So, I did a return trip to Newbury today, round trip of 275 miles according to trip computer, and as I was stuck behind traffic the first part of the journey was really slow, but as I wasn't in a rush I just went with the flow.

Was relaxed on the way back, and as I'd realised the mpg was pretty good on the way down I deliberately drove economically, averaged 48mph for the whole journey which is a bit slow, but it was a mixture of roads and there was a fair bit of traffic it wasn't too bad. I don't think I held anyone up, just didn't try to overtake anyone.

Anyway, the mpg when I pulled up at home was an amazing 70.1 mpg!

I've never achieved anywhere near that before, normally 50-53 ish is about it. I had the winter wheels/tyres on so they are narrower (less rollong resistance), the temp was about 12 degrees (diesel engine is better when it's not so cold), and that's about it.

Still can't believe it

Don't trust the OBC, the only way a Scout will top 60mpg (let alone 70mpg) is down hill, with a tail wind, and with the engine turned off.

The official extra urban mpg on the CR Scout is 51.4mpg, to top that even in exceptional real world circumstances would be a challenge, to better it by 36% is a ploy by Skoda to manufacture 'happy drivers'

The only computer I trust on this subject is my brain (what little there is). Brim the tank,do a journey,brim it again and then work it out.

I'm under no illusions that the figures won't be wholly accurate, and that the odometer will be innacurate too (winter wheels are smaller than summer ones), but ....

I've had the car for 31000 miles and anything above 53 mpg or so (on the on-board computer) is exceptional, so such a major improvement is worthy of note. I have done over 600 miles since filling up, the low fuel warning is not on, and according to the car there is still 160 miles range left.

I was driving extremely conservatively, but considerately

I'll brim the tank this weekend, as I always do, and report back miles since last fill-up, as well as how many litres went in.

It will be interesting to see what the actual mpg was over this tank, assuming you get 650 miles+ on this tank then that would be very respectable fuel economy for a standard CR140, let alone one carrying around the extra weight of the Haldex.

I'm guessing that the rolling radius of your 16" winters won't be that far out compared to the 17" Proteus wheels?

I have had 55.1 mpg out of my pd scout (real figure brim to brim over a tank) and got 660 miles out of the tank, but it is pretty rare to get much over 50 mpg. I have corrected the trip computer with vcds as it was originally out by around 12% on summer tyres and 14% on winters so my 55 mpg would have read more like 65 on the trip comp on winters.

OK, here are the figures:

Tank was brim to brim, 630.6 miles between fill ups, and I got in 48.51 litres (approx 10.66 gallons). Fuel warning light was not on, and trip car reckoned I still had over 130 miles range left.

Do the calculations and = 59.15 mpg :sun:

The first half of the tank was used normally (although I drive economically most of the time anyway) and the second half was the 'surprising' return journey to Newbury as described above. I know there are inherant errors with the odometer, winter tyres, calibration of fuel pumps etc but just proves how much of a difference a light right foot can make.

Edit: to correct typo.

Good result, knock a few percent off for the smaller rims and that is very respectable!

In summer my Scout usually averages over 50 mpg in winter 46-48 according to the OBC which is 11% optimistic. Once saw 62 on a short run.

Mark

Never gett less than 40, average is 46-ish. Best ever was just under 52mpg. All figures brim to brim via Fuelly, as below!

Fin

60MPG on a single tank is exceptional. My figures are right in line with Fin's. My maxidot (which only reads current days travel, not tank totals) was 6% out. Just recently tweaked it to correct with VCDS.

It's alright saying calculate the economy brim to brim but you don't use an accurate means of measuring the mileage covered. The odometer could be as much as 10% out. Sat navs aren't much better either.

It's alright saying calculate the economy brim to brim but you don't use an accurate means of measuring the mileage covered. The odometer could be as much as 10% out. Sat navs aren't much better either.

I didn't say this was carried out in a controlled environment or that my results were accurate; in fact I did acknowledge in posts #4 and #7 that there are inherant errors with, among other things, odomoters. I'm aware of the effect of using data that doesn't come from a calibrated/controlled source, and that compound errors make the end results less certain as you add in complexity, but it still doesn't alter the fact I had a rare journey (Newbury and back) that contributed to a tank full of fuel going a long way.

I only posted here as this was outside of the norm and that during my normal journeys I average far fewer mpg than on this particular journey. I couldn't calculate for that one return journey so I, as suggested to me, opted to calculate based on one tank of fuel.

Toonfan, I'm not knocking you. A few on here love knocking the cars mpg readout saying its massively out. It may be so, but the calculations they compare it to may be wildly innacurate also. I just go with the cars readout personally.

It's alright saying calculate the economy brim to brim but you don't use an accurate means of measuring the mileage covered. The odometer could be as much as 10% out. Sat navs aren't much better either.

You'll never get to 100% accuracy but by manually calculating using the brim to brim method but you are at least removing many of the variables that often contribute to the inaccurate read-outs provided by the OBC.

What is widely accepted is that quoting the OBC fuel economy of two different cars is likely to me more inaccurate than comparing the manual calculation between the same two cars (or multiple cars in a MPG thread for example).

Edited 5 January, 201313 yr by silver1011

Odometers are never 10% out. GPS can be. I have one trip here (currently closed due to a bridge wash-out) which reads 20km shorter on GPS than odometer. It is that windy that the GPS join-the-dots method misses about 10%.

Accurate fuel economy reporting needs a log over many fills. Even the difference between hot and cold fuel in the tank introduces significant errors on single fills.

Odometers are never 10% out. GPS can be. I have one trip here (currently closed due to a bridge wash-out) which reads 20km shorter on GPS than odometer. It is that windy that the GPS join-the-dots method misses about 10%.

Accurate fuel economy reporting needs a log over many fills. Even the difference between hot and cold fuel in the tank introduces significant errors on single fills.

under uk law cars are aloud to have speedo/odometer's out by up to 10%. This is backed by the fact if you were done for speeding ie doing 33mph in a 30, and fight in court you will get off with it.

The speedo and odometer do not have the same innacuracies. The tolerance you get for speeding includes the tolerance of whatever method they used to catch you.

Just because it can legally be 10% out doesn't mean you'll ever find one that is.

I have checked the odo and speedo on all the vehicles I've had. Speedo's are typically 5% under at 100km/h, this is a managed inaccuracy. Odometers are always within the 2% that you get with different tyres.

under uk law cars are aloud to have speedo/odometer's out by up to 10%. This is backed by the fact if you were done for speeding ie doing 33mph in a 30, and fight in court you will get off with it.

This is not true. It is illegal to have a speedo that under reads. It can over read and there is a complex equation to tell you how much at any given speed.

The 10%+2mph allowance is a guideline set by ACPO and is not a point of law. You can be convicted travelling at 31mph in a 30.

Edited 6 January, 201313 yr by Metblackrat