What worries me most is that, because of my history of vehicles (eg Landies), I've been keeping a log of fuel used versus mileage in my new to me Octy. The trip meter regularly measures between 45 and 55 mpg depending on types of journey, but dividing the odometer difference reading against the fuel put in at every fill-up, I get a lower reading. I'd say the difference is about 4 mpg.

This seems odd to me. Mind you, I'm surprised by all sorts of things about this car. Today's observation was that if I'm sitting in a car park listening to the radio and a passenger comes along and opens their door, the radio goes off for a second or two. How weird.

What worries me most is that, because of my history of vehicles (eg Landies), I've been keeping a log of fuel used versus mileage in my new to me Octy. The trip meter regularly measures between 45 and 55 mpg depending on types of journey, but dividing the odometer difference reading against the fuel put in at every fill-up, I get a lower reading. I'd say the difference is about 4 mpg.

This seems odd to me. Mind you, I'm surprised by all sorts of things about this car. Today's observation was that if I'm sitting in a car park listening to the radio and a passenger comes along and opens their door, the radio goes off for a second or two. How weird.

Search for re-calibration of the fuel computer, you'll need a friend with a laptop & VAGCOM VCDS software, Mike Holyroyd was the guy that wrote the tutorial.

As to the radio going off, sounds like a loose wire somewhere, it certainly should stay on.

I've had my fuel economy down to 41mpg at one point today, but that was varying between 80 - 120mph for about 70 miles as traffic kept getting in the way.

Needless to say this week I'm in Germany & it was a destricted autobahn, it's surreal watching stuff appear in your mirrors at 100mph, as if you were stood.

A subsequent drive on non Autobahns and stop offs in various villages in Switzerland and Austria brought the figure back up to 47mpg over 250 miles.

Well today's fuel figures.

From the Rhein Falls in Switzerland to Vaduz in Leichtenstein, sticking to the 120k limit, 53mpg.

Later on, from Bregrenz Austria to a motorway services 220 miles further north,

a new record low of 38mpg,however the average speed was 102mph!

Amazing the difference the Sunday lorry ban makes!

Just how fast can a 5 series go?

Empty road, steady 200kmh, keeps checking mirrors, appears, passes & gone as if we were towing a caravan.

Likewise with a Mercedes 4x4 ML AMG, that actually left a wake of turbulent air as it passed with a whooosh sound.

Shame that the last 100 miles or so included some pretty thick fog patches, down to 35mph in places.

Forgot to check #2 trip, it's about 44mpg over 1600 miles this week if I remember.

The diesel figures seem poorer than i'd expect in comparison to the petrol. Having said that the petrol is outstanding.

I reckon the average driver should see ~34 mpg in a 2.0 tsi vrs that'd be with some town driving, some motorway driving and some hooning around.

Trying for economy i can get 38mpg about town (average consumption on a 12 mile total trip) without slowing anyone else down, although that is making use of 1 illegal technique quite a bit -- coasting out of gear. The octy coasts well -- 33mph to 29mph takes a good few hundred yards. Without traffic i reckon i could crack 40mpg.

On the motorway without trying (no fuel saving techniques used) 56mph (except on uphills) over a 36mile journey gives and indicated 49mpg average.

The computer overreads but i doubt by much given the speedo only overreads a little compared to my GPS which surprised me.

Of course nobody buys a Vrs for economy, so my first tank average was 33mpg and this 2nd tank looks to be about 34mpg. That turbo is too addictive

The diesel figures seem poorer than i'd expect in comparison to the petrol. Having said that the petrol is outstanding.

I reckon the average driver should see ~34 mpg in a 2.0 tsi vrs that'd be with some town driving, some motorway driving and some hooning around.

Trying for economy i can get 38mpg about town (average consumption on a 12 mile total trip) without slowing anyone else down, although that is making use of 1 illegal technique quite a bit -- coasting out of gear. The octy coasts well -- 33mph to 29mph takes a good few hundred yards. Without traffic i reckon i could crack 40mpg.

On the motorway without trying (no fuel saving techniques used) 56mph (except on uphills) over a 36mile journey gives and indicated 49mpg average.

The computer overreads but i doubt by much given the speedo only overreads a little compared to my GPS which surprised me.

Of course nobody buys a Vrs for economy, so my first tank average was 33mpg and this 2nd tank looks to be about 34mpg. That turbo is too addictive

Well thats as good as the diesel?...

I've done 2K in my TSI VRS since I got it in March - average MPG is reading 34MPG. I've had a couple of long runs in it in that time, but in the past month have settled to my more normal usage (mainly 4 mile trip to and from work).

Going to work I usually get about 27-29MPG (due to traffic lights/engine warming up/uphill journey). On the way home I can get 34-36MPG. I usually follow the gear change recommendation when I'm in an "eco" mindset, except when it's obviously not appropriate.

I've tried a few tanks of Super Unleaded (Sainsburys special brew) - possibly an improvement there. Based on my last couple of tanks of standard unleaded (Shell), I've noticeably done less miles to the tank but I've started opening the engine up a bit more so hard to tell how much is down to that. Sainsburys have ramped up their prices recently ready for their 5p off a litre offer, hence I've swapped back to normal stuff from Shell.

Would be interested to hear anyone else's experiences re: Super Unleaded esp. if you've done a like-for-like comparison for a few tanks.

I drive a 2.0 FSI and my experience with Super Unleaded:

Shell - 35-36 MPG Avg

Tesco 99RON - 37-38MPG Avg

Tesco is cheaper round here (not by much) so I fill up there.

WHOAAAAHHHHH!

"Down the other side of the hill free wheel."

I was told that this is not indictable, but nonetheless illegal and not good practice on safety grounds - can anyone enlighten?

Yes "coasting" is illegal and pretty silly.

Yes "coasting" is illegal and pretty silly.

If you coast with the engine off - you deserve to be hung.

Yes "coasting" is illegal and pretty silly.

I do it where appropriate. Sometimes, depending on the gradient of the hill and speed you're doing, foot off the pedal in gear, you get an unwanted slight engine braking effect and a shift into neutral will let you maintain your speed or even accelerate slightly. OK, it might not be ROSPA / IAM, but if I'm doing that on a long straight hill on the motorway, what on earth is the problem?

I do it where appropriate. Sometimes, depending on the gradient of the hill and speed you're doing, foot off the pedal in gear, you get an unwanted slight engine braking effect and a shift into neutral will let you maintain your speed or even accelerate slightly. OK, it might not be ROSPA / IAM, but if I'm doing that on a long straight hill on the motorway, what on earth is the problem?

You will be better off leaving the car in top gear. The ecu knows it needs to add little or no fuel to keep the car running when in gear and revs are above idle. If you stick it in neutral the engine will actually use more fuel.

Low 20's for me :(

Maybe Im just heavy footed.

Low 20's for me :(

Maybe Im just heavy footed.

Or realistic?

You will be better off leaving the car in top gear. The ecu knows it needs to add little or no fuel to keep the car running when in gear and revs are above idle. If you stick it in neutral the engine will actually use more fuel.

I maintain both techniques are useful. Staying in gear isn't always the most efficient. Sometimes, having the engine idling in neutral but picking up momentum due to not having engine breaking can be more efficient. You've got to mix and match depending on the hill, current speed and desired speed like I said.

Or realistic?

No I openly admit I am heavy footed. If I drive normally back from work I can get about 34 but what's the point in having a VRs if I drive like a granny!

No I openly admit I am heavy footed. If I drive normally back from work I can get about 34 but what's the point in having a VRs if I drive like a granny!

I'm with you on that. I drive steady to maintain good mpg, but I am always covering the ground well. Its also useful to have the grunt on the daily commute to deal with the traffic. I can still manage an average of 44mpg and most my friends class me as a fast driver. I don't think I drive that quick on the road tbh.

Wega3k you have a valid point.

I do it where appropriate. Sometimes, depending on the gradient of the hill and speed you're doing, foot off the pedal in gear, you get an unwanted slight engine braking effect and a shift into neutral will let you maintain your speed or even accelerate slightly. OK, it might not be ROSPA / IAM, but if I'm doing that on a long straight hill on the motorway, what on earth is the problem?

As has been mentioned by other people, you actually use more fuel by coasting becuase the engine needs to tick it self over. Should you need to perfom an emergency stop or avoidance, you will have no power to help you and no engine braking. If the police find out you were in netrual or had the engine switched off, you will be in a lot of trouble.

I'm an IAMer myself, and you get taught not only how to drive safely, but in the most efficient way possible.

Only change up a gear when you reach 90% of the torque band- any more and you are revving the engine unncesasrily and it won't give out any more power and you waste fuel.

Approaching roundabouts, anticipate traffic movement around you, especially in front. Let the car naturallt slow down about 500yds beforehand, in gear. Keep watching for traffic approaching fron the right and with skill you can glide through without having to apply the brakes. Block change it into an appropriate gear (usually 3rd) and you are away. You will glide past the person who didn't slow down and had to brake.

Take a quick glance at your MPG and it will have shot up.

Also, using acceleration sense so you don't have to brake as often. Let the car slow down by itself before the queue of traffic ahead so you never have to slam on the brakes at the last minute.

IAM and RoSPA drivers aren't slow drivers. One of the main points of advanced driving is making the most progress in the safest possible way, driving slow all the time isn't encouraged at all.

Simples :yes:

As has been mentioned by other people, you actually use more fuel by coasting becuase the engine needs to tick it self over. Should you need to perfom an emergency stop or avoidance, you will have no power to help you and no engine braking. If the police find out you were in netrual or had the engine switched off, you will be in a lot of trouble.

I'll just quote myself to reply to the efficiency aspect of that...

I maintain both techniques are useful. Staying in gear isn't always the most efficient. Sometimes, having the engine idling in neutral but picking up momentum due to not having engine breaking can be more efficient. You've got to mix and match depending on the hill, current speed and desired speed like I said.

Everybody says the thing about staying in gear being more efficient ever since Clarkson said it doing that economy run in the A8. It's just not always right.

As for the safety aspect, if I'm on a quiet motorway, at 70, nothing much in front of me, fully alert with excellent visibility, excellent awareness of what's around me, I reject the notion that it has a significant negative impact on safety. If I saw something coming down an embankment onto the carriageway, I'd be straight on the brakes and simultaneously shifting into fourth. Put it this way, I'd rather be in the car in front of me (being all reckless in neutral), than in front of some daydreaming, Lighthouse Family listening comutatwonk on auto-pilot. I am actively engaged in the drive and as such have a better awareness of what's happening around me and hopefully as a result, faster reactions. As for the police. Give me a break.

I am an extremely efficient but rapid driver. If you look at spritmonitor at VRS TDIs, ordered in descending economy, my car is on page 1 of 12. I regularly manage a genuine 60mpg for a 25 mile drive combining fast country roads and crossing a city centre. That's really good for a PD170 and is a product of my naturally brilliant "progressive" (to coin an IAM term) driving style. I know I'm sounding like a ****, but the point I'm trying to make is IAM isn't the be all and end all of safe, economical driving. Everything you mentioned should just be natural for a reasonably inteligent, experienced, competent driver. Sadly, the vast majority of people on the road are brain-dead divs, who will just go charging up to traffic lights to come to a complete halt etc.

Edited 11 May, 201016 yr by wega3k

As has been mentioned by other people, you actually use more fuel by coasting becuase the engine needs to tick it self over.

No, this is a (popular) misconception. Over 250 metres, you will use less fuel coasting out of gear than you will in gear -- the reason is out of gear you will coast the full distance on level ground. Coasting in gear will mean the drag of engine braking will make you pull up short, hence you will need to apply accelerator and use more fuel than you would have with the engine idling under no load the full time.

There's cases for both techniques and they are not interchangeable - a point lost on a lot of people. You can't use the coasting in gear technique when what's needed is coasting out of gear and vice versa: coasting out of gear when going downhill is normally the wrong technique for example.

Should you need to perfom an emergency stop or avoidance, you will have no power to help you and no engine braking.

Similarly to the situation where you are driving a van with steel rear doors and therefore no interior mirror and the larger blind spot this entails when reversing -- you make appropriate preparation and adjustment when using this coasting technique. You don't avoid reversing a van because it's not as easy to do safely, you just handle it differently and take different, more severe precautions.

As for engine braking, as above the two techniques are not interchangeable, when engine braking is required, coasting in gear is the more useful technique.

I'm an IAMer myself, and you get taught not only how to drive safely, but in the most efficient way possible.

I'm pretty sure if you're driving IAM you are driving for Safety first. Speed comes futher down the list, economy further down the list still. You cannot drive most safely & most economically at the same time. While they are not mutually exclusive, they are traded off against each other. In the same way you cannot drive for maximum speed and maximum safety at all times. You can drive very fast, safely but not as fast as you could with a disregard for safety.

You have to trade one off for the other to some extent. You can still drive reasonably economically, but safety comes first, therefore your revs will be higher around town (to faciliate using the powerband or using engine braking below current revs at an instants notice).

When you choose to drive for economy, you are making a decision to drive for economy above safety. My point isn't the rightness or wrongness (the internet's the wrong place to try and make any point there! ) but just that there is a different system of approaching driving, one where safety isn't the primary concern but economy. It's completely alien and almost impossible to get your head round if you've been practicing roadcraft for many years.

Only change up a gear when you reach 90% of the torque band- any more and you are revving the engine unncesasrily and it won't give out any more power and you waste fuel.

Approaching roundabouts, anticipate traffic movement around you, especially in front. Let the car naturallt slow down about 500yds beforehand, in gear. Keep watching for traffic approaching fron the right and with skill you can glide through without having to apply the brakes. Block change it into an appropriate gear (usually 3rd) and you are away. You will glide past the person who didn't slow down and had to brake.

This is all good advice, but it's not economy focussed as it could be.

In short, when you choose to drive for economy, you choose to do so above all else. Of the various factors we can trade off during driving, you are choosing to rearrange such that economy is given most focus to the detriment of other considerations like safety, speed etc.

p.s. i'm not an hyper miler however i have an understanding of the techniques they use. I just don't like to see one sided arguments someone has to stand up for the other side! :p For the record, i do not agree with the hyper miling driving system and even though i am sure they could extract 75mpg+ from my car, i have no interest in doing so. I do however defend my use of one of their techniques -- coasting out of gear. Like all techniques, it's one for the toolbox and employed where i find it appropriate.

You said it much better than me Mute

Hi everyone, I've an Octy 2.0 tdi, 55 reg, 55,000 miles up. I regularly get an average of 60 plus mpg average day to day. Admittedly I am retired and therefore don't have the chore of commuting. However Gumby is dead right. I am an ex police officer and an advanced police driver for 25 yrs So I reckon I know what I'm on about! Much of this is down to anticipation and therefore not having to speed up and slow down continually which really knocks fuel consumption. If drivers looked ahead they would not only save fuel but be a much smoother and safer driver. I realise that the computer is slightly out as most are from the factory default settings, I have seen as much as 70 mpg on occasion when trying. I don't drive at snails pace and keep up with the traffic .

Regards Monkster.

Hi everyone, I've an Octy 2.0 tdi, 55 reg, 55,000 miles up. I regularly get an average of 60 plus mpg average day to day. Admittedly I am retired and therefore don't have the chore of commuting. However Gumby is dead right. I am an ex police officer and an advanced police driver for 25 yrs So I reckon I know what I'm on about! Much of this is down to anticipation and therefore not having to speed up and slow down continually which really knocks fuel consumption. If drivers looked ahead they would not only save fuel but be a much smoother and safer driver. I realise that the computer is slightly out as most are from the factory default settings, I have seen as much as 70 mpg on occasion when trying. I don't drive at snails pace and keep up with the traffic .

Regards Monkster.

Anticipation, reading the road and the surrounds, but above all for me maintaining momentum. How long have you had you Octy? Have you noticed it get better on fuel as the mileage has crept up?

I've had my Octy for 3 yrs now and yes I do believe that it's getting better as the miles go up. If you have a look at the computer you will see that the car is more economical at say 50 mph in either 5th or 4th gear than in 6th, plus the engine is more flexible so you will not have to brake for many hazards, just shutting off the throttle will suffice.It's called acceleration sence in the trade!

All the best Monkster.

I've had my Octy for 3 yrs now and yes I do believe that it's getting better as the miles go up. If you have a look at the computer you will see that the car is more economical at say 50 mph in either 5th or 4th gear than in 6th, plus the engine is more flexible so you will not have to brake for many hazards, just shutting off the throttle will suffice.It's called acceleration sence in the trade!

All the best Monkster.

Its interesting you say that, my instant shows better mpg the higher the gear you are in.

Its interesting you say that, my instant shows better mpg the higher the gear you are in.

Depends on the speed you're going and the characteristics on the engine... If you change up too early you end up using more throttle to maintain the same speed....