Everyone talks about the refinement and performance of common rail diesels, and rightly so. However, just thought I'd share this little comparison with you.
I normally use the Mondeo for my commute. 70 mile round trip on motorways and A-roads, generally just going with the flow of the traffic rather than trying to overtake everything. Typically cruising along at 50-70 mph on the motorway, with the odd blast up to 80-85 if it's clear (which isn't too often). Last week however, I used the Scenic for the first time. Drove it the same way on the same roads at the same speeds at the same time.
Mondeo - 46 mpg
Scenic - 53 mpg (computer showed 55 mpg)
The Renault is 100cc bigger, 150kg heavier, and considerably less aerodynamically efficient.
They're good, these new diesels.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
A number of owners I've met have commented on the Renault dCi engine not being as economical as the older dTi. Also the six speed 'box must account for some of the difference.
You could argue the reverse - the Ford engine is such a horrid old thing that it's really very good considering it has about as much technology on it as a knife and fork.
|
>DP
How do you measure fuel economy?
I'm sorry, unless you have measured EXACTLY fuel used.. to within 10ccs, I will treat your post as usual.
madf
|
Fill tank to second pump click, zero trip, drive the car, fill tank again at end of period to second pump click, note how many litres have gone into the tank (to two decimal places) and mileage (to one decimal place)
Divide mileage covered by number of litres of fuel used, and multiply by 4.545
I'm sorry, I had the result to 8 decimal places, but I threw the scrap of paper away. ;-)
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
Same pump, same ambient temperature, same etc...? If not You could easily be 2 litres out...
madf
|
Compare the Mondeo TD with a Mondeo TDCi and you'll probably get the same results.
My Mondeo TDCi 130 will do around 55-58 mpg at 60-70 mph and this drops to 51-54 at speeds above 70 mph (i.e. measured mpg, the trip reads about 3 mpg over those figures).
|
|
|
|
I thought you had to multiply by 4.546. So thats why my Defenders mpg is not so good...just as well I'm selling it to a good friend next week then.
|
|
|
DP
You're not being exactly fair; the old TD is a remarkably durable engine - but cutting-edge it isn't.
You're comparing chalk and.... ...cheddar
|
|
|
|
>>to within 10ccs
What a stupid statement,
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
>>>to within 10ccs
>>What a stupid statement,
What am I the only one on here spooning the last 5ccs to 10ccs into the fuel filler. Man do I feel stupid. I even use one of those medicine spoons to be sure of accuracy ;-)
Think my Mondeo drinks more than that to start it up!
|
At the end of the day, if both cars are measured with the same method over a couple of fills, the margin for error will be the same for both of them and the chances are that the results are roughly comparable.
I haven't dared do the sums for the Mondog yet, I've even deliberately not reset the trip computer so that it still shows an average of 31mpg following a long run, it makes me feel better. :-)
Blue
|
Thanks for the replies.
Yes I agree the Mondeo engine is from another era, but economy wise, I think it's pretty typical for an old style mechanically injected engine in a car of this size. Yes it's a rough, clattery old nail, but I have a grudging respect for anything that's done 133,000 miles and doesn't need a single oil topup between services.
Xileno - to be honest the Scenic's economy hasn't been very impressive. SWMBO uses it for local running about, but with a couple of good long runs (>30 miles) a week, and it's often dipping into the high 30's as an average. A motorway run hauls the average back up to 40-41 or something like that, but it's about as good as it gets.
The Mondeo sits idle apart from ferrying me to work and back as we tend to use the Renault at weekends, so its 46 mpg average is only based on this commute as that's pretty much all it does. I have no doubt that would be down into the 30's if it were used around town too.
It wasn't so much the figures themselves that struck me, but the difference between them when doing the same journey. Should add too that it's a lot easier to drive the Renault gently. More torque, better response, far fewer gearchanges needed. Again though, the Mondeo engine isn't a great standard bearer for pre-cr diesels, but I still swear for all its roughness and vibration, it has a better spread of torque and a wider useable rev range than our old XUTD engined 306.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
I have had 3 Scenic diesels, the original 1.9 turbo diesel, then the 1.9 dci (105) and the 1.9 dci (120) same as yours, and the best engine of all three for both economy and performance was the original turbo diesel. I regularly got high 40s consumption but the two dcis gave me low 40s, and as DP says, high 30's about town.
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
Totally agree with the above we had an 99 Scenic DTI did 130K no problem daily commmute Ashford Kent - Heathrow and consistantly did more than the Scenic DCI or Laguna DCI which repaced it. Also the car (Scenic DTI) themselves were better built than the latter cars.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mean to be difficult. Have you taken the weather conditions into account - my car does more mpg in dry conditions rather than in wet, what tyres are on each vehicle, they can make a difference to mpg.
It can be complex.
|
|
|
|
I know my car engine is not a common rail diesel, or not even a VW PD diesel. My Seat Toledo TDiSE 1.9 110 bhp has now done around 145,000 miles since I bought it near the end of 1999. That engine is incredibly smooth, it has plenty of motorway power. I am always holding it back . It always gives me around 60 mpg on long runs.
|
I think the point is that you can take mid to late 90's Di TD and a 2000's CR TD, everything else being equal, capacity, car size and weight etc, the latter is going to be around:
50% more powerful
Produce 50% more torque
Much more refined
As economical if not more so
Re DP's Mondeo, just to say that the engine lives in CR form in Mk1&2 Foci, C-Max, S-Max etc and is very refined, it was the DI system that made it like a bag of old nails not the basic mechanics.
|
Car - 320D, 52 plate - 104k miles on clock.
Average (calculated brim to brim on every tankful) over the last 14,500 miles is 44.9mpg. It is driven fairly rapidly.
However, the OBC says that average consumption is 51.9mpg. I wish!
|
|
|
|
