C180 CGI 1.8 or 1.6 liter

[J400uk]

c180 CGI guys is either 1.6lt or 1.8lt its a choice 1.8 is their new engines that are not even in their brochures yet. i am getting my 1.8 in may. I was confused also when ordered that C180 CGI will be 1.6 lit but it is 1.8 , 1796 in fact with more horsepower and the same emission e.t.c as the 1.6..

P.S am from Cyprus.

Got mine with full extras + panoramic roof. will post pics when it arrives.

The situation has changed since I made my last post in this thread. I think the 1.8 C180 CGI is auto only?

 

[mika]

the latest info im reading is (i appreciate this is an old thread)

c180blue efficiency is a 1595cc 154bhp unit
&
c250blue efficiency is a 1796cc 204bhp unit

has anyone got experience of the new c180 with the 1595cc and is it any good ?
figures look quite impressive
0-60 in 9secs
mpg 43-44
top speed 135-140

 

[st4]

has anyone got experience of the new c180 with the 1595cc and is it any good ?
figures look quite impressive
0-60 in 9secs
mpg 43-44
top speed 135-140

A bit padestrian IMHO. Not bad for a 1.6 but still a peashooter mobile, you need the 0-60 in the low 8's or 7's for a reasonably brisk car.

 

[gaz_l]

figures look quite impressive
0-60 in 9secs
mpg 43-44
top speed 135-140

0-60 and top speed are about the same as my old Golf V5 auto and that was sprightly enough if not exactly a fireball. The real difference is the Golf used to turn in around 22-23 MPG normally and I never saw more than 27..

Cheers,

Gaz

 

[redbaron]

I imagine a cheeky remap to 180-190bhp or so would make it very liveable with.

 

[reflexboy]

My dad has a 2009 c180 kompressor blue efficiency and that is a 1.6. I banned him from getting anything less than a 1.8 but the 1.6 goes surprisingly well

 

[mika]

A bit padestrian IMHO. Not bad for a 1.6 but still a peashooter mobile, you need the 0-60 in the low 8's or 7's for a reasonably brisk car.

0-60 and top speed are about the same as my old Golf V5 auto and that was sprightly enough if not exactly a fireball. The real difference is the Golf used to turn in around 22-23 MPG normally and I never saw more than 27..

Cheers,

Gaz

In estate form with humans and labrador on board im thinking this would be a very nice car (i dont mind a bit of peashooting - ive had a 320i touring a few years back - i imaging this might be similar )
leaving aside the sport pack and staying with the SE plus a stack of extras this could make a very comfortable machine

 

[gIzzE]

I get confused by BMWs naming. There's a 118d, 120d, and 123d - they have a 2 litre engine.

Even more confusing, the 118d today, has more power than the previous 120d.

There is also a 116d that is also a 2 litre.

Oh, and there is the 116d Efficient Dynamics that is a 1.6 diesel!

The 116d ED is getting some stunning fuel figures though, one of the guys on the forum is getting over 100mpg from it commuting from London to Cambridge, he says over 100mpg as the OBC stops at 99.99mpg.
He does admit to sticking teh cruise on at 55mph and no traffic as he travels at 5am and again at 10pm.

Most are getting mid 60's average though.

 

[juux]

Like it or not, engine downsizing is a trend that is likely to continue.

We (and by that I mean, I!) need to stop focussing on cubic capacity as a way of judging an engine's worth. I've stated elsewhere that I'm generally in favour of this, as should anyone who's been able to compare a 1.2/1.4TSI vs. a 1.8/2.0 VAG, or a 1.0 EcoBoost vs. 1.6 Zetec Ford - night and day.

Headline power on the 1.6CGI is about the same as a NA 1.8/2.0, the torque delivery is immeasurably superior and, if you can resist giving it the beans at every opportunity, I'm sure the economy really will be in a different league to the older engines as well.

Basically, if the engineers do their job then nobody should really care what 'size' the engine underneath the bonnet is. All things being equal, smaller is most definitely better in this regard.

0-60 and top speed are about the same as my old Golf V5 auto and that was sprightly enough if not exactly a fireball. The real difference is the Golf used to turn in around 22-23 MPG normally and I never saw more than 27.

Yup, those V5s sure loved the juice! Nice noise though

 

[MercC180Komp]

Like it or not, engine downsizing is a trend that is likely to continue.

We (and by that I mean, I!) need to stop focussing on cubic capacity as a way of judging an engine's worth. I've stated elsewhere that I'm generally in favour of this, as should anyone who's been able to compare a 1.2/1.4TSI vs. a 1.8/2.0 VAG, or a 1.0 EcoBoost vs. 1.6 Zetec Ford - night and day.

Headline power on the 1.6CGI is about the same as a NA 1.8/2.0, the torque delivery is immeasurably superior and, if you can resist giving it the beans at every opportunity, I'm sure the economy really will be in a different league to the older engines as well.

Basically, if the engineers do their job then nobody should really care what 'size' the engine underneath the bonnet is. All things being equal, smaller is most definitely better in this regard.



Yup, those V5s sure loved the juice! Nice noise though

Agreed, just picked up my C180 1.6L Kompressor and its performing very well so far, returning 30.2MPG at the moment, will see what it returns on a longer spell with my driving, hoping for better to be fair

 

[mika]

I test drove the 1.6 turbo (C 180) yesterday
and was quite impressed, the engine is very lively and gets off the mark briskly, when you open the throttle there is a reasonable pull and it manages that without having to floor it and ring its neck through each gear
I imagine if driven steadily the fuel consumption would be impressive
bhp comes out at 156 and torque is approx 170 (i think )
a decent engine, at least performance wise
thumbs up from me

 

[ExW205and204]

Its the exactly power and torque as my 2012 C180 1.8 Turbo. I would hope its more economical as well.