2002 Peugeot 406HDi on 121,000. I?m struggling to get over 40mpg. Even on a long run to Cornwall from the North West I achieved 45mpg at a steady 70mph.
My usual daily use is a mix of motorway, A roads and town centre ? approx 50 miles a day. I don?t drive like a maniac, nor like a nun..!
Recently been MOT?d and emissions were fine. Recent service where filters etc were changed.
Does anyone have any brightspark ideas as to why the economy is low?
Many thanks!
DB
|
Hello
A few ideas spring to mind.
Tyre pressures. Make sure they are kept up I check my tyres every time i fill up.
Do not carry unnecessary items in the boot or on a roof rack.
Is your tracking and balancing correct.
Binding rear brakes I.E. when hot
Drivebelts too tight (not cambelt)
Do you use the air con or leave the windows open a lot when driving.
Last hint please do not be offended but how heavy is your right foot.
I hope these ideas come to some use.
They are just my opinions.
--
(iam not a mechanic)
Martin Winters
|
|
|
You're not calculating the MPG in US gallons are you ? ;-)
|
|
|
DB
Engine size/code? Does it have a FAP? [DPF]
|
Engine size is 1997cc and the engine number is DYHL3015261. I can't answer you about the FAP [DPF] - what's that?!
Thanks,
DB
|
DB
If it's the 2-litre version, then there will be RHZ, RHY or RH? in the VIN number letters.
FAP = Filtre Aux Particulates: a d-iesel p-articulate f-ilter in the exhaust that costs < 20% of your fuel consumption. Standard on the 2.2HDi, it turns up on a few later 2.0ltrs too.
|
I'd be very interested to know the outcome of this question as I've seen this problem before, twice. Both were 90 BHP 2 litre HDi engines (no intercooler) and both showed no fault codes and gave the expected levels of vehicle performance. However both had lousy fuel consumption and were sold on before I could get my hands on them to have a look. The vehicles were in reasonable condition and were checked for binding brakes, poor tracking etc.
The PSA HDi engine was on my short list when I made my last vehicle change, but this and bad detailing (eg. fuel filter housing design, wiring and connectors) put me off. VAG got the cheque.
659.
|
|
This happened on mine I and I think the timing was slightly out.
|
|
|
659
You do also get some HDi vans in fleet use that are far worse on fuel than "identical" others. [Not just down to the drivers.]
Either it's a software timing issue; or there's a slightly over-reading MAF or something making the difference. Unlike a petrol; there's no feedback to a diesel ECU on it's success at accurate fuelling.
Without a Lambda probe and long/short fuel trim data; a diesel ECU will just keep-on chucking it in.
I'd agree that the PD is by far the best of the electro-diesels. [Even Land-Rover can make them work OK...] I'd have done the wiring a lot better though - and as for what they've now done to the heads on the 2ltrs....
|
My PD is one of the last 130 PS Cat III 1.9 litre units. I wouldn't touch the later ones with a barge pole.
On the later 2 litre unit, the mechanical execution of the balancer shaft drive, the camshaft drive and follower arrangement and most of all the self-blocking DPF (which requires the engine to burn extra fuel to get it hot enough to burn off the soot) conspire to make this a far less useful power unit than the old 1.9. The Euro Cat IV diesel engine is probably not now worth buying from anyone.
Politicians involved with engine design = useless solutions.
659.
|
659
And on top of all that - the heads crack; some at around 60K. [Just like the TD5 PD does - odd that....]
|
Well, completely unscientific, but I reset the mpg-ometer in the Pug for my journeys home and to work. Over 50 miles it returned a claimed 49.6mpg. I was driving as economically as possible, so it is easy to see how in the real world this figure takes a nosedive.
DB
|
Have you ever checked the fuel computer for accuracy ?
I find in my Xsara HDi the MPG per the display can be 5, and occasionally up to 10, MPG lower than the real figure calculated between fill ups.
|
If the OP is using the fuel computer to give the figures quoted, then this discussion is a complete waste of time. Notoriously inaccurate. I would not even look at one. The only analysis worth looking at is miles/fuel used over say 2,000 miles.
Measurement inaccuracies of 15% +! Junk!
madf
|
>The only analysis worth looking at is miles/fuel used over say 2,000 miles.
>Measurement inaccuracies of 15% +! Junk!
Not strictly true. What you do is measure a few brim to brims, see how that compares with the fuel computer. Once you have worked out the inaccuracy it becomes a useful "spot check"
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
"If the OP is using the fuel computer to give the figures quoted...."
No, I'm not. I just thought it would be interesting to see what it said when driving uber economically....
|
|
|
|
