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

[Stormchaser]

This is one thing i like about the Rapid as it warms up very quick compared to my Octavia Diesel did.Nice clear windows and warm in no time

[lol-lol]

This is one thing i like about the Rapid as it warms up very quick compared to my Octavia Diesel did.Nice clear windows and warm in no time

 

I think this is a diesel/petrol thing as well as a engine size thing.

 

The diesel Rapid, I would expect is not so quick to heat up as by its nature it "wastes" less heat in to the cooling water that is used to heat the cabin space.

 

I too thought my 1.9D Octavia was something special.  The perfromance from the 130 hp engine would ahve it walk away from the 140 hp 2 litre diesel we had at the same time.  It was an L&K spec so the heated seats made the slowish warm more bareable.  But the 60 mpg obtainable om decent length journeys was most impressive, 70 mpg plus shown on the computer when 56 mph crusiing in road works etc.

[The Plumber]

This is one thing i like about the Rapid as it warms up very quick compared to my Octavia Diesel did.Nice clear windows and warm in no time

 

Depends where you live; like some on the :sun:  south coast

 

Here on the Wolds warm up time for our TSI Spaceback is only very marginally quicker than the previous Octy III TDI, on the coldest of days particularly. Mind at least with the petrol I've no longer got a DPF doing regular active regens because its too cold for passive.

 

 

TP

[camelspyyder]

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).

 

Do modern petrols not cut the fuel supply when you lift off the gas above a certain RPM anyway?  

 

Is there a benefit to being in neutral, because then the fuel supply is back on to maintain the idle speed?

Edited 30 November, 2014 by camelspyyder

[lol-lol]

Do modern petrols not cut the fuel supply when you lift off the gas above a certain RPM anyway?  

 

Is there a benefit to being in neutral, because then the fuel supply is back on to maintain the idle speed?

 

At first what you say sounds right but what happens is that the vehicle is going slower if you leave it in gear than if put it in to neutral (DSG wasy to do, manual not so much).  The amount of fuel to tick over seems small compared to the loss of kinetic energy of the vehicle.

 

It seems to work as I have trieds it both ways and neutral coasting and burn and coast seem to be the better way.

 

In fact the latest VAG DSG gear boxes, including the 7 speed dry clutch version in some cars, does this automatically, ie it pops the clutch when going down long descents with no throttle.   A bit disconcerting to see the revs drop to tickover when you are still in gear !

[camelspyyder]

 

In fact the latest VAG DSG gear boxes, including the 7 speed dry clutch version in some cars, does this automatically, ie it pops the clutch when going down long descents with no throttle.   A bit disconcerting to see the revs drop to tickover when you are still in gear !

 

That's a clever piece of kit. Is the reliability sorted now?

[lol-lol]

That's a clever piece of kit. Is the reliability sorted now?

 

They have been putting this technology on to the 7 speed wet gearbox in the Audi Q series for a couple of years or so, only recently in small DQ200 dry gearbox applications I gather............

 

http://en.volkswagen.com/en/innovation-and-technology/technical-glossary/freilauffunktion.html

Freewheel Function

"The freewheel function enables the vehicle’s kinetic energy to be utilised to better effect. In the zero-load state (foot off the accelerator) the clutch is automatically disengaged and the engine is held at idling speed. As a result the vehicle can coast for a distance that does not subsequently have to be covered by the use of fuel.

The benefit in terms of fuel consumption in practical usage on the road stems from the fact that the vehicle’s kinetic energy is only used to overcome the rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, and no longer to keep the engine turning at high speed on the overrun. If the driver indicates a wish to slow the vehicle by pressing the brake pedal, the clutch is engaged once again in order to utilise the overrun switch-off effect of the engine; the fuel supply is interrupted and the engine braking effect once again reduces the overrun distance of the vehicle. Alternatively the minus button on the steering wheel can be used to the same effect.

The savings achieved in this way can in some cases amount to 0.5 l/100 km and more. The efficiency of this function depends on a predictive driving style; after a brief familiarisation period the driver will have adapted to the longer overrun distance of the vehicle and will intuitively lift his foot off the accelerator earlier when approaching a built-up area, for example."

[JungleJames]

Hypermiling can improve one's mpg by more than 10% I have found when I have bothered to try.  Sometimes if I work out that I have not got enought range to get their without refueling, then adopting hypermiling techiniques, I do not need to fill up and therefore save ten minutes do the fill up and get there as early as I would have if I had filled up.

 

http://www.hypermiler.co.uk/hypermiling/hypermiling-techniques

So correct me if I am wrong, but this so called hypermilling is basically everyday common sense? Drive slowly, dont let your car get too hot in summer or too cold in winter. Look ahead and coast instead of braking. Use the stop start (the article you link to actually talks bo**ocks in this regard). Dont carry unnecessary weight. Dont spend ages looking for a needle in a haystack (parking spot that isnt there). Reduce drag, sometimes by sitting closer to the vehicle in front.

Wow, I cant believe somebody is called the father of hypermilling because he told people to follow common sense, and then made up a wierd word for it. Common sense which he no doubt was not the first person to think about.

Everybody, I have a brilliant way of reducing your chances of getting run over. Do not walk in the middle of the road. I am now going to call this common sense- BeeGeesMilling (after the song- Staying Alive) Wicked, I am now the father of BeeGeesmilling.

 

Oh, and by the way, my only chance of even matching the official figures for my vehicle, is to go around at 50mph, on a motorway with cruise enabled. If i go 70, I wont match the figures. Even if i do stick closer to vehicles in front, and have an empty car, with AC not switched on, and trying my hardest not to use the brakes. So, I dont improve my consumption above and beyond the official figures. I match them by driving slower (so slow that its actually bordering on dangerous on a motorway). Now I wonder if thats because vehicle manufacturers do the test in perfect conditions, following all the best practices? Ah yes, of course.

 

In fact, going at 70, my consumption stays quite similar whether closer to a car in front or not. Basically, you cannot safely get close enough to a vehicle at this speed to significantly reduce your drag. So am I to assume hypermilling advocates driving dangerously when needed?

[camelspyyder]

I don't slipstream trucks any more. As a 16 year old moped rider it was really stressful squeezing an extra 5 mph out whilst 3 ft from the back of a bus

[lol-lol]

[camelspyyder]

I should have got my glasses.  

 

I thought the percentages were the increased likelyhood of hitting the truck

[lol-lol]

113 mph.......

 

[chrisgreen]

I should have got my glasses.

I thought the percentages were the increased likelyhood of hitting the truck

They were!

[JungleJames]

So just to get a possible increase of 3.5mpg, you tailgate a lorry less than 1.5 secs behind them? So seems as though i was right. You cant safely get close enough to reduce your drag significantly

[JungleJames]

113 mph.......

 

Go on, I just dare you to go down the motorway that close to the vehicle in front

[JungleJames]

Anyway, I think I can help you reach your 1000 miles to a tank, assuming you vent it to 64 litres as you reckon.

 

It'll have to be a 1000 mile continuous trip, with no stops, and at a constant 50mph. No sharp bends and no changing gear, so you will need a motorway, with no bad traffic. Oh, and a lorry going 50mph so that you can stick less than 2 secs behind them the whole way.

 

On my vehicle (2.0TDI Octy Mk3), the claimed combined fuel consumption is about 69MPG. That is about the best i have ever recorded on a long motorway journey, average speed about 60mph, never going faster than 70mph, and in the summer. So a normal everyday motorway journey. Stops at service stations didnt make much difference to the fuel economy. However, to try and get the extra urban figures of about 78mpg over a distance, Id have to slow right down to a constant 50mph i reckon. Wouldnt want to stop either as to reach these figures, stopping really would make a difference. Ive had my vehicle at over 70mpg before, but thats very short term with speed staying constant. As soon as i put my foot down to accelerate, down goes the mpg. Long distance these figures are near impossible.

 

 

Now i think that shows that to reach the published figures nowadays, it isnt very easy. On older cars, yes, the Skoda figures seemingly were quite easy to manage. But on the newer cars, everything needs to be spot on perfect just to match the figures. Skoda have done everything they can to eek out the extra miles on the tests. If going downhill with the DSG in neutral coast got them a few extra miles, then thats what they would have done. Anyway, when do motorways have hills steep enough to make neutral coast worthwhile? A roads may do, but then you will hit things like sharp bends and roundabouts, and other areas where you need to speed up and slow down. Nope, needs to be constant speed and preferably constant power (no hills). That is how to keep an engine using the least fuel possible. Change of power and speed means fuel consumption goes up.

 

Seemingly your chosen car has figures of 72mpg extra urban. You want to beat that by about 8mpg? Well i suggest you may match it, but I really doubt you will beat it.

 

Oh hold on, I know how to beat it. Its easy. Find a long steep hill. Start your test at the top, burning no fuel (in gear coast) as you go down. Stop when the car stops. Then get someone to kindly tow you back to the top. Repeat this until you have completed 1000 miles. Jobs a good'n

[lol-lol]

Go on, I just dare you to go down the motorway that close to the vehicle in front

 

We use to get pretty close on the motorcycles get get out of the wind blast, I guess around 10 to 15 metres depending on the speed of the host vehicle.

 

In a car I think this 100 foot /30 metre rule which is about 7 to 8 vehicle lengths. In travelling time I guess this is about a second and a quarter or so. 55 mph is 25 metres per seconds. Reaction time should be less than 0.5 seconds and so there about a second to slow down in tandem with the lorry if he starts to slow. Bikes, and Fabia VRSs, slow down quite quick just rolling off the throttle as they have poor aerodynamic coefficeints.

[JungleJames]

We use to get pretty close on the motorcycles get get out of the wind blast, I guess around 10 to 15 metres depending on the speed of the host vehicle.

 

In a car I think this 100 foot /30 metre rule which is about 7 to 8 vehicle lengths. In travelling time I guess this is about a second and a quarter or so. 55 mph is 25 metres per seconds. Reaction time should be less than 0.5 seconds and so there about a second to slow down in tandem with the lorry if he starts to slow. Bikes, and Fabia VRSs, slow down quite quick just rolling off the throttle as they have poor aerodynamic coefficeints.

Ah i can see youve been following the highway code to the letter. Oh wait, you havent.

There is no 30 metre rule. Thats your link that suggested you have to be that close just to save a possible 3.5mpg.

Well the Highway Code clearly states you should not get closer than 2 secs to the vehicle in front. You state Fabia's have a poor drag coefficiant so will stop quickly. Yep, Lorries probably have an even worse drag coefficiant. Lorries can stop pretty quickly. Anyway, this matters not. You should not be less than 2secs behind them.

You and your Hypermilling chums claim you can save fuel by tail gating (for want of a better word). Your link suggests you have to be closer than 2secs at 55mph to get even a small saving. Therefore I can only assume this Hypermilling advocates breaking the law.

 

Oh, the Highway Code also provides typical stopping distances, and suggests you dont get closer than the typical stopping distance (sorry, taking into account the other vehicles stopping distance as you were, is asking for trouble). Anyway, at 50mph the stopping distance given is 53 metres, and at 60mph, this becomes 73 metres. Thats a lot more than what you need.

Having checked the actual braking distance, it gives 38 metres at 50mph. That is slightly under 2 secs, so the 2 second rule is very sensible, and gives you a little bit of thinking time as well, albeit not much.

 

Either way, no matter how you look at it, you cannot carry out this hypermilling rubbish without going against the rules of the Highway Code.

[camelspyyder]

Either way, no matter how you look at it, you cannot carry out this hypermilling rubbish without going against the rules of the Highway Code.

 

Out of interest how much of the Highway Code is legally enforcable, and how much is advice?

 

 

Well the Highway Code clearly states you should not get closer than 2 secs to the vehicle in front.

 

Ok so that bit's advice - "should"

[JungleJames]

Im not worried about what is enforceable. The fact is, if you go against the Highway Code, it isnt safe. Tail Gating is not safe. Less than 2 secs distance is not safe.

 

However theres also the part that says-

"The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance"

 

Whether the police will enforce it or not, I dont know (I think they can do you for dangerous driving if you continuously tail gate), but I bet you insurance companies will. If they found out you were less than 2secs behind the vehicle in front, then they could chuck a load of bricks out the back, damaging your car, and the insurance company would probably still hold you liable. OK silly idea I know, but you are going against the Highway code. Ie it isnt safe.

 

What scares me, is watching that Top Gear link, James May mentions hypermilling, whilst on a motorway. Now what did he mean by this? Driving slowly (he already was), or tail gating? Or was he just trying to look cool? Whatever he meant, mentioning it on a TV programme is unprofessional, especially as hypermilling supposedly advocates what can only be described as tail gating.

[camelspyyder]

Im not worried about what is enforceable. 

 

but...

 

 

Either way, no matter how you look at it, you cannot carry out this hypermilling rubbish without going against the rules of the Highway Code.

 

Make your mind up JJ. Is it against the rules (laws) or is it merely ignoring well-meaning advice?

[JungleJames]

but...

 

 

Make your mind up JJ. Is it against the rules (laws) or is it merely ignoring well-meaning advice?

OK so you are taking what I have written a little bit too literally there.

You shouldn't go against the highway code, whether actual rules or not.

 

However, reading what I put again, it makes perfect sense. First of all, I just said I don't care whats enforceable. I never said it wasn't a rule.

Anyway, lets not go against the highway code and put peoples lives in danger just to get a possible 3mpg extra.  

[camelspyyder]

Anyway, lets not go against the highway code and put peoples lives in danger just to get a possible 3mpg extra.  

 

Absolutely, I have been a long distance commuter for over 20 years, and taking risks is not my thing.  I'd much sooner be late for work than try a marginal overtake, and as for tailgating a truck or bus to save juice - forget it.

[JungleJames]

Absolutely, I have been a long distance commuter for over 20 years, and taking risks is not my thing.  I'd much sooner be late for work than try a marginal overtake, and as for tailgating a truck or bus to save juice - forget it.

Id even doubt being 1.5 secs behind a truck will save you the 3mpg.

 

If you want to save fuel, buy a more efficient car (the Octy has better figures!!!)

Don't travel down a motorway at 50mph (dangerous for cars) or tailgate large vehicles which you cant see round. How do you know if they will have to suddenly apply the brakes?

[777boeingman]

1,000 miles on a tank full in a rapid with 55 L tank not as impossible as some claim above. But a lot of variables need to go your way over that distance. Good tailwinds, favourable traffic, all clear motorway and possibly a fair bit of drafting.

 

I speak from experience, as after several attempts I managed 747 miles on 38.8 litres at an average speed of 48mph in a 1.0L Skoda Citigo (see Citigo forum) and this worked out at 87.64 MPG using brim to brim figures.