Frugal

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 20 Apr 2011, 21:18

Your excellent consumption figures demonstrate the difference in efficiency between the 1.9 and 2.1 engines, on our Scottish journey I can usually get around 55 mpg with a heavier car, laden with luggage and more powerful engine. I am sure 1000 miles on a tank is attainable by the XM especially as it has a 17 gallon tank - if you can afford to fill it up that is

One of the best situations for improving economy is being stuck in road works on the motorway, a steady 50 mph for miles works wonders. So next time it happens to you - think of all the fuel you are saving

Peter

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 20 Apr 2011, 21:40

It's also to do with the much better drag coefficient of the XM.

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 20 Apr 2011, 21:50

Didn't think about that

Citroenmad · Unread post by **Citroenmad** » 20 Apr 2011, 21:51

Peter.N. wrote:
One of the best situations for improving economy is being stuck in road works on the motorway, a steady 50 mph for miles works wonders. So next time it happens to you - think of all the fuel you are saving

Peter

Before I had cruise I hated motorway roadworks with 50 zones, there are so many and they are riddled with average speed cameras. Now I hit the cruise button and watch the MPG roll in while watching the same cars go back and forth as they constantly speed up and slow down.

So a 2.1 Xm is cheaper to fuel than a 1.9 Xantia, their plus points just mount up!

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 20 Apr 2011, 22:25

And don't forget that most XM 2.1TDs are using bosch pumps so can run on veg too

red_dwarfers · Unread post by **red_dwarfers** » 20 Apr 2011, 22:51

Xac wrote:It's also to do with the much better drag coefficient of the XM.

Naturally, that stretched nose was built for cutting through wind. Though I'm not sure how the 'artists sneeze', as friends call it, on the rear quarter helps but I like it none the less, give it that SM feel

Ah but at least with the EPIC you've got a trip computer to do the work for you, saves the brain power of working it out

Citroenmad · Unread post by **Citroenmad** » 21 Apr 2011, 08:28

Ah, the artists sneeze, once said on Topgear about the hideous BMW X3. I think the Xm carries it off much better

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 21 Apr 2011, 10:02

I had a BMW 5 series for a few months last year - didn't like it, bought a 406, much better - except for the ride.

Peter

rmunns · Unread post by **rmunns** » 21 Apr 2011, 15:54

Does anyone work out consumption based on real distances rather than mileometer indications?

When I've felt in the right frame of mind (or, more likely, wrong one) I've compared distances as shown by measuring with the SatNav and the mileometer.

I reckon at the moment my Xantia mileometer reads 3% up. i.e. for a SatNav distance of 100miles the mileometer reads 103 miles covered.

Unread post by **Peter.N.** » 21 Apr 2011, 16:23

I would agree, nothing is 100% accurate, the satellite being the best but assuming all speedo's read a little fast, its still a fair comparison between cars.

Peter

Citroenmad · Unread post by **Citroenmad** » 21 Apr 2011, 21:02

Im assuming the C5s know their actual speed and accurate mileage. With other cars when I have plugged in my scanguageII the actual MPH is displayed, even if the cars speedo is over reading the info passed to the scanguage is accurate to the satnav. So Im supposing the mileage they record is right.

I wish the Xm was though, the amount of miles they stack up which they dont actually cover must be a good few. No doubt the actual mileage of our 2.1 is still under 60K!

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 21 Apr 2011, 21:39

red_dwarfers wrote: Ah but at least with the EPIC you've got a trip computer to do the work for you, saves the brain power of working it out

Does it work out how much extra it's costing you having to pay fuel duty and VAT?