Good or bad move

Jynx · Feb 15th, 2006, 12:47

Going to look at a 850 2ltr 20 valve estate this aft, not being a very wealthy person is this a wise idea or should I stick to looking for a 940 ?
Jan

ChrisGrant · Feb 15th, 2006, 12:54

Aslong as it needs no work (you can hope) and you don't hammer it no probs!

I'm sure mpg is much better than my V70R

To the petrol station

Jynx · Feb 15th, 2006, 13:10

What sort of mpg do ya get out of the V70 ?

sholtby · Feb 15th, 2006, 16:49

850s are good cars. Go for a 2.5 as it will be faster and has the same fuel economy as a 2 litre.

Simon

ChrisGrant · Feb 15th, 2006, 16:57

The way I drive between 20-25mpg but I've an overweight foot! should be able to get 30mpg if you drive carefully or on motorway.

Jynx · Feb 15th, 2006, 17:03

Oooops, too late, decided to go for it, collect it next week, so I'll probably be back with a bucket full of questions for ya.
Jan.

Feb 15th, 2006, 22:32

Just don't ask if it's supposed to be this thirsty.....

I have a hate/love relationship with my 855 T5. But they are good cars.

TT

Jynx · Feb 15th, 2006, 23:36

Dont worry, wouldn't ask that question, was just curious about V70 mpg.

Know exactly what ya mean about love/hate relationship with them, I loved my 850 T5 but hated my bank balance.

STE-MAL · Feb 16th, 2006, 01:23

Driven nicely I found my T-5 to be more economical than my 2.0 20V. Both auto. I get about 30 to 32 mpg from the T-5 on a run, as I said driving nicely. And about 28 from the V70.
On a run at 70 mph the T-5 revs the lowest of all the cars, the 2.0 being the highest. And round town the 2.0 was a bit of a drinker. This is due to the fact you have to use so much more throttle to get a move on. I wouldn't be supprised if a 2.5 was a little better on fuel than a 2.0.

Jynx · Feb 16th, 2006, 10:18

I always found the bigger engine more economical as it doesn't have to work as hard to pull the same weight of car around, plus when loaded with camping stuff it didnt slow the thing down, but I'm not that bothered about fuel consumption, I'm more interested in finding an engine & car that doesnt have all the gizmos & gadgets that cost a fortune when they go wrong, thats what killed my bank balance with the T5, as I'm no mechanic it was always a trip to the garage.

Feb 15th, 2006, 12:47	#1
Jynx Junior Member Last Online: Apr 23rd, 2012 07:00 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: East Sussex	Good or bad move Going to look at a 850 2ltr 20 valve estate this aft, not being a very wealthy person is this a wise idea or should I stick to looking for a 940 ? Jan

Feb 15th, 2006, 12:54	#2
ChrisGrant Senior Member Last Online: Jun 16th, 2011 12:39 Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: oxford View Photos By: ChrisGrant	Aslong as it needs no work (you can hope) and you don't hammer it no probs! I'm sure mpg is much better than my V70R To the petrol station __________________ Got to be there in 10mins better take the R baby!

Feb 15th, 2006, 16:49	#4
sholtby Premier Member Last Online: May 26th, 2010 20:17 Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: north east	850s are good cars. Go for a 2.5 as it will be faster and has the same fuel economy as a 2 litre. Simon __________________ '94 Celica GT4, HKS EVC 4 boost controller ~280 bhp ex. '95 850 T5 owner

Feb 15th, 2006, 16:57	#5
ChrisGrant Senior Member Last Online: Jun 16th, 2011 12:39 Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: oxford View Photos By: ChrisGrant	The way I drive between 20-25mpg but I've an overweight foot! should be able to get 30mpg if you drive carefully or on motorway. __________________ Got to be there in 10mins better take the R baby!

Feb 16th, 2006, 01:23	#9
STE-MAL You Can't Beat A Swede Last Online: Aug 3rd, 2019 18:33 Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Kesgrave View Photos By: STE-MAL	Driven nicely I found my T-5 to be more economical than my 2.0 20V. Both auto. I get about 30 to 32 mpg from the T-5 on a run, as I said driving nicely. And about 28 from the V70. On a run at 70 mph the T-5 revs the lowest of all the cars, the 2.0 being the highest. And round town the 2.0 was a bit of a drinker. This is due to the fact you have to use so much more throttle to get a move on. I wouldn't be supprised if a 2.5 was a little better on fuel than a 2.0. __________________ 1993 850 2.0 20v SE Auto, 1996 850 T-5 CD Auto 1998 V70 R Manual, 2001 S80 D5 SE manual 2007 S80 V8 AWD Auto 2017 V40 T-3 Inscription Auto

Feb 15th, 2006, 13:10	#3
Jynx Junior Member Last Online: Apr 23rd, 2012 07:00 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: East Sussex	What sort of mpg do ya get out of the V70 ?

Feb 15th, 2006, 17:03	#6
Jynx Junior Member Last Online: Apr 23rd, 2012 07:00 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: East Sussex	Oooops, too late, decided to go for it, collect it next week, so I'll probably be back with a bucket full of questions for ya. Jan.

Feb 15th, 2006, 22:32	#7
twinturbo Guest Location:	Just don't ask if it's supposed to be this thirsty..... I have a hate/love relationship with my 855 T5. But they are good cars. TT

Feb 15th, 2006, 23:36	#8
Jynx Junior Member Last Online: Apr 23rd, 2012 07:00 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: East Sussex	Dont worry, wouldn't ask that question, was just curious about V70 mpg. Know exactly what ya mean about love/hate relationship with them, I loved my 850 T5 but hated my bank balance.

Feb 16th, 2006, 10:18	#10
Jynx Junior Member Last Online: Apr 23rd, 2012 07:00 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: East Sussex	I always found the bigger engine more economical as it doesn't have to work as hard to pull the same weight of car around, plus when loaded with camping stuff it didnt slow the thing down, but I'm not that bothered about fuel consumption, I'm more interested in finding an engine & car that doesnt have all the gizmos & gadgets that cost a fortune when they go wrong, thats what killed my bank balance with the T5, as I'm no mechanic it was always a trip to the garage.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)