[Pinkie15]

Considering buying a 2.4 petrol version.


We have a Captiva LTZ, which would be the "long journey, fully loaded car".



Our old faithful daddywagon is really coming to the end of her life. She's worth naff all now (we've had her for all but 9 months of her 12 yr roadlife), and needs what she's worth spending on her this year, so probably BER.



So we need a local driving "run around" (around 6 - 8k annual mileage). The missus loves the Captiva, but we can't afford a nearly new one of those. We looked at Mokka/Trax, but they're still pricey and there's not a lot of elbow room in the back (we've got three kids, who are only going to get bigger).



Came across a 13 plate 2.4 from a S London dealership, it's got 4k on the clock and available for a smidge under 13k.



About the cheapest 1 yr old or less SUV type car we've come across. Only potential worry is how heavy on the jungle juice ? Had a look in the mpg thread, but only one post from a petrol owner that leaves us none the wiser.



Anypetrol owners on here that would like to comment ?

 

[gmzx]

hi, I own 2.4 petrol, mpg ave 30-31, its one of the best cars ive ever had , well worth considering instead of the diesel.

 

[Pinkie15]

Is that round town driving, or a mix with longer runs on dual carriageway/Mway ?


If mostly town that's quite an impressive figure for a big petrol in a heavy car.

 

[gmzx]

that's mostly town driving, my wifes 1.6 astra only returns 33-34 mpg town driving, there is not mutch to choose between the 2, I am very impressed with the antara . I was in two minds whether to buy petrol or diesel as I also thought 2.4 petrol would be gutsy, , my only gripe is 6th gear is useless on big hills , also no dpf, and at least 4k-5k cheaper than diesel model

 

[Pinkie15]

Given the Antara would be low mileage, mostly town then then DPF is also a worry.


Well, we're going to see the Antara tomorrow, so unless it's in a right state then we're probably going to buy it.



Your report back on mpg is fairly reassuring. And as you say, a fair whack cheaper than a diesel variant.

 

[gmzx]

I think the reason why the mpg is good has to do with the gear ratio on the 2.4 it will reach 70 mph at 2000 rpm

 

[chrisg]

IMO I would go for the petrol, considering the low mileage. Financially diesels only make sense if you cover 15000+ miles/year.You would probably have to go for a good run each weekend with a diesel, to clear out and warm the engine up properly.

I'm sure other members may disagree, but that's just my opinion.

 

[wilma08]

IMO I would go for the petrol, considering the low mileage. Financially diesels only make sense if you cover 15000+ miles/year. You would probably have to go for a good run each weekend with a diesel, to clear out and warm the engine up properly.

I'm sure other members may disagree, but that's just my opinion. 

I done a quick read on the petrol I don't think I would get one it's omissions are higher, so road tax would be higher, it only has 138 bhp to sum that makes it gutless, that also describe the engine as noisy and the gearbox as notchy, it has aircon as standard electric windows, I think heated seats but that's does not make up for a gutless engine and higher road tax .

Edited by: wilma08

 

[SJG]

Like Wilma the performance side would be my reason not to go for the petrol, it's less powerful than the old 2.0 Diesel, I believe road tax is the same as the 2.2 Diesel Auto, if your not towing anything and it's just short journeys then I guess the Petrol would be ok. But the engine never seems to get a good review, I would rather take my chance with the Diesel.... Test drive them both get a hands on feel for them..

 

[wilma08]

I like my cars with a bite of guts in the engine, I think this stems from the past before I started having children and my coupes had to go I always bought the highest break horse power I could afford with good torque etc (I like speed) their you go I said it, and at times I do miss the sporty looking cars but I put SAFTY before style saying that, as you know I have had I would say two proper 4x4,then the rest SUV's but I would say hand on my heart that the Antara / Captivia 184bhp drive admirably the Antara with its 19 inch low profile tyres grips well the handling through the steering is very communicative the ride is comfortable in both cars, and this is were I become a hyper rite in SAFTY I have only been myself when I have done this no kids no husband, so far I have taken her up to 110 mph did not want to push her but I probably could and she drove admirably, plus the auto gear box does not wast time either, no I need a car with guts, sorry guys

 

[gmzx]

the antara 2.4 facelift model has 167bhp,

 

[wilma08]

the antara 2.4 facelift model has 167bhp,  

Still don't know why could they not give it more bhp

 

[SJG]

Your right gmzx I eat humble pie the BHP is much better (167 as you say), there's only half a second between the 0-60 times and nearly same top speed, so it comes down to mpg, no 4x4 petrol model that I can see and the torque is low on the petrol.. When you look at it for mainly short runs if you don't need the 4x4 it's well worth considering...

 

[Grumps]

Your right gmzx I eat humble pie the BHP is much better (167 as you say), there's only half a second between the 0-60 times and nearly same top speed, so it comes down to mpg, no 4x4 petrol model that I can see and the torque is low on the petrol.. When you look at it for mainly short runs if you don't need the 4x4 it's well worth considering...

Just a shame they don't do it in SE spec as well.

Considering the poor mpg of the diesel it would have been simple for Vauxhall to do an SE AWD petrol model and I'm sure it would have sold just as well if not better. Even if the mpg was less than the diesel the difference in price of unleaded and no DPF would still make it more attractive.

 

[wilma08]

I agree there the spec
See how we had a Ford Explorer it was an auto petrol the engine size was not compromised I am sure it was a 4,0
Ltr 200 bhp it was a heavy car, if Vauxhall done the same a good spec auto and descent engine I would consider it

 

[Shorty]

Hi, I also own a 63 plate 2.4 petrol.

I bought it after 2 friends had bought 2.2 diesels. They both love the cars, but are fed up with the DPF problem. They are both only averaging 33/35 mpg and are driving excess miles per week to get the DPF light out!

I took a chance and bought the 2.4 petrol, it is superb, smooth across the rev range, and is averaging 31.5mpg. Also it does not have the turbo surge of the diesels and of course petrol is much cheaper.

BTW, the petrol engine is 167bhp and is 0 to 62 in 10.5 seconds, pretty good for a heavy car.

I paid £13995 otr, it was pre registered by the dealer and came with the first years road tax,

So far I love it.

 

[Pinkie15]

Welcome to the forum.


Know what you mean about the power delivery, it is extremely smooth. We also find ours incredibly quiet, sometimes have to double check the rev counter to make sure haven't stalled it.

 

[Rd57chad]

Studying the figures on fuelly 27-31 mpg seems average for 2.2 diesel . I would be rather surprised if the 2.4 petrol was capable of 31 mpg ! I previously have owned a 2.4 petrol frontera it would average 22 mpg . I would need to see more fuel consumption figures for the petrol before being convinced else surely you would see a lot more of them on the road ? I hate the DPF on the diesel with a passion but admit it's an necessary evil pushed on us by meddling EU boffins with nothing better to do.

 

[gmzx]

I have had the 2.4 for 2 years now , I was in 2 minds about buying it ,like most people I thought a 2.4 petrol would be heavy on fuel , like I have said before I am glad I did now, there is not a huge difference in consumption between the models, and that is why you wont see much of them on the road, it all comes down to peoples perception of diesel versus petrol.

 

[welshstan6]

I have a 2012 2.4 petrol forsale in Cumbria cheap £2,500 122k miles smooth drive every thing is perfect Tel 07857136015