Rather than divert a current thread I though I would start a new one. There is a discussion going on about mpg, as ever, and some DSG drivers are commenting on the poor returns they are getting with their mpg. As a general rule anyway automatic boxes give a poorer mpg than manuals. When these gear boxes are designed to change gear at the optimum time I would have thought that the reverse would be true. Why are automatic boxes/DSG not more efficient than manuals?

The consensus is that they do give better mpg :no:

My mates 170 cr with DSG is giving him 54 on average he always gloats at my 24 average!

The consensus is that they do give better mpg :no:

In any VAG car BUT a Yeti perhaps........

On most all Golfs the DSG gives BETTER consumption than the manual. Yet on a Yeti even the official figures state the opposite and the real life figures are really NOTHING to write home about. It is something I'm bitterly disappointed about coming from a car I drove everywhere to within an inch of its life and yet I never got below 45mpg average!

I believe old automatic boxes were inefficient due to their "sloppy" nature (i.e. using liquid couplings) whereas DSG is much more like a manual box with a standard plate clutch but the clutch is operated automatically.

Edited 24 August, 201114 yr by gavinchappell

I've just checked the Skoda site. Based on the 2.0TDi, 140bhp manual and DSG the fuel economy is as follows:

Urban

Manual - 39.8mpg

DSG - 37.2mpg

Extra Urban

Manual - 53.3mpg

DSG - 48.7mpg

Combined

Manual - 47.1mpg

DSG - 43.5mpg

So Skoda's own official figures have the DSG version using more fuel than the manual.

I've, rather boringly, (no change there then) said a couple of times my 1.2 DSG Yeti (with spare wheel and a few emergency bits and pieces adding a little extra weight in the boot) returns 33 mpg. Only varies a tiny amount each tankful. At least it's consistent. Always Esso 95 RON (A popular bloke, that RON).

Can't see it dramatically improving and couldn't drive more carefully if my life were at stake. But the runs are not often long ones so that doesn't help.

Wonder what Kia Sportage / Hyundai x35 diesels do?

I've just checked the Skoda site. Based on the 2.0TDi, 140bhp manual and DSG the fuel economy is as follows:

Urban

Manual - 39.8mpg

DSG - 37.2mpg

Extra Urban

Manual - 53.3mpg

DSG - 48.7mpg

Combined

Manual - 47.1mpg

DSG - 43.5mpg

So Skoda's own official figures have the DSG version using more fuel than the manual.

Yes you are right in nearly all combinations the DSG uses more fuel. The DSG suits the petrol better than than diesel I think becuase of the petrol's wider power and torque spread across the rev range. The 7 speed is naturally more economical as it has a higher 7th gear meaning less inertial losses which are proportional to revs also the 7 speed box is lighter as it was designed to fit the polo/ibiza/A1/fabia but also fits in the Golf chasis'd A3, Leon, Octy and other 30 odd variants of the Golf chasis.

The best combo appears to be the EA888 1.8 TSI engine and 7 speed DSG where an approximately 4.5% improvement in fuel economy down to around 10% the other way when you have the 6 speed DSG and diesel combination but it really is a bit different in every case.

I had a 6 speed DSG about 6 years ago matched with a 1.9D 105 hp engine where the manual option was a 5 speed so the 6 speed DSG seemed good and fuel consumption excellent in both ie about 55 mpg. Then I had another 6 speed DSG in a Toledo matched with the 140 hp diesel. OK but there was the 2 mpg hit on fuel consumption over the 6 speed manual.

The 7 speed DSG matched to the EA888 TSI is the dog's doberries IMO. Linked to Skoda no VAT for accessories too it was like Christmas. £900 and you get better significantly better range/consumption.

I have tried to see what the 7 speed wet DQ 500 DSG is proving to be but it is still only in a few vehicles ie VW Tiguan and Transporter I have found so far. Expect it to be fairly fuel consumption neutral over the 6 speed manual.

Edited 24 August, 201114 yr by lol

Wonder what Kia Sportage / Hyundai x35 diesels do?

When I was looking for my new car last autumn, the Kia Sportage and Ford Kuga equivalent diesels to the Yeti 140 TDI were shown in the brochures as returning exactly the same average MPG as the Yeti (47.1). Oddly, though, the CO2 numbers were not the same (although very close).

So Skoda's own official figures have the DSG version using more fuel than the manual.

That is as per what I said. Now as an example here is the 210hp petrol Golf GTI's:

Urban

Manual - 28.2mpg

DSG - 28.2mpg

Extra Urban

Manual - 48.7mpg

DSG - 47.9mpg

Combined

Manual - 38.7mpg

DSG - 38.2mpg

And the 170hp GTD:

Urban

Manual - 43.5mpg

DSG - 40.9mpg

Extra Urban

Manual - 65.7mpg

DSG - 61.4mpg

Combined

Manual - 55.4mpg

DSG - 52.3mpg

So still worse but not nearly by as much as the Yeti.

In the old days with a torque converter, it used to convert about 10% of the energy input to heat and was a lot less efficient than a manual gear. The current DSG does not have a torque converter, but probably still has a lot more "stuff" churning around in oil than a manual box and therefore a higher loss. At least three shafts and two oilfilled clutches, where the manual may only have two shafts and a dry external clutch. The dry clutch does not waste any energy except at the short times it is operated.

The consensus is that they do give better mpg :no:

My mates 170 cr with DSG is giving him 54 on average he always gloats at my 24 average!

It's cos he drives Grandad style

I've, rather boringly, (no change there then) said a couple of times my 1.2 DSG Yeti (with spare wheel and a few emergency bits and pieces adding a little extra weight in the boot) returns 33 mpg. Only varies a tiny amount each tankful. At least it's consistent. Always Esso 95 RON (A popular bloke, that RON).

Can't see it dramatically improving and couldn't drive more carefully if my life were at stake. But the runs are not often long ones so that doesn't help.

Wonder what Kia Sportage / Hyundai x35 diesels do?

Have you tried freewheeling if you are brave enough? Some say illegal, it is easy in the DSG and I tend to do it for as much as a journey as possible. If you do it on either side of Holden hill on the A38 and at the Clevedon - Portishead bit of the M5 makes a huge difference on the computer.

Many say this that the car uses more fuel freewheeling than keeping in gear and I am tired of explaining the systems analysis and thermodynamics of why it works but it does for me anyways.

Of course the Yeti has a much higher aerodynamic drag coefficient than the Octavia, Facelift Octy2 is a nidge over 0.3, 0.308 if memory serves, the Yeti is more like 0.35 or 0.4 I would guess.

I am no diesel fans as most people know but for crossovers vehicles like the Yeti there is a wiesel argument.

Kias and Hyundai are getting better and better. Fasts growning marque in Europe. Bro has a Santa Fe, best sensible big crossover although Auto box is a bit naff compared to Borg Warner DSG technology.

Of course the Yeti has a much higher aerodynamic drag coefficient than the Octavia, Facelift Octy2 is a nidge over 0.3, 0.308 if memory serves, the Yeti is more like 0.35 or 0.4 I would guess.

Octy sedan and combi both cv 0.33, which is quite good and Yeti cv 0.37 plus a much larger cross sectional area and higher ground clearance.

Considering this and the slightly higher weight of the Yeti, the actual (and comparative) mileage figures for the Yeti is nothing less than brilliant. Compare it with like vehicles - the Tiguan as an example - and the Yeti shines.

Edited 24 August, 201114 yr by Agerbundsen

This thread is about the difference in fuel consumption between manual and DSG cars of the same model and specifically Yetis. The difference between a Yeti and more aerodynamic cars is really not relevant in this discussion...

I haven't seen anybody with a manual SM CR140 4x4 show in their signature with spirit monitor.de as 900000, Bahnstormer and I use, so we can't do a real world comparison. Also, all 3 of us drive either into or around London quite a bit......

Any other Diesel DSG's out there - Yellowyeller, Roguebrit for instance to name but 2 of you?

How about you manual CR140 drivers.....lets see some comparisons.

Mike

I believe old automatic boxes were inefficient due to their "sloppy" nature (i.e. using liquid couplings) whereas DSG is much more like a manual box with a standard plate clutch but the clutch is operated automatically.

Quite so. Torque converters do sap power but as you say, the DSG boxes are effectively manual gearboxes operated by very sophisticated mechanical and electronic systems.

I wonder if some of the mpg issues are the result of different gear ratios?

That having been said, are the real life figures better than the manual versions?

John

Edited 24 August, 201114 yr by jst_at_home

I haven't seen anybody with a manual SM CR140 4x4 show in their signature with spirit monitor.de as 900000, Bahnstormer and I use, so we can't do a real world comparison. Also, all 3 of us drive either into or around London quite a bit......

Any other Diesel DSG's out there - Yellowyeller, Roguebrit for instance to name but 2 of you?

How about you manual CR140 drivers.....lets see some comparisons.

Mike

My 140 manual now only has 2600 miles on the clock & is obviously still tight but has averaged 49.1 on the Maxidot over its whole life - say 45mpg in the real world over 2.5K.

I haven't seen anybody with a manual SM CR140 4x4 show in their signature with spirit monitor.de as 900000, Bahnstormer and I use, so we can't do a real world comparison. Also, all 3 of us drive either into or around London quite a bit......

Any other Diesel DSG's out there - Yellowyeller, Roguebrit for instance to name but 2 of you?

How about you manual CR140 drivers.....lets see some comparisons.

Mike

Hi All,

Goodness me! 25k miles on the clock now (just cant stop driving!)

Amazingly consistent mpg on maxi-dot of 43 mpg.

I also keep a spreadsheet of fuel fill ups and the average there is 42 mpg.

I tend to drive 'briskly' with a mix of town driving and motorway cruising at around 75mph.

I do like to chuck it around corners as she holds the road like she's on rails.

I can get easily get over 50mpg if I drive like a granny but who wants to do that (unless you are a granny of course!)

Fuzzy

How much heavier is the DSG gearbox compared to a manual?

Is there enough difference in weight to contribute to the lower MPG?

The diesel DSG is supposed to be worse as it has wet clutches and hence more drag than the 7 speed in the petrol with it's dry clutches.

All I know from experience is that after a year and 4000 miles it's easy to get 40 mpg out of our 1.2 DSG petrol. Stick to 60mph and it'll easily top 45mpg.

Because the diesel DSG only comes in 4x4 and is therefore noticably heavier, with one less gear and more drag in the box it's not the economical option over the petrol it should be, despite costing about 4000 pounds more.

I haven't seen anybody with a manual SM CR140 4x4 show in their signature with spirit monitor.de as 900000, Bahnstormer and I use, so we can't do a real world comparison. Also, all 3 of us drive either into or around London quite a bit......

Any other Diesel DSG's out there - Yellowyeller, Roguebrit for instance to name but 2 of you?

How about you manual CR140 drivers.....lets see some comparisons.

Mike

I've been slightly disappointed with the consumption on my 140DSG. As you might expect, it seems best when driven longish distances in the 30 - 60 MPH range, deteriorating markedly either side of that.

On our recent holiday to Czech, I did get the impression the economy improved - often showing journey consumption around 45MPG on the Maxidot (vs. typical high 30's at home). Maybe it was down to the driving we were doing but I wondered whether it was also improved by the warmer weather - has anyone else found a similar effect?

Can anyone answer why the MPG seems to go down when cruise is selected?

Because it tries too hard to maintain a speed. If you go up a slight hill, it's likely that you'll keep your foot in the same place and just let the speed drop a little bit as your primary aim is comfort/smoothness/economy, and then when the hill levels out your speed goes back to normal. Whereas the cruise control's aim is to keep you at 70mph no matter what, so as soon as you get to an incline it increases the throttle to make sure you stay there. Accelerating up a hill is probably one of the worst things you can do for mpg so it soon has an effect.

Because it tries too hard to maintain a speed. If you go up a slight hill, it's likely that you'll keep your foot in the same place and just let the speed drop a little bit as your primary aim is comfort/smoothness/economy, and then when the hill levels out your speed goes back to normal. Whereas the cruise control's aim is to keep you at 70mph no matter what, so as soon as you get to an incline it increases the throttle to make sure you stay there. Accelerating up a hill is probably one of the worst things you can do for mpg so it soon has an effect.

Yep that is it. I have a friend that had a BMW 3,0d X5 auto. The fuel consumption was horrendous and especially so when using the cruise control. So in order to save fuel he used to do 70 on the level but kept the pedal in exactly the same spot when going up inclines. This meant losing a bit of speed but his fuel consumption improved a great deal...

Personally I'd rather keep a set speed as it irritates the hell out of me how people can't keep to a set speed and overtake you to then 10 minutes later be overtaken again by me (still doing the exact same speed as I have the cruise on) or for me to creep up on them and having to switch my cruise off because they have slowed down again for no reason other than not paying attention to what they're doing. :no:

Bang on Johann , thought it was only me! ( they com past on the hills and then go 5- 10 miles an hour slower than you were originally going ):yes: