Interesting, some big numbers being bandied about here. The guys on the vRS threads are more interested in comparing horsepower than MPG!

I'm struggling to make 7L/100km at present (about 40MPG at a guess), but the car's only done 1,300km, and it has been used to its potential a couple of times.

Interesting, some big numbers being bandied about here. The guys on the vRS threads are more interested in comparing horsepower than MPG!

I'm struggling to make 7L/100km at present (about 40MPG at a guess), but the car's only done 1,300km, and it has been used to its potential a couple of times.

I suppose us that went for the 1.6 picked it over the vrs for the cheap running

Mine started off averaging 62mpg for the run to work 2 weeks ago and has steadily dropped and is now just managing 50 :(

range counter estimate & current trip computer readout suggests about 470 Miles to a full tank

Going to check my tyre pressures tonight & try and pick up a bottle of diesel+ before the next tank

Big wheels really hurt mpg - its why the greenline/bluemotion cars get better mpg with the same engine (octy and golf etc)

? Do you mean wider tyres, rather than narrower or the rolling radius or total diameter of the tyres,

what have wheels to do with it?

that just changes the sidewall height

george

Bigger wheels almost always equal wider tyres which equal more friction. Better grip but lower economy

I sold my monte on 10000 miles and never once even in a long run better 60mpg.about town 40mpg.....Am quite sure Skoda made the official figures up.

I think we have been here before. Manufacturers mpg figures are nonsense because they are done on a rolling road and are allowed 60 seconds to accelerate to 60, to quote one example of the rules that apply.

How many of us drive like that?

The rules are due to change in due course, I believe, for more representative results.

Tony

Mines a Scout estate, but 2 weeks ago I brimmed it, including filling the expansion tank / Vent and got from work Nuremburg to Europoort (Rotterdam), Hull to Warrington, then from Warrington to Sunderland for the following weeks work. That was about 750 ish miles (and on fumes).

Monday night I brimmed it again, and drove to Inverness for work (420 Miles) and am still showing half a tank and a 200 mile range. I have not bothered to work out MPG, but at the moment I am pretty happy as I'm not driving particularly slowly.

I hardly do any town driving, mine is mostly Motorway / A roads, and in quieter periods of the day. It's a case of Drive to the Hotel near work, park up, leave it for the week, then drive back home, so my figures (if I ever bother working them out) are probably artificially high because of this. On the Nuremberg run, I averaged 71MPH according to the trip computer so was not hanging around, but I have found little difference in economy between 70 - 85mph ish.

'Whitelighter's' idea of bigger wheel mean bigger tyres, more friction better grip less economy is all good in theory.

(It is a strange world that car manufacturers are in with ECO tyres that are becoming often short in the life/wear of the tyres

& often poor in road safety, but supposed to give better MPG)

Then VAG put out 3 cars with much the same engine vRS, GTi, A1. VW & Skoda 178 bhp,

Audi 182 bhp.

VW & Audi on 215/40/17 & Skoda on 205/40/17

VW heavier unladen than the Skoda.

The lower emission figures & better economy figures are given to the Audi & the VW on the wider tyres..

The Audi & the VW get put in a Road Tax band for a cheaper disc.

Nothing is ever black and white.

Actually what is written in black and white by car manufacturers is often just rubbish.

(you need to put the same car in the same conditions on slightly wider tyres and have the speedo & mileometer accurate then see how mileage and economy is effected. funnily its usually effected not in the slightest, and sometimes the slightly narrower tyre width effect grip not in the slightest.

Correct tyre pressures for the load can often be more important to economy & grip.

Rubbish ECO tyres that are giving very poor grip in the Cold & Wet might cause you to slow down for safety, that saves fuel sometimes)

george

I think we have been here before. Manufacturers mpg figures are nonsense because they are done on a rolling road and are allowed 60 seconds to accelerate to 60, to quote one example of the rules that apply.

How many of us drive like that?

The figures that are published arent useless, but (most) consumers mis-understand exactly what they represent.

Any official consumption figures have to be done under laboratory conditions so that every car is assessed in the same way. The only real use for the figures is to compare two or more different cars to see which theoretical figure is higher. This will then tell you which car will be more efficient when everything is equal.

The problem arises in that they publish an mpg or L/KM figure which (understandably) people think is some sort of guarantee. If you actually think about it logically, there are so many vairables (driving style, road surface, traffic levels, weather, head wind, time of day, tempreture, altitude etc etc etc) no figures published will ever really match more than 5% of drivers leaving the vast majority unhappy.

What the EU should do is stop publishing MPG figures and replace it with some sort of banding system for Urban, Motorway and Combined. Maybe a Letter and Number system so the best would be A10, and the worst Z1 for example, relating to narrow bands of actual MPG.

This would give you a easily understood comparitor when buying a new car, but not mislead you into thinkning that the MPG displayed is some kind of promise.

So you might have a Fabia Greenline 2 being B3/A1/B8 and an VW Polo BM as B5/A3/A1 for example.

Even that may prove too complex but the point is goverment issue MPG figures have a use - to compare two cars. In that respect the current system is absolutely fine. The problem is they didnt educate the consumer so now the metric needs to be changed.

The Laboratory is the Manufacturers Laboratory, not a EU or National/international Official Laboratory that all Manufacturers Vehicle goes to for independent testing for EU use figures.

So that would be a starting point to standardise Testing and figures.

I am just happy to be able to better the Published figures as often as possible,

then get bored with that & find my own Urban, Extra Urban & Average tankful usage.

Real world possible figures are neither here nor there in different areas or conditions as said.

Metric is fair enough, but people like my mother believe that 56 mph is good & 60 or 70 mph is bad.

Folk can be daft, and just take what they read as being written in stone.

george

Down to 44 mpg for the run to work this morning from 62+ last week I hate the Edinburgh traffic

Interesting what was said about the motorway driving though I am finding that mine has a huge flatspot that makes sitting between 60 & 70 on the motorway a pain in the arse

A visit to the remapper may be in order

Down to 44 mpg for the run to work this morning from 62+ last week I hate the Edinburgh traffic

Interesting what was said about the motorway driving though I am finding that mine has a huge flatspot that makes sitting between 60 & 70 on the motorway a pain in the arse

A visit to the remapper may be in order

On mine, I find the cruising sweet spot is about 2.5k which is a little above legal UK motorway speed limits, but I seem to be getting good mileage. I was pretty amazed by my dash to Rotterdam a couple of weeks ago and the range I got. As I say though, my figures will not be the norm because I genuinely do motorway it up to work, park up for the week, walk wherever, then motorway it back on the Friday. Wife has a 1.2 petrol Polo which is the weekend shopping mobile.

You do need to work the gearbox every now and again, but I am hoping a visit to a reputable southern tuner will sort that :-)

Mines a Scout estate, but 2 weeks ago I brimmed it, including filling the expansion tank / Vent and got from work Nuremburg to Europoort (Rotterdam), Hull to Warrington, then from Warrington to Sunderland for the following weeks work. That was about 750 ish miles (and on fumes).

Monday night I brimmed it again, and drove to Inverness for work (420 Miles) and am still showing half a tank and a 200 mile range. I have not bothered to work out MPG, but at the moment I am pretty happy as I'm not driving particularly slowly.

I hardly do any town driving, mine is mostly Motorway / A roads, and in quieter periods of the day. It's a case of Drive to the Hotel near work, park up, leave it for the week, then drive back home, so my figures (if I ever bother working them out) are probably artificially high because of this. On the Nuremberg run, I averaged 71MPH according to the trip computer so was not hanging around, but I have found little difference in economy between 70 - 85mph ish.

How do you fill the expansion tank etc, I've tried a few times and ended up with wet feet!

How much extra can you also get in there?

I do a lot of long trips to Europe and back on a fairly regular basis and this would be a big help for me!

Thanks for everyone's input.

I said earlier on that it is unlikely to achieve the manufacturer's figures so early on in the cars life, but it would be nice to be within 10-15% of the claimed combined mpg. However, my other car Seat Ibiza 1.9tdi with the PD130 engine (granted it has 65k miles on the clock) regularly returns +60mpg without me even thinking about it. The claimed combined mpg for that one is 55mpg so the figures should be reachable I think.

I am hoping that once the Fabia has 15-20k I should start seeing an improvement in the mpg. I have never be en far off the manufacturers claimed MPG's before, other than for the Fabia. Maybe it just needs a bit more running in.