Do Not Sell My Personal Information Jump to content


Recommended Posts

I've got a '58 plate 250 auto on loan at the moment & it did 38 mpg on a 40 mile run home from the dealer. My 220d did 40 mpg on the outward journey. I drove in pretty much the same manner both ways and used the same route.

I was rather surprised at the 250 and at how easy it was, (far easier than the 220 :wacko: ) to get this figure, especially as the official combined is 31 mpg.

Does any one know if the official consumption for an '06 auto is the same? I imagine it could be a little bit lower.

It will be interesting to see, as I recently walked away from a trade in of my 220 for an '06 250, partially because of the likely consumption on it. May be I shouldn't have :blink: .

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Its really good.

I commute 82 miles everyday.

Peterborough to Leicester and back again. Thats front door to car park and car park to front door.

Train costs:

£18.80 before 9 or £11.15 after 9 (with the use of a 19-25 railcard)

Car Cost:

before setting off, i full tanked the car, and refulled again when i got back.

88.9p a litre - i used 8.911 liters which costs £8.72 for 82miles..

not bad for a 2.5l :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is that a 38 mpg measured from the car's own digital readout? If so, it might be a little flattering, but perhaps reasonably close to the actual figure. I have just checked my 56 reg 250 auto's fuel consumption after a longish trip to Wales and back(mostly motorway and A-road, but including some Leicester city roads, welsh hills and a 1 in 4 climb) followed by a few shorter journeys, including a few miles of town driving. The tank was brim-filled before and after.

The displayed figure on arrival at Wales (top of the 1 in 4) was 40.2 mpg, helped by about 100 miles of fog, which kept speed down to 50 (and in places 40) even though the roads were very quiet.

The return journey was done with passenger, luggage and normal speeds, at the end of which the figure was down to 37.8. After a few more town and country miles, including several short journeys and rush hour traffic, it had fallen to a displayed 36.

I then refilled after 435 miles with the display warning me that my remaining range was 2 miles. In fact it took just 59 litres, which I think is 13 gallons give or take a pint. That suggests a true figure of nearer 33.5 mpg, which is respectable from a 204 hp petrol automatic.

So when the display says range now 0 there may in fact be about a gallon (or 5 litres) left in the tank, but that might vary a bit.

From lots of short journeys in and around town I have been getting more like 25 mpg, which is fair enough.

I once (but only once) managed 498 miles from my old IS 200 sport, but that had a bigger 70 litre tank, and my initial impression is that the 250 auto is slightly more economical, as the published figures suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a 38 mpg measured from the car's own digital readout? If so, it might be a little flattering, but perhaps reasonably close to the actual figure. I have just checked my 56 reg 250 auto's fuel consumption after a longish trip to Wales and back(mostly motorway and A-road, but including some Leicester city roads, welsh hills and a 1 in 4 climb) followed by a few shorter journeys, including a few miles of town driving. The tank was brim-filled before and after.

The displayed figure on arrival at Wales (top of the 1 in 4) was 40.2 mpg, helped by about 100 miles of fog, which kept speed down to 50 (and in places 40) even though the roads were very quiet.

The return journey was done with passenger, luggage and normal speeds, at the end of which the figure was down to 37.8. After a few more town and country miles, including several short journeys and rush hour traffic, it had fallen to a displayed 36.

I then refilled after 435 miles with the display warning me that my remaining range was 2 miles. In fact it took just 59 litres, which I think is 13 gallons give or take a pint. That suggests a true figure of nearer 33.5 mpg, which is respectable from a 204 hp petrol automatic.

So when the display says range now 0 there may in fact be about a gallon (or 5 litres) left in the tank, but that might vary a bit.

From lots of short journeys in and around town I have been getting more like 25 mpg, which is fair enough.

I once (but only once) managed 498 miles from my old IS 200 sport, but that had a bigger 70 litre tank, and my initial impression is that the 250 auto is slightly more economical, as the published figures suggest.

It's from the car, but if my 220 is anything to go by it's not far out from the true figure. Having spent my childhood trainspotting :sad::blush: I have kept an extensive log of the true consumption of my last 6 or so cars. I always fill the tank & record the mileage & stick it all on a spreadsheet :o :wacko::blush: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I usually get between 35 and 36 from my IS250 auto on the read-out, which I've found to be about 2mpg too high. I've clock 44mpg from Bromley to Uxbridge round the M25 before trying wherever possible to drive at 70. Town driving tends to bring it down a lot but it's surprising how far the car will roll without losing too much speed if you just let off the throttle. I would trade for a 250 auto if I was you, petrol's 10p a litre less as it is and the car is just better than the 220 manual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I've had loan cars, I've driven them reasonably enthusiastically and mainly around town and never received less than 27mpg.......I just think that they're pretty good on fuel......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually get between 35 and 36 from my IS250 auto on the read-out, which I've found to be about 2mpg too high. I've clock 44mpg from Bromley to Uxbridge round the M25 before trying wherever possible to drive at 70. Town driving tends to bring it down a lot but it's surprising how far the car will roll without losing too much speed if you just let off the throttle. I would trade for a 250 auto if I was you, petrol's 10p a litre less as it is and the car is just better than the 220 manual.

I turned the 250 down for other reasons as well as the possible consumption issue, but I haven't ruled one out completely if I can find a decent on at the price I want to pay, (which ain't much).

Having been out in the loaner again today on a 60 odd mile round trip on an "up & down hill" A road with enough bends and corners & I still got 37 or so out of it. I assume it was a sport as it has a metal brake pedal & left foot rest.

The difference here between petrol & diesel is 8p a litre at the cheapest places, (88.9 & 96.9p) or about £4.05 and £4.41 per gal, (if I've got it right).

On that reckoning 10k miles on the diesel is about £1010 and on petrol, (at an overall 35mpg), about £1260. £250 diff or so over a year ain't that bad for the extra satisfaction of having a V6 2.5 and a gearbox that does what it should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a '58 plate 250 auto on loan at the moment & it did 38 mpg on a 40 mile run home from the dealer. My 220d did 40 mpg on the outward journey. I drove in pretty much the same manner both ways and used the same route.

I was rather surprised at the 250 and at how easy it was, (far easier than the 220 :wacko: ) to get this figure, especially as the official combined is 31 mpg.

Does any one know if the official consumption for an '06 auto is the same? I imagine it could be a little bit lower.

It will be interesting to see, as I recently walked away from a trade in of my 220 for an '06 250, partially because of the likely consumption on it. May be I shouldn't have :blink: .

Thanks

38mpg is perfectly normal on a 40 mile run if you're driving at a steady speed (which rules out anything other than dual carriageways, with few or no roundabouts). The warmer weather of the past week would also contribute to the overall economy slightly. But around town this figure will quickly drop below 30mpg.

I reckon on an overall average of between 32 and 34 mpg per tank.

I wouldn't expect the economy of an '06 250 to be any different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a '58 plate 250 auto on loan at the moment & it did 38 mpg on a 40 mile run home from the dealer. My 220d did 40 mpg on the outward journey. I drove in pretty much the same manner both ways and used the same route.

I was rather surprised at the 250 and at how easy it was, (far easier than the 220 :wacko: ) to get this figure, especially as the official combined is 31 mpg.

Does any one know if the official consumption for an '06 auto is the same? I imagine it could be a little bit lower.

It will be interesting to see, as I recently walked away from a trade in of my 220 for an '06 250, partially because of the likely consumption on it. May be I shouldn't have :blink: .

Thanks

38mpg is perfectly normal on a 40 mile run if you're driving at a steady speed (which rules out anything other than dual carriageways, with few or no roundabouts). The warmer weather of the past week would also contribute to the overall economy slightly. But around town this figure will quickly drop below 30mpg.

I reckon on an overall average of between 32 and 34 mpg per tank.

I wouldn't expect the economy of an '06 250 to be any different.

That's not bad as far as I'm concerned - Had a long term average on my old Volvo S60 of 30. 32 to 34 betters the official rate, and the 2.5 v6 is far sweeter than a 5 pot 2.0!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our car is very new, it has less that 300 miles on the clock. I am struggling to keep the MPG above 25 in mixed driving. I say mixed- 60% town, 40% D/Cs and motorways. Is this just because of the running in period, or is my right foot particularly heavy??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably is due to the running in period - the engine should loosen up and the mpg improve........having said that I've never driven a brand spanking new IS250 so don't really know, but with my heavy right foot I got around 27mpg with loan cars with a few thousand miles on the clock with a similar mix of driving as you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you thought about driving barefoot :D

No, the metal pedals would be far too cold this time of year!

I'm guessing it is because the engine is new. It doesn't feel tight, it runs smooth and is only too happy to be revvy. Must hold back for the first thousand miles or so. Got it to about 5k RPM joining a D/C with a particularly short slip road, did make me cringe a bit!

But in all seriousness, I have been trying to be as smooth a possible to hep the MPG, and as my ID suggests, I'm a driving instructor so I should know a thing or two about driving smoothly and safely.

Took it out for first run in the wet yesterday evening. Amazed at how easily the traction control steps in when pulling away from a T-junction. Even with 255mm tyres on the back. Wasn't even being that enthusiastic!

Talking of economy, does switching to sequential mode generally improve or worsen the economy? The biggest benefit I have got from the manual mode is selecting lower gears on down hill sections to use engine braking and save the brakes from undue wear and heating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking of economy, does switching to sequential mode generally improve or worsen the economy? The biggest benefit I have got from the manual mode is selecting lower gears on down hill sections to use engine braking and save the brakes from undue wear and heating.

Doubt it'll make that much of a difference really as it isn't quite a full manual mode - you've probably noticed already, but if you have it in '6' it's not actually in 6th gear, but instead allows the gearbox to use all 6 gears. In the same manner, in '4' it only allows the box to use up to 4th gear.

Therefore on acceleration it allows you to delay gear changes to when you want them, and same under braking you can downshift manually, but if you have accelerated up to 5th and then slow down, the gearbox will automatically downshift again regardless of whether you've done so manually or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking of economy, does switching to sequential mode generally improve or worsen the economy? The biggest benefit I have got from the manual mode is selecting lower gears on down hill sections to use engine braking and save the brakes from undue wear and heating.

Doubt it'll make that much of a difference really as it isn't quite a full manual mode - you've probably noticed already, but if you have it in '6' it's not actually in 6th gear, but instead allows the gearbox to use all 6 gears. In the same manner, in '4' it only allows the box to use up to 4th gear.

Therefore on acceleration it allows you to delay gear changes to when you want them, and same under braking you can downshift manually, but if you have accelerated up to 5th and then slow down, the gearbox will automatically downshift again regardless of whether you've done so manually or not.

Really? I didn't know that! I hadn't noticed, but I haven't done much experimenting either.

I figured in icy conditions, putting into '2' before pulling away wouldn't force the car to do it in 2nd? But it will still use 1st, but then go no higher than 2nd? Huh. So would the 'snow' mode let you pull away in 2nd, or does it change throttle response and engine timing? maybe I should open that big ol' manual!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep that's how it works, to make it really obvious what it's doing, switch the trip computer thingy to the one that shows you which gear you're in. You'll see it jumping about regardless of which gear you've set manually (obviously as long as you're in a higher gear)

Not sure about the snow mode in the IS250, but in my IS200 it makes the throttle less sensitive but still starts in first. The IS250 is much newer though so may be a little more advanced than that.

You're right there, if you stick it in second, it will start in first, and then change to second but go no higher. It will also shift back down to first again if necessary if you leave the gear selector as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest benefit I have got from the manual mode is selecting lower gears on down hill sections to use engine braking and save the brakes from undue wear and heating.

Surely replacing worn brakes has to be alot cheeper than replacing a worn engine and a worn gearbox! Why not swich to neutral for downhill sections? Unless its a long steep descent.

That would certainly help with the fuel ecconomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest benefit I have got from the manual mode is selecting lower gears on down hill sections to use engine braking and save the brakes from undue wear and heating.

Surely replacing worn brakes has to be alot cheeper than replacing a worn engine and a worn gearbox! Why not swich to neutral for downhill sections? Unless its a long steep descent.

That would certainly help with the fuel ecconomy.

The Highway Code frowns on "coasting" - see the extract below. Engine braking should be no more wearing than driving the vehicle in a forward direction - especially in an "auto" vehicle where the engine and the road wheels are not directly connected.

122

Coasting. This term describes a vehicle travelling in neutral or with the clutch pressed down. It can reduce driver control because

engine braking is eliminated

vehicle speed downhill will increase quickly

increased use of the footbrake can reduce its effectiveness

steering response will be affected, particularly on bends and corners

it may be more difficult to select the appropriate gear when needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a rule, the engine uses more fuel in neutral than when rolling down a hill while in-gear. This is because in neutral the engine has to keep itself idling by burning fuel, whereas when rolling in-gear the wheels help turn the engine meaning that it requires hardly any fuel to be burnt at all. The extra distance you'd get from rolling in neutral isn't usually enough to offset this saving.

I've read about this in several articles over the years including this one: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/c...icle4345670.ece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest benefit I have got from the manual mode is selecting lower gears on down hill sections to use engine braking and save the brakes from undue wear and heating.

Surely replacing worn brakes has to be alot cheeper than replacing a worn engine and a worn gearbox! Why not swich to neutral for downhill sections? Unless its a long steep descent.

That would certainly help with the fuel ecconomy.

The Highway Code frowns on "coasting" - see the extract below. Engine braking should be no more wearing than driving the vehicle in a forward direction - especially in an "auto" vehicle where the engine and the road wheels are not directly connected.

122

Coasting. This term describes a vehicle travelling in neutral or with the clutch pressed down. It can reduce driver control because

engine braking is eliminated............................................................... yep thats the point of going to neutral

vehicle speed downhill will increase quickly......................................... only on a steep slope

increased use of the footbrake can reduce its effectiveness................. yep, dont go neutral on a steep descent

steering response will be affected, particularly on bends and corners... no idea about that, do they mean no torque steer?

it may be more difficult to select the appropriate gear when needed..... if you have to double declutch with no sycnromesh maybe.

Hehe, looks like that was written around 1920. I added a few comments to the text :)

As a rule, the engine uses more fuel in neutral than when rolling down a hill while in-gear. This is because in neutral the engine has to keep itself idling by burning fuel, whereas when rolling in-gear the wheels help turn the engine meaning that it requires hardly any fuel to be burnt at all. The extra distance you'd get from rolling in neutral isn't usually enough to offset this saving.

I've read about this in several articles over the years including this one: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/c...icle4345670.ece

That's an interesting article, but it should be noted that the engine of the lexus is250 seems to be the most frugal on idle of any car ive ever driven, the average mpg drops much more slowly than any car ive ever driven when sitting at traffic lights.

Well, looking at the instantaneous fuel consumption on my car, when getting about 70mpg with foot off the trottle, if neutral is selected the mpg jumps to the end of the scale 90+.

Also on a slight incline speed can be maintained in neutral, but in drive, a small amount of throttle has to be used to maintain the same speed, thus more fuel burnt. Try it yourself.

I've been messing about with the car and fuel ecconommy for quite a few weeks now, its become obvious that the most fuel efficient method is burn and coast. Accelarate with about 2500 revs, and then hit neutral until speed drops too low.

I'm not sure what the effect on the mechanicals would be doing that over a long period, and its rather tedious to do for only 2 or 3 mpg gain, but is kind of fun to see what can be acheived.

Oh, the car seems to give best fuel ecconomy with a mix of 95 and 97 ron, I'm still playing with this and havent made a final conclusion yet , but it looks like there is a 6 to 8% gain with an equal mix of 95 and 97 ron in this car. It wont give as much using pure 95 or pure 97.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...




Forums


News


Membership