Smell the desperation :-)

Maybe. You may have dislodged a sensor or switch, but I suspect you've probably bent summat. A leak test is the only way to definately find what's broked.

Oh, I got a SORN reminder for the Golf the other week.....

TBH it's the last bit that strikes a chord most with me. Especially as BP seemed to have revised their pricing policies on fuel to "not being the most expensive around, and pretty much being the cheapest". Combine that with the M+S BP garages we get around here, with the quite decent M+S food (don't care for the sandwiches tbh, but the wraps are nice, and those Lemon Possett Cheesecakes are bloody lovely), and it ends up being quite a test of willpower.

I tend to average one cup of coffee every 100 or so miles - around 1.5-2 hours.

So it's no problem to me to fill up every other coffee.

4.5 litre twin turbo V8 Don't know if it made it here yet.

Yeha, need to get it into a man who knows - all Humphries could tell me is that it couldn't be re-gassed, and to take it to a specialist. Touch wood it's not too expensive.

Aye, I saw your message on the facebook chat wotsit - every time I walk past it (now sat up on ramps, awaiting me buying a jubliee clip so I can change the fuel filter amongst other things) I look at the tax disc, realise how long it's been off the road, and think "I promise I'll sort you out soon....".

I know that at least up to the LS430, the Lexus had 2 distributors/caps.

I've just had the first breakdown ever in the Ford Exploder. I was surprised to find it doesn't have a distributor, simply a six (coil) pack, of which one coil had gone open-circuit leading to a nasty misfire. I'm astonished that a ten year old Ford has a more modern ignition system than a five year old Lexus.

So you're saying that even if something did go wrong, ignition/fuelling wise, the chances are it *wouldn't* potentially involve huge amounts of expense, unlike the complexities of modern day diesels?

All that complexity has just been in an attempt to make them more petrol like to drive and more refined - unfortunately it makes them drink more too. Pointles...

Sounds very odd to me - especially having 2 distributors. The only reason to run 2 is so you can have 2, differently phased, plugs per cylinder.

Maybe, although I guess if an oil seal starts weeping on an aging turbo and it doesn't get noticed, then it could spell end of turbo. I guess you could apply that to any piece of mechanical partery, though at a guess turbos could be more susceptible as they're spinning a lot faster. I could be, of course, talking s**te.

That's true, hence why big cars are worth bugger all at a certain age, regardless of fuelling, even if they're powered by human poo.

Well, you've gotta have a bit of fun...

LOL! Except, actually, she was. She had told me I had ten litres to go with just over 122 miles to go. :)

Just some checking : 27 mph= 8.8 l per 100 km, I won't even calculate what your driving over 600 miles implies. Over 700 miles (with 1 tanc of petrol) is however clear: you'll push *by hand* the car quite far.

You should have sold your car back to Citroen as it beats the offical figures quite nicely.

We will leave the fact that nowerdays big cars are about 30% heavier than the XM Estate Turbo (petrol) pro memore. But if you think that a petrol powered 2000 kg limousine will return something along 27 mph when driven normally you are kidding yourself in a mayor way. That the reign of the diesel powered versions... and that's their strong selling point.

The *Citroen* link also includes the diesel versions and their economy figures. Strange, isn't it? Those figures are in line with my remarks concerning fuel flow petrol >< diesel.

You seem to have got the one and only (turbo) petrol car who is sipping fuel, the rest of the world got the guzzlers... Somehow I think this is not true.

Tom De Moor

I was thinking of the brainless morons who pull into the motorway services from the third land at 90 in their 320d, stop the engine immediately, run out for a slash, types... ;-)

Yeah; great isn't it?

Agreed, the Saab almost always shows under half a tank used, and upto

250 miles on the clock each week depending on how much non commute miles I do, Fuel computer is showing over 29 mpg but real fill to fill is more like 26-28 in some pretty shitty motorway conditions, sometimes driving over 5miles in 1st gear until I hit Altrincham, usually though managing stop start 15mph.

Even allowing for the second half a tank always going faster than the first, that would give at least 450miles of hell driving.

My bosses one is really nice. He gets over 25mpg and drives a like a loon.

Dashboard is cheap looking and feeling, but I ragged one stupid and got

30mpg - the acceleration past legal speeds is astonishing, overtaking is hilarious.

With my Sciatica playing up at the moment, having it in the front would be nice. As it is, having the seat heaters on full helps, gently warming my legs and back.

You're using US gallons. We're talking about UK gallons. 27 mp(UK)g is around 10.5.

No, I disagree as it depends on who is driving and how they drive; we had a

728i at the office in York. That's long term overall consumption was a shade over 27 to the gallon. Chap had a 27 mile commute each way, the final three miles in York. Book says 25.4 mpg. 730i is slightly less thirsty.

Pffft hardly. On longer runs, my Saab turbopetrol returns >40 mpg*, brim to brim, door to door. None of this "reset it at a motorway cruise" stuff either, that's cold starts, city running, meh.

*UK gallons, which is