bitwood

Registered Member
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bitwood

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • First Name
    Ian
  • Gender*
    Male
  • Toyota Model
    Auris 1.6 Sport
  • Toyota Year
    2014
  • Location
    Derbyshire
  1. Attended the dealers today and bought a 2.0 litre 2WD Rav. Test drove both, but felt the 2.0 litre fitted our needs more than the 2.2. Thanks for all your help and patience.
  2. Ok thanks to all for the help. Perhaps my expectations are to high, I just expect better mpg from a modern diesel. I appreciate that manufacturers figures are ideal however I currently have a 2.0 TDCI S Max (140) that delivers mid forties on mixed driving and has gone as high as 55 on a run with high quality fuel. That's at 70-75 mph and family style acceleration etc. I have a test drive booked for Saturday and hopefully a two day trip in the pipe with a Rav diesel courtesy of the dealer. Can that fifth injector skew the mpg that much? Or is it my expectations that are skewed? Once again I appreciate your time and thoughts.
  3. Thanks for information. Am I correct in thinking that the D-Cat system is the cause of the excessive fuel used in these cars. As previously posted I had a 2.2 D-Cat Avensis ( 2008/9) and the mpg was bad. If all Ravs are using the D-Cat system am I likely to expect the same poor mpg or has the engine now overcome this problem. I am just finding this a tad confusing and I am off to the dealers at the weekend, I just need to get this straight in my head. Thanks
  4. The dealer came back to me having made enquires with Toyota and stated that the 2.2 Auto is a D- Cat the remainder are D-4D's. The on line brochure is out of date but hard copies are in date. . . .Scott that fits with your thoughts earlier. You mentioned the new BMW engine (140) am I right in thinking that is bespoke to Toyota. I can't place a current BMW that the engine is from other than possibly the 318 etc. Might be worth a look/ wait, there again it could have teething troubles and be a pain in the initial few months. The Verso went across to a 1.6 BMW (I think) and press reports I read slated it, who knows, take it with a pinch of salt.
  5. Have spoken to my local dealer who is making enquiries with Toyota. The latest is that the web brochure is wrong/out of date and the published/hard copy is correct. Therefore the D-Cat engine is no longer an option. Watch his space !
  6. Ok, just got off the phone from Toyota having raised the following question:- Do Toyota make a 2.2 D-4D engine and a 2.2 D Cat engine as shown in the brochure? If so what is the difference? The answer is that the brochure is wrong and that he D-Cat engine has been dropped. All engines are now D-4D only. Any thoughts?
  7. Thanks for your replies, interesting stuff. I have to say the knowledge on the forum is exceptional. When last in the showroom I asked the salesman about the 2.0 litre and he stated that it has a136BHP output. I believe that to be wrong and have never seen that quoted in any sales blurb! Worries me somewhat. . . I have tried looking at the brochures on line and am slowing going blind trying to compare data. . . . .think I all just ring Toyota and ask the ethnically question. Will post he answer. Thanks again for your time, safe driving.
  8. Ok, so a fair assumption then is that the Rav 2.2 D is a non Cat (but will have a DPF as all modern diesels do), and therefore as you experience better MPG ? My mileage is 95% open road and not short distances so should suit nicely. From what I read I am going to steer clear of D Cat anything as it seems to be the issue. My other recent post was relating to which diesel engine is best for the Rav. I accept there is the personal choice bit but my thoughts were that the 2.0 litre was the more economical and probably better choice due to my experience with my previous 2.2. That said from what I am hearing here the 2.2 non Cat may be back in the running and would give me more pull and make AWD more of an option. Would value your thoughts Thanks
  9. Ok thanks. Your 2.2 T -Spirit is that D-Cat? Regardless what do get mpg and on what sort of journeys? I have previously owned a 2.2 tourer which I am sure was a D-Cat. I outed it soon after buying as the mpg was so awful. I was also running a petrol 1.8 Vectra that beat it hands down on a run. I am set on a Rav just don't want to get burnt again on the mpg with a 2.2
  10. Forgive the ignorance but I am trying to decide on which engine for a new Rav4. Looking at the purchase options it shows the following choices:- 2.0 D 4 D, 2.2 D and 2.2 D-cat. I have trawled the forums and I am becoming more confused by the minute. My understanding is that 2.2 D-Cats have an EGR valve that burns extra fuel, hence the number of topics re heavy consumption on 2.2. That said does the 2.2 D not have a Cat then? If not what, if anything is it replaced with? Would I be right in thinking that the non Cat 2.2 D is a better bet if you want the 2.2 engine (we are talking manual gearboxes here, not auto). For those technically minded on the forums can you please, in laymans terms, assist me with the differences between the three apparent engines types? I did ask a Toyota salesman but saw his eyes glaze over not a good sign when I am willing to part with my hard earned cash. Thank you for your time.
  11. Thanks for your replies and thoughts. I guess test drive both 2.0 and 2.2 and take it from there. I looked at the CX 5 and it seems to hit the economy and performance button, but I felt it was so drab and dated inside so I ruled it out. No long warranty either ! Thinking back to the Avensis I owned, it returned about 40-42 on a run which is not far off what you are getting from your auto 2.2s. The Avensis was manual, pulled like a train when the revs were up but sixth was almost useless unless cruising at about 80 ! I guess it is this bit that really worries me. In this day and age we should be getting better from a 2.2 diesel or is it me ! Thanks again....
  12. Hi all, would welcome your thoughts and experience on the following please. I have my eye on a new RAV4 but somewhat confused re which engine to get, the 2.0 litre or 2.2. The car will do average mileage, be family transport and not be used off road. I am tempted by the 2.2 as I am struggling to see the 2.0 litre as being powerful enough. That said I am somewhat reluctant to buy a 2.2 as previous experience of an Avensis (2008 150 BHP) was of poor mpg. It was so bad I sold it on quite quickly I have read the 2.2 topic with interest but am unsure whether folks are still having issues or whether the engine is now fixed. In a nutshell, is the 2.0 litre up to the job for day to day family style motoring and is the 2.2 now a better option than previously. Thanks for your time..
  13. Thanks all for your responses......I have dug a bit deeper into the posts and find it is a constant theme. We sold a Grand Scenic diesel to buy the Avensis. This was a 1.9 dci (120BHP) and returned on average 47-48 mpg which bearing in mind its size etc I thought was acceptable.... The Avensis however I feel is unacceptable it is a diesel after all..........I also run a 1.8 Vectra (petrol)...on a run that gives me 42mpg on average.............more than the Avensis ! ! My previous figures highlighted above for the Avensis are A road and M way driving with two children and no load..........I will try the suggestion on the forums about hitting the power band and see what happens to the mpg...not sure about leaving it in 5th..... With all that said the trip computer is still way out......if it is unable to compute the mpg accurately is it recording the total mileage with any accuracy ? Out of interest has anyone any figures for a 2.0 L petrol tourer? Bitwood...
  14. Hi all, New to this site but hoping someone can shed some light on the problem. I have recently bought a 2.2 D tourer and although happy with the car its fuel consumption is starting to worry me. The computer tells me that it returns between 47 to 50+ MPG on a run (steady 75mph). However at my last fill up the computer showed 48.4 mpg but when I checked the old fashioned way having filled up, my calculations are just under 40mpg (52.82 litres to 462 miles). The range display also showed that on a full tank the car has a range of 492 miles........on 13 galls that is an expected mpg of some 37 mpg ! ! I have read the forum re various other consumption probs but was wondering if other people checked against the computer? The car has done just over 11000 miles......... Thanks