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.  

.

Agree completely.  If I were ever lumbered with a car which had stop/start I would have it disabled.  If I couldn't disable it I wouldn't buy the car.  Typical example of pointless, ineffective green "eco-posturing".  About as much use as a wind farm in a gale.

 

 

.

Agree completely. If I were ever lumbered with a car which had stop/start I would have it disabled. If I couldn't disable it I wouldn't buy the car. Typical example of pointless, ineffective green "eco-posturing". About as much use as a wind farm in a gale.

I used to have a similar caveman attitude towards stop/start till i actually tried it and now i wouldnt be without it. If anything it just makes driving a nicer experience

Edited 27 October, 201312 yr by vrsCR

Octy III VRS mpg figures show the largest improvement vs Octy II within the Urban cycle (simulated stop-start traffic). Octy II was 27.7mpg, Octy III 34.9mpg. That's a  25% increase in mpg due mosty to turning the engine off when not needed (waiting at lights etc). Obviously these are best-case figures, but it is naive to say that the effects of stop-start technology are non-beneficial to real world driving. I am sure that people ho drive aroud town all day will notice the saving, even if stop-start can be a bit irriating sometimes.

Plymouth and back at the weekend in our Mk 3 TSI VRS at normal speeds (80 ish) and got 35.9 according to the maxidot did go up if you eased up a bit

You should expect to see the figures increase as the engine gets more miles & hours on it.

Had a VRS DGS TSI combi demonstrator overnight. Did 150 miles and it averaged 7.8 L/100kms so 35mpg (maxidot) with 4 different people driving it and 'trying' it out.

I'm used to 48mpg on average (38000 miles) from my manual scout and petrol is the same cost as diesel over here so I am getting a manual diesel VRS instead. Only a $700 price difference to buy, so I will get that back in first year of ownership easy! Was seriously considering the TSI if it was near the claimed 6.2 l/100kms but I reckon that's unobtainable in normal varied use based on my test drive. i.e it's not going to give another 25% saving over what I managed, more KMs or not in my opinion and the VRS diesel with 30% more power and 25% more torque over my Scout will still make me happy and i'll still get close to 600 miles out of a tank vs 400 for the TSI.

Edited 29 October, 201312 yr by snala

Hah, if I'll be getting 400 miles out of a tank from my VRS TSI DSG, then I'll be extremely happy! My current (and ancient) 1.6 gets about 300-350 miles out of a tank... Oh and that's with the larger 55 liter tank.

Hah, if I'll be getting 400 miles out of a tank from my VRS TSI DSG, then I'll be extremely happy! My current (and ancient) 1.6 gets about 300-350 miles out of a tank... Oh and that's with the larger 55 liter tank.

.

What is all that in mpg, please?

Edited 29 October, 201312 yr by Stuarted

Hah, if I'll be getting 400 miles out of a tank from my VRS TSI DSG, then I'll be extremely happy! My current (and ancient) 1.6 gets about 300-350 miles out of a tank... Oh and that's with the larger 55 liter tank.

You should be able to get 400 miles out of a tank of fuel as engines are now more fuel efficient than they were.

You should be able to get 400 miles out of a tank of fuel as engines are now more fuel efficient than they were.

.

All depends on size of tank - it varies from model to model and even between different version - and what owners mean by by "a tankful".  Presumably they don't empty the tank?

Why not quote something clear, consistent and directly comparable across all cars - simple mpg?  Fill up, note mileage and litres/gallons used, repeat ... simple.  It doesn't seem sensible for an owner to go to the trouble of posting about their fuel consumption if they haven't even bothered to measure it properly. 

Edited 29 October, 201312 yr by Stuarted

Well, my Leon has a 55 liter tank. I usually fill up and drive around until I get the warning then fill up again. I would manage to get between 300 and 340 miles if I would completely empty the tank, depending on how much urban driving I'm doing. So that would give me less than 30 mpg. I am driving quite enthusiastically at times but not always. If I behave, I could probably get into the 30-35mpg range, but not more than that. That old 1.6 engine is bulletproof but a pig on fuel.

 

So for me, getting 400 miles off of a smaller tank in the O3 VRS TSI DSG, with more than double the power and almost double the space... seems like a cracking deal to me!

Going through the owners posts so far indicates a rough 33-35mpg average with mixed city and motorway driving. That's good enough for me.

Just trying to figure costs vs performance

 

I am surprised the vrs tdi and tsi are so closely priced by Skoda, normally you pay a big premium for a diesel

 

based on 500 miles a week, I would save £60 a month in fuel costs with the diesel (not enough to draw me away from the tsi)

 

Can someone please give me the estimated residule value of both the tsi and the tdi after 3 years so I can figure out depreciation on both

I am surprised the vrs tdi and tsi are so closely priced by Skoda, normally you pay a big premium for a diesel

 

Can someone please give me the estimated residule value of both the tsi and the tdi after 3 years so I can figure out depreciation on both

Golf GTI's are more expensive than Golf GTD's. I think that you are comparing normally aspirated Petrols with Turbo Diesels of similar power. When it comes to performance turbocharged Petrols vs performance Diesels, purchase costs are pretty similar.

 

The GFV quote I got when comparing TSI vs TDI was £9900 and £11500 after 3 years/30K mikes. When taking base prices, fuel, road tax, and depreciation into account the TSI worked out £3K more expensive for me, or £1K per year. This is if I give it back after the 3 years.

 

I wanted a sporty sounding and performing car so I purchased the TSI anyway. I actually really liked the TDI but after driving a TSI the choice was easy. I also get an extra real tailpipe included .

 

Phone around local Dealers and test drive both. If it is not a company purchase the TSI may well be worth the extra money for you. It is noticeably faster within any gear at any speed. It is much smoother and sounds good too, but you ultimately pay for these benefits.

Edited 31 October, 201312 yr by Orville

With the TSi there's the added benefit of not starting the tractor up in the morning as well. 

 

I like diesel, with it's superb powerband & torque, but it's so noisy at start up, when you compare it to petrol, which just seems to purr away. 

You only live once, so petrol power all the way for me.