mpg from cold 2 mile urban journey 1.2 or 1.4tsi

[brad1.8T]

Thanks, thats just what I want. Real figures. Was it urban?

I don't think urban / mixed / motorway would make a jot of difference in the first few miles.

 

If the 1.2tsi gets 40mpg & the 1.4tsi gets 30mpg and you are doing 60 miles per week then the difference is only 0.5 gallon per week. Fuel is  GBP1.25/L so the difference in fuel cost is GBP150pa.  That's like a coffee per week.  It's hardly worth worrying about.

 

I'd be more concerned about which will depreciate less or be easier to sell when you're ready to change.  Also insurance cost & registration/taxes.  All will hit you harder than fuel IMO

[Stubod]

Start of first journey of the day. 0 degrees so rear screen heater on, and side mirror heaters + fan. First 2 miles, flat road, no junctions or traffic...35mpg at the 2 mile mark

 

Start of 2nd journey about 3 hrs after the end of the first..so slightly warmer. Drive thro town, traffic / lights and a few ups and downs....38 mpg at the 2 mile mark (guess down to temperature).

 

I generally get 45 mpg, (gentle driving)...results are "actuall" tank to tank, and compared with the computer figure which shows it is only 2% out, (on the optimistic side)....

 

NB car is a 2010 1.4 Tsi

[booke23]

Some interesting results here for the OP.

 

However they are not results achieved on YOUR actual 2 mile urban route. As urban routes vary so much this means these results are of limited value to you, and certainly should not be your sole reason for basing your decision to buy or not buy a car. Langers2k summed up the situation nicely in post #9.

 

If you hell bent on basing a car purchase on the original question, then go to a dealer and request a test drive in each car, and drive it on the 2 mile route in question and note the MPG.   

[567golden]

Start of first journey of the day. 0 degrees so rear screen heater on, and side mirror heaters + fan. First 2 miles, flat road, no junctions or traffic...35mpg at the 2 mile mark

 

Start of 2nd journey about 3 hrs after the end of the first..so slightly warmer. Drive thro town, traffic / lights and a few ups and downs....38 mpg at the 2 mile mark (guess down to temperature).

 

I generally get 45 mpg, (gentle driving)...results are "actuall" tank to tank, and compared with the computer figure which shows it is only 2% out, (on the optimistic side)....

 

NB car is a 2010 1.4 Tsi

That's very helpful and thanks fior taking the trouble to find out and post results.

[567golden]

I don't think urban / mixed / motorway would make a jot of difference in the first few miles.

 

If the 1.2tsi gets 40mpg & the 1.4tsi gets 30mpg and you are doing 60 miles per week then the difference is only 0.5 gallon per week. Fuel is  GBP1.25/L so the difference in fuel cost is GBP150pa.  That's like a coffee per week.  It's hardly worth worrying about.

 

I'd be more concerned about which will depreciate less or be easier to sell when you're ready to change.  Also insurance cost & registration/taxes.  All will hit you harder than fuel IMO

I take your point with regard to 30 mpg and 40 mpg and the small actual difference in cost per week. Not worried about depreciation as wont be selling but yes am taking into account insurance and road tax. Will be number crunching shortly, working out over a 10 year ownership period what the total costs are as test driving a couple of non skoda vehicles tomorrow. Then maybe decision time, what to buy!

Thanks for your post and help.

[567golden]

Some interesting results here for the OP.

 

However they are not results achieved on YOUR actual 2 mile urban route. As urban routes vary so much this means these results are of limited value to you, and certainly should not be your sole reason for basing your decision to buy or not buy a car. Langers2k summed up the situation nicely in post #9.

 

If you hell bent on basing a car purchase on the original question, then go to a dealer and request a test drive in each car, and drive it on the 2 mile route in question and note the MPG.

Thanks for your post which along with post 9 does talk a lot of common sense. Will be judging which to buy on all costs as well as of course the numerous other considerations when buying, even more numerous when the wife also drives it.

[567golden]

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll get a good answer 567golden. It's going to dependant on far too many things to give you even a remotely sensible answer, things like your driving style, mood, roads, traffic, ambient temperature for a start. Be aware that trip computers are normally inaccurate for MPG figures as in there are many reports of them being up to 10% out which will mess up the comparison even if you do find volunteers or cars to drive.

 

Skoda suggest the following for urban, extra urban and combined driving from an old brochure:

1.2 TSI 105ps, 39.8, 57.7 49.6

1.4 TSI 122ps, 33.2 56.5 44.8

 

The 1.2 get 20% more MPG than the 1.4 in the urban section so even at cold I'd expect the 1.2 to get slightly better MPG, at a complete guess, some where in the 10%-20% range but still much lower than the quoted figure.

 

I'd probably choose the more powerful one as I'd rather have an abundance of power rather than a shortage. If running costs are a primary concern, go for the one which is least to tax, insurance and service.

 

I appreciate it's not the answer you were looking for but hopefully useful.

Thanks for your post, there is a lot of sensible advice here.

[littleade]

Have you considered the overall cost, rather than just focussing on what mpg you will get as in reality the differences in mpg over those 2 miles between the cars won't amount to much over tne time you keep the car compared with the other running costs. Depreciation is the biggest single cost of ownership so if running costs are critical to you then you need to factor this in. I don't know which will cost you more in depreciation but the dealer should be able to help if you give them some idea on how long you will be keeping it. Have a decent test drive in both to see which suits your style of driving best tnen go from there. Good luck.

[fairlight5]

Have you considered the overall cost, rather than just focussing on what mpg you will get as in reality the differences in mpg over those 2 miles between the cars won't amount to much over tne time you keep the car compared with the other running costs. Depreciation is the biggest single cost of ownership so if running costs are critical to you then you need to factor this in. I don't know which will cost you more in depreciation but the dealer should be able to help if you give them some idea on how long you will be keeping it. Have a decent test drive in both to see which suits your style of driving best tnen go from there. Good luck.

Depreciation over 10 years? It will be worth buttons by then!

I'm not convinced spending a decent wedge on a newish vehicle is the answer for this type of use.

Plenty of good sheds about for a grand that will do the job spot on and won't lose a great deal of money.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[StevesTruck]

I'd personally say avoid anything with any sort of charger if you're planning on keeping it. Most of the seat on an engine happens in the first mile, and turbo seals don't like having to work when they're cold.

[ruffday]

If I was you I wouldn't worry too much on the MPG on such a short run as most cars will not have warmed up enough by then.

As suggested you really need to drive the cars on the run you do and see which you prefer.

 

One of our Members who I believe is a care worker who does a lot of stop start short trips found that her VRS was not much worse on fuel than the Hyundai i10 she bought.

[littleade]

Depreciation over 10 years? It will be worth buttons by then!

I'm not convinced spending a decent wedge on a newish vehicle is the answer for this type of use.

Plenty of good sheds about for a grand that will do the job spot on and won't lose a great deal of money.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Well I missed the 10 years hidden away in post number whateveritwas! Gets coat and goes to specsavers......

I believe my overal comments about running costs still apply if his principle concern is cost of ownership. The 1.2 will be cheaper to run and will probably warm up quicker but as above a decent test drive will help the OP decide if either is the right car for him.

[xman]

The 1.2 tsi engines in octavia II i.e. CBZB camchain 8 valve 105 ps (CBZA variants too) have a clever dual circuit cooling system. Provided the heater is turned off and no cabin heat demand is required, a solenoid in the water pump stops water circulating in the heater circuit until normal temperature is reached. So, turn the heater knob to cold and switch fan off, and the engine reaches normal temperature in as little as 1-2 miles or 5 minutes. So mpg is actually not too bad.

 

I dont know if the 1.4 tsi or the new MQB engines have this technology.

 

To take full advantage of this tech, you need to turn the heater off.....

[Beryl's Chief Pilot]

My 1.2tsi Roomster would average 28-30mpg  depending on traffic for that journey.