winter with the heater an electrics working more of the time is 50/52 . great motor , tried an iq2, didn't really feel it was up to fast dual carriageway and motorways for most of the week, but was better in an urban environment (personal view , i know other will vehemently disagree).when i do more urban than motorways, mpg drops to around the 47 mark.

hope this helps

[ArielK]

Hi,

I had my IQ2 1.0 (59) for around 18 months now. It drives superbly (considering 1 litre engine). I drive in central London and when I try to drive economically I get around 53 MPG in heavy London traffic. Usually I drive a bit more friskly so I get around 43 which is still pretty good.

I never had any problems with my IQ2. I read some posts on the forum and am a bit surprised about all the trouble that some people experience. Mine runs perfectly and did not have a slightest issue with it so my vote would be for IQ2 1.0...:)

[skoller]

Evening Guy's,

Thanks for all the comments, we have decided to buy an IQ3, 2009 "59", Black, 6400 miles, VGC.

My wife does a lot of mixed driving so hence the IQ3, even at 50mpg we will be up on monthly costings, we will keep you informed & pic's follow when we pick it up.

Thanks again, Colin.

[jwball]

Evening Guy's,

Thanks for all the comments, we have decided to buy an IQ3, 2009 "59", Black, 6400 miles, VGC.

My wife does a lot of mixed driving so hence the IQ3, even at 50mpg we will be up on monthly costings, we will keep you informed & pic's follow when we pick it up.

Thanks again, Colin.

Do you mind me asking how much you paid for it?

[skoller]

We paid £8495, not too bad I think, about right I think for the car, taking into account yr/mileage.

Just picked it up lunchtime, awesome !

Evening Guy's,

Thanks for all the comments, we have decided to buy an IQ3, 2009 "59", Black, 6400 miles, VGC.

My wife does a lot of mixed driving so hence the IQ3, even at 50mpg we will be up on monthly costings, we will keep you informed & pic's follow when we pick it up.

Thanks again, Colin.

Do you mind me asking how much you paid for it?

[jwball]

We paid £8495, not too bad I think, about right I think for the car, taking into account yr/mileage.

Just picked it up lunchtime, awesome !

Evening Guy's,

Thanks for all the comments, we have decided to buy an IQ3, 2009 "59", Black, 6400 miles, VGC.

My wife does a lot of mixed driving so hence the IQ3, even at 50mpg we will be up on monthly costings, we will keep you informed & pic's follow when we pick it up.

Thanks again, Colin.

Do you mind me asking how much you paid for it?

Sounds a good price for a 3.

[marcandsebe]

Weclome to the forum.

Personally the way i see it is the 1.0 engine is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, easier to get used parts for (not that you'll even need them) and performance wise is hardly any slower than the 1.33.

There is nothing wrong with the 1.33, but if you're gonna buy a small economical car then it makes sense to buy the one thats most fuel efficient and ignore the marginally better performance of the 1.33 as even with that extra little bit of power its still gonna be a slow car overall. 0-60 is only 1sec faster in the 1.33 but the 1.0 is overall 10mpg more economical which over time adds up to a lot of money.

So my vote goes to the 1.0.

I bought an Aygo brand new in 2007 with the 1.0 engine and its a fantastic little lump. Always plenty of grunt to move the car, never felt like i was beating it within an inch of its life (even when i was beating it to within an inch of its life) and always returned amazing mpg. Will happy sit there all day at 95mph (German Autobahn, not on UK roads) without sounding anything more than perfectly happy.

1.33 is 106 mph and 0 to 62 in 11.6 seconds for my auto (auto is faster)

1.0 is 93 mph and 0 to 62 in about 15 seconds depending on manual or auto (auto is slower)

Parts are easy to find for both.

Fuel consumption is better for 1.0

On a long run in the auto, I get about 45 to the gallon. Some people are claiming their 1.0's do better than the official figures. I would not believe them, as my iQ3 gets no where near the claimed Toyota figures. The Multidrive uses more fuel, but for motorway and city driving, I prefer it.

[s44gtw]

Seems perfectly OK to me that people believe what they want,

but i dont think it means we are making up stories because our vehicles or your driving gives different & even better Economy & performance than Toyotas published figures which are pure fiction.

I am quite happy to bad mouth a vehicle that underperforms in the real world, i see no reason to big up something if it is rubbish.

Tell my 1.0 Multidrive that it can only do 93 mph & reach 60 in 15 seconds & it will say you can believe what you like.

93 mph is more than 10 mph below what it will happily sit at, & nothing near what it tops out at.

Easy enough using GPS to see what your acceleration times are, certainly not 0-60 in 15 seconds for the iQ i have now or the one before, & it is no slower than the iQ3 multidtrive i have been using this week.

george

[nedpears]

Seems perfectly OK to me that people believe what they want,

but i dont think it means we are making up stories because our vehicles or your driving gives different & even better Economy & performance than Toyotas published figures which are pure fiction.

I am quite happy to bad mouth a vehicle that underperforms in the real world, i see no reason to big up something if it is rubbish.

Tell my 1.0 Multidrive that it can only do 93 mph & reach 60 in 15 seconds & it will say you can believe what you like.

93 mph is more than 10 mph below what it will happily sit at, & nothing near what it tops out at.

Easy enough using GPS to see what your acceleration times are, certainly not 0-60 in 15 seconds for the iQ i have now or the one before, & it is no slower than the iQ3 multidtrive i have been using this week.

george

I have to agree with George here - I am on my second iQ2 and having test driven an iQ3 on a long run when deciding on my second iQ, the iQ3 was certainly no quicker than my previous iQ2 and with lower mpg and higher emissions and not to mention list price it wasn't a difficult decision to make!!

[marcandsebe]

Seems perfectly OK to me that people believe what they want,

but i dont think it means we are making up stories because our vehicles or your driving gives different & even better Economy & performance than Toyotas published figures which are pure fiction.

I am quite happy to bad mouth a vehicle that underperforms in the real world, i see no reason to big up something if it is rubbish.

Tell my 1.0 Multidrive that it can only do 93 mph & reach 60 in 15 seconds & it will say you can believe what you like.

93 mph is more than 10 mph below what it will happily sit at, & nothing near what it tops out at.

Easy enough using GPS to see what your acceleration times are, certainly not 0-60 in 15 seconds for the iQ i have now or the one before, & it is no slower than the iQ3 multidtrive i have been using this week.

george

George. Are you saying your 1.0 Multidrive will cruise at 103 mph? And do even more than that if pushed? All the online reviews say the 1.0 is under powered. And are you still getting over 65 mpg with this driving style too?

[marcandsebe]

iQ3 0 to 60 is about 13 seconds & not 11.6. Check these figures below.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/summary.aspx?model=1742

[LA-LA]

iQ PERFORMANCE DATA

0 - 62 mph

1,0 : 5man * 14,7 sec * max 93 mph

1,0 : multi * 15,3 sec * max 93 mph

1,3 : 6man * 11,8 sec * max 106 mph

1,3 : multi * 11,6 sec * max 106 mph

1,4 : 6man * 10,7 sec * max 106 mph (w/o limiter 126 mph)

[marcandsebe]

iQ PERFORMANCE DATA

0 - 62 mph

1,0 : 5man * 14,7 sec * max 93 mph

1,0 : multi * 15,3 sec * max 93 mph

1,3 : 6man * 11,8 sec * max 106 mph

1,3 : multi * 11,6 sec * max 106 mph

1,4 : 6man * 10,7 sec * max 106 mph (w/o limiter 126 mph)

Thank you La La. You confirmed the official brochure performance figures. That's a fair few seconds and miles per hour difference between the 1.0 & 1.33. George reckons his 1.0 Multidrive does 103 plus mph. Maybe he does not have a standard iQ, but some modifications to make it go that fast.

[s44gtw]

I never get less than 42 mpg now, & 50mpg plus usually, i wouldnt expect 65mpg booting it about.

65 is easy at legal UK speeds without having to hypermile IME.

I have a standard 2011 'euro 5' 1.0 iQ multidrive on 15", that has now done 12,000 miles.

before i had an ex demo 2010 'euro 4' 1.0 multidrive that had 2,000 miles on it when i got it.

Trying the 16" rims from my partners iQ3 right now to see just how worse the ride is with them on.

Partners iQ3 multidrive is standard with no body kit & just now it is on 15" rims with Dunlop SP 30's from my first iQ. It feels much better on them.

Getting 15" Avon Icetours fitted for the winter.

Cars done nearly 1200 miles now.

What does official Toyota figures or Parkers or other tests matter?

I am surprised at how inaccurate many magazine road tests are.

The stuff some testers write about Cygnets & iQ3's just seems as tho they have never actually driven one.

Testers that live with one for a few days opinions appear to differ greatly from those that take a quick drive in them, & often have nothing good to say about any small car, thats unless its a Panda or a Clio & especally those that dislike automatics or CVT's.

'Car' Magazine last month had a totally inacurate test last month.

No idea what CVT they were speaking about, must have been a Daf or Volvo 343. (which i happened to like)

We all own iQ's on here i think & must know yourselfs what they do in the real world.

Does anyone on here have an iQ Multidrive thats not good for over 100mph?

(where allowed to do that obviously)

george

[jwball]

Could be something to do with speedos overreading by 10%

[s44gtw]

It would take some doing to get 10% out with an iQ.

Bigger tyres & a greater rolling radius would make your speedo underread not overread.

http://www.kouki.co.uk/utilities/visual-tyre-size-calculator

I have standard size fitment tyres on both the 15" & 16" wheels.

george

[atkiman]

all i can say on mine is, I've filled up 56 times since 29/09/10, 9 0f those have been under 50 mpg, lowest was 42.65 mpg 07/12/10 highest 62.48 mpg 28/06/11(all by calculator not the computer), will do an indicated 105 mph , on the flat and cost 30 quid a year to tax, to be honest it doesn't get much better than that in real world driving.

have you ever seen any toyota get a good write up in a car mag, they only like Italian junk,french crap or a Golf.

I do know one thing, BMW X5s dont like ANY iq up their exhaust 3 or 4 cylinder.

[marcandsebe]

all i can say on mine is, I've filled up 56 times since 29/09/10, 9 0f those have been under 50 mpg, lowest was 42.65 mpg 07/12/10 highest 62.48 mpg 28/06/11(all by calculator not the computer), will do an indicated 105 mph , on the flat and cost 30 quid a year to tax, to be honest it doesn't get much better than that in real world driving.

have you ever seen any toyota get a good write up in a car mag, they only like Italian junk,french crap or a Golf.

I do know one thing, BMW X5s dont like ANY iq up their exhaust 3 or 4 cylinder.

I have an iQ3 and although it goes very well, it is not as powerful as my 190 BHP Nissan Navara. And performance wise would beat any iQ. As for the BMW X5, the basic one does 0 to 60 in under 9 seconds and a top speed of almost 130 mph.. If you go for the top spec, that's 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds and a 153 mph top speed. Therefore the X5 must just be playing with you. I will say one thing though. I would rather have my iQ than an X5.

[tarquin]

Hi Everyone

I have an iQ2. The first day I got it I had 18x215x35 fitted It is a multi-drive. I have taken it to 107mph with ref to the built -in gps.I have had fitted a custom exhaust which i am told will give me a 6-8bhp increase.I havn't had it at speed yet but when I get a chance will let you know.NB lowering the car by 25mm has increased the handling no end.

David

[s44gtw]

i dont think that anyone is suggesting an Iq is faster than a X5, but thats not to say that they cant leave an X5 in its wake on a narrow twisty country road, & that can be while still being driven within the legal 60 mph in the UK.

(there are some terrible SUV/4x4 drivers out there)

I am not even saying a iQ is faster than an iQ3, i just prefer the tiddler,

& the Max of 60 or 70 in the UK applys to us all, once your up to speed what difference does it make if you can corner & stop safely at that speeds.

(if you are sitting at 80,90 or 100 its the same for you all if you dont loose speed at the slightest incline.)

If you are inclined to just keep your foot down on each corner while still being within the vehicles & the drivers safe limits.

Whatever torque, bhp & acceleration times make not a jot of difference if you cant keep up momentum or traction.

I just find that there are not many drivers of upmarket or even down market cars that like a iQ in front of them,

& god forbid if they are going up in the inside lane and you dare to proceed past them in the next lane.

I just like the feeling from the iQ which is like that of the original mini, & to me that is what the New Mini's and other small/medium cars have lost, mostly just the fun factor when just out for a scoot about without needing a hot hatch.. its not about the speed for me, there doesnt need to be anyone else in front or behind to have a good time out driving an iQ IMO.

george

PS, was driving the iQ3 today with heavy me & heavy passenger & back jammed full/heavy,

Scary bad handeling vehicle on the bends. or is that my bad driving pushing on too much?

I think i like driving on my own most in an iQ or even an iQ3.

[marcandsebe]

Hi Everyone

I have an iQ2. The first day I got it I had 18x215x35 fitted It is a multi-drive. I have taken it to 107mph with ref to the built -in gps.I have had fitted a custom exhaust which i am told will give me a 6-8bhp increase.I havn't had it at speed yet but when I get a chance will let you know.NB lowering the car by 25mm has increased the handling no end.

David

I thought the iQ was meant to be an evironmententally driven car and doing 107 miles per hour in your iQ2 could get you banned.