Has anyone got any ideas about which would be more economical, a stock 2l or 1600 bay if you were doing mainly highway driving.

I am guessing that the 1600 should be but given the different gearing and increased torque in the 2l I dont really know.

Cheers

sadly i think it is a case of "less worse"

I think it more depends on other things.

A 2L with Picts is a pig.

A 2 L with Webers is MUCH more economical.

I would bet the 1600 is probabally more economical but less driveable.

What you might find is that the 2L ends up being more economical on the highway as it isin't working as hard to maintain the speed, especially with a Bay.

And for around town you may also find that the 2l requires less effort to start off so could end up being better here too.

There is a limit to this thinking though - which is why my 2,2l Subi ain't so economical.....

Cheers
Jeremy

I couldn't really tell you, as I've never owned a 1600 kombi, but I what I do know is that my 1800 kombi's mileage used to suffer as I increased speed above 90kmh. I always assumed that this was because of the increased wind resistance as the speed picked up.

After some initial testing with my new taller wheels which effectively alter the final drive ratio, I've found that my economy has improved, even though I've been sitting on 110kmh lately, rather than 90. I'm currently getting about 14 litres/100kmh.

While my tyre and wheel combination may not suit everyone's tastes, you may find that you could gain some economy by choosing wheels and tyres carefully, even perhaps with a 1600. I don't know how a 1600 would go up hills with taller tyres though.