[DIG-S]

The only difference between eco and non-eco is the turbo charger comes on later about 3,000 rpm. You get better efficiency in low revs but it loses some acceleration.

Wrong. The car is not turbocharged, it has a supercharger, very different.

We only tried ECO once, ruined a decent car. We called it the "shite" mode.

 

[DIG-S]

Eco mode ruined your car?? How? I’d really like to know because I often ride eco when driving through the city.

It did not ruin it as in cause damage, it just made a decent car a rubbish slow one, we called the ECO mode the shite mode.

You get better fuel consumption in Eco but you lose power below 3,000 rpm. As the supercharger is switched off until the engine can no longer be naturally aspirated.
As with anything it’s a trade-off.

Not sure if it actually improved your mpg since when in ECO mode you need to be flooring the loud pedal far more frequently to get acceptable performance. Since we only used it once I have no figures to prove it either way. I suspect it was a sales gimmick or possibly on the official consumption tests in the lab it did make the figures look better.

I get 60 MPG which is currently at the top level for frugal running with this style of petrol car.

I do not believe that for one minute. Over the 3 years we had the DIG-S it averaged 47 mpg and we were perfectly happy with that. On the wifes twice a week 80 mile round trip to se her it would do just over 60 mpg but to get that the traffic and weather would have to be in her favour, on most trips it would have been in the mid 50's.

Before buying a car I always look at the Honest John Real MPG figures, they have pretty much matched what we have achieved in the past. The figure for the Note DIG-S is 45.3 mpg, a figure we actually bettered, probably because of the longer trips that we regularly did.

The figure for the Note diesel is 62.6, not much more than you claim you get from your petrol and as we all know diesel are way better for mpg providing your usage pattern is suitable. In the past I reckon I have got about 33% better mpg out of diesels, that is about what the HJ figures suggest for the Note.

 

[DIG-S]

54 mpg for your old dig-s but that won't impress a sceptic like you

The occasional great figure may be fun when you try and impress blokes in the pub but it has nothing whatsoever to do with your total cost of motoring. No doubt those "great figures" are taken from the ever lying dash display, whereas in the real world the only figures that matter come form a pencil and a piece of paper user distant covered and fuel used, that is where my 47 mpg average came from.

If you feel better accept that we saw 60 mpg out of ours, well that is what the dash said (once or twice in 3 years).

Buts its no good telling prospective owners they will get 62 mpg because they won't. Better to be honest and tell them that overall they might get the high 40's at best with a bit more on a long run.

 

[DIG-S]

Your 'high 40's' was when you owned a DIG-S model. That's a thirstier beast at 96bhp. Mine is only 78bhp.

Having more power does not make a car less economical overall. The extra power can mean you have to thrash it less to keep up "normal" road speeds. At one point in the 90's we had 2 cars in the house with identical engines, one was 65 PS without a turbo in the smaller, lighter car, the other was 90 PS turbocharged in the larger heavier car. In every type of motoring the car with 90 PS turbo engine was more economical. A few years later we swapped a 130 PS turbo for a smaller 110 PS turbo expecting an improvement. Both cars had pretty much the same power to weight ratio but the smaller 110 PS car only bettered the 130 PS by a couple of mpg.

The wifes current car has 110 PS turbo and weighs about the same as the Note which had 98 PS. They get used pretty much the same on the same roads but the current car does about 48 mpg against the Notes 46 mpg.

Before the Note we had a Nissan Micra 1.2 with 80 PS. A smaller much lighter car than the Note and in truth the performance of the 2 cars was pretty much the same. The Micra averaged about 44 mpg less than the Notes 46 mpg.

In the above examples less PS only resulted in more mpg once.

Honest John does indeed give the non supercharged version a high overall mpg than the supercharged version, 46.2 mpg against 45.3 mpg. Not quite up at your 60 mpg is it?

Hopefully they'd have filled their tank first with E5 but that's another bowl of contention.

When we had the Note there was no E10 so I think we can forget that as an excuse for my crap mpg.

I never suggested than an owner will get "62 MPG" so that statement should be beneath you (smacks of trolling)

The 62 mpg I wrote in my thread was a mistake, you said "I get 60 MPG " so not much difference. 62 or 60 mpg the new owner will be pretty devastated when the get a real mpg in the mid to high 40's at best.

As for trolling its against forum rules, if you feel I am doing that perhaps the moderators should have a say.

I have said it before, if you want 60 mpg and your type of use suits it get a diesel, it will always beat a petrol.