Poor fuel consumption?

[pinkpanther]

The best this thing could do tonight. 20 miles at 50 mph constant with no braking,no heating on and headlights on [emoji19]

I think I should buy my mates 2.0tsi vRS as he's getting 49 to 52 mpg at the moment [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Certainly seems a little low. A head wind or up hill perhaps?

I've just covered a similar distance in the 50 mph restricted area of the M1 and got an indicated 49 mpg (maxidot).

[Stormchaser]

It is very windy down here at the moment but just prior to that stretch of road it did get well exercised for a while [emoji6]

Could be that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisgreen]

Just drove home from the in-laws in Enfield. 47 miles at 60mph on cruise control - average fuel consumption was 51mpg.

[WillJohnson]

The best this thing could do tonight. 20 miles at 50 mph constant with no braking,no heating on and headlights on [emoji19]

I think I should buy my mates 2.0tsi vRS as he's getting 49 to 52 mpg at the moment [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ermmm these figures are VERY Concerning! If I did the same mine would read near 60mpg. I do a 50 mile round commute every day up and down the M6 and have occasionaly to try and eek out a bit extra out of each tank done 50-55mph and i've seen 60+mpg at times. Even at 70-80mph I would expect 45mpg so something doesnt add up here. Have you checked your tyre pressures? Sounds a silly question but it can make a massive difference to mpg. Also make sure you air con is off no need to run that with it being so cold :-)

[MickA]

Just parked mine up in Harrogate having travelled up from Derby, it's reading 52mpg average.

[Stormchaser]

Town driving today. It gets worse [emoji19]

What an absolute sh!te car [emoji107][emoji107]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisgreen]

Stormchaser - that is low, but it would be better to track the overall mpg across a tank or three using something like Fuelly (for absolute accuracy) rather than for individual journeys.

Across how many miles was that journey above, how fast were you going, was it stop-start traffic etc. Hard to put that number into context in isolation. If it was a 40 mile free-flowing journey at motorway speeds, that would be shocking mpg, if it was a 3 mile city run with loads of traffic lights, from a cold start, it is about right.msee what I mean.

[Stormchaser]

It was town driving nose to tail sometimes and never getting above 30mph. Dark,raining with headlights,aircon and wipers on the whole time over a total distance of 22 miles.

To be expected really and my apologies as I'm not in a car loving mood with this thing.

How I miss my Octavia diesel [emoji17]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stormchaser]

Well the Rapid is in today under orders of SUK to fix it without delay and I've been given a Yeti to use [emoji57]

1 phone call and a rant and they're on the case. 3rd time lucky hopefully.

Will see what the outcome is soon [emoji106]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisgreen]

Fingers crossed things finally get resolved, and you can start actually enjoying the car instead of having to battle with SUK and the dealer to fix faults.

[Stormchaser]

Hopefully Chris yes. It would be nice [emoji4]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[martinosmond]

I've had my Rapid sport for a few months now and done about 2000 miles in it.

I drive 12 miles to work and back (24 in total) on a dual carriageway 4 times a week.

The rest of my driving is around town, taking the kids to school and taking my dogs out.

My average since I've had the car is 37.8 and it it has stayed at that for a while.

If I have some time of work it goes down a bit and if I don't drive it other than to and from work it will go up a bit but it always finds itself back at 37.8.

I have got high 40's out of it on the wy to work by doing 50/60mph but I'm still enjoying it too much to do that all the time!

I did expect a bit more and I'm a bit disappointed but I don't do any long distance driving and I haven't yet tried to be very economical so i suppose it's not bad for such a big car even with a small engine?

Edited 15 January, 2015 by martinosmond

[Stormchaser]

The thing is though is that the Rapid Hatchback has a light body with a light 105bhp engine which should easily achieve high mpg figures but fails at doing this. I've tried all kinds of driving styles/speeds to no avail. Even the Fabia/Roomster aren't achieving high mpg,s.

The brand new Yeti I have as a courtesy car at the moment is a 1.2tsi and is no better. Great engine but sh!te economy [emoji107]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lol-lol]

One needs to prepare and drive ones life depends on it getting a good figure which is how they get the figures in the first place I reckon.

 

These 1.2 TSIs need to be smaller in capacity, drop a cylinder or two and this is happening with VAG and the new 3 cylinders engine in some of the new VAG cars and is already there with Fiat (two cylinder) and Ford eco-boast etc.

 

The engineering goal of the original 1.2 TSI was to make a cheap single cam engine and drive the prodcution costs a little bit further.

 

I gather there is a new 1.2 TSI in the Fabia 3 that is quite a tecnical revision and much better specific efficiency. I find the info from the International Engine Synposium quite interesting......

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Engine_of_the_Year

 

http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear

[camelspyyder]

both the fiat twin and ford ecoboost 1000 are notorious for not achieving their EU mpg in the real world as well.

 

it not just VAG that con the public - they just play the game by the EU rules (which are the real villain of the piece).

[lol-lol]

both the fiat twin and ford ecoboost 1000 are notorious for not achieving their EU mpg in the real world as well.

 

it not just VAG that con the public - they just play the game by the EU rules (which are the real villain of the piece).

 

it is not just the EU regs but a worldwide and the US has just prosecuted Kia/Hyundai for misleading publsihed fuel consumptions.

 

Saying that one has to drive to the type of engine the car has.

 

Buyers often, perthaps usually, buy the wrong engine for the type of the journeys they do.  If you mainly do journeys less than 5 miles, actually probably up to about 8 miles, should you really buy a turbo engine (diesel or petrol) which will not acheive its prime temperature operating range for half the journey?

 

Manufacturers will happily print these figure and get consumers to but the more expensive versions of cars that are less likely to achieve than non-turbo cars (particularly 4 cylinder ones with single cooling systems rather than the new double cooling sysetms that have seperate one for the top and bottom of the enigne).

 

There is a new MPG system out shortly which reports the warm up phase and how that effects real world fuel consumption coming from the EU and other official bodies to arrive at a more honest system..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles

 

Fro short journeys one either has to have a natural aspirated car, or one with small fast heating up small turbo-engine, 1 litre or less, or just put up with it and accept that an engine/vehiicle capable of crusing comfortably at 80 mph will be a bit crap round town unless it use cylinder deactivation etc, which can give circa 60 mpg and performance.  VAG, as usual, have given all the other marques ACT but not Skoda, for that reason I am out (but thanks for the twin charge, one of the most awesome bits of kit if you are one of the 3 out 4 without oil consumption issues).

[chrisgreen]

The thing is though is that the Rapid Hatchback has a light body with a light 105bhp engine which should easily achieve high mpg figures but fails at doing this. I've tried all kinds of driving styles/speeds to no avail. Even the Fabia/Roomster aren't achieving high mpg,s.

Filled up today - achieved a new best at 49.25mpg. However, the reason for that was a substantial amount of motorway driving. Probably the most motorway miles I've done on a single tank since I bought the car.

[Stormchaser]

Nice result [emoji106]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lol-lol]

Interesting reading the What Car actual fuel consumption against claimed.

 

For the Rapid 1.2 TSI 105 hp they said 41 mpg actual against the 52 mpg claimed ie 22% shortfall.

Same for the 1.2 TSI 86 hp they said 43 or 44 (spaceback) mpg actual against the 55 mpg claimed so same 22% shortfall.  Better for the diesel 90 hp Rapid 54 actual against 64 mpg claimed works out as a 16% shortfall.

 

Only Fabia quoted True MPG is for the VRS which is 39 mpg actual against 45.6 mpg claimed ie 14% shortfall.

 

Even worse for some other Skoda models ie CityGo 60 hp 49 mpg actual against 69 mpg claimed 29% shortfall.

Actually better for the 75 hp version interestingly ie 53 mpg actual against 67 mpg claimed only 21% shortfall.

 

What Car's test (they actual drive more carefully that many of us would).......

The biggest difference between our True MPG fuel economy tests and the official tests is that ours are conducted in real-world conditions rather than in a laboratory. Our test route starts with urban driving at an average speed of 15mph. This is followed by extra-urban roads (dual carriageway and motorway) at an average of 60mph, before the test concludes with another urban loop.   Engines are less efficient when cold, so we always make sure that cars are fully up to temperature before starting a fuel test. Then, once it has begun, our testers drive at a steady pace, avoiding heavy acceleration and braking whenever possible.  Two-seater cars are tested with one person onboard (the testing equipment has to go on the passenger’s seat) and other cars with two people. At the end of the test, the average fuel consumption on the test route is calculated from the CO2 emissions. However, the volume of traffic inevitably varies, so this economy figure is just a starting point.  Sensors attached to the car’s electronic brain record the road speed, exhaust manifold pressure and throttle position throughout the test, while other equipment measures the altitude, humidity and air pressure at each given moment. These variables all have to be factored in before we know a car’s True MPG.

 

- See more at: http://www.whatcar.com/truempg/how-we-did-it#sthash.P97b2jUO.dpuf

[The Plumber]

The wind, colder air temps and temporary changes to my normal weekly driving patterns have lead to a noticeable drop in mpg over the last couple of weeks. Had been getting very high 40's but now down in the low 40's.

 

Still more than happy with our weekly fuel bill mind, particularly with the noticeable drop in petrol prices and no diesel regens to put up with either.

 

 

TP

[MickA]

Filled up today - achieved a new best at 49.25mpg. However, the reason for that was a substantial amount of motorway driving. Probably the most motorway miles I've done on a single tank since I bought the car.

 

I'm catching you up Chris, 4th fill up since owning the car. Now covered just over 1k miles, I too have just used around 3/4 tank of fuel which has been mainly motorway and fast A/B road type trips, not much town driving.

So we are on another longish motorway jaunt tomorrow, I'm going to try my best to take it easy and see what I can achieve, hoping for mid 50's for the trip. So currently average 43 mpg

[Stormchaser]

I can very easily get well over 49 mpg in my Citigo. Generally around 62 mpg(actual) [emoji106]

Don't know the recent with the Rapid as it's been in the dealers since last Tuesday [emoji19]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MickA]

I can very easily get well over 49 mpg in my Citigo. Generally around 62 mpg(actual) [emoji106]

Don't know the recent with the Rapid as it's been in the dealers since last Tuesday [emoji19]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I still reckon I get around 10 mpg less than my Citigo, and at current fuel prices you get more for your £

 

Infact I brimmed it today (the Toledo) so I'll use most of it and brim again, wonder if I'll dare to look at the resulting figures. :peek:

[chrisgreen]

I'm going to have some interesting comparative data to play with soon - we became a 2 Skoda family today as, on my recommendation, my Mum has just replaced her recently deceased 14-year-old Peugeot 206 with a very low mileage 62-plate Fabia 1.2 (non-turbo) Estate from our local Skoda dealer (we collect it on Wednesday).

Will be curious to see how he 70hp non turbo car compares to my 105hp turbo car on the dinosaur juice consumption.

[Stormchaser]

Some news today.

They've tried a donor sender unit from another Rapid and apparently there is no movement after a long drive/stationary. They've still got to do block measurements blah blah before ordering one of these units. Day 8 of having it so far. SUK are chasing it up tommorow [emoji106]

Will have to wait like I have been and somewhat patiently too [emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk