not very good mpg

[davrostavros]

Hi, had the car since new in July and as per my signature I am not really getting particularly good mpg. Last fill was less than 35. I know it's got colder but I don't thrash the car and do probably 50% on mways so a bit disappointed into n this, I was expecting more.

[littleade]

Have you checked the tyre pressures as that can make a (probably small) difference. Without knowing the circumstances do you carry passengers and have anything in the boot as both will affect your mpg. I found my 1.4tsi mk2 octy was noticibly better on fuel if I kept below 70 and above that it got progressively worse so if your cruising above 70 might be worth dropping it down a bit to see if it improves (assuming you have some form of mpg disply this should be easy to check?).

Others with a Rapid will hopefully give you an indication of what they are getting. HTH

[skoda1982]

I am getting about the same must be the drop in air temp

[camelspyyder]

Hi, I've got a 105 TSi on 17's so it should be similar. Mostly driving A & B roads on 25 mile journeys.

 

First tank from new with tight engine was poor - about 37/38 mpg but inside 2000 miles I was getting 47 -50 mpg and its stayed like that up to 9000 miles now.

 

On motorways with the cruise set at 75/76 the mpg drops to 44/45mpg

 

Aircon costs 3 or 4 mpg and all my figures are based on the Stop start system (greentech) being inoperative cause I turned it off.  (thats supposed to up it by est. 3mpg)

 

Another regular on here who has a long 60mph commute is getting 55mpg average (on narrower tyres which help a bit)

 

I have noticed that the difference between 50 or 60 on A roads, and doing a lot of gear changing on B roads/T-junctions, is huge (more than 10 mpg less)

Edited 13 October, 2014 by camelspyyder

[mu7]

Does seem a bit low, I guess it depends on your motorway speed though?

 

Lowest I've seen mine go (and these are just the trip computer figures) is 39mpg, and that is when I am, erm, enjoying a particularly windy b-road near me.

 

Driving down the M6 spending a lot of time cruising at 50mph due to all the road works and without traffic jams, I can get it to 55mpg+. That said my previous citigo in the same conditions would do almost 70mpg.

 

I'm at just over 3k miles now, on the same engine (1.2 tsi 105). It has improved a bit since the start. No start/stop on my car.

 

I did once get the computer to claim 70mpg in my rapid, on a 30mph, 4 mile journey. It required a special effort to leave the throttle alone and conserve momentum though

 

 

[davrostavros]

Just checked the tyres, they were a bit low, around 1.9bar all round, hopefully that'll make a difference. I'm on a longish trip tomorro so will see if there is a difference. I rarely use the air con and hardly ever go above 70. Bit is usually empty bar drop offs at nursery.

[Stormchaser]

I'm on 1125 miles now and I'm getting about 45 to 50 mpg on A roads to work and back. If I'm in town it goes down to mid 30,s to low 40,s. So I use my Citigo for that [emoji106]

Maybe as my engine gets looser it'll get better [emoji4]

[The Plumber]

I'm currently averaging around 48 on the 36 mile open A road commute to work, which is a slight drop off from what I had been getting until the weather turned more autumnal. This is a Spaceback on 17" rims with the additional weight of glass roof, boot and a spare; tyres Dunlop Sport Maxx set to 2.2 bar all round.

 

 

TP

[camelspyyder]

This mornings fill up 48.6mpg

[lol-lol]

As has been mentioned in previous threads, when looking at MPGs one must always discount the warn up period where the fuel consumption is typlcally half that of the up to temperature MPG.

 

If that warm up period takes you 3 or 4 miles and you are only doing 6 or 8 miles then your fuel consumption will only be three quarters of the manufacturers fgiures.

 

When I zip the Fabia 2 VRS round the city streets in a sucession of 3 to 4 mile runs the average fuel consumptiion reads around 25 mpg and I just filled the car up last might, put over 10 gallons in and it read 250 miles range on the computer. 

 

Conversely filled up a couple of weeks ago, drove 610 miles to Scotland and back on a single tank of fuel and still had 15 miles range left. 

 

Start up MPG is the killer.  Work how much of the percentage of the journey is startup miles and that usually explains the average MPG. 

 

But also driving in urban areas ie SE England, Glasgow, Manchester etc tends to start-stop urban mpg, even on some motorways.  Out here in the West we get less traffic, less often touch the brakes, get muc better MPG.

Edited 14 October, 2014 by lol-lol

[Bidey]

As has been mentioned in previous threads, when looking at MPGs one must always discount the warn up period where the fuel consumption is typlcally half that of the up to temperature MPG.

 

If that warm up period takes you 3 or 4 miles and you are only doing 6 or 8 miles then your fuel consumption will only be three quarters of the manufacturers fgiures.

 

When I zip the Fabia 2 VRS round the city streets in a sucession of 3 to 4 mile runs the average fuel consumptiion reads around 25 mpg and I just filled the car up last might, put over 10 gallons in and it read 250 miles range on the computer. 

 

Conversely filled up a couple of weeks ago, drove 610 miles to Scotland and back on a single tank of fuel and still had 15 miles range left. 

 

Start up MPG is the killer.  Work how much of the percentage of the journey is startup miles and that usually explains the average MPG. 

 

But also driving in urban areas ie SE England, Glasgow, Manchester etc tends to start-stop urban mpg, even on some motorways.  Out here in the West we get less traffic, less often touch the brakes, get muc better MPG.

Lol-Lol,

Good simple explanation of the implications of short journeys on MPG.

 

Putting the heating on re-circulation during warm up can reduce heat up time slightly. (also warms car up quicker)  ;<)

 

I drive Perth to Dundee 23miles each way and consider it failure if i have to brake. Trying to anticipate wherever...NOT PARANOID ,,, just about changing bad habits. Also helps if, reverse into drive and parking spaces so you drive off instantly you start engine. Don't start engine until you are belted up and heating/radio set up etc. JUST HABIT IMPROVEMENTS!! ;<)

[camelspyyder]

Lol-Lol,

Good simple explanation of the implications of short journeys on MPG.

 

Putting the heating on re-circulation during warm up can reduce heat up time slightly. (also warms car up quicker)  ;<)

 

I drive Perth to Dundee 23miles each way and consider it failure if i have to brake. Trying to anticipate wherever...NOT PARANOID ,,, just about changing bad habits. Also helps if, reverse into drive and parking spaces so you drive off instantly you start engine. Don't start engine until you are belted up and heating/radio set up etc. JUST HABIT IMPROVEMENTS!! ;<)

 

Mate, I found the best way to reasonable economy was not to buy the biggest petol engine with an auto gearbox and grade E emissions.

[davrostavros]

Looks like my Perth journey returned high 40s so the tyres may have had a big part to play. I do have a bit of stop start but I try to avoid rush hour as work allows, usually have to at least 8 to 10 miles each way on my journeys!

[Bidey]

Mate, I found the best way to reasonable economy was not to buy the biggest petol engine with an auto gearbox and grade E emissions.

Wife and I both wanted an auto to just cruise, and it is not an "auto" in the conventional style and is reasonably effcient almost rivalling most manual driven gearboxes. She is retired just driving about town and occasional longer grandkid loaded journies (100miles) and averages 46MPG which in my books is pretty reasonable. (And it has some zip in the bank when required to overtake) ;<)

 

I drive a Kia Ceed 1.6 petrol 08 reg on the daily commute and get around 43mpg using these techniques. (BTW not sure wife buys into my school of thought)

 

Bidey fae Perth

Not mean just canny with my money ;<)

[lol-lol]

Mate, I found the best way to reasonable economy was not to buy the biggest petol engine with an auto gearbox and grade E emissions.

 

The 7 speed dry plate clutched gearbox does improve the fuel consumption over the 6 speed manual in some case and in others, particularly the smaller TSI and TDI engines, add a little bit to the quoted fuel consumption.  My current Fabia 2 VRS is only auto so no comparison to manual but with the 1.8 TSI DSG I had in the Octy 2 L&K the DSG was one group lower CO2 than the manual and between 1 to 2 mpg better ie 20 odd miles further range.

 

I wouldd not coast in a manual but no issue doing that in the DSG.  Also the cruising is so relaxed ie 28 mph per thousand RPM in 7th gear.   At 65 mph the revs in top are only one third the way to the red line, wow.

 

I will miss the twin-charge as I thought it was a revalation for power from 1500 to 7000 rpm combined with ability to do up to 55 mpg.  The 192 hp 1.8 TSI with DSG sounds great though and if combined with cylinder deactivation should achieve near 60 mpg whilst be in the high 6s to 60 mph.  Cake and eat it with auto and fairly large capacity, bigger than an F1 or WTCC car !  

Edited 15 October, 2014 by lol-lol

[Bidey]

The 7 speed dry plate clutched gearbox does improve the fuel consumption over the 6 speed manual in some case and in others, particularly the smaller TSI and TDI engines, add a little bit to the quoted fuel consumption.  My current Fabia 2 VRS is only auto so no comparison to manual but with the 1.8 TSI DSG I had in the Octy 2 L&K the DSG was one group lower CO2 than the manual and between 1 to 2 mpg better ie 20 odd miles further range.

 

I wouldd not coast in a manual but no issue doing that in the DSG.  Also the cruising is so relaxed ie 28 mph per thousand RPM in 7th gear.   At 65 mph the revs in top are only one third the way to the red line, wow.

 

I will miss the twin-charge as I thought it was a revalation for power from 1500 to 7000 rpm combined with ability to do up to 55 mpg.  The 192 hp 1.8 TSI with DSG sounds great though and if combined with cylinder deactivation should achieve near 60 mpg whilst be in the high 6s to 60 mph.  Cake and eat it with auto and fairly large capacity, bigger than an F1 or WTCC car !  

Well put that man!!!! I assume you concur its a good combination in my 1.4TSI DSG (best of both worlds) ;<)

[lol-lol]

Well put that man!!!! I assume you concur its a good combination in my 1.4TSI DSG (best of both worlds) ;<)

 

Indeed. Just a shame they only put the 122 hp- 200 Nm version of the engine, why not the 140,150 or 160 hp. Why not have a VRS Rapid, sounds the right version to me. With the Rapid's better aerodynamics than the Fabia it would be good for 140 mph and around 7.4 seconds to 60 mph plus 50 mpg consumption. I'de buy that for a dollar.

[Bidey]

Indeed. Just a shame they only put the 122 hp- 200 Nm version of the engine, why not the 140,150 or 160 hp. Why not have a VRS Rapid, sounds the right version to me. With the Rapid's better aerodynamics than the Fabia it would be good for 140 mph and around 7.4 seconds to 60 mph plus 50 mpg consumption. I'de buy that for a dollar.

I did indeed drive the the Fabia VRS DSG and was mightly impressed by the performance. Although there did seem to an awful lot of them for sale in garages and Autrader etc. This worried me and I read that there are some issues with reliability of the "souped up" VRS versions of the 1.4 engine in the Fabia???

 

This Rapid 1.4 TSI DSG is way fast enough for me, (not the first priority BTW) Its a joy to drive, except the booming issue at low speed, which it looks like i will have to live with!! Having tried to fix with sound deadening / insulation etc Heh Ho ;<)

[camelspyyder]

I did indeed drive the the Fabia VRS DSG and was mightly impressed by the performance. Although there did seem to an awful lot of them for sale in garages and Autrader etc. This worried me and I read that there are some issues with reliability of the "souped up" VRS versions of the 1.4 engine in the Fabia???

 

This Rapid 1.4 TSI DSG is way fast enough for me, (not the first priority BTW) Its a joy to drive, except the booming issue at low speed, which it looks like i will have to live with!! Having tried to fix with sound deadening / insulation etc Heh Ho ;<)

 

I agree the DSG is very efficient, if available with like for like engines its better than the manual.  But in our case it's only offered with a bigger engine.

 

I'm still convinced the tyres are a major factor in the Booming if you have Dunlops on. Over on Tyre Reviews the Sport Maxx is often reviewed as an overly noisy tyre.

Edited 16 October, 2014 by camelspyyder

[Bidey]

I agree the DSG is very efficient, if available with like for like engines its better than the manual.  But in our case it's only offered with a bigger engine.

 

I'm still convinced the tyres are a major factor in the Booming if you have Dunlops on. Over on Tyre Reviews the Sport Maxx is often reviewed as an overly noisy tyre.

Hope you are right about the tyres, i run my Kia Ceed on GOODYEAR EFFICIENTGRIP PERFORMANCE and they are quiet

Dunlop SP Sport BluResponse / GOODYEAR EFFICIENTGRIP PERFORMANCE are supposed to be very similar (same manufacturer)

Will have to wait on the Dunlops sports Maxx fitted wearing out to find out :<(

 

[RapidTrev]

Eager driving and heavy traffic hits fuel consumption hard I've found.  My Rapid has now covered 15,500 miles (3,000 in my ownership), and I have yet to average less than 52mpg from a tank on a fill-up.  I've measured the Maxidot readings against my own brim-to-brim calculations, and the Maxidot is always accurate to within .5 mpg.

 

70 mph motorway runs generally return around 52-53 mpg, while A-road journeys have given up to 56mpg if I keep it to 60 mph.  Travel any quicker and these figures take a severe dent.  Use the gearbox, change up and down in good time and the car will return the published figures.

[camelspyyder]

You're doing better than me, I think you have narrower tyres? (215/40R17 on mine) 

[RapidTrev]

215/45/16 on mine.