VTR using too much fuel. Compared to friends

[ashy90]

I have a 2000 phase 2 VTR (lower powered engine) with 89k on the clock. My friend has a 1999 phase 1 VTR with about 87k on the clock. Mine does not seem very good on fuel, certainly not like my mates car.
I drove my mates phase 1 for about 65-70 miles to work and back and the gauge barely moved (a smidge over the half way mark to a smidge under the half way mark). Doing the same journey in my car uses 1/4 of a tank.

As another example, (and I know this is not the way to work out MPG....but I'm not working out MPG). I have twice run my VTR as low on fuel as I dare, put £15 in and I got 70-80 miles before it being desperately low (and I do mean low). Doing the exact same thing in my 1999 Rover 416 and I get more miles from it - despite the Rover being nearly 1/4 of a ton heavier than the Saxo.

My VTR is standard, it appears to be running ok, no binding brakes. tyre pressures checked regularly etc. It has a minor exhaust leak from one of the joins - but so does my Rover. It has just passed its MOT.

Any ideas?

[stevo67]

Let me correct you,your car a mk2 has more 98BHP,the mk1 has 90BHP.Try servicing your car.

[ashy90]

Let me correct you,your car a mk2 has more 98BHP,the mk1 has 90BHP.Try servicing your car.


Fee free to correct me but I think you will you are wrong on doing so. The early phase 2 VTR's such as mine are exactly the same power output as the phase 1 VTR. 90bhp not 98.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M_Rust]

The only real way to test like that is to fill it full do the same trip in each car and fill back up.

I do this each time i fill up the car each week and get between 36-38 mpg.

Filled up on wednesday done just over 200 miles to half a tank mine is a 2002 vtr

Sent from my ONE TOUCH 4015X using Tapatalk

[Jizanthapus]

Like M_Rust said, or you could get the "FuelLog" app and it'll work it out for you!

[Gandi699]

You are correct the phase 2 mk1 vtr got the worst engine of them all, the 90bhp silver top. So all the bad bits with none of the good bits. Is it a K series in your 416 or the honda engine D16? Cant remember if the honda was offered in those. Either way the K-series, for all its faults, is fuel efficient lean burn engine more advanced than the archaic 8v TU in the saxo so I wouldnt find the better mpg in it surprising. That said the VTR should not be THAT bad, after all it was the long gear ratio'd economic sporty hatchback that PSA offered. Exhaust gas leaks wont help, but then nor will poor breathing, dirty fuel filter, plus lack of an oil change too

[ashy90]

You are correct the phase 2 mk1 vtr got the worst engine of them all, the 90bhp silver top. So all the bad bits with none of the good bits. Is it a K series in your 416 or the honda engine D16? Cant remember if the honda was offered in those. Either way the K-series, for all its faults, is fuel efficient lean burn engine more advanced than the archaic 8v TU in the saxo so I wouldnt find the better mpg in it surprising. That said the VTR should not be THAT bad, after all it was the long gear ratio'd economic sporty hatchback that PSA offered. Exhaust gas leaks wont help, but then nor will poor breathing, dirty fuel filter, plus lack of an oil change too

Whats the bad bits out of interest? Its the exact same engine and ecu thats in the phase 1 VTR isnt it I think?
Yeah the Rover has a K series 1.6 16v. Good engine really. My last Rover - a 45 with the 1.8 k series had done 164k miles when I got rid of it and was still going well.

[Gandi699]

The phase 1 vtr had a different head setup to the phase 2 90bhp. It normal rockers instead of the roller type ones fitted to the later cars, and tougher valve springs. It's a better base for tuning, also has a fuel return in the earlier cars which helps for 16v transplants or to other 8vs of a more performance based nature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MuZiZZle]

Imagine if you had a VTS though!