So what is the best mileage out of a tank anyone has got? Rapid is best Skoda 4 this?

[chrisgreen]

As I said it is fun to think you can drive 1,000 miles or so on a tank full as did Top Gear when they went from Basel to Blackpool and whilst the TSI would do very well to reach 800 miles even with venting etc I full expect the TDI to achieve the 1000 mile and will hopefully announce this next year when I hope to get one and do so.

The Jag had a bigger tank, and the VW was a smaller, lighter and more aerodynamic car. The Subaru didn't make it.

You keep saying you fully expect the TDI to achieve 1,000 miles on a single tank - why? There's no factual basis for this completely unsubstantiated expectation. I'm honestly not trying to have a go, but the evidence posted in this thread has made it very clear to all of us that you're looking at 600-800mile range at most, yet you keep clinging on to this ludicrous figure like its a proven fact, even though it appears based on nothing more than you sticking your finger in the air.

If you can substantiate this 1,000 mile figure with hard, proven facts, please do as we'd all be interested in maximising MPG & range. Right now, your are heading for disappointment as you seem to be fixated on buying a car in the belief it will deliver something it simply won't without modification such as a bigger or supplementary tank. None of us want to see you, a year from now, in a position where you are complaining about poor fuel economy and range when we've all warned you what to expect. A car is a sizeable investment, so best to buy one that actually delivers the range you need than be lumbered with one that underperforms in your expectation.

[camelspyyder]

 What really kills it on the rapid i've noticed is stop start traffic... I guess at the end of the day its still a big car to get moving with a 1.2!!

 

I agree traffic and junctions ruin the mpg, maybe this why Greentech stop-start exists  and gives a 7% fuel saving.  I wonder if it can be retro-fitted?

[lol-lol]

vented petrol tank = messed up evaporation control system / charcoal canister. Do not vent petrol fuel tanks, venting is only safe on diesels.

 

I have not had any problems vent filling my Fabia 2 VRS but you are right this should not be done if you vent fill and then leave the car in a warm place. 

 

I only do the vent fill when I am starting a long journey when at the end of the journey I will have less in the tank than I would have got without venting.  Works fine in this circumstance.

[lol-lol]

The Jag had a bigger tank, and the VW was a smaller, lighter and more aerodynamic car. The Subaru didn't make it.   You keep saying you fully expect the TDI to achieve 1,000 miles on a single tank - why? There's no factual basis for this completely unsubstantiated expectation. I'm honestly not trying to have a go, but the evidence posted in this thread has made it very clear to all of us that you're looking at 600-800mile range at most, yet you keep clinging on to this ludicrous figure like its a proven fact, even though it appears based on nothing more than you sticking your finger in the air.   If you can substantiate this 1,000 mile figure with hard, proven facts, please do as we'd all be interested in maximising MPG & range. Right now, your are heading for disappointment as you seem to be fixated on buying a car in the belief it will deliver something it simply won't without modification such as a bigger or supplementary tank. None of us want to see you, a year from now, in a position where you are complaining about poor fuel economy and range when we've all warned you what to expect. A car is a sizeable investment, so best to buy one that actually delivers the range you need than be lumbered with one that underperforms in your expectation.

 

The Polo has a worse Aerodynamic Drag Coefficient than the Rapid ie 0.33 against 0.3, the Rapid has a 22% bigger fuel tank and weight is not a key factor in fuel consumption except on urban ie start/stop driving.   Jag has huge tank and can do 50 mpg, James May just got lost going up M1 rather than M6.  

 

It is simple maths, 83 mpg (obtainable by those of us who drive in the West of England where braking is a rare occurence unlike the South East) and that, as someone has confirmed, you can vent to get 13 gallons in the tank, 13 x 83 = well over 1000 miles.

 

Think my driving style will allow me to get over 80 mpg out of the 90 hp diesel DSG, when I can be bothered, so again, over 1000 miles.

 

Will have to wait until the 15 plate, at least, to proving this sadly but it has made me even keener to go for this and even chipping it should not seriously effect the mpg, cannot wait, but will have to.  

[Cown]

My best: (coasting behind other cars, trucks etc. Avarage speed was 88 km/h)

[lol-lol]

My best: (coasting behind other cars, trucks etc. Avarage speed was 88 km/h)

 

106 mpg, cool.

[Cown]

No 37,5 km/l is 88,20 mpg. :-)

 

That's US mpg according to Google. 

Edited 28 November, 2014 by Cown

[MickA]

Bet that wasn't today, looking at that temp.

[camelspyyder]

so, that's it. case proven. With a long enough flat road,standard 55l fuel-fill, and a tame trucker to slipstream at 55mph, lol-lol will be 1272 miles away when the diesel runs out. Somewhere between Minsk & Kiev

Edited 28 November, 2014 by camelspyyder

[lol-lol]

No 37,5 km/l is 88,20 mpg. :-)

 

That's US mpg according to Google. 

 

1 UK gallon is 4.546 litres.

 

37.5 km is 23.3 miles.

 

Hence 23.3 x 4.546 litres is 106 miles per UK gallon.

 

=========================================

 

US gallon is 3.785 litres.

 

23.3 miles x 3.785 l = 88.2 miles per US gallon FYI.

 

 

The huge difference shows that US cars are often not as uneconomical as first seems when you see their data !

[lol-lol]

so, that's it. case proven. With a long enough flat road,standard 55l fuel-fill, and a tame trucker to slipstream at 55mph, lol-lol will be 1272 miles away when the diesel runs out. Somewhere between Minsk & Kiev

 

I was think of Aberdeen and back again as a safer alternative, I do hate to fly.

[camelspyyder]

I was think of Aberdeen and back again as a safer alternative, I do hate to fly.

 

too many hills. never do the 1000.

[lol-lol]

too many hills. never do the 1000.

 

But I am coasting in neutral down the hills (DSG preferably, not so easy or safe in a manual). 

 

Sum zero game (as long as you do not touch the brakes and waste momentum).

[Cown]

Got it.

[Stormchaser]

Me whining again

I left work tonight and did 22 miles home and as the pics show my gauge moved quite a bit for so little travel but the moan is from brimmed last night and only 78 miles its a big move on the fuel gauge and i haven,t even been booting it around :(

 

[lol-lol]

Me whining again

I left work tonight and did 22 miles home and as the pics show my gauge moved quite a bit for so little travel but the moan is from brimmed last night and only 78 miles its a big move on the fuel gauge and i haven,t even been booting it around :(

 

49 mpg is not too bad as the first 3 or 4 miles will be much worse than the 55 that it might do during the warm period of the run. 

 

If you brim and vent in the Fabia 2 it will do about 100 miles before even moving off the full mark. Would not do this for a relatively short journey of 22 miles though.

 

It would be interesting, espeically as there are so many roundabouts in your part of the world, if you could attempt the journey without any heaving braking ie only doing natural slowing and gentle acceleration.  Only would add a minute or two to the journey but you might find it does 5-10 mpg better.  Let us know if you try it and the results.

[Stormchaser]

I think it's terrible that so little mileage and a huge chunk of fuel used. My Citigo does over 100 miles before it moves so I use that most of the time. I'll book the Rapid in to get checked out. It's the most uneconomical car I've ever owned.

I don't see the point in owning it and have to drive it like a granny everywhere.

[harisma23]

You seem fixated on gauge movement. Get over it !

You cannot calculate the amount of fuel used by the initial gauge movement! I had cars that the gauge wouldn't move for the first 100 Km after refuelling to brim. Was that proof that they were exceptionally frugal? NO!

Measure instead your real consumption after every refuelling. This is the only thing that matters...

Edited 29 November, 2014 by harisma23

[camelspyyder]

 It's the most uneconomical car I've ever owned.

 

You lucky b*******.  

 

Sierra Ghia 2.0 auto - 23mpg Fuel and only a little less oil !!

 

Because I was only renting the oil I used recycled stuff for 1.99 a gallon every 2/3 weeks!

 

 

Anyway back to your car - if you took it out more often and ran it in, it might loosen up a bit

Edited 29 November, 2014 by camelspyyder

[lol-lol]

Rover SD1 - 3.5 litre.  Average 19 mpg.

 

One of the first cars with a fuel computer, almost wish it did not have one, going up one particularly long hilll (Longhope), just after the journey started, computer would should 5.8 mpg, less than a mile per pint, galp.

 

Any road up, filled up this morning in the Fabia 2 VRS, probably half filled the plenum vent pipe with an addtional 3 litres or so ie fuel light was not even on and I added 42 litres, and the computer showed a princely 265 miles range, ho hum.

 

Drive to the NEC for the bike show, 70 miles there and back, arrive back home range now shows 460 miles, computer showed 50 mpg exactly for the return journey.  Yes cruised at around 56 with ocassional 70s and neutral coasting down the many long hills.

 

Not bad for a car with a Cd of 0.34 compared to the std 0.32 and Greenline 0.30 and petrol some much cheaper too ie 123 p/l. 

[Stormchaser]

Thanks for the replies. I should get some more miles on it I think. That gauge just freaks me out moving so quick.

Being a long term ex diesel owner doesn't help.

[camelspyyder]

The shape of the gauge with its 270 degree needle sweep does accentuate the movement compared with some gauges with a 20-30 degree arc.

 

Got to go - my son is calling me to watch Lingerie Football League

Edited 29 November, 2014 by camelspyyder

[lol-lol]

I like to think, on the Fabia 2 vrs, each quarter of the fuel gauge represents about 100 miles of fuel on normal driving.  With the vent fill I can have 75 to 100 miles of range before the fuel gauge even starts to move off the full poisiton.

 

I was hoping, with the 22% bigger tank and the much better published mpg that I could expect up to 200 miles per quarter of the fuel gauge with the diesel and at least a hundred and fifty before it even moves with as vented fill based on the best consumption of the diesel over my petrol.  

 

Time will tell. 

[Stormchaser]

I,m just a paranoid old f*rt who hasn,t owned a petrol car in donkeys years haha

[lol-lol]

I,m just a paranoid old f*rt who hasn,t owned a petrol car in donkeys years haha

 

But these new petrols have started to mimick diesels.

 

Turbocharged and direct fuel injection.

 

Whilst this has resulted in much better fuel consumption they are also much slower to warm up and much more expensive when the go wrong.

 

I think we should expect to see, eventually, just a little single cylinder or maybe a twin of about 50 hp and then the rest of the power coming from battery technology.   

 

Engine would warm up really quickly due to it being so small.