Saab 9-5 2.2 Diesel mpg?

"BlueFrog" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

As ever, it depends on driving style and use.

The 2.2 was an Isuzu lump. The current 1.9 (reputed to be a _far_ better engine) is a Fiat lump.

I personally would expect to return mid to high 40s from this machine, but my commute is flattering for fuel consumption.

Your Dad's figures could be very different to a petrol version in the city. Where and how is it driven?

It's an Isuzu donk.

If you're going by the consumption shown on SID the fuel computer, try switching it to UK Gallons, it looks more impressive that way.

(c:

It's used mainly for short trips in town so I guess it won't be that good.

By the way how do you switch to UK gall>> Anyone know what mpg you should get with this Saab? My father only

Hmm, sorry I don't know. My mother has a 2.2TiD 9-5 Estate and we asked the dealer to change it to UK settings when it was in for a service. Other telltale was that the exterior temp was in Farenheits. Have a look through the owner's manual, a google through some Saab forums or even try phoning a dealer, our nearest one is very helpful for things like that.

On the MPG front, when it was in US Gallons, it was extremely difficult to make it read more than 36-37mpg and in short trips it would do 25 or

26 going by the computer. We were shocked and as you mentioned, if it's really getting that you're as well with a petrol one and enjoying yourself. I'd measure the miles per tank brim to brim to get a rough idea of real consumption.

Now it has been changed back, my mother can make her car read over 50 if she's trying hard. 35 is normal for short trips and I make it read

37-43 or so when I drive it.

Hope that helps.

Your father needs to learn to drive. You should be seeing at least a

40% improvement over the petrol.

Several big assumptions there - you still need to learn not to do that.

I notice you fail to say what they are.

I did elsewhere, but the main assumption is what sort of fuel consumption the petrol would be seeing under these conditions. The second is that "40% improvement" over a petrol equivalent. That 40% varies very much and is usually optimistic.

Whatever.

Am I right in thinking that the 2.2 is a fairly old engine used for agriculture, and not as powerful or economical as the current 1.9?

Some versions of the 2.2 are not as powerful or economical as some versions of the 1.9.

I'm not sure there are very many Saab engines, or similar GM ones used for agriculture.

Yes, it's relatively old; the 115 bhp is definitely first generation direct injection, the 125 bhp has some relatively advanced features.