Metro returning 30mpg? :-(

Picked up a 1993 Metro 1.1C (carb not inj) on the weekend, been driving it round, over 111 miles (of which at least half was runs of 9 miles or more) it has used approximately 16.7 litres of unleaded. Now I can't be sure on the fuel consumed because that's just what it took to fill it up to the point where the pump cut off, but it was at a different petrol station from where I first filled up. But both times it started blowing back a little bit of fuel around the filler cap when it cut off, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's about the same.

111 / (16.7 / 4.5) = about 30mpg by my reckoning. Even allowing for the slightly higher cost of diesel now I make that 40 quid a month more on fuel than my 55mpg Pug 106 diesel, based on 800 miles a month. SOD THAT. I was hoping for nearer 45mpg if gently driven and lightly loaded (which it has been).

Does this 30mpg sound reasonable? I know someone on here reckoned they got nearer 40mpg. Any suggestion for quick and cheap things I might try to drastically improve the mpg? I'm not going to go to town on this one, if I can't easily bring it up to nearer 45mpg then I'll just flog it on and pocket any profit I can make on it. Nor am I going to waste a load more money to do a few more miles and fill ups to confirm the consumption figure. Last full service I can be sure it had was two years and about 10,000 miles ago.

And despite the arrival of the Haynes manual I still can't find any published fuel consumption figures anywhere :-(

Reply to
Vim Fuego
Loading thread data ...

PS The fuel gauge was on about 1/4 when I first filled it up and it was near enough the same just before I filled it up again, and the first fill-up cost about 15 quid, so the 16.7 litres consumed figure sounds not unreasonable. Stated tank capacity is 30 litres, so allowing for some reserve at the bottom of the tank when the needle is at zero, showing 1/4 of a tank after

16.7L consumed again sounds not unreasonable.
Reply to
Vim Fuego

I ran a 10 year old 1.3 Metro standard a few years back with no fuel gauge. I was reckoning at 30 mpg and so pulled in to fill up one time, now we are talking year 2000 so it'll take some back tracking to compare fuel prices. I was thinking about a fill up, but it took about seven quid, and I was so shocked I ended up with fuel all over the filling station forecourt. This paragraph is likely of no use.

Can't remember the fill up figures right but I sat back and reckoned I must be doing at or just under 40 mpg, they will do that, and better. We had our Metros set up on the street by ear, and a tweak if we had a problem with cold starts.

1300 A+s good fuel efficient motors at ten year old.

You'll probably get 42 mpg, maybe more. I used to run around town and nudge

40 mpg.
Reply to
Billy H

oops

Mine was a 1.3, don't know if you make the comparison.

Same engines as the Mini's I believe.

Reply to
Billy H

It's manual choke and I'm using the choke normally/properly. The engine isn't over revving.

Will do.

I should stress that the 9 mile journeys I were talking about, were 90% cruising steadily at 50-60mph in 5th gear, so fairly ideal for low consumption. Weather hasn't been that cold around here, no frost all week.

Reply to
Vim Fuego

1.0 and 1.3 Austin Metros were the same A-series engine as the Mini, the 1.1 in this thread must be a later K-series engine, in which case 30mpg sounds poor...
Reply to
Tim Vincent

"Vim Fuego" wrote in news:g8G9h.60675$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:

I know it's a different engine, but I had a 1 litre Metro with contact breaker ignition. When I got it at 9000 miles on the clock it drove ok but felt untuned, flat. I got hold of the HBOL for it and found that it had a high compression engine but was tuned for the low compression engine. After sorting the plug gaps, contact breaker gap, dwell angle and timing (which went from it's 14 BTDC to 8 BTDC or thereabouts, it was a while ago), it turned into a right nippy beast and returned around

50 mpg under normal usage. I sometimes wish I still had it, felt almost like a mini.
Reply to
Tunku

I have a 1.4 "K" Series single point injection 214 and it returns 30~34mpg. I had one a few years back and it returned the same figures. So I would think a 1.1 should at least match that, but if it is an SU carb I'm not surprised at the piss poor consumption.

Reply to
gazzafield

It was mine that does 40 but mine is injected, the old SU is a bit less efficient, when correctly fettled you should get closer to 40 than 30.

mrcheerful

Reply to
mrcheerful

For a small car - No.

For a 10+ year old shagbat carbed Metro - Not unusual.

They're just shit cars, built with the finest of 1950s technology and

1970s wokforce attention to quality.
Reply to
Andy Dingley

I was running from Liverpool to Leeds ten years ago, in another metro, a 1 litre. It was doing that on aprox a fiver's petrol.

Reply to
Billy H

No point in doing measurements like this. Fill it up and use it, then fill it up again to find the fuel used. estimates on a quarter tank etc are not accurate at all.

Vim Fuego wrote:

Reply to
BT News

He knows that, he's just being rude!!

Reply to
Billy H

Read his post again, slowly.

You'll realise that's exactly what he's doing.

Reply to
SteveH

Out of interest, how much variation is there in cut-off points between different petrol pumps? I.e. what sort of variation can you expect in fill-up volume between different pumps if you fill all the way to the cut-off point, holding the nozzle in approximately the same position? A standard deviation expressed to two decimal places would be sufficient for my needs ;-)

Guess: of the order of the volume of the filler pipe between petrol cap and tank, so maybe plus/minus a litre?

Reply to
Vim Fuego

Manual choke, mate.

Oh, the shame...it's been that long since I've had a carb'ed vehicle, I can't find the bloody dashpot. Haynes manual isn't helping. Help!

Reply to
Vim Fuego

10 miles on a full tank?

you must be into a few percent of your overall estimate.

Isn't it more accurate to read off the dial for the number of litres you have pumped in at the forecourt?

Reply to
Billy H

That last point may be such a dense suggestion!!

But the thinking goes like this; if you reset your clock, fill up until the pump stops. Run a hundred miles, fill up to the stop again. Check pump's litres reading. Run another hundred and fill up to stop again and check litres reading. You'd get a comparison between pump stops and of your fuel efficiency.

Reply to
Billy H

The message from Conor contains these words:

When I had a 1.1 Metro the choke was off withing 100 yards!

Reply to
Guy King

The message from "Vim Fuego" contains these words:

Black knob on top of the carburettor. Mind how you screw it back in as it's easy to cross the threads.

Reply to
Guy King

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.