Reading around this a bit the 6 speed DSG is a little less economical due to the higher RPM. The 7 speed was not suitable for higher torque outputs. Perhaps its just the nature of the car?

Reading around this a bit the 6 speed DSG is a little less economical due to the higher RPM. The 7 speed was not suitable for higher torque outputs. Perhaps its just the nature of the car?

 

It's also to do with the fact the 6 speed has a 'wet' clutch pack so there is extra resistance from the oil and also it slips the clutches slightly to smooth out the ride which also uses more fuel.

 

But yes I believe the 7 speed is slightly higher geared.

 

Phil

Reading around this a bit the 6 speed DSG is a little less economical due to the higher RPM. 

 

The gearing on the DSG seems nearly identical to the 6 speed manual. At 70 mph, the engine is doing about 2100rpm.

 

For the record, my 2.0 TDI PD DSG (not as economical as the CR) averages 45mpg at the moment, but it is only used for short trips as a runabout at the moment. When I drive it 20 miles to work, I easily get 55 mpg.   

 

Don't underestimate the affect driving style and traffic conditions have on economy. If I drive very carefully to work, I can get 60 mpg (calculated). If I drive hard, it'll be low 40's mpg.     

To make things easier when calculating from litres to gallons.Multiply litres by a factor of 0.22 and this gives you gallons.

Interesting to hear some figures on here...  I travelled down in my VRS estate (2.0 CR) from Scotland to SW.Wales then across to Southampton, up to Nottingham and back home... The most mileage i got from a tank of DERV was 503  which i think equates to about 42 mpg.  I don't crawl along in the slow lane but also don't really toe the accelerator hard, using the cruise control on motorways.  I do have a boot full of lighting gear on most occasions so this may account for the above figure... but I'm still pretty happy as my CRV did 27mpg wherever I went. Maxidot or whatever the thing's called claimed that I was getting 45mpg average, which isn't too far out.

Averaging 40mpg over the last four thousand miles here, mixed motorways/town using a proper fuel log and not driving it in a fashion to save fuel.

Really pleased with it.

Ignore just saw op wants cr140

When the air is warmer, the oxygen density is reduced (so 1 litre of air at 30degress contains less oxygen than air at 0degrees), and because there is less oxygen when warmer the ecu doesn't need to put in as much fuel to get the correct mixture. VWAG's official line is that for every 1degree increase in temperature, the fuel economy improves by 1% also.

 

Surely putting less fuel in due to less oxygen will also lead to less power generated? Such that what will actually happen is that you'll put your right foot down a bit further, causing the turbo to spin up a little more and result in more oxygen and fuel ending up back in the cylinder?

 

Yes there is an increase in mpg with decreasing air density, but I'd always put this down to reduced aerodynamic drag?

 

Do you have any link to VAG's 'official line'? I'd be genuinely interested, thanks.

Edited 14 September, 201312 yr by Ultrasonic

There was a rumor going around that the cylinders crack or leak in some models using 2.0 diesel engines from VW. Not sure about it though.

There was a rumor going around that the cylinders crack or leak in some models using 2.0 diesel engines from VW. Not sure about it though.

do you mean porous head issues? this only affected early 2.0 PD engines only and don't think it applies to the newer CR engines

do you mean porous head issues? this only affected early 2.0 PD engines only and don't think it applies to the newer CR engines

 

That's correct. The problem was fixed on PD engines from 2006 onwards. 

Recently bought my Octavia '12/61 Diesel VRS. Just had a shocking MPG return on actual measure, way off what the car claims. I know Trip Recorders lie all the time, but wrong by almost 50% can't be right... Do you believe what your dashboard tells you or check what your vehicle really does? Hell, my 23 year old Subaru almost did as well and that drank more than a High Court Judge.

 

I wouldn't have as much of a problem if it told me the low MPG was due to short commute journeys, but claiming 54mpg when it's really 28mpg is not good.

 

Glad to be on board, and tell me if and where I should direct this post if on the wrong forum.

They are normally optimistic but 50% is well out of the normal tolerance.

 

My '61 plate CR140 was about 13% out so I was able to correct it using an adaptation channel in the instrument cluster with VCDS. That said, I think the maximum what can be corrected is 15% each way...

 

How are you measuring the consumption? It normally takes 3/4 tanks to get a decent measurement.

+13% for me as well. - that is to say optimistic, indicated consumption was 113% of actual.