Fuel Tax approaches

[D15VRS]

Its time to go back to the Good Bad Old Days, Stand and be counted Time to man the Gates. We are all in this together every working class person.

[lol-lol]

+1

back in the real world...

I could probably see 800miles on my range after a fill up at the top of snowdon and an illegal coast down to the bottom. Rofl.

Well I saw 960 miles on my Audi A4 with the 1.9D 130 hp unit, hellava car.

Don't think coasting is illegal, espeically in a DSG which only requires the stick by a centimetre to regain drive which takes afraction of a second, law says in control. Yes if a deer ran out or the like but I always do it in a quite zone with nothing within 30 metres or so.

[lol-lol]

Also seeing a figure on the range for a minute or 2 doesn't actually mean you will get that many miles.

Wake up to the real world.

Yes it is almost impossible to maintain the Combined fuel consumption figure as it is just improbably that you will not bulked, caught in traffic or additional in my case failed to resist out accelerating a diesel!

The Fab VRS nearly has the same Skoda fuel figures as you 2 litre CR DSG.

Urban - Fab 36.7 mpg (7.7) -yours - 35.8 mpg (7.9) - Fab 3% better

Extra Urban - Fab 54.3 (5.2) yours - 57.7 mpg (4.9) - Octy 6% better

Combined - Fab 45.6 (6.2) - yours - 47.1 mpg (6.0) - Octy - 3% better

Rather than a speed race where I will not have the 1.8 TSI and either the petrol VRS are in a different league perhaps we should have a economy competion and see if my hyper-miling techniques, the 7 speed DSG and the award winning twin charge TSI can overcome the above difference?

Edited 4 March, 2012 by lol

[lol-lol]

Its time to go back to the Good Bad Old Days, Stand and be counted Time to man the Gates. We are all in this together every working class person.

========================================================

Through the dark, and

through the hunger

Through the night and

through the fear

Through the fight and

years of hardship

Through the storms and

through the tears

And although your feet are weary,

And although your soul is worn

And although they'll try to break you,

And although you'll feel alone

We will always stand together

In the dark, right through the storm.

We will stand, shoulder to shoulder

To keep us warm.

And the stars look down on the mean and hungry

And the stars look down and show the way

And the stars look down and we'll stand together

To see a day

When the stars look down and know our history

When the stars look down upon our past

And the stars look down and see a future bright at last

When we'll stand as one, beneath the sun

And though our hands are bruised and bleeding

And our lungs are full with dust

And our hearts are near to breaking

We will never forgo the trust

We will fight through pain and hunger

Every arrow, every knife.

And we will never give the hope up

Of a proud and honest life

So we will always stand together

Through the frost, the hail, the snow

The stars are our redemption

And some know.

The stars look down when we're abandoned,

Look down in the heart of night

And the stars look down and give us vision

To see the light.

The stars look down upon our struggle

The stars look down and know the past

The stars look down and see a future bright at last

When we'll stand as one, beneath the sun.

All out together

All out as one

All out for victory

Till we've won.

All out together

All out as one

All out for victory

All out till we've won..........

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/

Edited 4 March, 2012 by lol

[Royston]

My fuel computer in the vehicle has been stuck on an average of 24.5 mpg for ages, briefly rising to 24.7 when I went to Northumberland last year. I decided to do some manual sums using a pencil, some graph paper and a Casio calculator and found the actual mpg was 27.5 average. Not bad considering I always have it in Sport mode and usually spank its bottom.

[gadgetman]

Well I saw 960 miles on my Audi A4 with the 1.9D 130 hp unit, hellava car.

Don't think coasting is illegal, espeically in a DSG which only requires the stick by a centimetre to regain drive which takes afraction of a second, law says in control. Yes if a deer ran out or the like but I always do it in a quite zone with nothing within 30 metres or so.

But did you ever achieve anywhere near that when you manually calculated mpg? That'd mean it was over 100mpg.

The Sharan says I can do 830 miles when full, but I've yet to even make 500 on a tank! As we say, manually calculate your mpg and you'll see how unrealistic the book mpg and computer claims are.

And yes coasting IS illegal.

[seboni121]

You will find it difficult to achieve 350 miles on a tank vrs fabia, the diesel will do 500 easy no contest buy a diesel

[CFB]

I do quite a bit of neutral coasting, mainly in the DSGs which it is so easy to do and that helps up the Mpg by one or two MPG I reckon.

Sorry but you're wrong.

In a modern fuel injected vehicle, coasting actually uses more fuel than leaving the car in gear going down hill.

When coasting you use fuel to keep the engine running.

When in gear, using engine braking or just off throttle you use no fuel at all.

If you don't believe me, try it.

Down hill in any gear, take your foot off the throttle and check the MPG display (if you have one)

You will see the reading max out.

Drive the same hill coasting. The MPG reading will be the same as when idling.

I could probably see 800miles on my range after a fill up at the top of snowdon and an illegal coast down to the bottom. Rofl.

:D

[VladSoilerOfCarpets]

My fuel computer in the vehicle has been stuck on an average of 24.5 mpg for ages, briefly rising to 24.7 when I went to Northumberland last year. I decided to do some manual sums using a pencil, some graph paper and a Casio calculator and found the actual mpg was 27.5 average. Not bad considering I always have it in Sport mode and usually spank its bottom.

That sounds like GCSE Maths at its very finest!

You want to save money? Properly? It's easy.

1) sell the newish petrol.

2) buy an older diesel with more miles.

I did it. Sold my 2.0 Civic, which was undeniably one of the more efficient 2.0 petrols around. Bought the Skoda.

VED: from £240 to £130

Insurance: same

Real mpg: 32 to 42

Fuel cost: less than 10% more

Same size fuel tank. Where I used to get 320 miles from a tank, I now get 500 or so. Whereas diesel may cost more initially, it certainly lasts longer. Plus, the car doesn't depreciate like a grand piano thrown off a tower block. My Civic had a 'street' value of circa £1800. The dealer, for reasons best known to himself, offered me a £2500 trade-in. I knew this worked out better for me, so spent a little extra in the Skoda. Total cost: £400 inc. trade-in.

I need to break out my calculator and pencils, but I'm pretty sure that it's saving me money.

[shark_90]

Coasting in neutral is usually bad for MPG. While your foot is off the loud pedal, the injectors are closed and no fuel is injected. In neutral fuel is injected (0.6gal/hr approx) on tickover.

[jrw]

Sorry but you're wrong.

In a modern fuel injected vehicle, coasting actually uses more fuel than leaving the car in gear going down hill.

When coasting you use fuel to keep the engine running.

When in gear, using engine braking or just off throttle you use no fuel at all.

If you don't believe me, try it.

Down hill in any gear, take your foot off the throttle and check the MPG display (if you have one)

You will see the reading max out.

Drive the same hill coasting. The MPG reading will be the same as when idling.

:D

You had to go and say it didn't you... cue some tripe from lol about inertia etc

[shark_90]

I could probably see 800miles on my range after a fill up at the top of snowdon and an illegal coast down to the bottom. Rofl.

I have a documented 710 range in my Volvo D5... But it was in limp mode!!

[jrw]

Well I saw 960 miles on my Audi A4 with the 1.9D 130 hp unit, hellava car.

Don't think coasting is illegal, espeically in a DSG which only requires the stick by a centimetre to regain drive which takes afraction of a second, law says in control. Yes if a deer ran out or the like but I always do it in a quite zone with nothing within 30 metres or so.

you saw. Seeing and doing are 2different things. I can reset my trip down hill and see 200mpg and say my average is 200, but unlike you I don't. I use fuelly or good old maths.

If you have a smartphone you can also do it at the filling station so no excuse for forgetting or waiting for receipts from office etc.

[Optimist]

It really is a shame that we are all so dependant on petrol/diesel. One sure fire way to make the Government sit up and think is if we could all refuse to buy any.....period! The loss to the Governments income, not to mention the petrol giants would be enormous and would force a rethink.

Fuel prices are the main cause of our obscene inflation rates and yet although we keep moaning, we still keep buying the stuff!

I know this is a "pie in the sky" idea but boy would it have an impact. I would do it if everyone else would.....I bet not many would though.

John

[seboni121]

That's why I'm looking at a Prius plug in ! 135 mpg

[Reavenger]

Best I ever saw in my Fabia vRS was 410 miles. Keep it at 65-68mph on cruise and you'll easily get 350+.

I got round the whole petrol argument by affecting moving next to where I work!.... :think:

Now my car is essentially a weekend car. So really, the whole government has won as I do less miles

[lol-lol]

But did you ever achieve anywhere near that when you manually calculated mpg? That'd mean it was over 100mpg.

The Sharan says I can do 830 miles when full, but I've yet to even make 500 on a tank! As we say, manually calculate your mpg and you'll see how unrealistic the book mpg and computer claims are.

And yes coasting IS illegal.

The Audi A4 has a 15 gallon tank and with the 1.9D 60 mpg was entirely possible. Yes the computer over reads my about 5% which is why I saw the 960 odd miles.

Yes I know the mpg on the computer is not very far out ie maybe 5%, possibly 6 to 8% as the gauge and computer seem to be not linear ie worse in the middle of the tank usage and better when near full and near empty.

If you know the section of the specific Act that states coasting is illegal please write it up in the post?

You must maintain control of the vehicle at all times is stated I believe but it is a leap to say coasting is not in control.

In fact one of the fuel consumption features Audi is introducing is "coasting" on the Q series vehicles and it has been on numerous cars and bikes over the years.

[lol-lol]

Coasting in neutral is usually bad for MPG. While your foot is off the loud pedal, the injectors are closed and no fuel is injected. In neutral fuel is injected (0.6gal/hr approx) on tickover.

We have been through this several times talking about mantaining inertia, thermodynamic systems boundaries and that when coasting you have more speed at the bottom of the hill it you have left it in gear and that empirically more than offset any fuel used during coasting as in gear down the hill.

I have seen nothing to change my driving style on either the hyper-miling technique of burn and coast or that it is legally incorrect. I will keep getting high mileage range and be pleased to pay the Government as little fuel tax as possible whilst enjoying the performance of the Fabia and Octavia TSI VRSs. Live long and prosper.

Edited 4 March, 2012 by lol

[jrw]

The Audi A4 has a 15 gallon tank and with the 1.9D 60 mpg was entirely possible. Yes the computer over reads my about 5% which is why I saw the 960 odd miles.

Yes I know the mpg on the computer is not very far out ie maybe 5%, possibly 6 to 8% as the gauge and computer seem to be not linear ie worse in the middle of the tank usage and better when near full and near empty.

If you know the section of the specific Act that states coasting is illegal please write it up in the post?

You must maintain control of the vehicle at all times is stated I believe but it is a leap to say coasting is not in control.

In fact one of the fuel consumption features Audi is introducing is "coasting" on the Q series vehicles and it has been on numerous cars and bikes over the years.

68.1 litres? There was me thinking it had 65 litre tank which is just over a 14 gallon tank. At 60mpg that's 859 theoretical range as you would be very lucky to get 60mpg. So unless it was 10% out you are talking out your backside again and you would never get anywhere near that many miles to a tank.

For someone on £60ph working in tax you really need to check your math.

Also don't bother stating how much more you can get in venting. A 65litre tank is 65litres so unless the filler neck holds 5litres its a none argument.

Edited 4 March, 2012 by jrw

[jrw]

You had to go and say it didn't you... cue some tripe from lol about inertia etc

We have been through this several times talking about mantaining inertia, thermodynamic systems boundaries and that when coasting you have more speed at the bottom of the hill it you have left it in gear and that empirically more than offset any fuel used during coasting as in gear down the hill.

I have seen nothing to change my driving style on either the hyper-miling technique of burn and coast or legally. I will keep getting high mileage range and be pleased to pay the Government as little fuel tax as possible whilst enjoying the performance of the Fabia and Octavia TSI VRSs. Live long and prosper.

What did I tell you

[lol-lol]

68.1 litres? There was me thinking it had 65 litre tank which is just over a 14 gallon tank. At 60mpg that's 859 theoretical range as you would be very lucky to get 60mpg. So unless it was 10% out you are talking out your backside again and you would never get anywhere near that many miles to a tank.

For someone on £60ph working in tax you really need to check your math.

Also don't bother stating how much more you can get in venting. A 65litre tank is 65litres so unless the filler neck holds 5litres its a none argument.

Think it was more like 70 litres ie the same size as the current Exeo tank. As I have said before if I was going to have a diesel it would not be a 2 litre Skoda due to its poor range. I would either go for the 1.6 CR with the 7 speed DSG or go for a aother brand but the SEAT, I think, still has 10K servicing and the Audis and the VW are just bad value for money hence the TSIs.

[simonsheil]

Well the new vw and audi dsg boxes have an automatic coast function so in certain circumstances one can assume it is more economical.

As for tank size my car has a 70 litre tank according to vw, however, I have got 73 litre in before.

[BossFox]

BTW lol, you'll be able to keep your cars longer now as new Skodas come with the option of a four or five year warranty.

That'll save you much more than changing to a new car every three years with slightly better economy.

[Ad Lav]

As a Fabia vRS owner I can tell you you'll see 45mpg on a run, max. Mileage per tankful, 350 - 400 tops. You'd be really lucky to get 450 each time. I'd have kept the 1.8TSI as the Fabia vRS is a bit more fussy with its fuel type and you'll end up paying more at the pumps with v-power!

[Can]

Ha ha Lol your in for one hell of a shock when you get the fabia as it'll not do that sort of MPG unless your driving it like a coffin dodger.

You'd have been better off with a Mk1 or an 1.6 Dev probably maybe even a greenline.