I bought a Roomster back in January, two and a half years old with 14k on the clock. It replaced a Polo SDi in which I had covered 173k miles averaging 54.3 mpg. A fair bit of that mileage was teaching learners, so I was pretty pleased with that.

In general terms, I am pleased with the Roomster, but the fuel consumption is higher than I would have expected. On a recent run up to Suffolk and back (700 miles, roughly) keeping to a steady 70 it managed about 51 mpg. In the Polo it would have been about 60 mpg.

Is it a case of the Roomster being about as aerodynamic as a breeze block or is the PD engine less efficient than the non-turbo version? I have already learned not to use the cruise control, as that increases fuel consumption by about 10% (contrary to what we are always told).

What are other owners' experiences?

Rob.

This is an interesting post. I drive a Roomster 3 1.9tdi, climate control always on and would expect about 52mpg at 70mph. However at 60mph, 60mpg is easily attainable. I always use the cruise control and would have thought that it would be steadier than my foot at maintaining a constant speed, which is the trick to economical driving.

Edited 24 May, 201115 yr by richardf

I've got the same engine in the Fabia and I'm averaging about the same sort of figures as what your getting.

Davy

Its a bigger car and nowhere near as aerodynamic as either the Polo or the Fabia... I had a Fabia estate with the 1.9tdi and now a Roomster with the same engine, I had an overall average of 57 over 5 years with the Fabia, so far, nearly 3 years, about 53 with the Roomster, driving both the same way, and the gearing is pretty much identical, 29mph/1000rpm in both in 5th...

One reason I'll be going back to a proper estate instead of an MPV when I change later in the year... One high speed runs on the Continent its even more noticeable just how the height of the Roomster affects fuel consumption.

At least in the 1.9 TDI you really miss a sixth gear once you go over 60 mph - both for engine sound and for fuel consumption. I now have the FL Roomster with 1.2 TSI DSG, and with the different gearing and lower revs the fuel consumption does not increase nearly as dramatically with higher speed - and the car is still being run in

I think you'll find at Autobahn speeds for long periods it will! I agree, though, the manual Roomie needs a higher gear, either a high 5th like the Fabia Greenline or a 6th... Tell you what, when a petrol engine gets within 10% of a diesels mpg figures with the same gearing I'll have a look...

Edited 25 May, 201115 yr by The PM

Is it a case of the Roomster being about as aerodynamic as a breeze block or is the PD engine less efficient than the non-turbo version? I have already learned not to use the cruise control, as that increases fuel consumption by about 10% (contrary to what we are always told).

What are other owners' experiences?

Rob.

Actually, I think that most experts agree that a careful driver will be more economical than a cruise control; it's constant throttle that gives economy, not constant speed. Going up a long motorway incline, the CC will increase the throttle to maintain speed; a careful driver won't.

With my 1.9TDI, driving at 60mph is 25% more economical than at 75mph.

I have found that it's got more economical as the engine has loosened up; I'm getting 4-5mpg more at 48K miles than at half that!

Stuart

That's really interesting about the cruise control consumption. However, I must admit that It's exacting enough for me to have to drive my DPF equipped Alhambra remembering to run at over 2000 revs in 5th and never top in order to keep the filter clear without becoming a Roomster hypochodriac as well.

I have the 1.4 tdi Roomster and the fuel consumtion seems to average around 53mpg,as you say they are not very aerodynamic

as you say they are not very aerodynamic

They are more aerodynamic than you may think. A quick search around the web and it seems a Roomster has a lower cd (coefficient of drag) than a Lambo Countach (cd 0.42) and a Nissan Skyline GT-R (cd 0.40). source wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient

The Roomster is quoted as having a cd of 0.3 or 0.33 or 0.34 (different sites give different figures)

Other cars less aerodynamic than a Roomster; Tesla Roadster (cd 0.35), Smart Roadster (cd 0.41), 1998 Toyota MR-2 (cd 0.35), 2008 Mini Cooper (cd 0.35).

There is obviously more to take into account, like how the side area of the car is effected by crosswinds, but in terms of cutting through the air in front of it, the Roomster seems to compare quite well.

Hi Does anybody have any fuel consumtiom figures yet for the new 1.6 tdi as there seems to be lots of negative figures on the VW forums regarding this engine

Tony

They are more aerodynamic than you may think. A quick search around the web and it seems a Roomster has a lower cd (coefficient of drag) than a Lambo Countach (cd 0.42) and a Nissan Skyline GT-R (cd 0.40). source wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....rag_coefficient

The Roomster is quoted as having a cd of 0.3 or 0.33 or 0.34 (different sites give different figures)

Other cars less aerodynamic than a Roomster; Tesla Roadster (cd 0.35), Smart Roadster (cd 0.41), 1998 Toyota MR-2 (cd 0.35), 2008 Mini Cooper (cd 0.35).

There is obviously more to take into account, like how the side area of the car is effected by crosswinds, but in terms of cutting through the air in front of it, the Roomster seems to compare quite well.

The cd value does not tell the full story. This tells something about how aerodynamically shaped the car is, but then the frontal area also affects, and actually the total drag created is the drag coefficient times the frontal area, and here the Roomies height causes it to lose points The low sportscars do of course have a lower total drag because of the lower frontal area.

Yep, that's my experience... I had the Fabia Estate and the Roomster, both with the same gearing and engine and the difference in fuel consumption at high autobahn speeds is quite large, as I said before, one reason I'll be going back to an estate later in the year... Just a question of which one!

Thanks folks, I had a feeling that the replies might be along these lines.

I am still a little disappointed with the fuel consumption, I had expected the newer engine to be rather more efficient, clearly that is not the case. I also miss the torque at low revs, the 1.4 pd isn't bad in that respect (it's a whole heap better than the 1.9 dci in my wife's Scenic) but with the 1.9 SDi you can pull away from rest on a level road on tick-over in 5th gear. It isn't something you would want to do routinely, but it does show just how flexible that engine is!

Rob.

You can do the same in the 1.9 TDi as well! One reason i chose the 1.9 over the 1.4 is the smoother nature of the engine, I expected fuel consumption to be little different after having experienced the 1.4 and 1.9 Fabia 1s, certainly over several years (I used to get 54 and 57 out of the Fabias). The main issue with the Roomster, especially at any decent speed is its bulk, not a lot you can do with that so you have to either live with it or get a lower car!

Having changed from a 1.4TDi to a 1.6CR after a year I reckon the 1.6CR is around 5Mpg worse than the 1.4 TDi