Fuel economy - Max miles to a tank?

[Lewis.]

As above. What's the best mileage you've had from a tank of fuel in the Clio 200?

Before I bought one everyone was telling me how bad they are in fuel (I had an EP3 CTR previously). But to be honest it's fine and more economical than the Honda! Best recent was 350 to a tank. That's with a mixture of motorway driving (fast) and back road blasting, so not really driving to save fuel just to have fun.

What's the most you guys have gotten from a tank?

 

[Jimmy]

I've had a little over 400 on a run from Leeds to Cornwall. The majority of that was steady motorway miles. Nowhere near that normally though

 

[ChrisR27]

I average between 300 and 350 every tank i put in and that's just normal day to day driving in a R27

 

[Merde Francais]

Usually around 340-360 but I've had over 430 on a very long run

 

[James17]

the best I've had is about 375 miles to a tank recently doing lots of motorway driving, may have been able to get a little more but didn't want to risk it.

 

[JamesB]

200 MAX!! I live like 5 minutes from work and sometimes i go out and thrash it a bit hahaa!!

 

[Stephen]

Haha off topic slightly but in the 200T since I've had it mapped hasn't seen over 170 miles to a tank, even when driving like a granny... Used to be able to hit around 300 miles to the tank.

 

[ShantiT]

I may have just managed 450 once. This was a brimmed tank of V-Power Nitro+, straight onto the motorway from fuelling and granny driving using the cruise control set at 57mph (59-60mph on speedo). I got mpg readings of about 38.1. Higher if I used 'Mexican Overdrive', knocking it into neutral down steep hills. Lights were never on either, nor A/C, so no additional draw on fuel, windows up all the time too so no drag.

The empty tank warning bleep is at about five litres from empty and the remaining range value then goes blank. I reckon you've probably still got a gallon to go at that point (5l) so another 35ish miles if remaining gentle. I chickened out and fuelled it not long after. Managed to put 51 litres in brimming it, so if it really is a 55 litre tank there were still four left.

I've also managed to go from brim to empty in less than 300 miles using A and B roads.

 

[Jmax]

460 max but always over 400

 

[Kazumz]

250 Miles @ 23MPG I think...

The mountains run I did about 190 Miles and it was on reserve then. Full with V-Power.

 

[Kazumz]

I may have just managed 450 once. This was a brimmed tank of V-Power Nitro+, straight onto the motorway from fuelling and granny driving using the cruise control set at 57mph (59-60mph on speedo). I got mpg readings of about 38.1. Higher if I used 'Mexican Overdrive', knocking it into neutral down steep hills. Lights were never on either, nor A/C, so no additional draw on fuel, windows up all the time too so no drag.

The empty tank warning bleep is at about five litres from empty and the remaining range value then goes blank. I reckon you've probably still got a gallon to go at that point (5l) so another 35ish miles if remaining gentle. I chickened out and fuelled it not long after. Managed to put 51 litres in brimming it, so if it really is a 55 litre tank there were still four left.

I've also managed to go from brim to empty in less than 300 miles using A and B roads.

Can you explain why you knock it in to neutral down steep hills? Road momentum turns the engine, so the fuel cuts (Providing you're over 1.1KRPM). When you neutral it, you're using fuel to keep it going...?

 

[chris1888-197]

i got 410 miles roughly out a tank when i went to blackpool last year. Glasgow to blackpool and back + the fuel i used for the week down there, was well impressed. Also to note that was on v power.

 

[Chris]

Dont know about miles to the tank, never look lol.

I averaged about 28.5mpg in the 197, highest was 34 on motorways and lowest 23 when foot on loud pedal.


In the 200t its averaging 34.9 atm but I'm driving it on sports a lot and not hanging around. On the way back from portsmouth 72 cruising, it was 37/38.

 

[ShantiT]

Can you explain why you knock it in to neutral down steep hills? Road momentum turns the engine, so the fuel cuts (Providing you're over 1.1KRPM). When you neutral it, you're using fuel to keep it going...?

An engine slowing from say 3000 rpm will be slowing rapidly without your foot on the accelerator. When in gear and off the accelerator there is also the effect of engine braking and significant internal drag from the gearbox. Causing the car to stop fairly quickly and stall. It has to be an extremely steep hill to stop that.

When in neutral the engine rpm remains at idle, circa 800 -1000 rpm, so uses some fuel (unless start-stop fitted). Yet there is no engine braking effect, nor gearbox drag. When in neutral and coasting down a hill the road wheels keep turning and distance is covered. Greater distance than if the car was kept in gear and subject to engine braking and gearbox drag.

The distance covered in neutral at idle is greater than the distance covered if remaining in gear with your foot off the accelerator. Next time you're at the top of a hill select neutral and see how far you can travel. Try the same again, but remain in gear. You'll stall/stop far sooner remaining in gear than being in neutral.

Hence greater mpg achieved when coasting down hills. The clue is in the measurement, miles per gallon. More miles, less gallons used, better mpg. Engine braking and drag from the gearbox significantly limits the miles part of the equation.

 

[Kazumz]

An engine slowing from say 3000 rpm will be slowing rapidly without your foot on the accelerator. When in gear and off the accelerator there is also the effect of engine braking and significant internal drag from the gearbox. Causing the car to stop fairly quickly and stall. It has to be an extremely steep hill to stop that.

When in neutral the engine rpm remains at idle, circa 800 -1000 rpm, so uses some fuel (unless start-stop fitted). Yet there is no engine braking effect, nor gearbox drag. When in neutral and coasting down a hill the road wheels keep turning and distance is covered. Greater distance than if the car was kept in gear and subject to engine braking and gearbox drag.

The distance covered in neutral at idle is greater than the distance covered if remaining in gear with your foot off the accelerator. Next time you're at the top of a hill select neutral and see how far you can travel. Try the same again, but remain in gear. You'll stall/stop far sooner remaining in gear than being in neutral.

Hence greater mpg achieved when coasting down hills. The clue is in the measurement, miles per gallon. More miles, less gallons used, better mpg. Engine braking and drag from the gearbox significantly limits the miles part of the equation.

I suppose both ways are correct, depends how far the decline is and the straight that tails off of it. I can usually just judge what gear I need to be in to use engine braking as 6th gear usually represents little to no resistance. I asked because there are literally no roads around here that would benefit from neutralling so I suppose my view is a little bit bias.

 

[Chris]

The engine is still being supplied fuel by keeping the engine idling, I can't see why its saving any fuel.

 

[ShantiT]

I suppose both ways are correct, depends how far the decline is and the straight that tails off of it. I can usually just judge what gear I need to be in to use engine braking as 6th gear usually represents little to no resistance. I asked because there are literally no roads around here that would benefit from neutralling so I suppose my view is a little bit bias.

I wouldn't worry about the length of any straight after a hill. Any car will happily fly around bends in neutral as well.

Personally, if I was trying to get the most mpg I wouldn't use any engine braking at all, even being in sixth will create a tiny bit of drag.

Good mpg is all about maintaining a consistent speed. If you're doing Xmph and find you can freewheel, do it until you start to slow down again. Don't slow down too much as you use fuel to get back up to Xmph. Even though there are no hills around you I expect you can improve your mpg by coasting in neutral to junctions and traffic lights. In the first few years after passing my test I found doing that helped me learn how to be very smooth with inputs and have to carefully anticipate speed and distance. It also saved (or I thought it did) me money. I lived in the middle of nowhere so there were no issues of me bothering other traffic.

There was also large hill near me that could be coasted down for nearly seven miles. At points the national speed limit can be easily broken in neutral. The steep bits provide sufficient momentum to cover the flatter parts. So much so that you can pretty well coast the full seven miles. You have to be very efficient with braking and steering though.

 

[ShantiT]

The engine is still being supplied fuel by keeping the engine idling, I can't see why its saving any fuel.

Correct. It's a tiny amount of fuel though. As I mentioned to Kazumz, you'll cover greater distance in neutral than being in gear and subject to engine braking. You may not be able to do this in a 200T due to the new gearbox, but in a 200 (or any manual car) you can watch the trip computers average mpg reading increase when selecting neutral and coasting down a hill for half a mile. You simply travel greater distance using less fuel. Equalling better mpg.

 

[Chris]

Okay just had a google on the subject.

Interesting read, curious to your thoughts on this...


http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a5977/coasting-in-neutral-fuel-economy/

 

[Paddy_R]

Regularly get 400+ to a tank.