My CR170 Estate is doing about 550 miles to a tank and that is a combination of quick motorway driving into work of a morning and a nice slow cruise home on the same motorways. IIRC my overall average is about 47 mpg.

I am more than happy with that figure given the size of the car and the gear I lug around in the boot.

I have got it up into the high 50s/low 60s when sitting behind HGVs on the motorway but I almost slashed my wrists with boredom

Manufacturer claimed MPG figures are achieved under favourable conditions, the public roads can not replicate this on a day to day basis.

Only had the car for a week and I am absolutely loving it (apart from the lack of dimming mirror ).

Take the OP out of it, and I'm sick of these ppl who quote magic figures, forcing those that don't get anymore than the book says to think they have a fault, 2 ton of car, how many mpg did you really think you were going to get?

Simple innit, the OP figures suggest he's getting 6 mpg more than he should do on a mix run from cold, anyway take note that this site doesn't have the biggest idiot on it, on the VW site there's some (make your own word up for him) quoting 55mpg urban and moaning that 67 on a run isn't enough, oh my how I'd love to jack some Supurbia juice into these nutters, I hate liar's full stop, and this thread is a perfect example of how their bull misleads other's.

You seem to get illogically upset when your opinions do not concur with the facts. If you really believe the figures quoted in this thread are that exaggerated perhaps you should look at your own driving skills and go on a course such as this http://www.drivecraft.co.uk/eco.php

You seem to get illogically upset when your opinions do not concur with the facts. If you really believe the figures quoted in this thread are that exaggerated perhaps you should look at your own driving skills and go on a course such as this http://www.drivecraft.co.uk/eco.php

Facts mate, what facts?

Constantly ppl think they are getting more than the official figure, under the correct conditions this car will do 55mpg tops, the mfd may say more briefly but it's as honest as Harry Redknapp, then we get the 800+ per tank brigade, why is it anyone I speak with who has any credibility agrees with me, and says their car comes in line with book figures, there's nothing wrong with my driving btw, I anticipate the road very well and do not need some nerd to tell me I'm better than all else with a certificate, the main difference is I'm an honest man, and I don't do the Jonses or Black Cat things in life, if I'm wrong why are there so many threads with a user asking why his car only does 45mpg, when the bloke nextr door gets 70mpg in London traffic everyday, the only fact I can state is either ppl lie, or they simply can't add up and devide.

@ Derv, no mate, I wasn't reffing you at all, sorry if it looked like I was picking you out.

Just to balance things up, I drove to the gym and back today in heavyish traffic and the maxidot showed an average of 14.8 mpg! It was only 6 miles though!

Facts mate, what facts?

Constantly ppl think they are getting more than the official figure, under the correct conditions this car will do 55mpg tops, the mfd may say more briefly but it's as honest as Harry Redknapp, then we get the 800+ per tank brigade, why is it anyone I speak with who has any credibility agrees with me, and says their car comes in line with book figures, there's nothing wrong with my driving btw, I anticipate the road very well and do not need some nerd to tell me I'm better than all else with a certificate, the main difference is I'm an honest man, and I don't do the Jonses or Black Cat things in life, if I'm wrong why are there so many threads with a user asking why his car only does 45mpg, when the bloke nextr door gets 70mpg in London traffic everyday, the only fact I can state is either ppl lie, or they simply can't add up and devide.

@ Derv, no mate, I wasn't reffing you at all, sorry if it looked like I was picking you out.

You want facts? Here they are; you can beat the combined mpg figure, it all depends on the type of journeys you do. If you replicate the extra urban profile you will exceed the combined figure, it is as simple as that.

For example: Somerset to Bayern, 1745 miles return journey, 90% motorway, 70% on cruise control resulting in 54.7 mpg brim to brim. In Germany I use the tram because it is efficient; in the UK I use a TR6 as it is more fun than the Superb. If you do this journey once every 5 weeks (and that is all the Superb ever does) the resulting fact is 51.7

You want facts? Here they are; you can beat the combined mpg figure, it all depends on the type of journeys you do. If you replicate the extra urban profile you will exceed the combined figure, it is as simple as that.

For example: Somerset to Bayern, 1745 miles return journey, 90% motorway, 70% on cruise control resulting in 54.7 mpg brim to brim. In Germany I use the tram because it is efficient; in the UK I use a TR6 as it is more fun than the Superb. If you do this journey once every 5 weeks (and that is all the Superb ever does) the resulting fact is 51.7

Yeah, and if you read back I said the car will do 55 mpg tops, you've just posted to agree with the two figures you posted, realistic ones, now times that by tank capacity and it ain't no 800-900 miles is it, and if you search the site you will find a few quoting those figures, working on 60 litre tank doing 55mpg is just over the 700 mark, and a more everyday figure of around 40mpg would result in 521 miles a tank.

All I'm trying to do is to save ppl worrying there's something wrong with their car when there isn't, and to save them an £80 charge for the car to come back as no fault found, or someone tinkering with the settings and making it worse, I'm sure you can understand that can't you?

It's simply no good some bloke who lives next to a dual carriageway getting up and driving 50 miles to work on a road @ 50 mph in the middle of nowhere with a population of 10 posting his figures, they aren't real world, and above all else they are misleading to other's.

I have not worked out the actual figures, my 2.0PD140 DSG superb hatchback returns around 540 miles per tank on a mix of stop start and steady speed traffic. This is from full, to the trip computer saying I have around 15 miles remaining.

Yeah, and if you read back I said the car will do 55 mpg tops, you've just posted to agree with the two figures you posted, realistic ones, now times that by tank capacity and it ain't no 800-900 miles is it, and if you search the site you will find a few quoting those figures, working on 60 litre tank doing 55mpg is just over the 700 mark, and a more everyday figure of around 40mpg would result in 521 miles a tank.

All I'm trying to do is to save ppl worrying there's something wrong with their car when there isn't, and to save them an £80 charge for the car to come back as no fault found, or someone tinkering with the settings and making it worse, I'm sure you can understand that can't you?

It's simply no good some bloke who lives next to a dual carriageway getting up and driving 50 miles to work on a road @ 50 mph in the middle of nowhere with a population of 10 posting his figures, they aren't real world, and above all else they are misleading to other's.

I do understand your point and I sympathise with your sentiments. I too do not want people to be misled.

However, I am trying to show you that ‘real world’ figures vary depending on your typical journey and, as you point out, where you live. What is ‘real world’ to you is not necessarily ‘real world’ to me.

I do understand your point and I sympathise with your sentiments. I too do not want people to be misled.

However, I am trying to show you that ‘real world’ figures vary depending on your typical journey and, as you point out, where you live. What is ‘real world’ to you is not necessarily ‘real world’ to me.

I fully agree mate, but the eyes that see this will be those that do 60/40 urban/Xurban, Manny has just posted what I consider the universal yardstick for the car, 540 per tank, this is what mr average could expect to be somewhere near.

Just to add another idea when looking at total miles on a tank is.

The tank is 60 L with tube work going to lead to the filler cap probably giving a fee more. Also we don't run our tanks dry so it needs to be looked at from how many liters are put into the car on fill up. And I think I put in just over 50 most of the time. Withthe need to bring real life into things

The only time I have bothered to check my fuel consumption was at the beginning of October when I did a brim to brim over 435 miles, measured on the speedometer. Half the mileage was fast motorway with two up and a fair load of luggage. The rest of it leisurely running about with just two up. I averaged 43.5 mpg

I'll try not to 'mislead' others by quoting my actual economy figures, but simply refer any interested parties to www.spiritmonitor.de. I use the same user I.D. as on Briskoda.

In fairness, I drive 70% of the time on motorways, with the remainder a mixture of urban, A and B roads. Yes, I do drive sensibly, especially on motorways, but have not yet felt the inclination to slit my wrists due to boredom from cruising at 60mph in the inside lane, unlike someone elses earlier comment about sedate motoring!

Here you go guy's, it's a B6 2.0 PD rather than a Sup 2 and it's a DSG, I had a run out last night, on the way back I reset the dash display, so this is on a hot engine with almost zero traffic as it was witching hour time, until I decided to clean the injectors and exhaust out it was reading around 43mpg, remember this isn't a cold engine and I had no trip to the motorway to make, after cleaning where safely possible I eventually got home with 39mpg reading on the dash, had I been Miss Daisy I would've expected a low 50's, now compare this to starting off on a cold engine, 10 minutes of queueing to get onto the motorway, and you can see why I raise an eyebrow at those that post 60+ mpg, personally unless it's a CR engine, and even then the jury is out I cannot see how anyone can get a true 60+ reading from PD and petrol engines, I can make mine read 75+ mpg on the dash for a little while, that's if I reset it at 50mph and get no interuption's, but this is a false dawn, as it's not accurate and certainly can't be used as a yard stick, it's like a Rochdale player saying they beat Man Utd cos they were 1-0 up for 20 minutes of the game.

OK then my turn to chime in.

Just done my first brim to brim check and got 43.9mpg, that's a new car (600 miles now), 170 DSG, 2 or 3 up, and some flooring it (not kickdown) now & again, but mostly at 70mph. Journey was my 110 mile commute, mainly Motorway, but pretty bad congestion/crawling along this week.

I was hopeing for 45mpg+ but I reckon this is achievable when the motor loosens up and I stop showing off.

For the size of the thing and that its an auto, it's pretty darned OK all things considered.

Update:-

BTW, The cars "Trip2" that was reset at fillup was claiming I had achieved 46.7mpg, that's almost 3mpg optimistic. So fillup to fillup, divide the litres by 4.55, then divide the trip milage but that answer and you have the truth.

Edited 13 November, 201015 yr by Tankdave

Supurbia, as you know from previous threads, my wife now has the superb greenline in steel grey metalic, and we actually drove from fareham to stevenage, which is around 240 miles return journey, and when i pressed the trip computer button to see what the car was doing mpg, it was showing us a figure of 74.5 mpg. Now we was poodling at around 60 all the way there and back set on cruise. Personally i'm thinking we are getting around the high 60's mpg, but it did seem to sip fuel, and my wife and i both agree, that it is the only car that shows an increase in the fuel tank projected figures than when we actually set off !! Probably expansion i expect .

Showing and getting are two different things Andy, if you could've at the time done a full to full test I think you would be getting what the book says it does, which I would think would be somewhere between 50-60mpg, I can get mine to show 75mpg, but the petrol station soon puts a pin in that balloon.

Showing and getting are two different things Andy, if you could've at the time done a full to full test I think you would be getting what the book says it does, which I would think would be somewhere between 50-60mpg, I can get mine to show 75mpg, but the petrol station soon puts a pin in that balloon.

But as I said earlier, for the 1.9 PD TDI 105ps Greenline (which I and Skodanut both drive), 70.6mpg extra-urban and 57.7mpg combined is what the book says. So skodanut getting somewhere in the 60s after a pootle down the motorway at 60mph on cruise is hardly unbelievable, surely? When it comes to the 2.0 CR (especially the 170ps) I can 100% see where you're coming from, and I agree. But the 1.9 Greenline is an entirely different beast. On the one hand you say it's impossible to get mpg that high on a Superb, and on the other you say real world consumption will actually be more in line with book figures - which in the case of the Greenline are the very figures you claim aren't possible.

IIRC you drive a 170ps, and as such I have no doubt you find it hard if not impossible to hit those figures. But for a smaller engine on a lowered, lighter car with an economy remap from factory, it's not only possible, but easy. You're comparing two entirely different things there. To be fair what you say is right, provided you add "for a 170ps 2.0 engine" to the end.

But as I said earlier, for the 1.9 PD TDI 105ps Greenline (which I and Skodanut both drive), 70.6mpg extra-urban and 57.7mpg combined is what the book says. So skodanut getting somewhere in the 60s after a pootle down the motorway at 60mph on cruise is hardly unbelievable, surely? When it comes to the 2.0 CR (especially the 170ps) I can 100% see where you're coming from, and I agree. But the 1.9 Greenline is an entirely different beast. On the one hand you say it's impossible to get mpg that high on a Superb, and on the other you say real world consumption will actually be more in line with book figures - which in the case of the Greenline are the very figures you claim aren't possible.

IIRC you drive a 170ps, and as such I have no doubt you find it hard if not impossible to hit those figures. But for a smaller engine on a lowered, lighter car with an economy remap from factory, it's not only possible, but easy. You're comparing two entirely different things there. To be fair what you say is right, provided you add "for a 170ps 2.0 engine" to the end.

Fair comment.

The only time I use the book figures is to compare the economy of the cars I am thinking of purchasing becasue of the artificial nature of the test manufacturers use to calculate economy.

How is the fuel consumption test conducted?

The test is outlined in Directive 93/116/EC as amended by 1999/100/EC and provides results that are more than representative of actual average on-road fuel consumption than previous tests. There are two parts: an urban and an extra-urban cycle. The cars tested have to be run-in and must have been driven for at least 1,800 miles (3,000 kilometres) before testing.

Urban Cycle

The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20^oC to 30^oC on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerating and idling. Maximum speed is 31mph (50km/h), average speed 12mph (19km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4km).

Extra-Urban Cycle

This cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75mph (120km/h), average speed is 39mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3miles (7km).

Combined Fuel Consumption Figure

The combined figure presented is for the urban and extra-urban cycle together. It is therefore an average of the two parts of the test, weighted by the distances covered in each part.

This is how hybrid cars can get such good fuel economy, they can run the whole test on battery power so the manufacturer in many calculates how much fuel is needed to recharge the battery as it must take less than 10 minutes to perform!

My 1999 Toyota 1.8 16v Petrol Avensis in the 6 six years I have owned it has averaged 45mpg so I am hoping that with the type of motoring I do, the 2.0CR Diesel Superb Estate will far exceed this. Afterall using the brim to brim method when I went to Germany in my wifes 1994 Passat 1.9 Turbo Diesel fully loaded, the round trip took 2 tanks of fuel and we averaged 55mpg. Next year when we take the Superb (to be collect on Friday) to Germany to see her relatives.

Just done 980 miles on two brim-full tanks.

Phil.

Hi,

In my view the MPG depends:

1) The drive style “heavy foot or smart driveâ€

2) The distance you drive (as cold Engine use more fuel)

3) Motorway – city roads

4) Engine size

5) Tyres pressure and tyres structure

6) Load weight or people in the car

7) Road it self (Hills, turns and other)

So as we can see in all cities it is can be different these MPG

I have been published about my GreenLine MPG and I have some video to prove

That more than 60 MPG is can be done. It was motorway drive at 70 MPH

For me it is strange when someone have 170 ps car and they want to have 60 MPG ?

1.9 TDI PD and 2.0 CR Does it so much difference between these engines?

I mean in general construction? – No it not

I have 4 Cylinders in PD and CR have 4 Cylinders Use same diesel

But the difference comes to the Fuel pump and injectors and turbo and etc …

SO WHERE IS THE POWER COMES IN CR ENGINE? AS THEY 170 PS VS 105PS

Did someone know the answer ?

If you know the answer so you can Imagine why GreenLine have better MPG but les POWER

The power obviously comes from the amount of air and fuel being stuffed into the engine, more air + more fuel = more bang = more power. The injectors and turbo are set up to allow x amount of each into the engine to achieve the desired power output.

The CR170 will have a larger turbocharger most likely running at a higher boost pressure to allow more air (specifically Oxygen) into the cylinders, the ECU knows how many mg of diesel to inject per cycle to achieve optimum combustion and the desired power output. You could remap a CR170 up to 200PS simply by increasing the boost pressure and quantity of diesel being injected but reliability may be compromised.

The Greenline model will be more economical as it simply uses less fuel than a CR170 because it produces less power and is slower. The engine map can also be optimised for better fuel efficiency rather than power/torque output.

Other factors such as vehicle weight, aerodynamics, driving style and low resistance tyres also contribute.

At the end of the day, a faster more powerful engine is going to need more fuel to do it's job so you will get less MPG than a lower powered equivalent. I fail to see why people cannot understand this.

The power obviously comes from the amount of air and fuel being stuffed into the engine, more air + more fuel = more bang = more power. The injectors and turbo are set up to allow x amount of each into the engine to achieve the desired power output.

The CR170 will have a larger turbocharger most likely running at a higher boost pressure to allow more air (specifically Oxygen) into the cylinders, the ECU knows how many mg of diesel to inject per cycle to achieve optimum combustion and the desired power output. You could remap a CR170 up to 200PS simply by increasing the boost pressure and quantity of diesel being injected but reliability may be compromised.

The Greenline model will be more economical as it simply uses less fuel than a CR170 because it produces less power and is slower. The engine map can also be optimised for better fuel efficiency rather than power/torque output.

Other factors such as vehicle weight, aerodynamics, driving style and low resistance tyres also contribute.

At the end of the day, a faster more powerful engine is going to need more fuel to do it's job so you will get less MPG than a lower powered equivalent. I fail to see why people cannot understand this.

^what he said ^ with the addition of gearing having an impact on consumption

I firmly believe the biggest impact is the driver

Well after all this discussion on the Greenline v the 170ps CR, I decided to bite the bullet and stop putting £20 at a time in. I filled up until the tank wouldn't take any more five days ago, and decided to do some brim-to-brim tests. As I've had a quiet week so far I've only done 92.6 miles, all of which was through town on B roads (no A roads or motorway). In fact 90% of my journeys this week have gone like this:

Chip the ice of the windscreen at 8am

Get the kids into the car, fire up the engine.

Queue my way through the traffic to school (1.1 miles away).

Drop off the kids and queue my way back home the other way.

Turn off engine, which is invariably still on cold. :(

I did journey through town to the dentist today, and did some shopping etc, so after the 92.6 miles of stop/start town work I decided to brim up and see what I'd gotten so far. I realise this 'test' is more accurate after a few weeks (longer the better) but now I have a full tank I'd rather keep it that way than run it down and decide I can't face paying another £40 just to top it up.

OBC says I'd gotten a combined total of 46.8mpg since the last fill up (trip computer '2'). Shell's finest cost me £9.80 for a total of 8.04 litres until the tank wouldn't take any more. So in reality:

92.6 miles (urban)

8.04 litres of fuel

---------------

52.36mpg

I triple checked that, and it's correct. I guess since (1) I've barely hit 100 miles since the last fill up and (2) because it's all been congested urban work, the OBC has 'ticked down' too fast during idle periods (which it's rather good at) hence giving a falsely low reading. So, 52mpg around town, on a cold engine which only warmed up to temperature once this week. Brim to brim, so no argument about over-reading OBC. I just can't complain at that. My last motor had a 1.6 HDi and would have struggled to hit those figures on the motorway.

My experience with my 5 month old 170bhp 4x4 is this:- I fill up with 10 gallons of diesel (45.4 litres)when the warning light comes on and it returns 42 mpg. I have a 25 mile run each way to work 3 days a week the rest is out and about. I tow a caravan weighing +1,500 kilos and the consumption goes down to early 30's. I am just about to travel 1,500 miles in Europe, with the caravan, and am keen to see the result.With 7,000 miles on the clock it has recently begun to feel and sound really smooth and quite nifty for a big car.

Edited 18 April, 201115 yr by jatb