Years ago when I owned my much loved '88 900 Turbo I suffered from excessive gas (use), so I was not expecting my new beast ('54 9-3 Aero convertible) to be the most frugal thing on four wheels. However, after one month of usage I am surprised as to how far it is from the company stated figures (lies).
Everyday bimbling* around is returning low 20's which I can live with, it is winter after all. But yesterday I filled up (ESSO 95) and drove from Winchester to Cardiff and back. Fast roads and motorway the whole way and I was traveling at a fairly leisurely 75-80 mpg. I reset the mean MPG computer and ended up with just under 31 mpg. For economical driving at relatively low revs this seems a bit thirsty, especially as a manual check has shown the gauge to be about 2 mpg optimistic. I even played around with the Cruise Control and that actually decreased the mpg, probably because it kept a constant speed whereas I speed up going downhill and am happy to let some of that speed bleed off going uphill.
I have checked tyre pressures and all is good. Anything obvious I should be looking at or is this just what I can expect? I'm booked in for a Hirsch Stage 1 next week (bargain at £360 inc) so at lease I will have even more fun burning the planet's resources
In most other regards I am loving the car, although whoever managed to position the illuminated light switches so that they reflected in the window directly over the image from the wing mirror deserves to be shot, or made to drive a Citroen.
*bimbling = 5-10 minute trips to work/supermarket at 30-40mph. Cold engine - not good but hopefully it will be warming up soon (weather, not engine)