2.0. v 2.2 Hdi engines.

[PeterN]

I went to Bristol in my sons 2.2 Hdi coupe yesterday, he was driving and drives a lot faster than I do in my 2.0. estate and yet when we reached the M5 his fuel consumption was showing over 60 mpg, once he got on the motorway and put his foot down it dropped to the mid to low 50s but that was at 70 mph.

I had a 2.2 C5 which would barely do 50 mpg at 60 mph on the motorway do I changed it for a 2.0. C5 and the consumption immediately jumped to 60+ so I have avoided the 2.2 like the plague ever since.

The first 406 estate I had was a 2.0. and would regularly well exceed 60 mpg on a decent journey and averaged between 50 and 60 on average. The two I have now will just about make 60 mpg on the motorway driven at 60 mph or less but round here in the winter drop to the mid 40s.

I have checked or changed most things on my current ones and nothing seems to help much, in a last ditch attempt to improve things I am going to fit the injectors from the now defunct 1st car and see if that gives an improvement.

I will mention that my normal long distance driving mode is in the n/s lane with the lorries at around 60 mph. I used to drive 2.1 ID XMs and got over 50 mpg from those driving to Scotland.

I would be interested in your experiences.

Peter

[trufflehunt]

My HDI 110 gave around 49 in general running around. That was mostly 9 or 10 mile trips on windy country A roads, to nearest towns,
plus occasional 3 mile trips to local supermarket.

I didn't do much motorway driving in it. What I did do was always around 70mph, or more.
I think at 70, I was getting 55 'ish mpg.

You mention ".... round here in the winter drops to the mid 40s....".
If that includes quite a lot of short, or 5 or 6 mile runs, perhaps mid- 40's mpg is what might be expected. Plus, there is also the winter diesel fuel effect.

As a side reference, my current daily car, Golf Mk4 1.9 TDI 100bhp, does almost exactly 52 mpg running around, which matches
well with other people's experiences of that model. And on the motorway last week, at a steady 70, the computer showed just over 58mpg.

Overall, the mpg on the HDI 110 was well in line with what I wanted.

PS *** Sorry, no 2.2 experience.

[Doggy]

My driving is mostly main road / m-way which clearly helps, but.....

My first 2.2 HDi recorded 42/43 mpg and occasionally 45/6 in favourable conditions.
I did 80k+ miles in it, mostly after installing the '180' map.

Swapped to the current car in 2012, it was roughly 1 mpg better from day 1.
Losing the air doser, egr and installing the '200' map brought it up to 48/49 mpg, the 6-speed 'box I guestimate added another 1 mpg or so.
I regularly get 50 mpg ish in summer 46/7 in winter.

My bro had a similar 2.2 and got a couple of mpg less than me with less long runs, but nudging 50 mpg on trips to France.
He's currently running a 110 HDi and believes that if it is more economical, it's not enough to notice.

[GingerMagic]

My 2.2hdi was also tinkered with, and easily got 60mpg on a run, and averaged around 45mpg on a tank, which was mostly local journeys...
I don't understand why the 2.2hdi is better on fuel than the 2.0hdi in some cases, maybe it's the extra torque..?
The Coupe is lighter so is marginally quicker and more frugal than my old estate - as you have witnessed in your boys one.

[PeterN]

Thanks for that. I collected my sons car from Telford and driving back here it averaged well over 60 mpg and went well, this was about what I was getting from my first 406 2.0. I'm impressed. I had a look on line for a 2.2 406 but there don't seem to be any, and if there were I would probably get one that only did 50 mpg.

Peter

[trufflehunt]

Thanks for that. I collected my sons car from Telford and driving back here it averaged well over 60 mpg and went well, this was about what I was getting from my first 406 2.0. I'm impressed. I had a look on line for a 2.2 406 but there don't seem to be any, and if there were I would probably get one that only did 50 mpg.

Peter

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/peugeot-406- ... SwoT1a6LwD

Alternatively...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified ... 500&page=2

[PeterN]

Thanks but it would be an estate I'm looking for.

Peter

[grasmere59]

My 110 estate only does long runs 100 miles or so on every outing mostly motorways 60-70 mph and the mfd shows 48.8 mpg over the last 2100 miles,never done a brim full test just going off the mfd

[PeterN]

That's better than my C5 but not as good as my first 2.0. 406.

Peter

[Welly]

I've been on this forum many years and it appears to me that HDi's vary quite a lot with MPG's, some easily manage high numbers whilst others struggle. I only wish I could offer a solid reason for it.

[PeterN]

So do I.

Peter

[Doggy]

Just rocked up in Carlisle, en route to Glasgow for a mate's retirement do tomorrow nite.
So far 240 miles including half an hour of stop/start stuff around the A1/M18&M62 junctions, average 55 mph, 52.4 mpg.
Not too shabby, methinks.

[caprixpack]

I've been on this forum many years and it appears to me that HDi's vary quite a lot with MPG's, some easily manage high numbers whilst others struggle. I only wish I could offer a solid reason for it.

I've noticed this on many forums. The passat forum I'm on is the same some cars will easily pull 50+ mpg and some struggle in the low 40s. Same with the 924, some will pull 35 mpg which for a car with the youngest being 33 years old is amazing while some struggle to pull mid 20s.

I think there are a lot of factors that contribute, tyres, driving style, if the car is well serviced.

[PeterN]

I think driving style is the primary factor but I always drive like a granddad, although I usually know where I'm going, my driving style hasn't changed for many years, about 60 mph and rarely above 2000 rpm and my brakes seem to last for ever, I only use them as a last resort.

Prior to having my 2.2 C5 I was getting around 55 mpg from my 2.1 XM estate on a longish journey and 60+ from the 406 but the C5 wouldn't top 50 mpg, although it drove beautifully, better than the 2.0. replacement 2.0. C5 but that was doing was around 60 mpg so it wasn't my driving style. I was quite amazed that I was getting that from my sons Coupe.

In the olden days a bigger diesel did give better fuel economy - as long as you didn't use the extra performance because before electronic management the throttle directly controlled the fuel input therefore the mixture, the weaker the mixture the better the economy. driving an old diesel flat out gave terrible consumption but the probably doesn't apply so much with modern engines although driving at high revs will knock the consumption, with most engines the further above 2000 rpm you go the less efficient is the engine.

Peter

[Doggy]

Technically, I always drive like a grandad too.