Print

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

[theowletman]

Before you all start reaching for the keyboard, please read on.
I have just returned to work after 2 redundancies in 7 months and am currently running a 2.0 petrol Laguna, 1998 S reg, its not a bad car and apart from a slight oil leak it does the job. I get 60 miles to a tenners worth of petrol, however work pays me 40p a mile on business miles, this has to include insurance, tax repairs etc.The first 16 miles of every day are not claimed as this is the distance from home to office and back, my journeys are mixed, 40% in traffic, 60% A roads.
I am very keen to get back into a Mig, preferably an estate car. I estimate that I will do about 15000 miles a year at work, and at least one trip to Spain in the car, possibily two, funds permitting.
So heres the question;
Overall, including repairs, fuel and insurance, does a 2.5 V6 cost that much more to run than a 4 cylinder
2.0 or 2.2. The bigger 3.0 and 3.2 are not a realistic option for me.I have no preference for manual  or auto, but from my own Mig experiences, the autos are heavier on fuel.
Your comments would be appreciated.

[Ghost]

Yep autos use more fuel than manual,
If you are doing that many miles per year and going to spain then I would Honestly say get a 2,5 diesel. on the long run you pay less insurance and get a lot more mpg than petrol.
Have a look at www.confused.com and compair the price of insurance for a petrol or diesel and size of motor.
I would say get a 2.5 diesel.

[Jimbob]

Ljay went from a 2.2 auto to a 3.0 manual and gets much better ecomomy

my 3.0 auto is inbetween the two.


With a small engine, it spends too much time at full throttle (well we did  )  whereas a larger one doesnt.

the 4 pot was more reliable (but was also a bit newer)

I would get a 2.5 manual for the best of both worlds.

[theowletman]

Ljay went from a 2.2 auto to a 3.0 manual and gets much better ecomomy

my 3.0 auto is inbetween the two.


With a small engine, it spends too much time at full throttle (well we did  )  whereas a larger one doesnt.

the 4 pot was more reliable (but was also a bit newer)

I would get a 2.5 manual for the best of both worlds.

That was my initial thought,  when I saw the V reg estate for sale on here last week I thought " that'll do". Unfortunately it came a few weeks early, so we'll see whats about soon.Thanks for the replies.

[markey mark]

for best economy 2.5 manual 

[Ian_D]

Again, 2.5 Manual.

Or the other option is a 2.5TD unit. Dont expect a massive MPG, but if you drive them steady they are better on the pocket! Im compairing my 2.5TD to my 3.0 V6 - Both Autos. Did 120 mile ish in the diesel other week, 60% A roads at 55-60mph, and 40% on the motorway at 70-80mph ish, and the average was 40mpg Would expect more if it was a manual too!

[unlucky alf]

yup a 2.5td manual chipped,,,,,hmmmm! chipssssss!

[deviator]

As said go for a manual over auto (or do a conversion if you are handy).

Engine size makes less difference to fuel economy than you might think. Obviously the diesels will return better MPG, but don't rule out the 2.5/2.6/3.0/3.2. As from personal experience and comparisons with mates running 2.0/2.2 - there is so little difference that you might as well go for what you want. The bigger engines are going to offer you better crusing mileage but the smaller engines would be better in stop/start traffic.

[Kevin Wood]

Having owned a 1.8 Laguna 1 I would say any Omega would be more expensive to run. My laguna used to average 38 MPG. Having said that, my 3.2 auto on LPG is now about the same in terms of fuel costs.

Road tax, tyres (both cost per corner and wear rate), etc. are significantly more. Insurance increased but now down to a similar level after a bit of shopping around.

Kevin