See just over 520 miles to my tank in the TDI, it was around 420 miles in the TFSI

So you're seriously saying you've gotten 52mpg average from a tank on a TFSI VRS just with sensible driving?

The mean for your car on spritmonitor is about 31mpg. Skoda's official combined figure is 37.7. Most people in PD105s don't even see 620 miles between fill ups. You should be contacting somebody in R&D in VAG to have a look at your engine. It's nothing short of a miracle.

Just noticed, in your fourth pic down, your fuel gauge needle is right at the bottom of the red at 532.4 miles, yet you say you did another 85 miles. At that same mileage of 532.4, your computer mpg is 39.9, so you'd have had to do 300mpg or something for those last 85 miles to get up to 52mpg for the tank.

I'm calling this as a wind-up!

EDIT - Just realised, 532.4 miles at 39.9 mpg isn't possible on one tank as it equates to 60.4 litres of fuel, when the car only has a 55 litre tank. Busted!

I drove a Golf GTI from manchester back to stourbridge and got about 45 indicated MPG (a true 42 is likely) and that was driving for economy.

With a 12 gallon tank that would give a range of about 510 miles.

To do 570 miles you'd need to average 47mpg and while it's possible to do that for a while I'd be very surprised to see anyone manage that for that many miles in a VRS.

I wonder how much fuel was in the expansion tank?

while it's possible to do that for a while I'd be very surprised to see anyone manage that for that many miles in a VRS.

I'd be even more surprised to see them get the Carl's claimed 52mpg whilst the MFD at 532 miles says 39.9mpg.

Don'T forget when you fill up its just the tank that holds 55 litres so most probably you will get another 3 or 4 in the filler

But at 532 miles @ 39.9mpg, he's already used 5.5 litres more fuel than the tank holds and if that wasn't impressive enough, he then manages to go on to squeeze out ANOTHER 85 miles. Maybe he switches to Back To The Future style Mr Fusion power ...

EDIT: Update i have managed to get 617.3 miles from the tank before filling up which is IMHO outstanding. Filled up today and put in 53.76 litres of fuel so may have got about 10 miles or so more. But i reckon its safe to say you can get 620miles from an vRS when driven normally. Which for a car with 300lb/ft of torque is great :D:D:D:D

The maths just doesn't add up!

I think a little fairy has been sneaking fuel into your tank or there is something drastically wrong with your trip computer.

617.3 miles on 53.6 litres is 52mpg but your computer is saying only 39.9mpg for the first 532 miles. To do another 85 miles on top and finish at 52mpg would require a 128mpg average over the 85 miles.

So your 532 miles @ 39.9mpg would have used 60.5 litres. Add to that the 3 litres doing 85 miles at 128mpg(!) = 63.5 litres which is 10 litres more than you put in and 8litres over the tank's nominal capacity..

Looking at it another way: 617.3 miles at 40mpg = 70litres (15 litres over the tank's nominal capacity) - the fairy must have added 20 quid's worth of v-power when you weren't looking - I wish she would visit me

Or you were towed for 85miles after running out of fuel:rofl:

Come on! Own up! April 1st was ages ago :D:D

I call your bluff and claim my £10 prize :D:D

The maths just doesn't add up!

Correct.

So your 532 miles @ 39.9mpg would have used 60.5 litres. Add to that the 3 litres doing 85 miles at 128mpg(!) = 63.5 litres which is 10 litres more than you put in and 8litres over the tank's nominal capacity..

If you work it out like that, i.e.

(532 / 40) + (85 / 128) = x / 52

then x (the distance travelled) = 723 miles, which we know to be wrong.

Or the other way, where y is the mpg we need to find for 85 miles to get us up to 52 overall...

(532 / 40) + (85 / y) = 617 / 52

then y = -61, yes minus 61 mpg. Don't think about that for too long, it hurts.

Edited 14 May, 200917 yr by wega3k

Correct.

If you work it out like that, i.e.

(532 / 40) + (85 / 128) = x / 52

then x (the distance travelled) = 723 miles, which we know to be wrong.

Or the other way, where y is the mpg we need to find for 85 miles to get us up to 52 overall...

(532 / 40) + (85 / y) = 617 / 52

then y = -61, yes minus 61 mpg. Don't think about that for too long, it hurts.

Nay lad! Common sense tells you that to get an average from 40 to 52 you have to do more than 52 for a lot of miles or a huge amount over 52 for a few miles.

I calculated it by weighted average so the calculation is

532x39.9 + 85xY = 617x52

Y= ((617x52) - (532x39.9))/85

giving Y=128mpg

Now my brain hurts - sumz twice in 1 day... :Yikes:

Well maybe the computer is wrong (i did say it may still be out even though i had accurised it)

Also yes i did brim the tank before i set off so pass as to how much i actually started off with. All i know is that when i filled up after the journey it took 53.76 litres to do so. I may even still have the receipt somewhere.

How can i be lying :confused:. The computer shows how far i went and on what fuel consumption etc. if anybody would like to sit in the car when i do it next time feel free.

Or would you like me to video the whole journey???

Don't forget Clarkson PROVED on top gear that you can get incredible economy without driving like a granny. He drove a jaguar (granted a diesel but it was a 2.7 V6) from Basel to Blackpool which would have done nearly 1000 miles on a tank of fuel the manufacturers claimed only 660 as an absolute maximum and he drove at around 80 mph most of the way through europe with all the heating, heated seats etc on. I suppose he is lying aswell and put in some more fuel?

People you are all entitled to your opinions however i have no reason to lie. If you don't believe it then when i next drive to Folkestone and back again you are welcome to come with me. But either way i don't really care

Carl

Don't forget Clarkson PROVED on top gear that you can get incredible economy without driving like a granny. He drove a jaguar (granted a diesel but it was a 2.7 V6) from Basel to Blackpool which would have done nearly 1000 miles on a tank of fuel the manufacturers claimed only 660 as an absolute maximum and he drove at around 80 mph most of the way through europe with all the heating, heated seats etc on. I suppose he is lying aswell and put in some more fuel?

As far as Top Gear and Clarkson goes , *yes* I absolutely do believe that they faked the results there as they so often do for entertainment purposes.

There's no way that he did the whole journey at 80mph and got there on a single tank of fuel.

He may have been filmed at 80 for a minute or two but he either slowed right back down or was refueled.

My guess is he slowed right back down as he arrived after hammond's polo which was driven at about 50.

But either way i don't really care

Carl

Exactley why should you - at the end of the day you got **** hot fuel economy out of a petrol powered TFSI which has some serious power

Just because you haven't got some excel spreadsheet that works it out to the exact figure dosen't mean you should be called a liar as some have gone as far as to say on here :thumbdwn:

So in "accurising" your trip computer you're saying you've made it over 20% pessemistic? That's the explanation for the disparity?

Look wega3k

I accurised the computer following the instructions given on here by another member. That made the computer less "pessimistic" as you put it i used to get 45-46mpg according to the maxidot before hand.

As i said further up yes the tank was brimmed when i started as to how much fuel i had in i don't know as the tank was already about half full.

I don't really care what you think or what your sums calculate. All i know is i managed to do over 600 miles on ONE tank of fuel with no refills, fairy dust, back to the future power or anything else. As i said i have no reason to lie and if you like you are more than welcome to sit in the car with me when i perform the journey again.

If you think it doesn't add up i don't care. Do not imply i am a liar though. You have never met me and i wouldn't go as far as to start calling you names etc if i hadn't met you.

It is people like you who ruin this forum for everyone else. Someone puts something on and because you have a diesel and don't think a petrol should have that sort of economy you immediately come on and try and pick it apart. You are entitled to an opinion but don't try to shove it down my throat.

Next you'll be saying i don't have 300lb/ft of torque

Anyway Rant over now back to the original reason of the thread which is:

You can have a high powered petrol car and still get excellent fuel economy with normal driving.

Carl

Look wega3k

I accurised the computer following the instructions given on here by another member. That made the computer less "pessimistic" as you put it i used to get 45-46mpg according to the maxidot before hand.

As i said further up yes the tank was brimmed when i started as to how much fuel i had in i don't know as the tank was already about half full.

I don't really care what you think or what your sums calculate. All i know is i managed to do over 600 miles on ONE tank of fuel with no refills, fairy dust, back to the future power or anything else. As i said i have no reason to lie and if you like you are more than welcome to sit in the car with me when i perform the journey again.

If you think it doesn't add up i don't care. Do not imply i am a liar though. You have never met me and i wouldn't go as far as to start calling you names etc if i hadn't met you.

It is people like you who ruin this forum for everyone else. Someone puts something on and because you have a diesel and don't think a petrol should have that sort of economy you immediately come on and try and pick it apart. You are entitled to an opinion but don't try to shove it down my throat.

Next you'll be saying i don't have 300lb/ft of torque

Anyway Rant over now back to the original reason of the thread which is:

You can have a high powered petrol car and still get excellent fuel economy with normal driving.

Carl

The reason I think your "there or there abouts" in your claims is due to the low down torque your cars got.

I bet on your drive to Folkstone you never really went past 4.5k rpm and used the 300lb/ft or torque you had from on tap from 1.8k rpm onwards to make progress..... very diesel like chrarcteristics I'd say... now why is it diesels get good mpg :idea:

Carl. I'm not accusing you of lying and definitely not trying to cause any upset. To be honest, one of the main things I like about briskoda is how friendly and harmonious it is. I suggested the whole thing was a [light hearted] 'wind-up', I wasn't implying it was a serious effort to mislead people.

The only reason I replied the other day, querying the results was because I was reading back through the thread as I was so impressed with your figures. I noticed your edit, where you'd added the extra figures when you filled up and I couldn't believe it. I quickly worked the figures out and noticed they didn't add up.

If you'd just posted that you'd got 52mpg over a tank full of fuel nobody could have really argued with you. They could have doubted it, but they couldn't have proved you wrong. The problem is, you went to the effort of posting photo evidence which all but totally disproved your own claim and at the very least confused me and others.

I didn't and don't want an argument, I wanted to encourage discussion as to how such figures could be achieved and why there should be so much difference between your brim to brim figures and your maxidot figures.

Edited 17 May, 200917 yr by wega3k

now why is it diesels get good mpg :idea:

Diesel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have got a 55 plate Octy 2 140 bhp dsg, 32000miles on clock and for the first time checked the mileage from a full tank to 25 miles left and got 486 miles, all types of road. However last week went to Bodmin from Hastings pulling 1350 klg and got 392 miles from that tank, and coming back i thought the computer had stuck as it read 32.4 mpg which is my best ever.

if i was to let my tank get all the way down to empty then i could get 500+ miles out of it, i reckon if i was to fill up and drive till i was empty i could probably get 600. Its all to do with planning ahead and the way you drive to how far you will get out of the tank, you can boot and thrash the car and be lucky to get 300 miles or drive normally and get 400+ or drive carefully and get 500+ miles.

Mater

would love to see you put up some hints and tips for getting good mileage (especially as you do not seem to be obsessive - you listen to music and use A/C - do not tailgate trucks, put car in neutral downhill etc....)

I guess at 80 with good observation you may never need to hit the brakes or accelerator. At 70 I do have to hit the ccelerator (or make people really fed up as a crawl past someone who is doing 65.

Torque lower down would probably mean not needing to go above 3000rpm very often.

The one thing that most surprises me is the fact that you cruise at 80 and see such high real figures. Honestly at 80 (nearly 3000 revs) on a cruise our maxidot will show circa 35mpg (really 32) (without a roof box of course). Thats why I cruise at an indicated 70.

I do wonder if the estate is less aerodynamic as well as being heavier. Oh we also have a sunroof(invariably closed) but that will increase air intereferance over the car I am sure.

Would be interesting to join you on a run (obviously the car would be heavier by 200lbs or so!).

Or perhaps there could be an "econo" charity meet to see who can get furthest on a tank!

I know where my bet would be placed.

Oh Mike - why would you never rev a petrol car >45000 - the red line is well above 6000 and using it through the gears is why you buy a car like this. Not all the time - but when you get the chance on a countrty road I would rather be in 2nd and 3rd most of the time than trying to go round a bend in 6th! Blimey our Mini on country roads was never in a higher gear than 4th - mostly 3rd - still saw a true 38mpg too. 16 valve engines need revs too!

Now in a diesel - I agree little point in reving out a car

So, further to what I said yesterday, Carl's claims are totally legitimate as far as I'm concerned.

Mike

OK OK, you've won me over. That's all the proof I need, you getting very average fuel economy for a PD105 obviously proves it possible to get 52mpg average for a whole tank on a TFSI VRS, including 85 of those miles at 128mpg. :confused:

Edited 18 May, 200917 yr by wega3k

Ok folk, here's some photos taken today after my 5.30 - 6pm journey home, 11 miles of combined 50mph dual carriageway and Preston City Centre. Remember this is on a 1.9TDI diesel, but it goes to show what is achieveable if you take it easy.

The trip meter was zeroed when the tank was filled, (so 74.9 miles and the fuel guage still on full) and the mpg computer is absolutely accurate when compared with tank to tank worked out calculations. As you can see it's showing 57.1mpg with 600 miles left in the tank -- approx 675 miles to a full tank)

So, further to what I said yesterday, Carl's claims are totally legitimate as far as I'm concerned.

Mike

I got 64.9 on my 23 mile journey home from work today

I managed the same yesterday on my drive to work in the Fabia II, but then again I was in no rush.

Never managed to get above 50 MPG on the way home this morning though

Ah, but am I right in believing yours is a 1.6 diesel with a 6 speed box???

Yep.

Once it's run in I reckon 70 on that journey might not be out of the question.

Brim to brim I got 805 miles out of the old tractor (1.9PD) over the last few days travelling up and down the A34. Never exceeding 65mph and very little town work, my friend's Prius can only dream of this!

Never mind that it's an old tractor engine as some may call it - I don't care, 70+ mpg CONSISTANTLY is nothing short of amazing!!!

:eek:It's no wonder you doubt the economy figures shown if you're used to driving your own car with your revs anywhere near 4500rpm!!!!! Why on earth would you need to rev any engine like that on normal driving, that is, as quoted, to make progress??? Fair enough, mine is the diesel PD 105 TDI, and yes I have claimed and truly achieved fantastic mpg returns, but it's very rare my engine is taken above 2300 - 2500 rpm!!! There's simply no need !!!!

Errr read what my point is. I neither say I'm not believeing Carl nor do I say I rev my TDI engine to 4.5k rpm

I was talking about not taking the TFSI engine past 4.5k rpm, not my TDI. I regularly got high 30's in terms of my mpg from my old TFSI by driving in a "diesel like" fashion i.e. not going past 4.5k rpm..... hence why I have no reason to doubt Carol's claims.