Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dbdb]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

[brendan1983]

It's a different car - but my '95 elite estate (3.0l) with the cruise set to 70 seems to average about 33mpg

[brendan1983]

**If you look in your handbook near the back there's a consumption table for all the models at set speeds

[Shackeng]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

[Webby the Bear]

i'm currently doing the ''albs'' test. i filled to the brim (first click), then doing some miles (prob about a hundred), refilling to the first click to see what it has consumed during those 100 miles and working out the MPG from there.

i dont know of a way of checking against various engine speeds but this is a test based on purely ''urban'' driving.

[Lazydocker]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

Modern, plastic tanks don't break up internally like the old metal ones used to

[tunnie]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

I think the "sludge in tanks" theory is just a myth to be honest, having dropped the diesel tank on a 140k 2.5TD to find it clean as a whistle, i can see any issues.

As LD says, modern plastic tanks don't corrode, the fuels are much cleaner, we found nothing at the bottom of the tank 

[Elite Pete]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

I think the "sludge in tanks" theory is just a myth to be honest, having dropped the diesel tank on a 140k 2.5TD to find it clean as a whistle, i can see any issues.

As LD says, modern plastic tanks don't corrode, the fuels are much cleaner, we found nothing at the bottom of the tank 

What about any rubbish that might come from the petrol stations underground tanks

[tunnie]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

I think the "sludge in tanks" theory is just a myth to be honest, having dropped the diesel tank on a 140k 2.5TD to find it clean as a whistle, i can see any issues.

As LD says, modern plastic tanks don't corrode, the fuels are much cleaner, we found nothing at the bottom of the tank 

What about any rubbish that might come from the petrol stations underground tanks

Possible, but then again I don't use petrol 

But seriously their tanks would have to be very low, I bet stations that have been re-done are also plastic or very very thick metal.

Like I say, 140k TD, had nothing in the tank 

[Lazydocker]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

I think the "sludge in tanks" theory is just a myth to be honest, having dropped the diesel tank on a 140k 2.5TD to find it clean as a whistle, i can see any issues.

As LD says, modern plastic tanks don't corrode, the fuels are much cleaner, we found nothing at the bottom of the tank 

What about any rubbish that might come from the petrol stations underground tanks

Very rare for them to get that low... They normally stop delivering fuel before they reach the bottom. They also have filters and screens in line to the pumps

I've seen inside a lot of fuel tanks in the last year and not yet seen one with sludge/crap in it

[OOMV6]

i'm currently doing the ''albs'' test. i filled to the brim (first click), then doing some miles (prob about a hundred), refilling to the first click to see what it has consumed during those 100 miles and working out the MPG from there.

i dont know of a way of checking against various engine speeds but this is a test based on purely ''urban'' driving.

All well and good, but to get a real average, and as a result the reality over many different styles of driving, you need to do this test over a few tank fulls, not just 100 miles.

[henryd]

Has anyone done a table of what fuel consumption to expect at what constant speed for what engine and transmission?  Apologies if they have, I had a look in the archives and couldn't see it.   

My 2.6 manual Elite seems to drink noticeably more than my old 2.5 manual Reflection.      I'll do a test run, say 60mph on cruise for a flatish quiet motorway stretch and the return journey to average out any gradient. If anyoen has done anything similar let me know and I'll replicate it.

I have tested the 'range' function, twice on my 2.5 and once on the 2.6.  The 2.5 ran out at exactly 0 miles range, the 2.6 went almost 1 mile after zero appeared. So I trust the computer for accurate fuel consumption figures.

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

I think the "sludge in tanks" theory is just a myth to be honest, having dropped the diesel tank on a 140k 2.5TD to find it clean as a whistle, i can see any issues.

As LD says, modern plastic tanks don't corrode, the fuels are much cleaner, we found nothing at the bottom of the tank 

What about any rubbish that might come from the petrol stations underground tanks

Very rare for them to get that low... They normally stop delivering fuel before they reach the bottom. They also have filters and screens in line to the pumps

I've seen inside a lot of fuel tanks in the last year and not yet seen one with sludge/crap in it

Agreed,only ones I've seen silted up has been where the filler pipe has corroded and let road debris in

[Webby the Bear]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

[dbdb]

Brave chap, you must be confident in the cleanliness of your tank(s).

The car does have a fuel filter.  Maybe the first time was brave but after 2 times with no problems its not really base jumping is it.  Any stuff in the tank that sticks to the bottom and doesn't get shaken up in normal driving would have to be depleted uranium.

[Gaffers]

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon.

That's just a little less than what I get on a long unspirited run

[geoffr70]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

[OOMV6]

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon.

That's just a little less than what I get on a long unspirited run

Suprising to me. Is it an auto (either Guffer or Webby)? I know this mpg conversation can go back and forth forever, and has done a few times, but on my recently departed 3.0 MV6 manual it never went that low. On a "long unspirited run" I was getting up to 30mpg. A spirited run (180-200 kmh) was 21-23 and town was around 22-25

[Webby the Bear]

yes mate, its auto

very strange that youd get a lot higher.

[robson]

I have checked my 2.6 auto over many months with very little motorway driving and I get 22mpg.

[dbdb]

**If you look in your handbook near the back there's a consumption table for all the models at set speeds

Can't see that in my manual an you post a scan?  Page 220 has the 'urban' 'extra urban' and 'combined' figures I hope you don't mean them, I would need to buy a laboratory complete with rolling road to repeat those tests (http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp)

[OOMV6]

yes mate, its auto

very strange that youd get a lot higher.

Maybe those members who've had experience from both auto and manual can say whether there is a big difference especially in town. I would expect to see a greater difference in town than on m-way

[dbdb]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

All these anecdotal figures are not that helpful without knowing the weight of your right foot.  What I'm after is a simple test at fixed speed ideally a fixed distance  and repeated in the opposite direction to average out any gradient or wind.  I did such a test years back on my 2.5 with 95 unleaded v 98 super unleaded (I got 10% more mpg on super unleaded and have used it ever since).

[dbdb]

yes mate, its auto

very strange that youd get a lot higher.

Maybe those members who've had experience from both auto and manual can say whether there is a big difference especially in town. I would expect to see a greater difference in town than on m-way

The owners manual does help here, page 220.  It's a bit of a pain to work it out as the figures are quoted in litres per 100km but for the V6 2.6 saloon the manual car is 9.1%, 3.5% and 7% better on 'urban', 'extra-urban' and 'combined' respectively. Not surprising as the manual has 5 gears, the auto only 4.  In fact I think if you have a light foot and change up early you can get much better consumption with a manual than stated for the government tests. Albeit at the expense of the main bearings.

[OOMV6]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

All these anecdotal figures are not that helpful without knowing the weight of your right foot.  What I'm after is a simple test at fixed speed ideally a fixed distance  and repeated in the opposite direction to average out any gradient or wind.  I did such a test years back on my 2.5 with 95 unleaded v 98 super unleaded (I got 10% more mpg on super unleaded and have used it ever since).

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

[Webby the Bear]

if anyone's interested....

did 99.1 miles and then topped up to the first click and it took 23.06 litres.

SO after the calcs are done...

Around town i'm getting 19.5 miles to the gallon. this anything to be concerned about or should we simply re-review our driving styles? 

I get around 16-17 round town

All these anecdotal figures are not that helpful without knowing the weight of your right foot.  What I'm after is a simple test at fixed speed ideally a fixed distance  and repeated in the opposite direction to average out any gradient or wind.  I did such a test years back on my 2.5 with 95 unleaded v 98 super unleaded (I got 10% more mpg on super unleaded and have used it ever since).

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

completely agree 

[dbdb]

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

Not pointless at all but I think you miss the point.  What I want is a repeatable test for my car so I know (a) in the future when something has become wrong with my car and (b) if something is wrong already compared to the same model car opwned by someone else. I am not interested in the figure for two different cars I am happy with my mig.

[OOMV6]

That would give a comparison certainly, if done in 2 different cars as you suggest. But pointless, because when exactly do you, in your everyday life, travel a fixed distance at a fixed speed and then back again - except for doing a test like this. The figures quoted here by members are real life experinces in their own motors. If you want precise figures and a comparison between 2 cars look it up on the internet for the 2 cars you want to compare. This will give a far better comparison.

Not pointless at all but I think you miss the point.  What I want is a repeatable test for my car so I know (a) in the future when something has become wrong with my car and (b) if something is wrong already compared to the same model car opwned by someone else. I am not interested in the figure for two different cars I am happy with my mig.

I see. Still not convinced by the theory though.

Point (a) - it is only you who will know that, by the fact the consumption changes dramatically. And any noises, rattles, bangs, whistles, drop in performance etc...
Point (b) - I see your point, but think that with all the variables that exist, just in the car (mileage, engine wear, extra weight, tyres, wheels, spoilers, valances, side skirts........), let alone climate (temperature, wind speed / direction) this kind of test is not really applicable to cars that are as old (and potentially worn) as the Omega. Yes, it can give you an idea for sure, as can motoring mags and online info, but from the point of view of knowing if there is something wrong .... you just gotta "feeeeeel it".

That said, if you did want a comparison against another members' car, you will need to give far more details of your car - not just engine size. And also receive the same details back from the other tester. A 2.6 with 180k on the clock is likely to differ in mpg to the same car with 50k on the clock.
Why not get a diagnostic check done and if all ok, note what fuel consumption you are getting and use that as a bench mark.

No offence meant, but I cannot see how such concise tests can be conducted on cars such as the Omega

Apologies for the essay 

[geoffr70]

I've got a 3.0 auto and 3.0 manual. On the way back from picking up MV6 (manual) with my dad, the Elite (auto) and the MV6 returned the same mpg to within 0.1 mpg as indidcated by the magic screen ( I didn't work it out properly just relied on black magic!). Obvioulsy both cars did exactly the same route and distance, and in the same conditions.

Edit to add, mpg was roundabout 33 I believe.

[05omegav6]

I fill it up, then drive around until the light comes on (320ish miles), then fill it up again

Generally about 60 litres and no more than Ł90 so guess about 26mpg

[spanish_lad]

i thought that getting under 400km from a tank was wrong, but by reading here that seems about average ?

[05omegav6]

400km is 250miles, so to use that much fuel in that short a distance, either you're driving everywhere at 120% or you've a problem. The worst I've seen is 270miles from a tank, about 440k, and that was entirely from flying round town

[dbdb]

Ok I've just done a test which is repeatable.   I'll post the results as a new post but basically 36.8mpg at constant 60 mph, 4.7% less withthe air con on.  2.6 V6 Elite, 70K.

[Andy B]

If you're that worried about fuel consumption, a 10 yr old V6 Omega auto or manual isn't the car for you. You need a stop/start mini Euro box. 

[dbdb]

If you're that worried about fuel consumption, a 10 yr old V6 Omega auto or manual isn't the car for you. You need a stop/start mini Euro box. 

Why do people fit LPG to migs then?

[Andy B]

If you're that worried about fuel consumption, a 10 yr old V6 Omega auto or manual isn't the car for you. You need a stop/start mini Euro box. 

Why do people fit LPG to migs then?

Haven't a clue! That one defeats me too!  LPG your large saloon to get better fuel consumption & have the boot of a mini Eurobox 

I drive an Omega anyway 

[albitz]

If you're that worried about fuel consumption, a 10 yr old V6 Omega auto or manual isn't the car for you. You need a stop/start mini Euro box. 

Why do people fit LPG to migs then?

Big comfy luxurious barge for the running costs of a cramped noisy little shitebox.

[05omegav6]

Accepting that your car does 23mpg is one thing

Paying Ł1.38ish for a litre of fuel, when you can buy a perfectly good alternative for a mere Ł0.78ish per litre is something entirely different 

The simple saving of running a car on lpg apply whether it's a Fiesta or a Supercharged V12 Merc, which is nice

[Andy B]

Accepting that your car does 23mpg is one thing

Paying Ł1.38ish for a litre of fuel, when you can buy a perfectly good alternative for a mere Ł0.78ish per litre is something entirely different 

The simple saving of running a car on lpg apply whether it's a Fiesta or a Supercharged V12 Merc, which is nice

but you need to spend the value of most Omegas before you can use the 78p per litre fuel ....... it's not a direct comparison 

[Kevin Wood]

Accepting that your car does 23mpg is one thing

Paying Ł1.38ish for a litre of fuel, when you can buy a perfectly good alternative for a mere Ł0.78ish per litre is something entirely different 

The simple saving of running a car on lpg apply whether it's a Fiesta or a Supercharged V12 Merc, which is nice

but you need to spend the value of most Omegas before you can use the 78p per litre fuel ....... it's not a direct comparison 

.. and if the car lasts another 5 months (YMMV) you've made that money back anyway.

[Andy B]

Accepting that your car does 23mpg is one thing

Paying Ł1.38ish for a litre of fuel, when you can buy a perfectly good alternative for a mere Ł0.78ish per litre is something entirely different 

The simple saving of running a car on lpg apply whether it's a Fiesta or a Supercharged V12 Merc, which is nice

but you need to spend the value of most Omegas before you can use the 78p per litre fuel ....... it's not a direct comparison 

.. and if the car lasts another 5 months (YMMV) you've made that money back anyway.

milage dependant 

[biggriffin]

 urm some differences around then.
   i have yet to own a fuel eficent car. if i had to do a big comute to work then that would be looked into,but as others have said..... buy big estate car then fill boot with a gas tank is it me, or take out spare wheel and put tank there? what happens when you get a puncture still not convinced.   each to there own

[Chimpchoker]

2.6 v6 cd auto.  18.9 MPG around town.

[Chimpchoker]

urm some differences around then.
   i have yet to own a fuel eficent car. if i had to do a big comute to work then that would be looked into,but as others have said..... buy big estate car then fill boot with a gas tank is it me, or take out spare wheel and put tank there? what happens when you get a puncture still not convinced.   each to there own

You need to ask yourself when you last had a puncture. I have had 2 in 30 years of driving and only one of those in the miggy about 12 years ago.

 If I could afford the gas route then I'd lose the spare and get one of the inflater goos that most modern new cars come with these days rather than the spare wheel.

[Andy B]

urm some differences around then.
   i have yet to own a fuel eficent car. if i had to do a big comute to work then that would be looked into,but as others have said..... buy big estate car then fill boot with a gas tank is it me, or take out spare wheel and put tank there? what happens when you get a puncture still not convinced.   each to there own

You need to ask yourself when you last had a puncture. I have had 2 in 30 years of driving and only one of those in the miggy about 12 years ago.

 If I could afford the gas route then I'd lose the spare and get one of the inflater goos that most modern new cars come with these days rather than the spare wheel.

I've not had many more punctures in a similar number of years on the road. But a spare wheel in the boot in the piddling rain at  2 in the morning is preferable to me than a can of goo & a compressor, especially when there's no wall left in the tyre - as 2 of those blow outs have left my tyre.    As it is, SWMBO's car has no spare at all, my Merc has an elastic get you off the motorway spare and an almost full sized spare in the boot of the Omega. 

[spanish_lad]

400km is 250miles, so to use that much fuel in that short a distance, either you're driving everywhere at 120% or you've a problem. The worst I've seen is 270miles from a tank, about 440k, and that was entirely from flying round town

its had an exaust leak / manifold leak for the last two or three tanks .. thats now fixed, so weŽll see if the consumption improves. (with that being repaired and having a service)

if i can crack 500 km iŽll be chuffed to bits.

[05omegav6]

Accepting that your car does 23mpg is one thing

Paying Ł1.38ish for a litre of fuel, when you can buy a perfectly good alternative for a mere Ł0.78ish per litre is something entirely different 

The simple saving of running a car on lpg apply whether it's a Fiesta or a Supercharged V12 Merc, which is nice

but you need to spend the value of most Omegas before you can use the 78p per litre fuel ....... it's not a direct comparison 

You missed my point. LPG itself doesn't make a car more economical, but it does give a cost per mile that compares favourably with diesel. This gives people who need/prefer larger cars a wider choice when purchasing their cars. A petrol car of any age will always be significantly cheaper to buy/maintain than it's diesel equivalent.

As for the spare wheel arguement, most new cars don't have a proper one any way, runflat tyres are more prevolent and thus cheaper than they used to be, also decent breakdown cover needent cost a fortune.

[Macduff]

If you want to and enjoy driving Omegas then you just have to accept that they are not the most frugal cars in the world so you just have to live with or as previously mentioned buy a smaller more economical car if you want good fuel economy the Omega is obviously not for you. Fitting LPG to a ten or twelve year old car simply  does not make economical sense when you take into consideration the installation costs, any way I like my huge boot it comes in very handy especially when going on holiday when her indoors wants to take everything including the kitchen sink

[05omegav6]

If you want to and enjoy driving Omegas then you just have to accept that they are not the most frugal cars in the world so you just have to live with or as previously mentioned buy a smaller more economical car if you want good fuel economy the Omega is obviously not for you. Fitting LPG to a ten or twelve year old car simply  does not make economical sense when you take into consideration the installation costs, any way I like my huge boot it comes in very handy especially when going on holiday when her indoors wants to take everything including the kitchen sink

Why not

The only reason it wouldn't pay for itself is if the car is very lightly used, in which case the fuel cost is probably irrelevant The maths work whether you do a modest mileage in a Fiesta or a big luxobarge As for the boot space you can get vertical donut tanks for the saloons. I suspect also that the estate driving caravsnists put the spare wheel and jack in the 'van in order to avoid emptying the boot at the roadside if they do get a puncture

[tunnie]

If you want to and enjoy driving Omegas then you just have to accept that they are not the most frugal cars in the world so you just have to live with or as previously mentioned buy a smaller more economical car if you want good fuel economy the Omega is obviously not for you. Fitting LPG to a ten or twelve year old car simply  does not make economical sense when you take into consideration the installation costs, any way I like my huge boot it comes in very handy especially when going on holiday when her indoors wants to take everything including the kitchen sink

Why not

The only reason it wouldn't pay for itself is if the car is very lightly used, in which case the fuel cost is probably irrelevant The maths work whether you do a modest mileage in a Fiesta or a big luxobarge As for the boot space you can get vertical donut tanks for the saloons. I suspect also that the estate driving caravsnists put the spare wheel and jack in the 'van in order to avoid emptying the boot at the roadside if they do get a puncture

Have to agree there, I converted my 2.2 to LPG in March 2010, it was 10 years old when converted & had 135k on the clock.

Its now on 157k, but when I was doing 150 miles a day the savings were significant. Now I no longer commute, but still quite often do quite a few miles, (prob going to do 500 miles this month) it makes it so cheap to run.

Getting equivalent of 55mpg, thanks to LPG less than half the price of fuel. Its great paying 68p litre 

[TheBoy]

From my 3.0l, I get 19-20mpg combined, over several thousand miles.

From my 3.2l, I get 17-18mpg combined, over several thousand miles.


Style - I don't drive for economy... ...at 77p a litre, I don't need to.

[TheBoy]

Its great paying 68p litre

Cheapest around here is 75.9p, about 15 miles away. Local BP, currently the only one within 15 miles (excluding the Countrywide), is 78.9p.

Desperately need a supermarket selling LPG around these parts.

[dbdb]

If you want to and enjoy driving Omegas then you just have to accept that they are not the most frugal cars in the world so you just have to live with or as previously mentioned buy a smaller more economical car if you want good fuel economy the Omega is obviously not for you.

There a are a lot of reasons to drive an omega, agreed fuel economy is not one but I can't think of any car as safe comfortable good looking good value longer lasting with good handling that has a lot better fuel consumption.

Plus driving style can make a huge difference to consumption, with a V6 you can stay in fifth gear in a lot of urban driving, take roundabouts at 40  or you can cruise at 60 on the motorway and get good figures. Now I'm all grown up I almost never use the performance but its nice to know its there.

[kingycos2]

I had my 3.2 auto live mapped 2 years ago, was getting 420/450plus to a tank (500 was achievable on a good run through France at 60/65mph), was averaging 23-26 mpg round town and 35-40 on motorway.... I sacrificed performance a fraction for economy, but 4 trips to France a year played a big part in my decision towards this!!!!!!!

[brendan1983]

Hi All,

I've just done my first long trip in mine...  Fareham (Hampshire) to West Wales, 242 miles each way...  did the whole trip on 1 full tank, I got 33.4mpg overall. Not bad I don't think considering I took a lot of stuff up there so the car was quite heavy.

[Andy B]

Hi All,

....  Fareham (Hampshire) to  ....

Used to know the place quite well. Was at HMS Collingwood for a while, early 80s