I have now done just under 2000 miles in my 1.6DSG.

 

Although on a journey last week I got about 62mpg, at the moment I am only getting 54-55mpg on a journey. (avg 35mph or so)

 

On the positive, I am getting more than I was in my OctyII, but there are people on here that are quoting early 60's.

 

I am driving in eco, and as the weather is hot, my climate is on 20.0

 

I am not hammering the car, and am doing a mixture of motorway and A roads.

 

A lot of my time this week has been spent in traffic, but on friday I will be doing 200 miles each way up to liverpool.

 

The car is still new so I know it needs to loosen up, but I was just wondering if there is anybody else with the same engine that is getting much better mpg.

 

Strange question but..... Am i using start stop too much. is it meant for sitting in motorway traffic, or is it more for just when you are stopped at lights?

The 1.6 takes alot miles to loosen up upto 10k it maybe worth trying it on non supermarket fuel I saw a many suggestions that they get better mpg

Edited 10 July, 201312 yr by daydotz

I always fill up at Shell.

 

10k, that will be done in a few months.

 

again, I am getting better than my old car, but people on here seem to be quoting better. is it just that they are doing a 50pmh average??

You need to be stationary for a suggested min of 20 secs, otherwise you're better of disabling start/stop

The other thing to remember is different cars like different fuels. Even 10 identical cars will all behave differently on different fuels.

Hi Wantaskoda,

 

I picked up my new 1.6DSG yesterday evening, and am running it in doing laps of the A1 and M1 between Leeds and London :-(.

 

I did 200 miles to Stratford this morning and got 59MPG according to the computer. That was on quiet A1 for the first hundred miles or so (Cruise control at a steady 72)then half an hour stop start on the A14, another half hours cruising and a final 20 mins or so stop-start into Stratford.

 

On the way home it was stop start leaving the city for first half hour, then two hours of cruise at 70, followed by a final hour between 50 and 80 when the traffic got more obnoxious towards Leeds and rush hour. That showed 58 on the computer.

 

I brimmed it after I got back (exactly 400 miles since I filled up last night) and it took 30.12 litres, which I get to 60.4MPG.

 

I'm quite impressed with this for _literally_ a first run on a new car. Like you, air con on, climate set to 20.

 

Be interesting to see what you get on your Liverpool run. I'm doing the same trip again tomorrow (had to come back tonight for a personal appointment - grrr) so I'll be surprised if it's any different.

 

I'd be fairly happy with the 50-55 mark pootling round in the 30s - I usually aspire to somewhere near 90% of quoted figures, and I think 70MPH run is nearer combined cycle than extra urban, the way they test them.

If you'd have watched 'Your money, their tricks' on BBC1 tonight, all was explained re manufacturer's exaggerated "official" fuel figures.

Thanks avtur I did see it.

I never expected to get the 74mpg quoted, but I did hope to get mid 60's, and people with the 2.0 seem to be getting this.

It's very difficult to say what you should get in honesty because there are so many variables that don't occur when they 'obtain' the official figures. So much depends on the driver input, especially on eco models. Things like forward observation and throttle control and driving so you avoid using the brakes as well as correct gear selection will all improve the mpg results, as will the route,traffic conditions and temperature. I'm not suggesting your not driving economically, just that driver input is so important as well as speed. This does vary car to car but I'm sure you know what I mean. A couple of examples are if the drivers throttle control is poor on a eco car more fuel will be wasted on a pre rata basis because it has less performance than a more powerful car, so just wastes that extra fuel. What I mean by this is if say the driver puts his foot down in a eco model it is less efficient for longer because it has poorer acceleration than a more powerful car in the same circumstacies so doesn't react to driver input as quickly as a more poeerful variant. Another example is speed. My 1,4 tsi was far better on fuel below 70 than above it which made around 5-10 mpg difference on a run. I did a 160 mile round trip today from worcestershire to milton keynes via the m42, m40 and through Buckingham. I got 54.2 driving to the conditions to make maximum progress but keeping to the speed limits and doing 70 ish on the motorways which is better than the official combined figures, which supports the which reports that have concluded that the figures for more powerful cars are more achievable in the real world. The official figures will give you an idea about what to expect the differences between cars will be, but they are not much use in guarenteing what you'll actually get IMO.

When I look at official fuel consumption figures when deciding on a car I always take 20% off the figure they show you, then you know thats is somewhere near roughly what I would get, generally works for me, I just wish I was getting mid-60mpg out of mine, I wouldnt visit the pump half as much!!! My CR VRS 170 DSG is about 35 round town and a shade under 50 on a run with cruise set at 70, but I do live in a very hilly area.

My parents are on there second 1.6cr,first was Octavia and new car is a superb, it's a myth if u ask me,I'm getting nearly the same mpg from my Vrs. I don't see the point of the 1.6 at all.

You lot are lucky lol

We have a evoque now I love it and my mrs loves it 49mpg they quote we are lucky and I mean driving like miss daisy to get 30 mpg most of the time we get 28Mpg OUCH and its diesel hence we are px in for octi combi on same route on test drive 49 on longer route 51

Oh and that we're having family and a dog possibly lol

My parents are on there second 1.6cr,first was Octavia and new car is a superb, it's a myth if u ask me,I'm getting nearly the same mpg from my Vrs. I don't see the point of the 1.6 at all.

I agree with this. I think simply downsizing the engine has to suit the type of environment that the car is going to be used in to get any gains. People dont always consider that bigger engine often has taller gearing and more useable torque. So at cruising speed you gain lower rpm and with more torque you make quicker progress without having to use the revs. Loaded up or for medium to long distance stuff I'd always take the bigger engine eoption. Around town, I'd go smaller but then I dont think many will buy an Octy TDI as a town runaround. I also think theres a reliability/longevity arguement to be made for a bigger capacity, less strained engine choice.

Thanks for the lengthy responses.

I am not a technical person but what I did take note of the rpm on my octyII and can see that the rpm is virtually the same with the III.

It is not that I am not getting the quoted mpg, it is others seem to be getting more. Fortunately I have no issue with performance, and even yesterday I managed overtakes. My query was why others are achieving higher mpg

With regards to working the engine harder I was told with better torque the engine will not work harder than my old 2.0.

This was a cost excercise for me.

Lower cost to buy

Lower insurance

Lower road tax

Saving on fuel.

Even if the octyIII 2.0 is more economical than the 1.6 then I think I will still be financially better off over 3 years and 100k.

If I am wrong, DON'T TELL ME!!!!!!!!!

There was

With regards to working the engine harder I was told with better torque the engine will not work harder than my old 2.0.

This was a cost excercise for me.

Lower cost to buy

Lower insurance

Lower road tax

Saving on fuel.

Even if the octyIII 2.0 is more economical than the 1.6 then I think I will still be financially better off over 3 years and 100k.

If I am wrong, DON'T TELL ME!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Isnt road tax currently the same, £20 a year? Alot depends on how long you'll be keeping the car for or more specifically how many miles you intend to do as that will dictate if you would have been better off with the 1.6 or 2.0 tdi. No doubt you saved on the initial purchase price of the 1.6 but will it depreciate quicker than the 2 litre and will the running cost differences be extremely marginal - Id hazard a guess of yes for both of those. With regards to working the 1.6tdi no harder than your old 2 litre - id disagree with this. Iirc it only produces about 180lb/ft torque anyway (the 150ps 2 litre tdi produces around 250lb/ft) and thats what I mean about longevity. I like the idea of a bigger engine pulling a decent size car like the Octavia. The 1.6's turbo is pretty small comparatively and will be working fairly hard to maove a big car with a 1600cc engine. When you drive the 2 litre back to back you can feel theres just more there and it doesnt seem as strained if that makes sense. Having said that, Id didnt feel that the 1.6 was slow! Its just that with the 1.6 you have to wring its neck somewhat whereas the 2 litre just felt like it had far more reserves.

I have a feeling that start stop with dsg is not a good idea driving round central London

AlreDy had instances where my foot has come off the brake, car started, foot back on brake, car stopped against

I do know that foot lighter on the brake doesn't stop the engine.

Isnt road tax currently the same, £20 a year

Think the 1.6 is free! !!! Not sure the £20 a year saving after year 1 would settle it on its own though!

On this mornings journey I spent 'concious' time thinking about when I should and should not use start stop.

 

It is funny as it is the reverse to a manual. on the manual, take it out of gear, handbrake on, and the car swill switch off. On the auto, it is keep your foot on the break (drive an octy and Citigo!!)

 

So, I have now filled up this afternoon, and will see how I go on my run tomorrow.

Think the 1.6 is free! !!! Not sure the £20 a year saving after year 1 would settle it on its own though!

 

The manual is (99g/km CO2) and therefore free of road tax, but not the DSG which is 102 g/km CO2 and therefore £20 tax.

Edited 11 July, 201312 yr by Timoctav

Think I need to stop worrying about this and just accept that my 1.6 may not be as economical as I was hoping, and maybe I should have gone for the 2.0.

 

I am now just going to continue to enjoy the car as is.

 

I suppose the reason I feel so strongly about it as that EVERYONE in the dealership knows what my driving style/mileage is and therofre if the 1.6 is was not designed for my style, then I should not have been sold it.

 

Drive from N.London to just outside Liverpool - 200 miles, avg 65mph 55.4 mpg

Think I need to stop worrying about this and just accept that my 1.6 may not be as economical as I was hoping, and maybe I should have gone for the 2.0. I am now just going to continue to enjoy the car as is. I suppose the reason I feel so strongly about it as that EVERYONE in the dealership knows what my driving style/mileage is and therofre if the 1.6 is was not designed for my style, then I should not have been sold it. Drive from N.London to just outside Liverpool - 200 miles, avg 65mph 55.4 mpg

I think you are right, just enjoy what you have. Tim seems to be getting consistently over 60mpg with his 2.0 but I am struggling to average any more than 55mpg with average speed since new at only 35mph so unless I drive like a total Doris all the time, I'm not going to get much more but it is still saving me about £50 per month in fuel bills compared to the Superb 170 CR so I too am happy with that.

Unless you life swap with whoever you are benchmarking yourself against there is no realistic way of comparing, but it has more to do with local conditions on regular commutes than anything else. I just look forward to my little business trips where I can get over 60 mpg when the roads are leveled out over longer distances and with my imaginary Doris at my side, the increased fuel economy on those trips makes me smile even more now that I can claim mileage allowance relief having opted out of a company car scheme and the extra funds mean I get enough to pay for my tyre replacements!

Edited 12 July, 201312 yr by Matt Pez

Agree also - don't forget you have DSG also, which is a major enhancement

Think I need to stop worrying about this and just accept that my 1.6 may not be as economical as I was hoping, and maybe I should have gone for the 2.0.

I am now just going to continue to enjoy the car as is.

g

I don't think any car from any manufacturer would ever match the official combined fuel consumption figures. These should be taken as a comparison with other cars rather than any expectation of actual consumption you are likely to achieve in real life.

The worst example of misleading figures is for petrol hybrids which can be wildly and stupidly optimistic.

This is the humble opinion of Briskoda's resident "Doris". I need to re- register under this new Matt Pezz sponsored name......jealousy will get him nowhere!!!!!!

Edited 13 July, 201312 yr by Timoctav

I don't think any car from any manufacturer would ever match the official combined fuel consumption figures. These should be taken as a comparison with other cars rather than any expectation of actual consumption you are likely to achieve in real life.

The worst example of misleading figures is for petrol hybrids which can be wildly and stupidly optimistic.

This is the humble opinion of Briskoda's resident "Doris". I need to re- register under this new Matt Pezz sponsored name......jealousy will get him nowhere!!!!!!

Cheers Doris! I wasn't actually referring to you as the Doris, but if the cap fits.....but I am still jealous! I went down the A1 to Newark yesterday and stuck mainly to 60mph, still only averaged 63mpg! The Superb 170CR however had an official combined of 48.7 and I used to beat that every tank full so there has definitely been a shift in manufacturers exaggerating economy figures in the last 4 years!

I never expected the published MPG as I did not think a car of this size would do 74.

 

it just seems the 2.0 drivers are getting better MPG.

 

ended on about 59mpg over my 400 mile run (on a friday) to and from Liverpool.