Xant MPG!!!!!!!!

This is the Forum for all your Citroen Technical Questions, Problems or Advice.

Moderator: RichardW

JohnT
Posts: 344
Joined: 27 Dec 2003, 21:29
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by JohnT »

Hello paranoid, if you only got 30mpg driving a Rover at 60mph then your sub 40 in a Xantia diese it makes some sense, but am not sure what? Two cars that should return a far better mpg but not for you? As for 50mpg plus (stewart) that is outstanding, and in my case has not been achieveable at any time. You must be very light on the loud pedal? If other posts tell a similar story of around 43mpg you must have something special there! Wish I had that as I do 20k plus a year.
JohnT
Posts: 344
Joined: 27 Dec 2003, 21:29
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by JohnT »

If you are buying supermarket fuel it (allegedly) gives you initial savings but lower mileage returns. I get the best out of 1.9TD with Shell. I think it is worth the extra 2-3p a litre?
patneenan
Posts: 75
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 22:49
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:
Contact:

Post by patneenan »

All this talk of 40 + mpg makes me smile.
I can only get 270-280 miles from a FULL tank i.e £52 .
Obviously my car is not a diesel it's a 2.0 activa turbo, but it's worth the expense of 18-20 m.p.g. as it's so much fun to drive
paranoid
Posts: 770
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:32
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by paranoid »

The 43+ that I have been getting is all stop start town driving at busy times, If I could do A roads etc for a full tank hopefully it would increase.
Best I ever got was 59mpg on the motorway when I was in great danger of running out with no cash, cards or mobile driving very very gently, And yes I realise it wasn't a very clever/safe thing to do but it was late at night and would never be foolish enough to do it again :}
Chrispy
Posts: 177
Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:17
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by Chrispy »

My 320i would only give me 30 mpg tops even if I drove like a granny. But then it did have this lovely thing under the bonnet!
Image
Image
Sounded gorgeous and went well when thrashed but cost me an arm and a leg and I didn't feel safe leaving it anywhere.
I found that BP Ultimate was the best fuel for it, especially after chipping it.
paranoid
Posts: 770
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:32
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by paranoid »

BMW have always done good looking engines I think.
Stop showing off!!!!![:D]
Chrispy
Posts: 177
Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:17
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by Chrispy »

Lol...sorry mate. I got rid of it int the end simply because of the running costs. £1k a year insurance, £40 a week fuel and it was in the garage having something fixed once a month. It was probably one of the least reliable cars I've ever owned but I loved it anyway! Sigh...
As for fuel economy, with the way the government is going I wanted a car that I could choose how much MPG I'd get. In the bimmer, regardless of how I drove it, I got about 30-32mpg..... If I thrashed it that would drop to the low 20's. With the Xantia I now have a choice...I can thrash it and hammer about everywhere and get about 34mpg or tootle about steadily and get about 45mpg....it's my choice. The BM didn't give me that. Admittedly though, thrashing it was a lot more satisfying than thrashing the Xantia... Roll on 26bhp upgrade Mr Derv Doctor....
Gibbo
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 Jun 2005, 00:11
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by Gibbo »

My Xsara 1.9TD was hurrendous on mileage. I used to only get 35 mpg or worse if I hammered it. I never expected that from a diesel.
I have a VW Passat 1.8 Turbo (Petrol) and I average about 34 mpg normal driving. However, if i'm very light on the gas I can almost push 40 mpg. I even managed to get 435 miles from a £45 fill up.
rbruce1314
Posts: 89
Joined: 03 May 2005, 19:06
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by rbruce1314 »

strange thing fuel consumption. I fitted a chip to my Xantia and it transformed both the power and the flexibility (e.g. a whole gear higher around town). What I DIDN'T expect was an improvement in fuel consumption at speed. Despite now driving at about 10mph higher on motorways[8D][8D][8D] my consumption under these conditions has RISEN from 39 to 43mpg[:D][:D][:D]. It's almost as if the chip has a device to overcome air resistance[:p][:p][:p]
zzf00l
Posts: 238
Joined: 12 Mar 2005, 13:15
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by zzf00l »

So...wonder why it wasn't included in the original spec from Citroen??
jeremy
Posts: 3959
Joined: 20 Oct 2002, 16:00
Location: Hampshire, UK
My Cars:
x 2

Post by jeremy »

As diesels run on the principal of free air the chip can only have varied the timing can't it?
So presumably its advanced it a bit - I suppose the next question is how is it sensed in the first place and can that be adjusted, slip, wear?
Jeremy
User avatar
Kowalski
Posts: 2557
Joined: 15 Oct 2003, 17:41
Location: North East, United Kingdom
My Cars: Ex 05 C5 2.0 HDI Exclusive 145k
Ex 97 Xantia 1.9TD SX 144k
Ex 94 Xantia Dimension 1.9TD 199k

Post by Kowalski »

Tuning chips can't change the laws of thermodynamics...
How accurately did you measure for fuel consumption before and after?
I have to say that I'm sceptical about being able to go faster and get better fuel economy, my own testing showed that going down from 70 to 60 was worth about 5mpg averaged over a number of tanks of fuel, but that was of course on a lowly 1.9 without a "magical" chip.
User avatar
fastandfurryous
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Jul 2004, 17:57
Location: On the road, travelling at high speed. Meep Meep.
My Cars:
x 4

Post by fastandfurryous »

These chips mainly alter the injection timing, and in many cases, the injection duration too. The theoretical trade off is that by running with more advance, you are more likely to wear the engine faster, although with modern (XUD's etc) diesel engines this doesn't appear to manefest itself as the engines are so well built in the first place.
Plus someone who has bought one of these chips is far more likely to maintain their engine well.
rbruce1314
Posts: 89
Joined: 03 May 2005, 19:06
Location: United Kingdom
My Cars:

Post by rbruce1314 »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kowalski</i>


How accurately did you measure for fuel consumption before and after?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
very, because I was surprised too. But there is much less smoke, so less unburnt fuel, so logically better mpg.
and yes, oil etc gets changed at 5k not 10k as recommended
Post Reply