Clio 200 MPG?

[Keyser Soze]

I know it's been discussed a lot on here but what are these like on fuel?
What's the tank cost to fill and how many miles do you get roughly?
Try and include what MPG your seeing and the type of journeys you do.

I'm trying to compare one to my 172 Cup. That costs about £60 to fill and does around 320 miles. Driving consists mainly of motorways and A roads (my journey to work is 30 miles each way)

 

[Iain 007]

about £75ish from empty.

Between 270-350 miles depending on driving.

MPG varies in mine between 24 - 30.

 

[AdamH1]

I do 30 miles round to work and back a day and probably another 100 over the weekend so 250 miles a week and £50 normally does it with some left over. Commute to work is 80% motorway.

Overall average according to the car is 27.9 Mpg

 

[Daniel]

I've had 4 197's and a 200, none of them got over 26mpg.

 

[Starlet_gt]

I'm currently on 27.1mpg in my 197, 26 miles round trip for work but most of it is dual carriageway

 

[Sir_Dave]

Put it this way, ive gone from an e46 M3 to a 197, to an R32 and not noticed any difference in fuel bills.

 

[Knuckles]

s**t lol

I used to do 36-40mpg (very very occasionally) on the motorway to work, now i live closer to work i get around 30mpg.

filled up with £60 on saturday iirc, 225 miles later its on just under a bar

 

[Munson]

I've had 4 197's and a 200, none of them got over 26mpg.

I can just about manage that over a few tanks of average driving from a 2.5 litre 5-pot being force fed with 1.5bar. Apples and oranges maybe, but i'd be a bit irked getting similar economy for frankly vasty inferior performance.

 

[Daniel]

I can just about manage that over a few tanks of average driving from a 2.5 litre 5-pot being force fed with 1.5bar. Apples and oranges maybe, but i'd be a bit irked getting similar economy for frankly vasty inferior performance.

Yup.

My Meg 225 Demonstator (That staff, customers, EVERYONE) used to hammer everywhere, did 25mpg.

 

[Munson]

Yup.

My Meg 225 Demonstator (That staff, customers, EVERYONE) used to hammer everywhere, did 25mpg.

I run around 23-24 at the moment, and that's a mixture of everything. With straight line performance that would crush a 200.

Like I say, it's not really a fair comparison, but I'd definitely struggle to justify that sort of economy with a car that is luke-warm fast at best.

 

[Sir_Dave]

Thats exactly why i sold mine after 3 weeks Roy

 

[Munson]

1.6 turbo is going to be fully for the win in Clio IV R.S. Some torque, and some economy. In place of rinsing the limiter everywhere just to get moving whilst returning similar mpg to cars with double the power.

It's not really difficult to see why that old engine is being dumped. It was never really the massively free-revving F1 engine it was made out to be anyway. Sounded like there were spanners in the sump at 6500rpm+

 

[Jordi17]

32mpg here.

 

[Stan.]

Getting 7mpg more in my new R26 than my old 200 already.

 

[MarkCup]

I average 34 and regularly see 40+ in mine.

 

[suckmykiss]

I can't believe these are so poor fuel wise.. All of my old phase 2s did 34-38 all day long.. My r26 does 28mpg and that has 330ftlb of torque...

 

[Martin_172]

It's not really difficult to see why that old engine is being dumped. It was never really the massively free-revving F1 engine it was made out to be anyway. Sounded like there were spanners in the sump at 6500rpm+

in the 172/182 yes but never in the 200 (and i assume 197 but never driven one), 200 was smooth and sounded brilliant high up the revs, 172/182's sounded like they were going to blow lol you could even feel it through the metal pedals!

i never saw above 24mpg in my 200, most days it sat around 21/22mpg though. however mine was nailed daily, not a car you drive slow or else it just feels unrefined and bumpy!

 

[Stephenx77]

It's not really difficult to see why that old engine is being dumped. It was never really the massively free-revving F1 engine it was made out to be anyway. Sounded like there were spanners in the sump at 6500rpm+

I think my 172 feels pretty good up to the limiter, but I did come from a 1.3 ohv fiesta, and that really did feel like it was gonna blow up at the limiter, which was only 5800rpm lol.

 

[Martin_172]

they arn't bad, just dont feel as smooth as the newer engines or a vtec honda unit

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

Simply put, F*ck. That.

 

[Munson]

in the 172/182 yes but never in the 200...

Yeah that's true actually. The 197 I drove was much better at revving. Although the relative lack of torque and increased weight, meant that nothing ever actually happened. The car I drove - it just felt like I was waiting until it was time to change gear. Not very exciting in terms of acceleration.

 

[Keyser Soze]

in the 172/182 yes but never in the 200 (and i assume 197 but never driven one), 200 was smooth and sounded brilliant high up the revs, 172/182's sounded like they were going to blow lol you could even feel it through the metal pedals!

i never saw above 24mpg in my 200, most days it sat around 21/22mpg though. however mine was nailed daily, not a car you drive slow or else it just feels unrefined and bumpy!

Ha ha know exactly what you mean. I've come from owning VW's for 15 years and the first time I took my 172 Cup to the red didn't feel nice.

 

[rs 1an]

My 200 shows 26.2 mpg and has never been above 27 mpg, yes Roy the 200 is not as fast as turbo cars but it is not as heavy and it is also about 15k less to buy than an RS Focus/ Golf GTi hatchback so stop slumming it on this forum and join Pistonheads. If you want 50mpg buy a Dci if you want a fast car buy a Ferrari but why slate clios on a cliosport forum.

 

[SC03OTT]

Angry post is angry.

 

[Thrust-Rated]

Angry post is angry.

I second that.

Go walk it off.

 

[Dave Hester]

Its common knowledge that a 1*2 is atleast 10mpg better than 197/200

Tbh 26mpg in a clio its utter sh1t

At that mpg i would rather be sat in a mkiv golf r32

 

[Munson]

My 200 shows 26.2 mpg and has never been above 27 mpg, yes Roy the 200 is not as fast as turbo cars but it is not as heavy and it is also about 15k less to buy than an RS Focus/ Golf GTi hatchback so stop slumming it on this forum and join Pistonheads. If you want 50mpg buy a Dci if you want a fast car buy a Ferrari but why slate clios on a cliosport forum.

Lol step down. Learn to deal with opinions. I used to own a Clio and they're great little cars, but I feel I'm entitled to air opinions that aren't always positive. Also I'm pretty sure I don't need your permission to loiter on any forum.

 

[gez 172]

Well, my experience is quite the opposite, I'm actually over the moon with how good the MPG is.

Im currently doing 125 mile daily commute in my 200.

Averaging 36.9mpg and 415 miles to a tank.

Thats brilliant surely?

My commute consists of B roads, dual carridge ways. So speed is 55-60mph average.

These cars can be good if you drive it tidy, obviously I'm not going to be putting my foot down when doing 600'odd miles a week. So my average is really good.


Obviously, if your commute is in traffic stop/start. It's going to be dire.

 

[Alan]

My old R27 when pressing on:

Soooo much worse than the 182 I had before and the 230bhp MCSW I had after!

 

[gez 172]

People need to get off the 'dire economy' wagon.

 

[Sir_Dave]

People need to get off the 'dire economy' wagon.

Why? Half the point of french hot hatch is cheap fun. Sub 30mpg for a car that isnt even remotely fast is very poor.

From what i understand, those that get 35mpg sit at 60mph, above that and it plummets.

 

[Alan]

People need to get off the 'dire economy' wagon.

Agreed - they are track bred hot hatches, anything over 25mpg on a high revving 2.0L N/A is pretty good IMO.

 

[Chris-Mk2]

People need to get off the 'dire economy' wagon.

THIS^

We don't buy this cars for the MPG figures do we! If your commute is one that needs you to have an economical car, don't buy a 200, but they aren't as bad as people make out to be. At the end of the day, all cars need to be refuelled, whether its 30 miles down the road or 300, i'd rather be driving my 200 and have to fill up more, knowing I have the pleasure of getting back in it to drive. Not to mention walking back to it with A HUGE GRIN on my face from the petrol station!

 

[Martin_172]

Why? Half the point of french hot hatch is cheap fun. Sub 30mpg for a car that isnt even remotely fast is very poor.

From what i understand, those that get 35mpg sit at 60mph, above that and it plummets.

agreed, they are awesome fun, and extremely capable, and to be honest the fuel consumption wasnt really an issue to me as i didnt do much miles but it was still always in my mind making me feel a bit robbed!! it was 10mpg less than what i would have got out my 172's but then again my GT DCi was 10mpg down on what i got from my DCI100

 

[The Chubby Pirate]

People need to get off the 'dire economy' wagon.

It is though? For a high revving 2.0l engine with 180-190 bhp its pish.

 

[Alan]

It is though? For a high revving 2.0l engine with 180-190 bhp its pish.

Calm the F down D boy.. You on they 10£ eccies lol.. No Reno makes book figs on the rollers..

 

[Matt W]

Mines at 29ish. Winter doesn't help with that!

 

[gez 172]

Considering its as quick as a standard focus S for example. And they guzzle fuel.
Awful.

Sure you want the new Clio Danny?
You won't be seeing economy in that either.

some should just buy a 100DCi and map it. Can't moan then.

 

[SC03OTT]

Guzzle fuel compared to what? I get better efficiency than some Clio owners in here.

 

[suckmykiss]

Why are they so much worse than a 182?? To get less then 28mpg out of that I had to really really be caning it.. It can't be just the extra weight. As they still aren't heavy cars at the end of the day.. They also don't make book power do they?? My meg makes a genuine 278bhp/ 330ftlbs of torque and that will do 35mpg plus on a long run at 50/60 mph. About 28 on average...
And it's a heavier car..
Dont get me wrong it wouldn't put me off buying a 200 and I wouldn't moan about the economy I just can't work out what it does with it!!!