MatraSport Forum

Each model => Espace => Topic started by: fimbo on February 25, 2006, 10:17:02 pm

Title: MPG
Post by: fimbo on February 25, 2006, 10:17:02 pm
I have a 2.2 Diesel and I am currently running at 28mpg, this seems a bit low to me, it has been serviced prior to me buying it but is this the normal?????

Title: Re:MPG
Post by: Tommy W on March 02, 2006, 11:43:44 am
Have same and get 27 on local trips (rural) and 34 on a long run.

Title: Re:MPG
Post by: Waynecarrow on March 02, 2006, 11:53:18 pm
My 3.0 24V is averaging 25MPG on my trips to and from work so 27MPG from a diesel can't be correct can it?

Title: Re:MPG
Post by: Tommy W on March 03, 2006, 11:35:00 am
It's correct but not right! My previous 2.2dT did 30 and the DCi is supposedto be better. It is going for service next week so lets see waht happens...............

Title: Re:MPG
Post by: Lennart Sorth on March 06, 2006, 09:56:00 pm
the DCi is supposedto be better.

depends a lot on circumstances.
The DCI's are more powerful, and don't forget the 1700+ kg  weight. My previous car was a J63 td, which was a tiny 1350kg, whereas my current JE 2.2dci is 1750 - thats a lot more.

Furthermore, the DCI's are so efficient that most of them are fitted with a coolant heater, to get any heat in the passenger compartment at all.
This means that on shorter runs (<20km?) in winter - you will have the heater running most of the time, which obviously hurts the MPG.

The Espace-dci only really likes long A-road driving, - here I can easily get the promised 7l/100km (40mpg UK) or more.

However, you could also have an EGR valve (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) which needs cleaning.

One way to do this is to first find a straight stretch of road with noone behind you to scare, then  select 2. gear and push the throttle to the floor and let the govenor keep the revs at the limiter.
This will quite probably produce a fairly frightening plume of black smoke behind you  (hence the need for nobody behind you to scare .-)  ), but then it should quickly reside, and if you do the excercise again the exhaust should be invisible.

I have made it a principle that I at least once per tankful of fuel I do the above excercise, - and besides the nice initial feeling of torque,
its good to know the EGR valve is clean.

"Oh you see, officer, I only wanted to clean my EGR ... "


Title: Re: MPG
Post by: panter on May 20, 2006, 11:11:32 pm
Guys, I"m new here since I do own '94 J63 525 (2,1 TD) for just about six months, and not in the very best shape. Correct, though it consumes exactly 7,2l/100km at constant 120km/h highway and not really flat one.
Now, I'm not saying this to mock you but I'm confused, this is an old 250 000 and more km dirty engine using dirty fuel and it is alright for that type of engine. My close friend drives 19dci scenic and he consumes about 5l/100km or less.
As I prosume on a highway it doesn't matter much if you're a bit heavier.
Shouldn't your newer car use less fuel?

Title: Re: MPG
Post by: Lennart Sorth on May 20, 2006, 11:58:25 pm
Shouldn't your newer car use less fuel?

The JE is quite a bit heavier, - my previous car was a 1994 J63 2.1td, which weighed in at 1350kg, whereas my JE is a whopping 1720 - thats 30% more weight.

Even if the consumptioncomputer is not very accurate, it definitely shows that it is acceleration that eats the fuel. So, as you say, highway driving is not a big problem, especially since the Espace has a vey slippery body (aerodynamicwise).

In the J63 we averaged (over the year) 7.5-7.6 l/100km - Denmark is a cold country, and my wife (who uses the car most of the time) does only short trips - hardly any highway driving.

I have owned the JE for about 6 months now, - which coincides with a danish winter, so only these last weeks, have I tried starting the car, without the supplemental heater starting too :-/  so I cannot really say where we are, but my guess is about the same as the J63 - which frankly is not quite what I had expected either.

I do however have a wategate solnoid which needs replacement  - and it possibly affects the economy somewhat - I will know as soon as I get the new one fitted.

AND, the aircon in the J63 hardly ever worked, - when I finally had it completely renewed and working, I sold the car... silly move, but I had found this nice JE :-)
We bought the JE in Berlin, and drove it back to Denmark - me in the JE, and my wife in the J63, and on that trip, the JE used about 15% less diesel than the J63, so for highway driving, I'm sure you will see better results.

However, I remember the UK motoring press (TopGear) once said that customers complained that especially MPV's were not giving the fuel-economy they promised, and they even pulled out a picture of the the Espace JE to illustrate ...

The modern 1.9dci engine is known for its very good economy, - it is however IMO too small for the Espace, even if it was actually used. The latest (130hp) evolutions of the 1.9dci is however very nice, and it would be my preference, was the JE still produced.


Title: Re: MPG
Post by: Anders Dinsen on May 21, 2006, 01:53:13 pm
Even if the consumptioncomputer is not very accurate, it definitely shows that it is acceleration that eats the fuel. So, as you say, highway driving is not a big problem, especially since the Espace has a vey slippery body (aerodynamicwise).

I've seen the Cd of the Avantime rated about 0.8 - Espace is perhaps a bit better, but since the overall shape is the same (no wings and attachments), it's probably close to the same. And the frontal area of the two are indeed the same (very big!). So I'm not really sure about the aerodynamics - it's probably better than many other MPV's, but I can hardly imagine it to be favorable to the new Scenic, which is both more narrow and less tall than the JE.

- Anders

Title: Re: MPG
Post by: Lennart Sorth on May 21, 2006, 05:59:44 pm
I've seen the Cd of the Avantime rated about 0.8

That has to be an error, or incompatible units. - Maybe the value you have seen incooporates the frontal area ?

The official coefficient of drag (Cd) on the Espace JE is 0.32 - for all models (including the Grand Espace) - which incidently is the same value as the Murena (!)
Of course you multiply with the frontal area, which in the case of the Murena is fairly large due to the width of the car, but in case of the Espace, its like a barn ! :-)

I have never really understood that the Grand didn't benefit from its longer body, as it has been common to elongate the cars body for high-speed races like Le Mans, but maybe the Cd is measured at speeds where this doesn't really matter. Or maybe Matra just didn't bother to measure it ?

But certainly the huge frontal area of the Espace is why you need so much horsepower to reach high speed. My 130hp/290Nm engine gives my car a terminal velocity of only 185 km/h (tested). But then again, it never was designed to be a racer :-)

However, It has always pleased me that you have no wind-noise at 80 km/h and STILL no wind-noise at 160 km/h - which must be due to the slippery body (and no "Volvo" flutes attached). It was this property I was referring to with the "slippery body".

Title: Re: MPG
Post by: Anders Dinsen on May 21, 2006, 07:35:46 pm
That's a great difference, Lennart - thank's for correcting me!

Yes, Espace is a barn - and will always be compared to a normal sedan :)

Anyway, I think the reason the same Cd is quoted on the Grand is because they did not bother to measure it. Of course it benefits.

My 190 bhp engine gives me a top speed of 210 km/h, but I haven't tested more than 205 on the speedometer, which is (with later comparisons with a GPS) about 195-198 I think. But that was enough for me. It still had power and sufficient stability however. In my previous JE (114 bhp 2.0 petrol), I managed to reach 190 km/h on the speedometer.

I don't agree that there's no wind noise at 160 km/h - but maybe your engine is more noisy than mine :-) However, it could be road noise I was hearing. I must check next time I'm at that speed.

- Anders