It seems to me a shame the Superb II is not fitted with a fuel tank larger than 60 litres. The Passat has a 70 litre tank, while other competitors have tanks ranging from 65-75 litres.

A larger tank would give an enhanced range and make the Superb II an even better long distance cruiser.

Does anyone have an explanation as to why a larger tank is not fitted as standard? It's a shame you cannot specify a larger tank as you can with some Mercs.

whats the average distance between petrol stations.....

Sounds like it's big enough to me, personally! Just carrying more weight about, and sinking more money into it at fuel stations!

And even at 60L, surely with one of the diesel models that's going to be a circa 600 mile range?

Steve

I never get less than 600 miles from a tank with my 55 litre tank on the Octavia so I think a 60 litre tank on the Superb would give me about the same range.

not many cars have tanks bigger than this. my outgoing A6 is 60 litres. the new shape one we sold did have the upgraded tank i think - near to 80 litres !!! think of the extra wieght you are lugging around !!

60 litres should be good for nearly 500 miles even in the petrol. cant think of any occasion where i want to drive 500 miles without stopping for a break !!

Why drag another 10 litres around, this is the UK not Nevada, I run mine on £20 of fuel all the time, full tank = 3 adult passengers 100% of the time.

Why drag another 10 litres around, this is the UK not Nevada, I run mine on £20 of fuel all the time, full tank = 3 adult passengers 100% of the time.

I might be wrong here, but, 60 lts = 60'ish KG. I dont know what size adults you are talking about but if they only add up to 60KG they cant be that big :confused:

Perhaps the reason is that they couldn't put in place a bigger one because they had to leave enough space for the 4x4 transmission. Well, they could have put a 70 litre tank for the standard cars, and a 60 litre one for the 4x4 cars; but that had been unefficient, talking from the production point of view. And Skoda is precisely famous for being efficient, not son many options as VW or Audi (many times stupid options), that consume a lot ot time and make the production slower and more expensive.

I had a Saab 93 and it had a 56 litre tank :eek:. The total traction version had 54 litres only :eek:. Only a difference of 2 litres... but this minimum difference meant two references, a more complex production line, etc, etc. I'm not surprised that General Motors has problems. With decisions like this, it's not extrange

Just my two cents

I might be wrong here, but, 60 lts = 60'ish KG. I dont know what size adults you are talking about but if they only add up to 60KG they cant be that big :confused:

Its even better than that, petrol and diesel are lighter than water so even for diesel (which is heavier than petrol) 60 litres is only about 51kg so the difference between 60 and 70 litres is only 8.5kg - 10% of an average man.

I do think the Superb would suit something like an 80 litre tank. 60 litres is just fine though I suppose.

Don't think the tank size really that much of a problem, The difference between 60 - 80 lts is about 120miles roughly (just a guess) If you were driving trans Continental i doubt you would drive 500 - 600miles with out stopping for a break. When doing long journeys myself we tend to stop ever 3 hrs for a ten minute leg stretch, doesn't take to long to add fuel if needed.

In day to day running the difference in size should not be to much of a problem because most people fill up when convenient to them, i don't think people always leave it till the fuel light flashes on.

On a different note, my Land Rover had a 95ltr tank and it used to take so long to fill i some times only put in half a tank. that is the downside of a big tank.

60 litres is just fine for me. I can get to work and back again (520 miles) on a single tank. That's all I need.

If you think 60 litres is small, then my Evo 6 would have given you a scare. It had a 45 litre tank, and only managed about 16-18 mpg. I never managed more than 180 miles from a full tank of super unleaded :eek:

I used to have to fill up 4 times on my journey to work and back. Now that's fuel economy for you!

Bagpuss.

Why drag another 10 litres around, this is the UK not Nevada, I run mine on £20 of fuel all the time, full tank = 3 adult passengers 100% of the time.

It depends how many miles you do. I have a 150 mile commute - £20 would get me to work and back 1.5 times. Needless to say I fill mine to the brim every time!

As for the weight - I've had a quick google, and fuel allegedly weighs just under 1Kg per litre. So 60Kg for a full tank being liberal. That's 9.5 Stone for a full tank. I think :confused:

I can get 540 miles from my Fabia tank (40/45L?) So i think anything more than 60L would just be overkill surely?

I can get 540 miles from my Fabia tank (40/45L?) So i think anything more than 60L would just be overkill surely?

I suppose the tank size is a compromise for the particular car. 60L on a 2.0TDi Superb would be ample, though on a 3.6V6 it would probably give a range of less than 400 miles (wild guess!) My 9 year old Saab 9-5 2.3 Auto has a 70L tank, which gives around 400 miles..

My old Passat was a 60l tank and did around 450-600 on a tank, but its just nice to not have to refuel so often, an 80l tank would be welcome.

It depends how many miles you do. I have a 150 mile commute - £20 would get me to work and back 1.5 times. Needless to say I fill mine to the brim every time!

As for the weight - I've had a quick google, and fuel allegedly weighs just under 1Kg per litre. So 60Kg for a full tank being liberal. That's 9.5 Stone for a full tank. I think :confused:

I think in your case it won't matter as once the weight is on the move it carries itself, but for me in town all day it's extra weight the engine has to keep moving from stand still.

I didn't do the maths, but try picking up 60 litres of fuel and swing it over your shoulder and you'll know what I meant

My old Passat was a 60l tank and did around 450-600 on a tank, but its just nice to not have to refuel so often, an 80l tank would be welcome.

My sentiments exactly! I travel daily on average between 100-130 miles and it's nice not having to refuel every 3-4 days. With my Octy II I usually have to refill every 5-6 days.

I previously had a 406 2.0Hdi 90 which had a 70 litre tank. The size of tank coupled with the economic engine gave a cruising range of well in excess of 800 miles, ideal for the continent.

whilst I appreciate it is not sensible to drive 500+ miles until the tank runs dry, it does take time to refuel, therefore, fewer stops is preferable.

Does nobody else play the Clarkson 'game' of seeing how far they can travel on a full tank, gambling on not running out of fuel when the low fuel light illuminates?

gambling on not running out of fuel when the low fuel light illuminates?

Yeah, the week before pay day.

My 9 year old Saab 9-5 2.3 Auto has a 70L tank, which gives around 400 miles..

Great car and great engine

Does nobody else play the Clarkson 'game' of seeing how far they can travel on a full tank, gambling on not running out of fuel when the low fuel light illuminates?

Done it on a return trip to Scotland once, getting just over 750 out of the tank before filling up just short of home up with 0 miles reading on the gauge..... Oh for the halcyon days of 60,000+ petrol stations instead of the miserly 14,000 or so we have now.

On average, I get about 600 miles to the tank, and fill up at least once a week. A 70l tank would be nice, purely to cut down on the refueling, but not a necessity I guess. Would eat into the interior space in the car, which I don't really want.