I have one on order and guess that low 30's will be realistic. Fuelly has not got any Octy III VRS Petrols listed yet, so I wonder whether any owners on here can post real-world result?

I'd certainly expect more than low 30's, middle 30's around town, mid-high 40's out of town. I know the VWs we have are 2.0 TSi and they return mid 30's around town & high 40's - 50's on a sojourn to the West country. 

1500 miles covered in my manual tsi estate, obc showing 32.1mpg. Circa 330 miles to fuel light warning. Low to mid 30's easily achievable. Once the fun factor wears off this will likely increase

I'd certainly expect more than low 30's, middle 30's around town, mid-high 40's out of town. I know the VWs we have are 2.0 TSi and they return mid 30's around town & high 40's - 50's on a sojourn to the West country. 

 

I'd be surprised if you could get in the 50's with a petrol engine. My current Golf GTD will get 60mpg if driven like a grandad on a long run, but realistic 'normal/slow' driving I'm seeing 45mpg in my commute journey.  I'm awaiting delivery of my petrol vrs but I'd be happy with anything i the 30's, doubt I'll see more than that.

1500 miles covered in my manual tsi estate, obc showing 32.1mpg. Circa 330 miles to fuel light warning. Low to mid 30's easily achievable. Once the fun factor wears off this will likely increase

 

I have achieved almost the exact same figures as parsey83... if you drive below 70 on a long run you can get almost 40mpg...

I have achieved almost the exact same figures as parsey83... if you drive below 70 on a long run you can get almost 40mpg...

I agree, that's about what my experience is, may be 40 plus on a frugal day and engine run in!!

32MPG will be great. I couldn't break 20MPG with my last petrol turbo (Impreza STI IV).

Will be interesting too compare the three modes,with everyday driving styles .

 

Two rough cut trial weeks, indicates a fractional improvement between Eco and Normal. (Work and pleasure approx. 250-300 per week)

 

Mix of roads.

I have achieved almost the exact same figures as parsey83... if you drive below 70 on a long run you can get almost 40mpg...

that'll be about 34 then LOL. This is funniest thread I've read tonight...

Don't worry about the mpg all, just enjoy your cars and the fab effortless performance.

If its anything like my previos 11 plate 2.0 TSI engine it wont be great!  mid 20's around town and that wasnt with any positive driving shall we say, then 36-38mpg with cruise set at 70mph on a motorway, I know the newer revision is probably more refined and efficent with the stop start etc, but still there is no way I could live with those sorts of figures, I know its not everyones cup of tea the diesel but its just so much more efficent MPG wise as well as residual value wise, so financially it makes a great deal of sense, however, I do understand some people still want the petrol, but it comes at a cost with poorer residuals and poorer MPG, I changed from the TSI to the TDI as financially it was so much better, and that was without doing loads of mileage.

Circa 330 miles to fuel light warning.

That's never good.

 

I do 970 mile round trips every six months to Luxembourg on booze/ciggy runs......I can't even envisage starting out with a full tank and having to fill up possibly three times on the same journey?

For me the economy isn't too much of a factor so long as I get 30ish mpg. I do about 6000 miles pa so the cost difference between petrol and diesel is only a few hundred quid. I'm happy to pay that for the extra performance and refinement. My current 320D only averages 36-38mpg. Looking forward to going back to a manual petrol.

Edited 25 October, 201312 yr by Orville

My mk2 tsi averages 34 mpg 65000 miles the highest ever managed driving really carefully is 39mpg even at a constant 56 you will not see anything better than 40.

lowest on a track day at brands was actually a fairly respectable 18mpg.

At the end of the day if you want a sports saloon the tsi engine is a great powerplant.

Mine was mapped at 5k but the 30% additional power had no detrimental affect on economy.

This truely is a great flexible engine. I imagine most go tsi route for the extra performance and weight loss over the front end. Compared with the diesel. On another note we are getting similar performance figures on current tsi models to the older r32's. 15mpg better and road tax a third of the cost!!

I guess for a car which offers the same torque as VAG's 3.6l V6 (in the Superb and others) it is really quite good on fuel. The TSI offers 350Nm torque from 1500-4400rpm vs 350Nm from 2500-5000 for the V6. Official MPG is 44 for the Octy TSI vs 30 for the heavier Superb.

I think given the petrols power output and performance if it could realistically return mid/late 30's driven sensibly and perhaps low 40's on a sensible long run id be happy.

I have a feeling though that it wont be a great deal better than the MK2 TSi. Having already run a Fabia vRS TSi that had a book MPG of 45 and barely returned 32mpg over 11k miles ive lost faith a bit.

Got to be said though diesel nothing like as fun but a damn sight more forgiving towards a heavy right foot. My Mk2 Octavia CR vRs DSG Combi isnt the most fuel efficient diesel car ive had in recent years but on a mixed 110 mile run it will without fail return mid/late 40's which isnt all that bad for a 170hp car really, particularly given much of journey is fast motorway work.

If i buy a MK3 I really would like a TSi this time around but cant help but wonder if the lower running/finance costs and better residuals of the TDi may well put in favour again. After all one of the reasons the Fabia went was for its poor range, i felt like i was spending half my life in the petrol station!

Edited 26 October, 201312 yr by pipsyp

When I first bought my mk2 I manage to get 43mpg. That was the best ever driving really carefully. 40 was easy to achieve at a constant 55 - 70 mpg down the a34 to Southampton. Now I have the maxidot on the music display so rarely see mpg and actually don't really care. Just fill up when empty. Get 360 - 400 miles between fill ups. Bigger tank than the mk3 of course!

Oops 55 - 70mph I meant.

I'm getting an average of between 29 and 31 in the demonstrator i'm driving at the moment, a mixture of short trips, motorways etc. and I don't have a lead foot.

 

Car has done 2k miles.

A 70 litre tank would be nice.

Larger tanks eat into cabin space and can increase weight and rear suspension complexity. 50 litres is on the small side but with my low mileage I can easily live with one fill up per fortnight. For those doing high mileage it is an obvious pain, but you'll get the placebo of cheap fill ups.

Perhaps I should stay with my Superb?

 

Long-term MPG according to Maxidot is 35, + 60 litre fuel tank = 400+ miles range too.

 

Max torque on mine = 361 Nm / 266 lb/ft @ 3912 rpm, never dropping below 240 lb/ft between 2.5K - 5.3k rpm.

Max power is 252.6 PS / 249 BHP @ 5844 rpm.

 

Original figures were 291 Nm / 214 lb/ft @ 3119 rpm & 214 PS / 211 BHP @ 5464 rpm, both higher than Skoda's quoted figures of 280 Nm & 200 PS, but not that unusual in our experience.

 

Skoda always seem to be very conservative with their power & torque outputs, even when compared with other VAG cars, perhaps it's the "Big Brother" influence?

 

Still pondering re. purchasing an Octy 3 vRS, not too concerned about fuel economy 'cos annual mileage is quite low, & we just don't like 4-cylinder diesels. but the Superb is a much better car than it looks, not at all ungainly & with a feeling of restrained opulance, even compared to the new Octavia.

 

We might well keep it for another year or two & replace SWMBO's FL vRS instead, but that's running more power & torque than the Superb, so it will be hard to beat............

 

 

DC

Perhaps I should stay with my Superb?

 

Long-term MPG according to Maxidot is 35, + 60 litre fuel tank = 400+ miles range too.

 

Max torque on mine = 361 Nm / 266 lb/ft @ 3912 rpm, never dropping below 240 lb/ft between 2.5K - 5.3k rpm.

Max power is 252.6 PS / 249 BHP @ 5844 rpm.

 

Original figures were 291 Nm / 214 lb/ft @ 3119 rpm & 214 PS / 211 BHP @ 5464 rpm, both higher than Skoda's quoted figures of 280 Nm & 200 PS, but not that unusual in our experience.

 

Skoda always seem to be very conservative with their power & torque outputs, even when compared with other VAG cars, perhaps it's the "Big Brother" influence?

 

Still pondering re. purchasing an Octy 3 vRS, not too concerned about fuel economy 'cos annual mileage is quite low, & we just don't like 4-cylinder diesels. but the Superb is a much better car than it looks, not at all ungainly & with a feeling of restrained opulance, even compared to the new Octavia.

 

We might well keep it for another year or two & replace SWMBO's FL vRS instead, but that's running more power & torque than the Superb, so it will be hard to beat............

 

 

DC

Afew things to consider. Maxidot tends to overestimate fuel economy by 5-10%. For remapped cars this can be much further out because the calculatons do not include excess full used within the revised map to help obtain the extra power. General rule is to use Maxidot for guidence only on stock cars and ignore altogether once it has been remapped or had a tuning box added.

 

In my experience with tuned cars (mostly Subarus and BMW;s), Rolliing Roads / Dynos ALWAYS overstate power. Every stock car I have owned'has produced more than expected BHP. I guess tuners like big numbers and it makes customers feel better giving them bigger numbers. Some read higher than others but few if any down-read or are actually accurate for customer readings.

 

The Superb weighs about 15% more than the new Octavia and misses out on the (love it or hate it) stop-start technology. Realistically, the similar 2l TSI engines should provide ~10-15% better economy in the Octavia once they have been run in. A 50l tank within an Octy should provide a similar range to the 60l tank within the older and heavier Superb.

 

My stock 320D trip computer always reads arond 40mpg, but real-world results (brim to brim measurements) give 36-38mpg. The manufacturer claims mid fifties .

I'd be surprised if stop/start has any real world benefit on fuel consumption. I think the manufacturers have deliberately designed it to work on the test cycle to improve consumption and lower emissions. Having tried similar journeys in our stop/start equipped A6 with and without it engaged, the displayed consumption was virtually identical (and the variation could have just as likely resulted from any number of other factors).

 

Obviously it has no benefit outside of town and I can't believe that on a motorway run, if the traffic stops and you pull up and the engine cuts out, it's of any benefit whatsoever as it could mean that oil isn't circulating around the turbo bearings leading to potential premature turbo wear or failure.

 

It's also vaguely irritating, particularly when you arrive at a set of lights moments before they change and the engine cuts out only to restart 1 or 2 seconds later.