Real Dacia Logan fuel consumption
Dacia Logan real fuel consumption by user reviews is approximately 21% higher compared to official consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 15% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 27% higher. Above consumption difference is the average for all Dacia Logan produced from 2005 to 2021. For Dacia Logan produced up to 2013 the difference in real fuel consumption by user reviews is on average +16%, while for those produced after 2013 it is on average +34%.
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
Average difference between user reported and stated consumption
All carmakers average fuel economy difference between advertised and user reported
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
2016
Dacia Logan 2016 sedan
Average real petrol consumption difference: +34% Average real diesel consumption difference: +36%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Dacia Logan versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9DACIA Logan 2016 0.9L TCe MT | Petrol | 5.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km+42% |
| 0.9DACIA Logan 2016 0.9L TCe Automatic AT | Petrol | 5.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km+32% |
| 1.0DACIA Logan 2016 1.0L 12V MT | Petrol | 5.0 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km+28% |
| 1.5DACIA Logan 2016 1.5L dCi 75 Hp 75 HP MT | Diesel | 3.6 l/100km | 5.6 l/100km+56% |
| 1.5DACIA Logan 2016 1.5L dCi 90 Hp 90 HP MT | Diesel | 3.6 l/100km | 4.2 l/100km+17% |
| 1.5DACIA Logan 2016 1.5L dCi 90 Hp Automatic 90 HP AT | Diesel | 3.7 l/100km |
2012
Dacia Logan 2012 sedan
Average real petrol consumption difference: +6% Average real diesel consumption difference: +32%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Dacia Logan versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.9DACIA Logan 2012 2 0.9L TCe MT | Petrol | 5.3 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km+25% |
| 0.9Dacia Logan 2016 0.9 Tce Automatic AT | Petrol | 4.9 l/100km | |
| 1.1DACIA Logan 2012 1.1 2 1.2L 16V GPL MT | Petrol | 7.6 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km-3% |
| 1.5DACIA Logan 2012 2 1.5L dCI 75 Hp 75 HP MT | Diesel | 3.9 l/100km | 5.6 l/100km+44% |
| 1.5DACIA Logan 2012 2 1.5L dCI 90 Hp 90 HP MT | Diesel | 3.9 l/100km | 4.7 l/100km+21% |
| 1.5Dacia Logan 2016 1.5 dCi 90 HP AT | Diesel | 3.6 l/100km |
2008
Dacia Logan 2008 sedan
Average real petrol consumption difference: +15% Average real diesel consumption difference: +25%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Dacia Logan versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1Dacia Logan 2008 1.1 1.2 MT | Petrol | 5.9 l/100km | |
| 1.4Dacia Logan 2008 1.4 MPI MT | Petrol | 7.0 l/100km | |
| 1.5Dacia Logan 2008 1.5 dCi 70 Hp 70 HP MT | Diesel | 4.3 l/100km | 5.7 l/100km+33% |
| 1.5Dacia Logan 2008 1.5 dCi 85 Hp 85 HP MT | Diesel | 4.6 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km+17% |
| 1.6Dacia Logan 2008 1.6 85 HP MT | Petrol | 6.7 l/100km | |
| 1.6Dacia Logan 2008 1.6 16V 105 HP MT | Petrol | 7.1 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km+15% |
2005
Dacia Logan 2005 sedan
Average real petrol consumption difference: +4% Average real diesel consumption difference: +13%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Dacia Logan versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.4Dacia Logan 2005 1.4 MT | Petrol | 6.8 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km+4% |
| 1.5Dacia Logan 2006 1.5 dCi MT | Diesel | 4.7 l/100km | 5.3 l/100km+13% |
| 1.6Dacia Logan 2005 1.6 87 HP MT | Petrol | 7.2 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km+8% |
| 1.6Dacia Logan 2006 1.6 16V 105 HP MT | Petrol | 7.1 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km0% |
Real fuel consumption of other carmakers
The fuel consumption reported by users does not reflect the experience of all users, may be selective (depending on the driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the car and other circumstances) and should therefore not be taken as a representative indicator.