Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Citroen Nemo fuel consumption

Of all Citroen Nemo modifications produced from 2009 to 2015 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 22% higher compared to advertised consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 23% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 20% higher. Starting from 2009 Citroen Nemo average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was significantly higher than average, at 2011 it was slightly above industry average, at 2013 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersCitroen NemoAll carmakersCitroen Nemo
2009+14%+23% +14%+20%
Show all years
2010+16%+23% +16%+20%
2011+19%+23% +19%+20%
2012+21%+23% +23%+20%
2013+23%+23% +27%+20%
2014+26%+23% +30%+20%
2015+27%+23% +33%+20%
2009 - 2015

Citroen Nemo 2009 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+23%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+20%
ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.4 liter petrol engine
Citroen Nemo 2009 1.4i 73 HP manual 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km+23%
1.4 liter diesel engine
CITROEN Nemo 2009 Combi 1.4L HDi 68 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km+20%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.