*lazy*

whats the difference you guys with 2.3lt engines in 360s notice on economy.

much worse?? not worse
better!?

I could get 30 to the gallon in my old 1987 240 estate manual with a carb, so with the lighter body may even be better than that!

yea ive driven a 240 wagon for ages, the economy was awful, though it was auto.

I just wanted to know how it would compare to the 2lt, if there was any possibility that because of the higher torque, less foot needed to be used?

though i expect the b200e is flows just as well.

auto boxes make a big difference to fuel economy, My 240 estate could cruise around without changing gear over 3000rpm and be very economical, if you did that with an auto youd be going too slow to keep up with traffic, so you have to use more gas. Same with 2 litre engines, you have to push them harder to get the same peformance so the economy goes to pot.

I was never a big fan of auto boxes, as they kinda dictate to you how fast the engine should be going, wheras with a manual, you have full control. Autos are fantastic when stuck in stop-start traffic though. Let your foot off the brake and away you go!

I don't think it's quite as simple as are 2.3s better than 2.0s. Something like a B230FK (in a 360) driven gently will probably given better economy than a B200E....but a B230E is probably a lot worse than a B200K!

cheers

James

My B23E is around the same consumption as the B200 - bit better pick up though!!!

till recently it was pinging its arse off though so i'll see if i can get some econ figures outta it now