Peugeot Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hi can anyone help. I have a 308SW 1.6 hdi 110 2009. I am getting 45.3 mpg based on the actually fuel used recorded over the last 5,944 mileage. I have not changed my driving style or type of usage, tyre pressures are checked regularly, servicing is up to date. My previous car a 406 2.0hdi estate which had 200k plus on the clock would regularly return 55 mpg. The only thing I have noticed is that the thermostat starts to open at 79 to 81 deg C and keeps the engine running temperature at about 80 to 82 deg C (have used my laptop to read the temperatures)
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
That sounds like normal temperatures to be honest.

I wouldn't say that 45mpg is anything wrong, not over that distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks jmkent, I am quite surprised you think the temperature sounds about right as according to the specification the thermostat should start to open at 83 degrees. In your experience do Peugeot's normally run a bit cold?

My reason for mentioning coolant temperature is, was it contributing to the poor fuel consumption. I can’t agree with your view on fuel consumption. My 308 has the poorest fuel consumption I have experienced since the 80’s when I had a Ford Sierra. Since the Sierra I have had 2 x Austin Montego’s, 309, 405, 2 x 406 all diesel estates, the 309 being the only one to return less than 50mpg.
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Not sure why you're comparing the 308 to try previous diseasels. The 308 is small bore, and hence relatively high geared as it doesn't generate the same torque spread as a larger unit.

It's also a very clever engine. Multi valve head, VGT turbo. Much more power per litre than any of the others models you cite.

But then just to complicate matters, it has to comply with the current Euro V emissions standard, which none of those others did, so a degree of efficiency is wasted simply overcoming those losses. And to really confuse matters it has to meet modern safety standards, so has a relatively heavy structure for its size compared to days of yore, and is laden down with more safety kit.

It may also surprise you to know that a £20 note today doesn't but half as much a the same note would've done he day your old 406 was made, but for all that its still a £20 note.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Hi can anyone help. I have a 308SW 1.6 hdi 110 2009. I am getting 45.3 mpg based on the actually fuel used recorded over the last 5,944 mileage. I have not changed my driving style or type of usage, tyre pressures are checked regularly, servicing is up to date. My previous car a 406 2.0hdi estate which had 200k plus on the clock would regularly return 55 mpg. The only thing I have noticed is that the thermostat starts to open at 79 to 81 deg C and keeps the engine running temperature at about 80 to 82 deg C (have used my laptop to read the temperatures)
my 308 1.6 hdi 110 is the same temps and consumption i thinks its just because its winter and it uses more fuel in winter or it could be something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Dont worry bout it my 308 hdi 90 drops to 45-46mpg in the really cold weather we have has done last 2 years. if you aint too sure just reset trip computer etc and see what it goes up to.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
These figures are are at best all you'll get. Unless you have a 90bhp which has (had maybe at this stage) class leading economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
To sum up fuel consumption for my 308 hdi is rubbish and I should have kept my 1988 Austin Montego 2.0TD (would have rusted out by now) it went over 50% further on a gallon of diesel. So much for progress, 20 years later, a very clever engine, complies with Euro V emission standard, complies with today’s safety standards, is lighter car than old ones and guess what, burns a load more fuel.
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
So your Montego used to manage 67mpg?? I bet your bottom dollar though that the 308 would leave that Montego standing for dust, and progress isn't just about more mpg, the 308 is a far better car overall and better performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Only just a better performance but in the 150,000 miles the Montego was recovered 0 times yet the 308 has been recovered 2 times in 50,000 miles so I guess the 308 has the edge on recovery.
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
My Montego broke downside many times I lost my rag,
Pushed it the short distance to a dealers I could see on the horizon, parked it up overnight and went back in the morning to chop it in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Had 2 Montegos no major problems. The 308 is among the worst cars I have ever owned, I only keep it because the interior design is good and as it stands I would loose too much money to trade it in.
 
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I'm in the same boat, 2013 1.6 112 dissapointed at 50mpg from the first tank mostly motorway driving below 70. The old citroen did 57 to 65. Not looked for any specific problems but the averaged display shows a speed of 35mph over the last 6k which might indicate particulate filter blockage. I drive so slow and gentle I should get better than this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
308 mpg

Hi All,
I just thought I would add to this discussion. We have a 2013 308 1.6 e-Hdi SW 112hp bought 9 weeks ago at one year old. We have owned Renaults for the past 16 years (A 19 3 x Megane's and 2 clio's all diesels) and we have always been able to get the MPG close to the quoted government fuel figure. In one of the clios I could average over 70mpg on a good run. Our Pug in the first 3000 miles has not bettered 54mpg (Ave over 3k 52mpg and my wife in her 2004 1.5 Dci Megane with 150k on the clock could get 58mpg comfortably mixed motoring . I do understand the Pug is a much better car in every sense but it troubles me that we are nowhere near the economy figure quoted for the car. The quoted MPG for the Megane is 62mpg average and the 308 is 65mpg.
Question - Has anyone got anywhere near the 65 average mpg out of their 308. If not what have you got?
Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Mpg

Hello BugOne, My 308 1.6 hdi will get just over 50mpg provided I keep to 65/70 on motorways and drive carefully locally. The central panel will tell me I am getting 60mpg but the reality is it is always wrong by about 20%. I always brim the tank and keep a fuel / mileage record so working the actual mpg is easy. To be honest my 308 is the worst car for mpg I have driven in the last 20+ years. I have had several Peugeot and driven them over a million miles collectively, but my 308 experience has put me off Peugeots for life. It is the worst car I have ever owned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,860 Posts
Hi I wonder as you feel the consumption is dire which alternate make do you think would give significant better mpg?

I ask as a driver who had a skoda yeti was telling me about his experience with a 2013 diesel that falls way below government mpg figures. I looked at Skoda forum and found pretty much all had the same view. Hence which model do you think would do better and have you looked in forums to confirm drivers are getting good mpg

My 307 16 hdi is averaging just a tad under 50 mpg when I bought it it was doing 42 mpg filters and service with good oil plus not using supermarket fuel gave me an extra 8 mpg


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I find it rather annoying that the car on board computer is so dishonest in the way it calculates the mpg. One reason I bought the car was that on the test drive the computer was reading high 50’s / low 60’s without a problem. Clearly with the benefit of hind sight the 308 computer has a 20%+ error built in, something not evident with my 406 so no the test drive I was not suspecting that size of error. However to answer your question when I buy my next car I will consider all makes particularly when my friend regularly gets 55mpg out on his 2.5l Volvo diesel estate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,916 Posts
It really amazes me that there are still some people who actually believe the published MPG figures are achievable on a regular basis in the real world. These figures are calculated in a controlled environment over a very short distance and can only be replicated if your daily drive exactly matches the controlled environment.

Other things that adversely affect MPG are those very rare occurences like wet roads when it rains. It may come as a shock to some to realise that the water displacement of the tyres puts an extra load on the engine which results in more fuel being burned in comparison to driving on a dry road. High winds in the winter months also cause extra drag on a car, again resulting in more fuel being used to move the car.

You state that you haven't changed your driving style - ever stopped to consider that this is the reason why you're not seeing the results you expect ?

Every car is different, even two cars of the same model are different. You find the sweet spot for an individual car and run the car that way. I had a 2003 astra 1.6TDI which needed to be driven at around 55 MPH on the motorway to get the best fuel economy whereas my 307 1.6 HDI 90 was most economical at just around 63 MPH and my current 2.0 HDI 90 307 is best at 66 MPH.

With all three cars anything faster or slower resulted in less MPG. My current car is averaging 55.2 MPG calculated over the 29,768 miles it has covered in the 11.5 months I have had it. The onboard trip computer always shows less MPG than I am getting so the reall figure is the one I prefer. My previous 307 would show around 1 -2 MPG less than the real figure unless I used Shell diesel in which case it showed around 22 MPG more than it was actually achieving (work that one out!).

As for a 1988 Montego achieving 67 MPG - Which planet was that on?
A clio achieving 70 MPG on a motorway run - Now there's a shock, A car the size of a matchbox getting better MPG then a much heavier car - Who would have believed such a thing was possible? Back then, anything over 33 MPG was classed as fuel efficient, over 50 MPG was only a dream
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Hello Storeman. It is obvious the manufactures produce figures which portray its products in the best possible light. We all know they use perfect conditions to obtain these figures, are seldom obtainable in normal every day use of a motor vehicle.
I never believe the published figures but I do expect the on board computer which can be zeroed at any time to be able to give reasonably accurate MPG figures at some point in the future since zeroing. The car computer meters the fuel to the engine; it knows the distance travelled, calculating the MPG is simple.
My 308 consistently reports an error. Over the last 6 fillings the average MPG error was 26% and average fuel filled on each occasion was 54 litres. An error of 3 or 4% could be expected but 26% is ridicules. There are no fuel leaks, on excessive black smoke my conclusion is there is a programming error either intended or unintended. I think the latter as the figures reported by my 406 were close to reality.
As for the F reg Montego 67 MPG you asked what planet was that on? It’s the Earth of course – in France on N roads keeping to the 90kmh speed limit. The early Montego’s were fitted with a direct injection Perkins diesel and my F reg was the most fuel efficient car I ever had. Its performance was comparable with the Peugeot 405 STDT my friend owed. Note later Montego’s were fitted with a two stage injection system to reduce engine noise but these were less efficient.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top