992 Fuel Economy and Running Costs Over 40,000 miles. - Page 1 - 911/Carrera GT - PistonHeads UK

I have now done around 40,000 miles in my C2. Recently I have done some long trips, at high speed. I regularly get around 500 miles on a single fill up on these long journeys. It is around 400 miles on mixed runs. I dont hang around either when I can push on. 500miles! That is more than my Dacia Duster (with a smaller fuel tank). The point of this post is that I think that is pretty good. for a car that does 0-60 in around 3.5 seconds according to the dragy. I have a friend with an R8, another with a 456 and they never seem to use them. I have another friend with an8 year old Skyline he has has from new that has 7k on the clock. It just sits in the garage alone. I think this is due to potential depreciation and worries about fuel consumption and breakages? I have had only one £700 service, three sets of rear tyres and 2 sets of fronts from new. I will get another oil change from Porsche before the weather gets cold I think. So total servicing bills have been less than £3000. That is brilliant. Just saying!

Impressive mpg!

mhh said: Impressive mpg! Albeit at the very economy-friendly 60 mph speed shown on the display. (97 km/h).

Panamax said: Albeit at the very economy-friendly 60 mph speed shown on the display. (97 km/h). That is an average speed over 1,000 kms. Try and match it!

As a comparison, I've just done 900km (Czechia to Italy) in my 997 on Wednesday. My average cons. was ~25 mpg. Again, no hanging about with an av. speed of 112 kmh. At least I diidn't have to wake up at 3:00 AM...!! Having said that, my 997 seems to provide ~300 miles to a tank. In the 992 the performance is higher and consumption lower. So there has been progress in the past 16 years! But, you can't really bring running costs in without including depreciation, I'd argue, even if I bet its been low given supply constraints.

True, depreciation is the main cost of car ownership. However as you know the markets are a bit strange at them moment for second hand car values. I didn't mention it because I am not sure I have any at all. The cheapest 992 in the country is £10k more than I paid for mine when it was new, so who knows? And who knows what will happen in the next 12 months?

That's fantastic politeperson, for a car with that level of performance those figures are very very impressive. Looking forward to putting many miles on mine when I get it soon.

In my 991T - essentially the same engine as yours OP - I drove about 45 miles to Brooklands this morning via A road, High Wycombe, M40, M25, bit of A3 and local roads. Largely legal speeds: 40 mpg per the trip computer (and it's pretty truthful). Generally about 500 miles from a tank. I don't hang about but then I don't blast away from lights and roundabouts just because I can. The 3.0 turbo engine is remarkably efficient. BTW, I notice that the 'official' mpg for the 991.2 Turbo is better than the T's.

That is pretty remarkable to be honest polite person. Re: the full fat turbo’s official mpg being better than the T. Is this because the T was launched late and so subject to the new more ‘real world’ test cycle that has generally reduced the recorded mpg? My 991.2 carrera also has essentially the same engine, but I don’t see the same mpgs. 36 is possible on a long run, but my typical mpg from mixed driving is around 26. Since having the engine tuned from 370 to 506 bhp, the mpg has not altered. What has altered is the ability to burn fuel on maximum attack. Over B roads it’s be down into the high teens and I’m sure it’d be single digit on track. A lot of people talk about the 7th manual gearbox being useless, but I find myself regularly slipping the car into this when pootling along at 40 and the engine doesn’t mind it one bit with so much torque. I would recommend considering the Litchfield tune as you then realise how asthmatic the engine was before. The power now builds progressively, so paradoxically closer to a NA engine than it was before. People might say, why do you need so much power, but of course it doesn’t need to be deployed all the time! On your amazing 0-60, I think this says so much about how good PDK is. I’d get nowhere near that with a manual box, so I generally ease away from the line and leave it until the car is rolling along nicely before using the power.

I have had my t mapped by dms, shows over 500hp on the dyno, on a motorway run it’s very efficient. But I did notice more fuel when pushing on up alpine passes. I guess the extra 150hp has to come from somewhere absolutely transformed the car

Those numbers are tremendous and probably something I won't see on my 992 C2 ever Living in London and using mine to do the 10 mile round trip school run has given me an incredible lifetime average of 13.8mpg with an average speed of 19mph When I brim the fuel tank it shows a max range of 220 miles!

Neoto said: Those numbers are tremendous and probably something I won't see on my 992 C2 ever Living in London and using mine to do the 10 mile round trip school run has given me an incredible lifetime average of 13.8mpg with an average speed of 19mph When I brim the fuel tank it shows a max range of 220 miles! Haha! Please tell me the car gets used for some fun trips too??!

Grantstown said: That is pretty remarkable to be honest polite person. Re: the full fat turbo’s official mpg being better than the T. Is this because the T was launched late and so subject to the new more ‘real world’ test cycle that has generally reduced the recorded mpg? My 991.2 carrera also has essentially the same engine, but I don’t see the same mpgs. 36 is possible on a long run, but my typical mpg from mixed driving is around 26. Since having the engine tuned from 370 to 506 bhp, the mpg has not altered. What has altered is the ability to burn fuel on maximum attack. Over B roads it’s be down into the high teens and I’m sure it’d be single digit on track. A lot of people talk about the 7th manual gearbox being useless, but I find myself regularly slipping the car into this when pootling along at 40 and the engine doesn’t mind it one bit with so much torque. I would recommend considering the Litchfield tune as you then realise how asthmatic the engine was before. The power now builds progressively, so paradoxically closer to a NA engine than it was before. People might say, why do you need so much power, but of course it doesn’t need to be deployed all the time! On your amazing 0-60, I think this says so much about how good PDK is. I’d get nowhere near that with a manual box, so I generally ease away from the line and leave it until the car is rolling along nicely before using the power. Re mpg T vs Turbo S, you could be right. My T is also a 7-speed manual. When not able to press on owing to those ambling mindlessly at 50, I'll use 7th from 45 mph, from which it'll pull steadily, if not briskly. If left to its own devices, my PDK 981 Cayman S would change into 7th at 44 mph when accelerating gently, and I suspect a 991 PDK would do the same, so this sort of low-speed/high-gear situation isn't labouring or abusing the engine. Mind you, for more spirited progress I always drop down a gear or three. I recollect reading on here that this engine doesn't take kindly to big demands at low revs.

Maxym said: Re mpg T vs Turbo S, you could be right. My T is also a 7-speed manual. When not able to press on owing to those ambling mindlessly at 50, I'll use 7th from 45 mph, from which it'll pull steadily, if not briskly. If left to its own devices, my PDK 981 Cayman S would change into 7th at 44 mph when accelerating gently, and I suspect a 991 PDK would do the same, so this sort of low-speed/high-gear situation isn't labouring or abusing the engine. Mind you, for more spirited progress I always drop down a gear or three. I recollect reading on here that this engine doesn't take kindly to big demands at low revs. Noted, Re loading the engine in 7th. I only use it at those speeds when ticking over at a constant speed. If accelerating I’d definitely drop down rather than let the engine struggle.

I know it's the official interval, but only one oil change in 40,000 miles is heartbreaking! Especially with all the swarf from a new engine.

Grantstown said: Haha! Please tell me the car gets used for some fun trips too??! It does but not as many as I'd originally hoped!