Sr180 37Mpg!

[PS123]

Did you not test drive the car?

Good point. I needed a car in a hurry and didn't have time to fully test drive it properly. I guess I made the mistake of relying on Toyota's reputation for reliability and just assumed their diesel engines were as good as the German marques.

[Red diesel]

Youd be surprised how many people don't test drive cars or do so properly - however it is indeed possible to test drive something and not

pick up on something important.

But 38 mpg from a modern turbodiesel on motorways = very poor imo, i wonder how much of this poor consumption is down to the DPF.

Reason i ask is that the Euro 3 Volvo 2.4 5 cylinder diesel (used in S60/V70/S80) does 10 mpg better than the Euro 4 version of the same engine (according to owner reviews on the internet forums), and - both the 180 bhp Toyota engine and the Euro 4 Volvo 2.4 turbodiesel have DPFs.

No DPF on the Euro 3 version of the Volvo - interesting coincidence, its interesting to hear someone mention about the keeping the car at 1750 rpm.

Because it does appear from what i read and hear that manufacturers tune the cars to do well (on emissions etc) in the laboratory - which has a negative impact on the on road performance. Which would go somewhere to providing a possible explanation as to how a Euro 4 car is doing 10 mpg poorer in real world driving - yet is supposed to tbe cleaner.

Someone mentioned VW - and theres no doubt that the old 1.9 TDI was a very good engine that was superb on fuel - hearing Taxi drivers reporting

50 mpg fuel in town use from Passat B5 TDIs back in 99/00 was a revelation - as the Passats were far from small and light by the standards

of the time. I also find that the 1.9 TDI isn't as unrefined as many of its critics made out - particularly in a Passat.

Red diesel

[PS123]

Youd be surprised how many people don't test drive cars or do so properly - however it is indeed possible to test drive something and not

pick up on something important.

But 38 mpg from a modern turbodiesel on motorways = very poor imo, i wonder how much of this poor consumption is down to the DPF.

Reason i ask is that the Euro 3 Volvo 2.4 5 cylinder diesel (used in S60/V70/S80) does 10 mpg better than the Euro 4 version of the same engine (according to owner reviews on the internet forums), and - both the 180 bhp Toyota engine and the Euro 4 Volvo 2.4 turbodiesel have DPFs.

No DPF on the Euro 3 version of the Volvo - interesting coincidence, its interesting to hear someone mention about the keeping the car at 1750 rpm.

Because it does appear from what i read and hear that manufacturers tune the cars to do well (on emissions etc) in the laboratory - which has a negative impact on the on road performance. Which would go somewhere to providing a possible explanation as to how a Euro 4 car is doing 10 mpg poorer in real world driving - yet is supposed to tbe cleaner.

Someone mentioned VW - and theres no doubt that the old 1.9 TDI was a very good engine that was superb on fuel - hearing Taxi drivers reporting

50 mpg fuel in town use from Passat B5 TDIs back in 99/00 was a revelation - as the Passats were far from small and light by the standards

of the time. I also find that the 1.9 TDI isn't as unrefined as many of its critics made out - particularly in a Passat.

Red diesel

I thought the 2.2 D-4D and 2.0 D-4D did not have a DPF???

[T Sport 1978]

2.2 definitely has the DPF.

I left diesel precisely because of the DPF and associated filtering systems, their effects negates the benefits of diesel (economy and durability).

I am now enjoying 37mpg driving a petrol 2.0, that is only 1mpg less than my old Auris whilst paying anything up to 5p less per litre of fuel.

My wife has a 55 reg 2.0 TDI A3 (no DPF) and can vouch for VAG's good economy (upwards of 50mpg over 1 tank but average 48mpg).

I could have bought an older diesel (like my wife's) but I have a personal preference of newer cars, and unfortunately all newer diesels are plagued by DPF and inherent problems.

So until they invent something else to clean up the soot, i will be staying away from the derv.

[PS123]

Youd be surprised how many people don't test drive cars or do so properly - however it is indeed possible to test drive something and not

pick up on something important.

But 38 mpg from a modern turbodiesel on motorways = very poor imo, i wonder how much of this poor consumption is down to the DPF.

Reason i ask is that the Euro 3 Volvo 2.4 5 cylinder diesel (used in S60/V70/S80) does 10 mpg better than the Euro 4 version of the same engine (according to owner reviews on the internet forums), and - both the 180 bhp Toyota engine and the Euro 4 Volvo 2.4 turbodiesel have DPFs.

No DPF on the Euro 3 version of the Volvo - interesting coincidence, its interesting to hear someone mention about the keeping the car at 1750 rpm.

Because it does appear from what i read and hear that manufacturers tune the cars to do well (on emissions etc) in the laboratory - which has a negative impact on the on road performance. Which would go somewhere to providing a possible explanation as to how a Euro 4 car is doing 10 mpg poorer in real world driving - yet is supposed to tbe cleaner.

Someone mentioned VW - and theres no doubt that the old 1.9 TDI was a very good engine that was superb on fuel - hearing Taxi drivers reporting

50 mpg fuel in town use from Passat B5 TDIs back in 99/00 was a revelation - as the Passats were far from small and light by the standards

of the time. I also find that the 1.9 TDI isn't as unrefined as many of its critics made out - particularly in a Passat.

Red diesel

I thought the Auris 2.2 D-4D and 2.0 D-4D did not have a DPF fitted (especially with the early models???)

[cabcurtains]

I'm sure you dont need a DPF for Euro 4, its a requirement to hit Euro 5.

[FaWoTu]

I find the SR180 great fun. Sensible when I want it to be, and has enough power to pass when needed.

I'm a little surprised by the fuel economy though: min 34.0mpg, max 41.5mpg (using brim to brim).

The trip computer seems to report slightly under - maybe 1mpg

I bought it due to the Government advisory fuel rates as I drive the car for work.

The current rate for a diesel >2000cc is 18p per mile, meaning I only need to average 35mpg to cover my costs.

Compare this to a 1.6 diesel and I'd need to get 52mpg to cover my costs.

Cheers

[Djw John]

Have to lol at this thread, nealy 3 years since my SR180 arrived, got rid of after 9 months and being fed up of mid 30s mpg and people still say its a good engine! When it comes down to it its thirsty, even for the power it makes, you only have to compare it to similar VAG, Ford, Renault, PSA etc etc and you can see that for fun/mpg its sorely lacking.

Now running a Clio 172 and enjoying getting well over 40mpg in that and a megane 225 which gets 32mpg on a run and mid 20s on a blast. But you know what, I'm ok with that because Renault didnt advertise it as an economical fast car and it gives me enough fun to warrent it.

John

[Auris sr 180]

Have to lol at this thread, nealy 3 years since my SR180 arrived, got rid of after 9 months and being fed up of mid 30s mpg and people still say its a good engine! When it comes down to it its thirsty, even for the power it makes, you only have to compare it to similar VAG, Ford, Renault, PSA etc etc and you can see that for fun/mpg its sorely lacking.

Now running a Clio 172 and enjoying getting well over 40mpg in that and a megane 225 which gets 32mpg on a run and mid 20s on a blast. But you know what, I'm ok with that because Renault didnt advertise it as an economical fast car and it gives me enough fun to warrent it.

John

lol you laugh on your the one driving the renualt I get 43mpg and I have 220bhp how's that no fun eah!!!

[Djw John]

Lol, uh huh, standard yeah? No I didn't think so. Been on the rolling road or just a tuning box?

Regardless of what I drive, if I drive, anything really, Toyota sold this car as an economical performance hatch. Out of the box it wasn't. Nippy yes. Economical, no.

From my brief look around today it seems people are still having problems with them, such as the squeeky brakes, the easily marked dash, the rattles, the EGR that needs constantly cleaned out and I saw a few references to coolant issues and new engines.

Now I'm not saying Renault are any better but it's what I choose currently and have picked in the past. In the 9 months I leased my SR180 it was in garage more times than some Renaults I've owned for several years. If you've been lucky enough to get a well built auris then bully for you!

[Red diesel]

Have to lol at this thread, nealy 3 years since my SR180 arrived, got rid of after 9 months and being fed up of mid 30s mpg and people still say its a good engine! When it comes down to it its thirsty, even for the power it makes, you only have to compare it to similar VAG, Ford, Renault, PSA etc etc and you can see that for fun/mpg its sorely lacking.

Now running a Clio 172 and enjoying getting well over 40mpg in that and a megane 225 which gets 32mpg on a run and mid 20s on a blast. But you know what, I'm ok with that because Renault didnt advertise it as an economical fast car and it gives me enough fun to warrent it.

John

lol you laugh on your the one driving the renualt I get 43mpg and I have 220bhp how's that no fun eah!!!

Lol, uh huh, standard yeah? No I didn't think so. Been on the rolling road or just a tuning box?

Regardless of what I drive, if I drive, anything really, Toyota sold this car as an economical performance hatch. Out of the box it wasn't. Nippy yes. Economical, no.

From my brief look around today it seems people are still having problems with them, such as the squeeky brakes, the easily marked dash, the rattles, the EGR that needs constantly cleaned out and I saw a few references to coolant issues and new engines.

Now I'm not saying Renault are any better but it's what I choose currently and have picked in the past. In the 9 months I leased my SR180 it was in garage more times than some Renaults I've owned for several years. If you've been lucky enough to get a well built auris then bully for you!

Interesting posts chaps - theres no doubt in my mind that modern Toyotas aren't as good as older models. The Auris does get a lot of owner criticism on here imo and i think the E12 Corolla it replaced was a better car.

Regarding Renaults - apart from the Laguna II being crap and the Megane II

having issues - they are not necessarly that bad.

But modern cars in general - i don't really rate them that highly, reliability isn't always the issue. Its the design flaws that cost stupid money to fix that are a big

concern for me.

Seriously thinking of going down the route of having two slightly older machines - say 7 to 12 years old (age not an issue - condition the main issue). I don't know something like a nice 6th gen Accord or an S60 volvo running alongside a Citroen Berlingo or VW Caddy with high miles.

Far better then fussing about with modern diesels and these new stupid small engined petrol engined turbos.

But each to their own

[Soot1]

My little story- Bought my T180 3 months ago, averaging 27-30mpg, so it was in need of it's 40k service and that has now been done, the fuel filter and air filter were in dire need of replacement. The Mr T says thats why have terrible fuel consumption and at the time I agreed that there should be some improvement. Now Im averaging some 3 weeks later 27-30mpg, yes exactly the same although the car does seem a little more spritely through the gears.

Last car was a Skoda Fabia VRS 1.9pd diesel with 205bhp and that averaged 40-45mpg no matter how I drove it. Makes me wonder if the Toyota diesels aren't that good as others say. Seriously think of going back to VAG cars agin.

[Rick D4D]

Lol, uh huh, standard yeah? No I didn't think so. Been on the rolling road or just a tuning box?

Regardless of what I drive, if I drive, anything really, Toyota sold this car as an economical performance hatch. Out of the box it wasn't. Nippy yes. Economical, no.

From my brief look around today it seems people are still having problems with them, such as the squeeky brakes, the easily marked dash, the rattles, the EGR that needs constantly cleaned out and I saw a few references to coolant issues and new engines.

Now I'm not saying Renault are any better but it's what I choose currently and have picked in the past. In the 9 months I leased my SR180 it was in garage more times than some Renaults I've owned for several years. If you've been lucky enough to get a well built auris then bully for you!

Got to say it John well said and we had a total of 13 warranty repairs and 2 recalls on our T180 and that is also the most I have ever had for any car by a long way even though Toyota sorted everything apart from the carp MPG.

[Djw John]

Cheers rick, I remember you having problems when I was on here more often. I think Toyota have to up their game or they are at risk of losing the reputation that helped all of our decisions to buy one in the first place. Certainly I know I'd now only be interested in old mr2s and others of that vintage. Just don't see what advantages modern toyotas have over a lot of other brands

John

[PS123]

Hi all

Just a quick updated. I've had the car for about 3 weeks now. I have managed to get it up to 41 mpg although, when I calculated the true mpg it came to just over 42mpg!

[Daveyonthemove]

It is possible to achieve 40+ in these (as my fuelly sig proves) but the quoted figure is 47mpg (IIRC), and not many people can get that as an average reading.

Its probably the biggest let down on this car IMO, and the main reason I am negotiating a trade in on my current SR180.

I'm going to miss the car, but I will be happier in the replacement (if I get a good deal).

[dervdave]

It is possible to achieve 40+ in these (as my fuelly sig proves) but the quoted figure is 47mpg (IIRC), and not many people can get that as an average reading. Its probably the biggest let down on this car IMO, and the main reason I am negotiating a trade in on my current SR180. I'm going to miss the car, but I will be happier in the replacement (if I get a good deal).

What are you going for this time Dave ?

[Daveyonthemove]

Currently negotiating a deal on a Fabia vRS again.

When I owned one 2 years ago, it was reliable, quick and excellent on fuel.

My wife is looking to sell her car and wants to share mine. I'm not convinced my Auris is going to be cheap enough to use for her daily commute across town, so we want something more frugal, cheaper to own and tuneable.

Experience tells me that the Fabia is a very good car for the money, and meets all of our needs.

[dervdave]

Currently negotiating a deal on a Fabia vRS again. When I owned one 2 years ago, it was reliable, quick and excellent on fuel. My wife is looking to sell her car and wants to share mine. I'm not convinced my Auris is going to be cheap enough to use for her daily commute across town, so we want something more frugal, cheaper to own and tuneable. Experience tells me that the Fabia is a very good car for the money, and meets all of our needs.

The Fabia vRS are only petrol now aren`t they ?

[Daveyonthemove]

Currently negotiating a deal on a Fabia vRS again. When I owned one 2 years ago, it was reliable, quick and excellent on fuel. My wife is looking to sell her car and wants to share mine. I'm not convinced my Auris is going to be cheap enough to use for her daily commute across town, so we want something more frugal, cheaper to own and tuneable. Experience tells me that the Fabia is a very good car for the money, and meets all of our needs.

The Fabia vRS are only petrol now aren`t they ?

The new ones are a petrol 1.4 turbo/supercharged engine with 180bhp.

I'm looking at the older 1.9 PD engine. They sell for good money, and are excellent engines.

The new vRS is out of my price range right now, but I would love one as a toy if I had the money.

[dervdave]

Currently negotiating a deal on a Fabia vRS again. When I owned one 2 years ago, it was reliable, quick and excellent on fuel. My wife is looking to sell her car and wants to share mine. I'm not convinced my Auris is going to be cheap enough to use for her daily commute across town, so we want something more frugal, cheaper to own and tuneable. Experience tells me that the Fabia is a very good car for the money, and meets all of our needs.

The Fabia vRS are only petrol now aren`t they ?

The new ones are a petrol 1.4 turbo/supercharged engine with 180bhp. I'm looking at the older 1.9 PD engine. They sell for good money, and are excellent engines. The new vRS is out of my price range right now, but I would love one as a toy if I had the money.

Right I`ve got ya, they`re good motors.

Some corkers on eBay

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Skoda-Fabia-VRS-TDI-PD-130-2007-07-one-owner-red-/230740473186?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item35b9343562

[Daveyonthemove]

Cheers for the link, but i'm not looking to buy outside of a dealers. I'll be doing a trade in/cashback deal on my Auris if all goes to plan.

[dervdave]

Cheers for the link, but i'm not looking to buy outside of a dealers. I'll be doing a trade in/cashback deal on my Auris if all goes to plan.

Your choice of vrs will be very limited, would it not be better to sell the Auris private and buy where you like ?

[Daveyonthemove]

Sadly I'm not in a position to do that.

When I owned the Mondeo ST, it was such a bad car that I had to sell it after 10 months, and took a big hit on it, which I carried over to the Auris.

Now i'm looking for a vRS worth less than the Auris so I can knock he difference off the finance and get the repayments down. There is no reason why I can't be £1k better off, and pay less fuel, less insurance and less road tax. The savings each month will make life easier and I won't have the worry of possible head gasket failure ;)

[dervdave]

The savings each month will make life easier and I won't have the worry of possible head gasket failure ;)

Oh I understand the reasons why Dave. :)