Can someone tell me what real life fuel consumption is on a diesel Scout please.

Looking at getting one to replace my 2.0Tdi Elegance Estate.

I usually manage to get 50ish from my existing car on a run so just wondering how the Scout compares.

I am expecting a less due to the losses with the four wheel drive but would like to hear from someone who has one.

Mid to high 40s I would expect

I am expecting a less due to the losses with the four wheel drive but would like to hear from someone who has one.

The 4x4 system isn't permanent, so with that in mind, would it make a great deal of difference?

As you say, it would be interesting to see though.

have done 21.000 mile's, around town averigeing 40mpg on a run with with family around 45mpg ,just looked at maxidot and averige is 39.7,

towing my caravan i have seen it down to 32mpg,

i brought a scout as it mached my life style not to save money at the pumps ,my wife drives it mostly

and neither of us drive on the fuel gauge,fuel consumption aside its an exellent car.

Thanks patrol man.

If that is normal I find it quite disappointing, 20% less than my average of 50.6mpg over the last 4000 miles is a hell of a lot. This includes fully loaded trips to France sitting a 80 on the motorways so its not a case of me having a light right foot.

I may well have to rethink the Scout option.

I suppose its in line with the difference in CO2 emissions, 145 for the Elegance and 170 for the Scout., roughly a 20% increase.

Shame as the 4 x 4 would be really useful in the Pyrenees in the winter.

I've got the (non-Scout) 4x4 Estate 2.0 TDI DPF (2008) and the Skoda figures are very similar to the Scout so I'd expect the real world figures to be quite close too. They are almost the same car really.

I generally drive quite gently (70 average, honest!) and am seeing about 50mpg on a motorway commute with just me in the car.

The 4x4 system isn't permanent, so with that in mind, would it make a great deal of difference?

Yes it would! It's not just the friction losses that burn all the extra fuel, it's the weight of the 4x4 system. You have the drive shaft, the Haldex clutch and the rear diff, a 2WD car has none of these. Even when the 4x4 system isn't engaged, you're still dragging all that extra metal around.

If you think about it, the Haldex clutch is at the back of the car, so the drive shaft is permanently engaged, even if the rear diff and wheels aren't.

I don't think fuel economy is that big an advantage with Haldex to be honest.

It's gets better!

When I first got it with 3,600 on the clock I was lucky if I got more than low 40s unless driving everywhere at 56mph....

Now at 28k miles and bizarrely a brief rest over the Xmas hols it seems to have had a bit of an epiphany and is now regularly returning 46-48mpg on trips, have seen 52-53 mpg if driving carefully (boats or bikes on the roof excepted). If it helps with comparison my driving normally takes in A Roads and Motorway with very little in the way of crawling town driving. In a rush to get home tonight the trip average was 38odd.......

I even once got an average of 108mpg but that was in a 40mph convoy of traffic rolling down from Cairngorm to Aviemore in 6th gear. Even with caning it down the A9 afterwards the whole trip average was 50mpg (but I guess that's cheating!!)

Fuel consumption is still increasing, and from what I've read on here isn't desperately behind what some 2wd 2.0TDI owners are getting, furthermore apart from the Diesel Outback there's not many 4x4s that even come close to the Scout's economy.

But - after my old Mk1 got pretty hammered from off road use I was prepared to sacrifice some economy for the right tool. Was really more after the ride height and bodywork protection than a Defender wannabe, though having now benefited from 4wd during an icier than normal Scottish winter I wouldn't be without it, I didn't know what I was missing!

Hope this ramble helps.

Niall

Over the 13,000 miles since I bough the car (total 20,000) I am averaging 45mpg on maxidot.

Sticking to the speed limit on the motorway I average around 50-52mpg. On A roads usually average around 47-48mpg.

I have been doing a fair bit of short trips though so that has killed my average!

The 4x4 system isn't permanent, so with that in mind, would it make a great deal of difference?

As you say, it would be interesting to see though.

It is permanent, although granted 98% fwd most of the time, enough to impact fuel economy though.

To be honest, it is small price to pay in my eyes... But then that's why I bought it . No regrets

It's gets better!

When I first got it with 3,600 on the clock I was lucky if I got more than low 40s unless driving everywhere at 56mph....

Now at 28k miles and bizarrely a brief rest over the Xmas hols it seems to have had a bit of an epiphany and is now regularly returning 46-48mpg on trips, have seen 52-53 mpg if driving carefully (boats or bikes on the roof excepted). If it helps with comparison my driving normally takes in A Roads and Motorway with very little in the way of crawling town driving. In a rush to get home tonight the trip average was 38odd.......

Niall

I hope that mine improves in the same way.. Fingers crossed...

It's gets better!

I've only done approx 4-5k (bought it at 3.5k and am on approx 8-9k now) so it's too early to say for sure, but I think it has got slightly better. I'll keep an eye on it, hopefully it'll get better still

It is permanent, although granted 98% fwd most of the time, enough to impact fuel economy though.

To be honest, it is small price to pay in my eyes... But then that's why I bought it . No regrets

I suspect the earlier poster meant "not permanently engaged" rather than "not permanently available". It's permanent as in you don't have to do anything to activate it, but it's not engaged all the time. That said though, you have degrees of slip all the time (slip is what activates Haldex, on gen2 anyway... gen2 is fitted to Scout), even the toe-in of the front wheels causes a certain amount of slip. So you might have some degree of torque transfer more often than you think...

As for fuel economy, I'll refer to my previous post. Even if you cut right through the (front <-> rear) drive shaft with a hacksaw, I reckon you'd still not improve your fuel economy by much, because you'd still be carrying an awful lot of extra metal around compared to the 2WD Estate.

I'm going from memory so feel free to correct me, but I think the 4x4 version of the Estate (not Scout, but doubt there's much difference) weighs something like 100Kg more than the 2WD version.

I'm going from memory so feel free to correct me, but I think the 4x4 version of the Estate (not Scout, but doubt there's much difference) weighs something like 100Kg more than the 2WD version.

And the Scout is a bit heavier than the 4x4, adds about 190kg to the VRs estate...

And the Scout is a bit heavier than the 4x4, adds about 190kg to the VRs estate...

Just looked up the definitive info from brochure (assumes 2.0 TDI PD engine):

2WD 2010Kg

4WD 2130Kg

Scout 2190Kg

Something wrong with those figures. No way the Octy ways 2 tonne

Scout 2.0TDI = 1625 kg

2.0TDI 4x4 estate = 1625 kg

2.0TDI 2WD Estate = 1540 kg

All pre facelift (pre 2009 model)

And to answer the OP, I used to get between 40 and 45 mpg

Something wrong with those figures. No way the Octy ways 2 tonne

The figures quoted are "total weight" rather then "kerb weight". Here's the "kerb weight" figures:

2WD 1540 Kg

4WD 1625 Kg

Scout 1530 Kg

The Scout figure looks odd though, that can't be right, can it?!

Looking at auroan's post, it seems the online MY08 brochure has a misprint for the Scout. It was pretty obvious though, no way is the Scout lighter than the 4x4, not that much anyway!

Looking at auroan's post, it seems the online MY08 brochure has a misprint for the Scout. It was pretty obvious though, no way is the Scout lighter than the 4x4, not that much anyway!

And even less likely its lighter than the 2WD version looking at the above figures!

Am I missing something, but if you assume £1 per litre and 20,000 miles per annum, then the difference between 50mpg and 40 mpg is an extra £450 ish per annum (less than £40 per month). Is that really significant in your choice of car?

The depreciation will be £'s more!

It always seems to me that people get hung up on fuel consumption, wheras depreciation is the killer!

Am I missing something, but if you assume £1 per litre and 20,000 miles per annum, then the difference between 50mpg and 40 mpg is an extra £450 ish per annum (less than £40 per month). Is that really significant in your choice of car?

The depreciation will be £'s more!

It always seems to me that people get hung up on fuel consumption, wheras depreciation is the killer!

That arguement depends on whether money is your only consideration when considering a car's fuel economy.

Well I actually do about 30000 miles a year so thats £675 working on those figures.

Over the four years that I would have the car thats a lot of money to me for the limited time I would actually really need the four wheel drive.

I cant really see the depreciation being any worse than the Elegance though.

Thanks for the replies everyone

33,000 miles in & getting around 45 mpg overall average (pretty much as in original marketing gumpf), this can drop quite considerably if your on it. I can achieve 50-53mpg without to much concentration on the motorway with kids seats & a boot full, of course this depends on outside wind resistance etc...

I don't think the weight is the main issue here though when comparing to 2wd Combi with same engine, I think the Haldex Clutch will cause some kind of load on the running gear which probably reduces economy by a few MPG's.

Well chuffed with the overall performance & economy of the Scout & will certainly be looking at a similar Haldex arrangement next time - would be fantastic if they fitted the VRS170 TDI unit to the Scout as I have said before especially when you could map it to 200hp - would be a lot of fun