Don't tell me... The vRS prefers the super unleaded to the bog standard stuff.

Does it make a difference if the octy is fitted with the multi link suspension or the solid axle.

Mine is a diesel vRS and have not managed to get more than 42l in, with 40ish miles showing as the range.

Edited 9 November, 201312 yr by fireftrm

I ran mine almost to the bottom of the red last night, with 10 miles range left the pump clicked off at 43litres...... Personally I think the calibration of the gauge is a bit naff and there more left in the tank than it's letting on.... Don't want to test it though!

Can be to do with the temperature of the fuel and its Specific Gravity.

Should try putting 140,000 litres in a Boeing 747 and trying to work out whether what you had before filling up equals what you put in and what the gauge says now!

Can be to do with the temperature of the fuel and its Specific Gravity.

Should try putting 140,000 litres in a Boeing 747 and trying to work out whether what you had before filling up equals what you put in and what the gauge says now!

 

So which is best for a Jumbo, Shell, BP or Sainsbury's, imagine the Nectar points..........Oh I've a double points coupon

Interesting comment on the Shell Fuelsave, I've been using it exclusively for a while now and have noticed I'm getting a about 3 mpg less than I used to get on supermarket diesel.

Can be to do with the temperature of the fuel and its Specific Gravity.

Should try putting 140,000 litres in a Boeing 747 and trying to work out whether what you had before filling up equals what you put in and what the gauge says now!

Oh, forgot to add the tolerance is +-1000 litres or 1.5% of the fuel loaded!

And as usual its whichever fuel is the cheapest!

Given the variation even in how many litres some owners get to a tankful, it appears to make discussion of how many miles owners get to to a tankful pretty meaningless.

If an owner is sufficiently interested in fuel consumption to note how many miles they do between fill-ups, it would seem sensible also to note the quantity of fuel added each time as well.  That way you can very simply calculate something actually meaningful and useful - miles per gallon - a universal figure comparable across all models of all cars and all versions, regardless of tank size, gauge accuracy or low-fuel-warning-light sensitivity.

Simples.

Just quoting "miles per tankful" is, at best, a pointless waste of time and, at worst, confusing if not downright misleading.

Anyway, that's my view.

^^^^^^
This

Especially as some people will fill up once the needle has dropped off the bottom of the dial, and others like my GF get twitchy and nervous when it gets to a quarter of a tank.

Given the variation even in how many litres some owners get to a tankful, it appears to make discussion of how many miles owners get to to a tankful pretty meaningless.

If an owner is sufficiently interested in fuel consumption to note how many miles they do between fill-ups, it would seem sensible also to note the quantity of fuel added each time as well. That way you can very simply calculate something actually meaningful and useful - miles per gallon - a universal figure comparable across all models of all cars and all versions, regardless of tank size, gauge accuracy or low-fuel-warning-light sensitivity.

Simples.

Just quoting "miles per tankful" is, at best, a pointless waste of time and, at worst, confusing if not downright misleading.

Anyway, that's my view.

Fuelly? That's where I am keeping my record. I take the mileage when I fill up, which is at or less than the light coming on. Makes for a slight error between 'tank fulls' but not much, and the overall average is meaningful.

... and the overall average is meaningful.

.

No it isn't - not unless you note how much fuel you put in.

 

 

Can be to do with the temperature of the fuel and its Specific Gravity.

Should try putting 140,000 litres in a Boeing 747 and trying to work out whether what you had before filling up equals what you put in and what the gauge says now!

 

Had the same problem fuelling up the Cargo ship in Saudi.  Ordered the fuel in tonnes and expected fuel of a Spec Grav of about 0.95 but got 0.93 instead so instead of about 1,800,000 litres I got closer to 1,850,000 litres which was fine in the mill pond that was the Persian Gulf but as soon got in to the Indian Ocean that extra few thousand litres popped up the vent pipes and made a hell of a mess of the accommodation block and though I needed to call Red Adair.

 

As it says on the inside of the fuel flap careful not to overfill as it can cause damage! (still do sometimes use the vent switch to get near 50 litres in the Fabia if I am starting a long journey though.  Old habits Die Hard).  

.......

Just quoting "miles per tankful" is, at best, a pointless waste of time and, at worst, confusing if not downright misleading.

Anyway, that's my view.

 

Miles per tankful is one of the most important pieces of information I like to know about a car and it is Skoda's Achilles heal.

 

Was amazed when I saw that they had reduced the already small tank, nominal 55 litre, to a mere 50 litre and I even more concerned to hear that you cannot do the venting "trick" and add another 4 litres or so due the vent switch apparently being hidden or missing.

 

Mark Three Octys are suppose to have 15-20% better fuel consumption than the Mk2 Octys but then some people are reporting a larger difference between quoted and real MPG of the Mark 3s than the Mark 2s.

 

If you pay Top Trumps with Octy 3 against the Ford Mondeo and Vauxhall Insignificant the Skoda wins nearly every comparison except range which is quite disappointing.

 

The TSIs range is not so bad to persuade me to have a diesel but it is a frequent frustration when I think back to the comparably sized Audi A4 which would show a tank range of over 700 miles, sometime 900 plus miles, with its proper sized 70-odd litre tank.    

Range is important, yes.  But that is a different subject.  Range is a matter of convenience but it's not an indication of how expensive the car is to run. 

With the Ocatvia, the range is less than some of its competitors because it has a smaller tank, not because it uses more fuel.  You see how confusing and deceptive it is when people quote "miles per tankful" instead of a more straightforward and meaningful figure like mpg?

Which would you rather have: a car with 15 gallon tank and a range of 600 miles, or one with a 10 gallon tank and a range of 500 miles?  If you prefer the first one, either you're made of money or you're lucky enough to have someone else paying your fuel bills for you! 

Edited 9 November, 201312 yr by Stuarted

Range is important, yes.  But that is a different subject.  Range is a matter of convenience; it's not a measure of how expensive the car is to run. 

With the Ocatvia, the range is less than some of its competitors because it has a smaller tank, not because it uses more fuel.  You see how confusing and deceptive it is when people quote "miles per tankful" instead of a more straightforward and meaningful figure like mpg?

Which would you rather have: a car with 15 gallon tank and a range of 600 miles, or one with a 10 gallon tank and a range of 500 miles?  If you prefer the first one, either you're made of money or someone else is paying your fuel bills for you! 

 

Like many people, more than many think, fuel I use is paid for by my company so I only pay the BIK on it which I think makes it about 50p a litre,  what I want is a fabulous car which the Skodas are in nearly every respect except the fuel tank size which they seam to have a blind spot over.

 

I want it all, sub 6 litre/100 km consumption, 70 litre tank, TSI performance ie  1100 km plus range.  1.4 TSI DSG Octy 3 is looking good but tank size is a worry.

We seem to be wandering off the point.

Range is important but that is a different subject.

For most people who have to pay for their own fuel (or even a proportion of it) fuel consumption is at least as important, if not more so.  And the obvious, straightforward way to quote this clearly in a way which permits direct comparison between different cars, different models and different versions is in simple mpg. 

Just quoting "miles per tankful" is, at best, a pointless waste of time and, at worst, confusing if not downright misleading.

 I know what you mean but it's a psychological thing.

 

My weekly commute is exactly 100 miles.  I get around 470 miles per tank out of my car so to avoid having to fill up on a weekday I have it in my head that I need to fill up every four weeks.

 

That thing in my head has nothing to do with mpg, it's all how much I know my vehicle will get out of a tankful.

 

(And thanks Ford, I've never got anywhere close to your quoted mpg figures even when driving like the vicar's wife).

 

(And thanks Ford, I've never got anywhere close to your quoted mpg figures even when driving like the vicar's wife).

.

'Quoted' mpg v. actual 'real world' mpg - another separate subject in its own right!  But perhaps I'l start another thread about that ...

And I realise, looking at the thread title, that this thread is supposed to be about fuel tank size, not fuel consumption, so apologies for my rant.

However it still annoys me (well, confuses me and leaves me no wiser than before) when, in a discussion specifically about fuel consumption, owners just burble on about miles-per-tankful.  If this thread has done nothing else, it has at least highlighted the huge variation even in litres-per-tankful, thus exposing how meaningless - in terms of fuel consumption and running cost - 'miles-per-tankful' is.

 

 

Range is important, yes. But that is a different subject. Range is a matter of convenience but it's not an indication of how expensive the car is to run.

With the Ocatvia, the range is less than some of its competitors because it has a smaller tank, not because it uses more fuel. You see how confusing and deceptive it is when people quote "miles per tankful" instead of a more straightforward and meaningful figure like mpg?

Which would you rather have: a car with 15 gallon tank and a range of 600 miles, or one with a 10 gallon tank and a range of 500 miles? If you prefer the first one, either you're made of money or you're lucky enough to have someone else paying your fuel bills for you!

It is also a function of cash flow.

My Citroen was less economical than my Octavia but due to the fuel tank size, three quarters of a tank would cost me £70 and would usually last three weeks driving an average of 450 miles per 3/4 tank.

Now with the octavia, three quarters of a tank lasts 400 miles per 3/4 tank at a cost of £50ish.

As a result I am filling more often during a payday having an effect on cash flow. I.e, £100 vs £70 more often than not.

Yes I understand I could just "top up" the tank to get me the same range for three weeks/450miles at a lower cost than the Citroen (Citroen = 6.42miles/£ so 450 miles = £70, Skoda = 8miles/£ so 450miles = £56) however I prefer to know that when I fill I have a full tank at my disposal.

Perhaps I should just wait 450 miles before filling regardless of where the needle is. Although I am never happy dropping below 1/4 tank.

Hope that makes sense!

Andy

I don't see how it affects cash flow other than for the better.

You are doing the same mileage per month and spending less money to do it.

So which is best for a Jumbo, Shell, BP or Sainsbury's, imagine the Nectar points..........Oh I've a double points coupon

Well, you have heard the stories about petrol/diesel all coming out of the same tank at the distribution centre, well it is no different for aviation fuel. And certainly you can not add any performance additives to jet fuel which are not permitted already permitted by the fuels specification. If you would like to know more I refer you to Defence Standard 91-91 which can be obtained from www.dstan.mod.uk or drop me a pm.

Well, you have heard the stories about petrol/diesel all coming out of the same tank at the distribution centre, well it is no different for aviation fuel. And certainly you can not add any performance additives to jet fuel which are not permitted already permitted by the fuels specification. If you would like to know more I refer you to Defence Standard 91-91 which can be obtained from www.dstan.mod.uk or drop me a pm.

 

Why would you add performance additives to jet fuel?

Why would you add performance additives to jet fuel?

You don't.

The point I was trying to cover is that in a local area, our road fuel all tends to come from the same storage terminal, no matter which brand you buy. It is often stated that at the road loading point, depending on who's fuel is being loaded into the road tanker, different additives will be added to the fuel. This I can't really corroborate as I have never really dealt with these fuel types apart from putting them in my car. Jet fuel though is a bit of a speciality of mine. So, what I meant was, it does not really matter who's jet fuel you are loadind (BP, Shell etc) it will all be the same and no brand specific additives will be used.

There is one performance enhancing additive that can be added to jet fuel and it is used almost exclusively by the US military to raise the thermal stability of the fuel by 100 degrees fahrenheit. This helps to alleviate deposition in the atomiser, vaporiser and combustor areas of the gas turbine engine.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest - a round trip to London for me is 450 miles, and I can get 550ish out of a tank so don't need to fill up on the round trip.

 

As for the standard daily commute, 35 miles a day, 4 days a week. I just fill up if I have a long journey or if I am down to about 1/4 of a tank.

 

At then end of the day, the fuel economy would be worse if we had 70 or even 90 litre tanks due to the increased weight. 5 litres or about 50 miles range is neither here or there as far as I am concerned.

 

What journey is anyone planning of 500 miles plus where they do not have the opportunity to fill up?