why is the V8 Vantage sooo thirsty?
Discussion
interesting to see that it is nigh on impossible to get hold of an MPG figure for the V8 Vantage. So lets think about this.. a small, lightweight car, modern 4.3 litre V8. So combined cycle of.. lets see... 25-28? somewhere around the same as the 911?
16.6!!
Now I know this is maybe missing the point etc but that is a truly shocking figure bearing in mind the aforementioned points about weight, size etc. How on earth can it be that uneconomical / inefficient??
16.6!!
Now I know this is maybe missing the point etc but that is a truly shocking figure bearing in mind the aforementioned points about weight, size etc. How on earth can it be that uneconomical / inefficient??
I used to get 19 mpg out of my Imprezza in the 90's, and 16 mpg out of my 360 (5 mpg on a track day!!) but I must admit my 996 was very efficient.
However, I tend to agree, while the V8 figure does seem low.....who cares!
It's probably due to driving around in 2nd to hear the noise!
AoN
However, I tend to agree, while the V8 figure does seem low.....who cares!
It's probably due to driving around in 2nd to hear the noise!
AoN
It's a very good question and something I've been wondering about. It's disappointing to see a combined fuel consumption figure of 16.4 mpg for the V8 (50% higher consumption than the 911S at 24.5 mpg).
I intend using my V8 as an everyday car when I get it in the spring. At that rate it will do just 240 miles on a tank full before the refuel light comes on. In comparison the 911S will do 295 miles.
To answer the previous posts, Who cares? Well I do. The cost is a consideration, just because I can afford a nice car doesn't mean I wish to burn money. Also other aspects are the inconvienience of the frequent fuel stops and in these days of environmental enlightenment I would prefer to run a more envionmentally friendly car.
I think there really is no excuse with today's level of world best technology for not achieving a combined mpg figure in the mid 20's for a car of this size with less than 400 bhp. I would suggest one reason is the relatively high Cd of 0.34 (17% higher than the 911 at 0.29). Another reason is 10% extra weight (1570 kg vs 1420 kg). However these two factors don't account for a 50% increase in fuel consumption. The rest must come from the basic efficiency of the engine and transmission system. This is disappointing and perhaps shows AM's level of technology still has some catching up to do in this area.
Having said all this, it is the only reservation I have about the car. I really look forward to my test drive next weekend and collecting my car in a few more months.
I intend using my V8 as an everyday car when I get it in the spring. At that rate it will do just 240 miles on a tank full before the refuel light comes on. In comparison the 911S will do 295 miles.
To answer the previous posts, Who cares? Well I do. The cost is a consideration, just because I can afford a nice car doesn't mean I wish to burn money. Also other aspects are the inconvienience of the frequent fuel stops and in these days of environmental enlightenment I would prefer to run a more envionmentally friendly car.
I think there really is no excuse with today's level of world best technology for not achieving a combined mpg figure in the mid 20's for a car of this size with less than 400 bhp. I would suggest one reason is the relatively high Cd of 0.34 (17% higher than the 911 at 0.29). Another reason is 10% extra weight (1570 kg vs 1420 kg). However these two factors don't account for a 50% increase in fuel consumption. The rest must come from the basic efficiency of the engine and transmission system. This is disappointing and perhaps shows AM's level of technology still has some catching up to do in this area.
Having said all this, it is the only reservation I have about the car. I really look forward to my test drive next weekend and collecting my car in a few more months.
mjk1 said:
It's a very good question and something I've been wondering about. It's disappointing to see a combined fuel consumption figure of 16.4 mpg for the V8 (50% higher consumption than the 911S at 24.5 mpg).
I intend using my V8 as an everyday car when I get it in the spring. At that rate it will do just 240 miles on a tank full before the refuel light comes on. In comparison the 911S will do 295 miles.
To answer the previous posts, Who cares? Well I do. The cost is a consideration, just because I can afford a nice car doesn't mean I wish to burn money. Also other aspects are the inconvienience of the frequent fuel stops and in these days of environmental enlightenment I would prefer to run a more envionmentally friendly car.
I think there really is no excuse with today's level of world best technology for not achieving a combined mpg figure in the mid 20's for a car of this size with less than 400 bhp. I would suggest one reason is the relatively high Cd of 0.34 (17% higher than the 911 at 0.29). Another reason is 10% extra weight (1570 kg vs 1420 kg). However these two factors don't account for a 50% increase in fuel consumption. The rest must come from the basic efficiency of the engine and transmission system. This is disappointing and perhaps shows AM's level of technology still has some catching up to do in this area.
Having said all this, it is the only reservation I have about the car. I really look forward to my test drive next weekend and collecting my car in a few more months.
I think yu've bought into the wrong Marque! Astons have never been about fuel efficiency, and I'm afraid ytou were kidding yourself if you thought they can be run on a budget. If the cost is that important to you then:
-buy a diesel "normal" car for everyday use, and then
-buy an onlder Astopn (80s Vintage V8 vantage). You'll have more money in yuor pocket, and you'll save money because the Vantage will not deprecaite. The modern V8 will.
This is what I have done- an old V8 for special occassions, and a knackered Mondeo for everyday use. I never worry about 12mpg then...
Besides, if you want a car which drinks fuel like a 997S, weighs as much as a 997S, has the CD of a 997S then...
MBH said:
interesting to see that it is nigh on impossible to get hold of an MPG figure for the V8 Vantage. So lets think about this.. a small, lightweight car, modern 4.3 litre V8. So combined cycle of.. lets see... 25-28? somewhere around the same as the 911?
16.6!!
Now I know this is maybe missing the point etc but that is a truly shocking figure bearing in mind the aforementioned points about weight, size etc. How on earth can it be that uneconomical / inefficient??
Where are you getting that figure from..?
williamp,
I hope you're not right and I've bought into the wrong marque. AM will have failed on their promise if you are. The new Vantage is a departure from previous Astons in that it was designed from the outset to be a practical everyday super car for people such as myself who want an alternative to the 997. I have absolutely no interest in the 997 purely because to my eyes the 911 jelly mould looks have never appealled. No matter how good mechanically a car is, I would never buy a car that offends my eye every time I walk up to it. The Vantage in that regard is absolutely second to none. However I guess no car is perfect and I was just pointing out that I consider the fuel consumption disappointing. To compare it with the old Astons is totally missing the point about AM's rebirth and change of direction. I'm all for it and it's the only way they can prosper long term. As for your suggestion for a rep mobile for the daily commute and an old classic for weekends, well no thanks, I'll take the new Vantage even with the disappointing fuel consumption.
whoami,
If you've got a 997S and get 18mpg out of it, according to the figures if you drove the AMV8 under the same conditions you would get about 13mpg (just above the official urban figures for both cars). Quite a difference I would say for two cars of such similar performance and hence the reason MBH asked the question in the first place.
Does anyone have an informed answer to the original question?
I hope you're not right and I've bought into the wrong marque. AM will have failed on their promise if you are. The new Vantage is a departure from previous Astons in that it was designed from the outset to be a practical everyday super car for people such as myself who want an alternative to the 997. I have absolutely no interest in the 997 purely because to my eyes the 911 jelly mould looks have never appealled. No matter how good mechanically a car is, I would never buy a car that offends my eye every time I walk up to it. The Vantage in that regard is absolutely second to none. However I guess no car is perfect and I was just pointing out that I consider the fuel consumption disappointing. To compare it with the old Astons is totally missing the point about AM's rebirth and change of direction. I'm all for it and it's the only way they can prosper long term. As for your suggestion for a rep mobile for the daily commute and an old classic for weekends, well no thanks, I'll take the new Vantage even with the disappointing fuel consumption.
whoami,
If you've got a 997S and get 18mpg out of it, according to the figures if you drove the AMV8 under the same conditions you would get about 13mpg (just above the official urban figures for both cars). Quite a difference I would say for two cars of such similar performance and hence the reason MBH asked the question in the first place.
Does anyone have an informed answer to the original question?
mjk1 said:
williamp,
whoami,
If you've got a 997S and get 18mpg out of it, according to the figures if you drove the AMV8 under the same conditions you would get about 13mpg (just above the official urban figures for both cars). Quite a difference I would say for two cars of such similar performance and hence the reason MBH asked the question in the first place.
Does anyone have an informed answer to the original question?
I do indeed have a 997S and I do indeed get 18mpg.
Your "logic" makes no sense however.
wrn said:
In the 800 miles since I have had my V8 I have averaged 10.4 MPG. Ouch.
Are you a bit disappointed with this figure? I note that Autocar did what appeared to be a very thorough road test and averaged 17.4 mpg with an urban figure of 11.2 They even claimed a touring figure of 21.9 mpg. Perhaps things will improve when she loosens up a bit!
Is that right 16.5MPG? I've got a BMW 645, which is a bigger engine and weighs as much as a house, and i get 25 easily, and 28-29 on a run (I admit the 29 is only when driving like a saint!) Thats with the SMG gearbox BTW!
My average after "quick" driving, totalling 14k miles, is about 24.5, thats in town, motorway, the lot, and i don't hang about!
Must admit 16.5MPG seems disappointing!, but i'd have one anyday!!! but i'm not waiting and not paying a premium, so the BMW / TVR will have to do!!
My average after "quick" driving, totalling 14k miles, is about 24.5, thats in town, motorway, the lot, and i don't hang about!
Must admit 16.5MPG seems disappointing!, but i'd have one anyday!!! but i'm not waiting and not paying a premium, so the BMW / TVR will have to do!!
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff