Hi

I am slightly disappointed with the fuel economy on my 140TDi PD engine in my 2008 pre FL estate, which I've had for three weeks now.

Its around 45mpg on my 15 mile daily commute along M4 and A48M (two lane dual) which also includes a mile or two town driving at either end. Due to volume of traffic I'm actually driving the motorway bit at optimum speed with little opportunity to boot it, so its probably as good as its going to get. In my previous Mk1 130TDi PD (great engine), I got better economy, nearer 50mpg, and I was expecting this newer engine to be a bit more optimised. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

My previous car was up around the 100k mark when I sold it and this one is on 93k, but has only done motorway miles in the main and FSH. Can economy worsen with higher mileage?

Cheers for any opinions

Adam

Edited 19 April, 201214 yr by adamal

Are you calculating the MPG manually or simply quoting the on-board computer?

Yes MPG can get worse as an engine ages and wears and becomes less efficient.

I've not yet filled it to the brim and measured it properly using the milometer and actual petrol used, so the 45 is from the computer. I'm sincerely hoping its not overreading, but I've done some part tank calcs and I think its not too far off.

Edited 19 April, 201214 yr by adamal

I've not yet filled it to the brim and measured it properly using the milometer and actual petrol used, so the 45 is from the computer. I'm sincerely hoping its not overreading, but I've done some part tank calcs and I think its not too far off.

I have a long term average of 45 from my 2.0 TDi scout with a max of 53 and min of 36 so I would expect a standard estate to better these.

I'm assuming the scout is heavier then? What is a scout excuse my ignorance?

I'm assuming the scout is heavier then? What is a scout excuse my ignorance?

Scout is 4x4 raised ground clearence, heavier etc. standard estate should do 5 or 6 mpg better at least I would have thought.

My old 1.9 tdi mk1 never got below 53mpg, it normally sat about 60mpg and I once got nearly 80mpg on a run of 30 miles. Are the new 2.0 tdi units worse than the 1.9?

Looking at the combined book figures, the 2.0 tdi is a good 15% down on economy compared to a 105 bhp 1.9 tdi....however you get about 35% more power with the 2.0 tdi, so that's to be expected.

My 2.0 tdi DSG returns about 48 mpg if driven reasonably carefully......55 mpg if driven like an undertaker, and low 40's if driven briskly.

If you have a heavy right foot 45 mpg doesn't sound far off what you should be getting (50 mpg-ish in a manual?). You really need to brim the tank and calculate the mpg to be sure.....the trip computer can be out by quite a bit. (mine overreads mpg by 15%!)

Thanks. I will do. I was comparing my economy with my prev 1.9 130 engine, not a 110, and feeling a little short changed. I'm also wondering about my driving style. I'm not heavy on right foot but maybe I'm getting thru gears too quick, which was how the old engine seemed to like it

<p>

<br />

Hi<br />

<br />

I am slightly disappointed with the fuel economy on my 140TDi PD engine in my 2008 pre FL estate, which I've had for three weeks now.<br />

<br />

Its around 45mpg on my 15 mile daily commute along M4 and A48M (two lane dual) which also includes a mile or two town driving at either end.  Due to volume of traffic I'm actually driving the motorway bit at optimum speed with little opportunity to boot it, so its probably as good as its going to get ;In my previous Mk1 130TDi PD (great engine), I got better economy, nearer 50mpg, and I was expecting this newer engine to be a bit more optimised.  Is that an unreasonable expectation?<br />

<br />

My previous car was up around the 100k mark when I sold it and this one is on 93k, but has only done motorway miles in the main and FSH.  Can economy worsen with higher mileage?<br />

<br />

Cheers for any opinions<br />

Adam<br />

</p>

I also had a 130 hp 1.9 PD and then a 140 hp 2 litre diesel and was dissappointed by both its economy and performance.

Use to get mid to upper 50s mpg from the 1.9D 130 hp but only 48-50 mpg ouf of the 2 litre diesel.

The move from the PD to the CR engines was just a 2 millimeter overbore and then the introduction of the quieter Common Rail technolgy that is actually quite old although definately quieter which is what VW-Audi needed to achieve. I think they also introduced more crank balancing to make the engine smoother but these changes did not result in a significant improvement in torque 320 to 340 NM and seince the whole thing was heavier with more inertia the performance,and economy was not improved and the 1.9D 130 hp both feels faster.

We had both at the same time and and the 130 hp diesel was slightly quicker than the 140 hp but then one was in the Mk1 (Mk4 Golf based chasis) and one in the Mk5 Golf based chasis so not a completely fair comparison.

With VAG cars I would go for the 1.9D, if I was going 2 litre I would go for the BMW or go 2,2D, 2.4D or 2.5D in another make.

Always fancied the Ibiza cupra with it 160 hp 1.9D and 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, wow, yet still did 55-60 mpg!; bit cramped through.

Edited 20 April, 201214 yr by lol

This is still the older pd engine, I will brim her next week ans calculate and report back. Cheers all

Adam

I also had a 130 hp 1.9 PD and then a 140 hp 2 litre diesel and was dissappointed by both its economy and performance.

Use to get mid to upper 50s mpg from the 1.9D 130 hp but only 48-50 mpg ouf of the 2 litre diesel.

The move from the PD to the CR engines was just a 2 millimeter overbore and then the introduction of the quieter Common Rail technolgy that is actually quite old although definately quieter which is what VW-Audi needed to achieve. I think they also introduced more crank balancing to make the engine smoother but these changes did not result in a significant improvement in torque 320 to 340 NM and seince the whole thing was heavier with more inertia the performance,and economy was not improved and the 1.9D 130 hp both feels faster.

As I've mentioned before, the 2.0 140 you had would have been a PD. The Octavia didn't get the 140 bhp CR engine until 2010.

The original 2.0 TDi was still PD.

As I've mentioned before, the 2.0 140 you had would have been a PD. The Octavia didn't get the 140 bhp CR engine until 2010.

The original 2.0 TDi was still PD.

Was there any change in torque or power between the PD and CR? Smoother I know but anything else rev range etc?

Was there any change in torque or power between the PD and CR? Smoother I know but anything else rev range etc?

Both are 140 bhp and the max torque is the same. On paper the CR is supposed to a tiny fraction quicker and revs to 4200 while the PD was 4000 rpm. I've never driven the CR140 version so can't comment but its reckoned to be a smoother delivery of power than the PD140 and economy should be similar to the 1.9 TDi, at least going by the official figures.