Thirsty 4x4 Superb is not Elegant

[Dialer]

I have a 2013 Superb Elegance 1.8 petrol 4x4 that returns a very fuel gulping 24MPG urban and 32 MPG motorway driving. I love the car but when fuel prices hit the roof again it could be the end of a beautiful friendship. Is there a fix? Other than park it.

[Noddy90]

Yeah; they're not great on fuel.  Boring as it may sound, my advice is to change up at or before 2000rpm and avoid going over 75 on the motorway.  That WILL have an effect and you can then treat yourself to an occasional blast.

[cnc]

The 'official' Skoda fuel consumption for this model are urban 26.6mpg and average 34.9mpg so maybe what you are getting is about right.

[*murph*]

lpg gas conversion

[cav]

Good lord! My 4.3 V8 has very similar figures (not a Superb obviously)

[brad1.8T]

The weight will kill it around town.

The 4x4 will kill it everywhere - to the tune of 25-30% more consumption than the equivalent but your highway consumption is about 2L/100km more than I would have expected even with the heavier body & 4x4 drag

[andrehj]

I have a 2013 Superb Elegance 1.8 petrol 4x4 that returns a very fuel gulping 24MPG urban and 32 MPG motorway driving. I love the car but when fuel prices hit the roof again it could be the end of a beautiful friendship. Is there a fix? Other than park it.

Fix is simple:

1. Remove the 4x4 system. It needs a lot of fuel, and only adds weight. And when do you need 4x4? In wintery conditions you're much better off using winter tires.

2. The Superb is a big car, not meant for short journeys. These should be done be bike (as we do in the Netherlands).

3. Don't drive too fast.

4. Use tires with low rolling resistance.

 

If you stick to the rules above, you can average my fuel consumption (see .sig).

[james0james]

I have a 2013 Superb Elegance 1.8 petrol 4x4 that returns a very fuel gulping 24MPG urban and 32 MPG motorway driving. I love the car but when fuel prices hit the roof again it could be the end of a beautiful friendship. Is there a fix? Other than park it.

 

  My v6 4x4 does achieve more mpg, usually 3 mpg urban and 4 mpg motorway extra to your readings. Via mfd display if you trust them !.

 

  Your remedy is to trade it in for a facelift v6  .

[Supurbia]

The figures are correct for the car,

 

Now can ppl see what happens when Billy Bolshyte type users post amazing fuel figures in forums, it makes others think they have a duffer,

 

Don't buy a V6, urban running will drop to 18mpg if you are lucky, what James is experiencing is the MFD after a while doesn't update to the current figures as the longer you go between resets the longer distance you have to drive to get the figure to move either way.

[stevehg]

The 4x4 will kill it everywhere - to the tune of 25-30% more consumption than the equivalent.

The Haldex 4x4 system used in the superb II, uses about 10% more fuel than the equivalent 2wd version, as demonstrated by actual personal experiences of owners on here.

The figures are correct for the car,

Now can ppl see what happens when Billy Bolshyte type users post amazing fuel figures in forums, it makes others think they have a duffer,

You keep on accusing people of lying about their fuel consumption, even when they come back with actual brim to brim data to prove you wrong. You obviously have a personal agenda on mpg claims, but can you please try and appreciate that not everyone is lying. It would make for a better forum atmosphere.

The OP has come on here with his first post, welcome Dialer , to ask for the opinion from other users to give him an idea of whether his car falls within a range of the averages given. Judging by Ned and cnc's useful responses unfortunately it seems to be about par for this combination of Superb.

The fact is that fuel consumption varies by so many factors it's not possible to reach a consensus across a differentiated user base on what a reasonable average should be. Even with two identical cars, it's naturally going to be affected by temperature, topographical nature of the journey, traffic, tyre pressures, altitude, driving style, windspeed, wind direction, electrical consumption in vehicle, HEVAC use etc....

So I would suggest that when people post up, especially with actual data to prove it, it's probably best to accept it, rather than accuse them of lying.

cheers, Steve

[Supurbia]

The Haldex 4x4 system used in the superb II, uses about 10% more fuel than the equivalent 2wd version, as demonstrated by actual personal experiences of owners on here.

You keep on accusing people of lying about their fuel consumption, even when they come back with actual brim to brim data to prove you wrong. You obviously have a personal agenda on mpg claims, but can you please try and appreciate that not everyone is lying. It would make for a better forum atmosphere.

The OP has come on here with his first post, welcome Dialer , to ask for the opinion from other users to give him an idea of whether his car falls within a range of the averages given. Judging by Ned and cnc's useful responses unfortunately it seems to be about par for this combination of Superb.

The fact is that fuel consumption varies by so many factors it's not possible to reach a consensus across a differentiated user base on what a reasonable average should be. Even with two identical cars, it's naturally going to be affected by temperature, topographical nature of the journey, traffic, tyre pressures, altitude, driving style, windspeed, wind direction, electrical consumption in vehicle, HEVAC use etc....

So I would suggest that when people post up, especially with actual data to prove it, it's probably best to accept it, rather than accuse them of lying.

cheers, Steve

 

 

Look mate it's no secret that I don't like you and you don't like me but can you stop shoving your nose in every time, you only post here to me to try and put down what I posted anyway, any other time we don't see or hear from you,

 

Now put up or shut up time, rent a 3.6 Superb and lets take it round a few proper cities, cities are URBAN cycle btw, I've got a grand that says the car won't achieve 20mpg, it's no good someone saying they get 30mpg cos the Maxidot said so and they live in a rural location where they consider urban cycle to be if they drove through the market village three times that day, the two aren't the same nor is the description of URBAN in those conditions,

 

There has recently been a documentry on this where the a credible firm who deals with this sort of thing stated official figures are 22% wide of realistic ones, my own personal experience suggests they are bang on the money with that claim,

 

And for James I wasn't calling you a liar or grouping you in with the BS'tters I was simply explaining how the mfd works and how it can deceive to flatter,

 

 

Now Steve, do me that favour, put me back on ignore like you made a thread about doing some time ago, as you aimed at me "you don't even own a Skoda" and I bet the Merc forums alovin you right now with you're 3 mths ownership expertise, please mate just stay away from me you stink of smeary poster to me and not someone I wish to interact with.

 

cheers Sup.

[stevehg]

It was just a simple request to make the forum a more welcoming place, especially as this is the OP's first post.

[Supurbia]

It was just a simple request to make the forum a more welcoming place, especially as this is the OP's first post.

 

 

Ok fair dues, but please try your best to avoid me as it's obvious we ain't gonna ever see eye to eye, as for the forum it's always been welcoming anyway.

[Wile7]

I'm getting 26mpg around town in Geneva (stop/go/dawdling...) and 32mpg on a run...but I admit it's only maxi dot figures.

Real world urban/mixed around 30mpg I reckon. Happy with that on the V6 and not too dissimilar to the last two V6 cars I had (Vel Satis 3.5 and Merc E class estate 320).

Bottom line is that the V6 does not need to work as hard as the 1.8 turbo unit to shift the car. It's a lazy cruise wagon. Granted, the couple of times I have booted it and used the paddles in sport mode it drops to 24mpg. Still not bad in my book.

Dave

[Supurbia]

I'm getting 26mpg around town in Geneva (stop/go/dawdling...) and 32mpg on a run...but I admit it's only maxi dot figures.

Real world urban/mixed around 30mpg I reckon. Happy with that on the V6 and not too dissimilar to the last two V6 cars I had (Vel Satis 3.5 and Merc E class estate 320).

Bottom line is that the V6 does not need to work as hard as the 1.8 turbo unit to shift the car. It's a lazy cruise wagon. Granted, the couple of times I have booted it and used the paddles in sport mode it drops to 24mpg. Still not bad in my book.

Dave

 

 

Cheers Dave as you've just done the same thing as James and trusted the maxidot,

 

Lets have a look at what you said cos most of it is valid, 3.6 = 2x 1.8 which the power of logic would say the 1.8 should be 2x times as economic but only half as powerful as the 3.6 which we all know is a million miles off base,

 

The PTWR means that like you said the 3.6 will pump 6 cylinders round rather than 4 but they will go round slower than the 4, this becomes more evident @ 50mph+ and the economies can get pretty close to each other but not when it comes to city driving unless the 4 cyl is also bad on fuel,

 

Now the 1.8 is for a 1.8 quite economic, mums one does 26-28 urban and at a guess I'd say she gets a mid 30 on the motorway, her's is a dsg btw, but add the 4X4 element and it's like towing another car behind in a way,

 

The bottom line is for accuracy the manufacturers figures, VAG ones used to be pretty spot on, VX ones are 20% less than stated, Ford is even worse with a car that they claimed 39mpg urban that in reality does 26 according to my mate who had a Powershift Mondeo, I suspect since 2012 the VAG ones are also exaggerated as well although the Rapid seems to be near it's officials in 1.6TDi form, you have to think this, if the car can do more mpgs for real why would VAG not scream that out to the world, just had a look and yours is 21.7 urban so I'd say that's around a real 18 and the maxidot is averaging you for the times you are extra urbaning it, the combo figure is 30mpg so split yours as 10 miles at 18mpg and 30 miles at 35mpg would indeed show you a reading of 26ish,

 

A better partial way to check it is to reset it on a day you know you will only be pottering about the city, this then gets cold to hot engine readings into the mix for a realistic reading, if you do it please have some tissues with you :-) and the Samaritans number.

[brad1.8T]

 

The Haldex 4x4 system used in the superb II, uses about 10% more fuel than the equivalent 2wd version, as demonstrated by actual personal experiences of owners on here.

I'll take your word for it. I'm basing my % on when I had an AWD Subaru which (obviously) uses a different system than the Haldex.

Well done VW for using such an efficient AWD system because those Subarus drink like a sailor on shore leave.

[DenzilDexter]

My 1.8TSI  Superb Estate 4x4 is doing 22.9mpg (measured) on the start/stop up the steep hill school run, the same journey in our previous 2.0 TDI diesel (no DPF) Volvo S40 returned 30mpg at best and the 1.8 NA petrol old style Citroen Picasso before that was around 19mpg.

 

On recent motorway trip was getting around 39mpg indicated, diesel volvo would be around 48mpg or 42mpg with the roofbox (not needed now), the Citroen would be around 36mpg.

[Wile7]

Cheers Dave as you've just done the same thing as James and trusted the maxidot,

 

Lets have a look at what you said cos most of it is valid, 3.6 = 2x 1.8 which the power of logic would say the 1.8 should be 2x times as economic but only half as powerful as the 3.6 which we all know is a million miles off base,

 

The PTWR means that like you said the 3.6 will pump 6 cylinders round rather than 4 but they will go round slower than the 4, this becomes more evident @ 50mph+ and the economies can get pretty close to each other but not when it comes to city driving unless the 4 cyl is also bad on fuel,

 

Now the 1.8 is for a 1.8 quite economic, mums one does 26-28 urban and at a guess I'd say she gets a mid 30 on the motorway, her's is a dsg btw, but add the 4X4 element and it's like towing another car behind in a way,

 

The bottom line is for accuracy the manufacturers figures, VAG ones used to be pretty spot on, VX ones are 20% less than stated, Ford is even worse with a car that they claimed 39mpg urban that in reality does 26 according to my mate who had a Powershift Mondeo, I suspect since 2012 the VAG ones are also exaggerated as well although the Rapid seems to be near it's officials in 1.6TDi form, you have to think this, if the car can do more mpgs for real why would VAG not scream that out to the world, just had a look and yours is 21.7 urban so I'd say that's around a real 18 and the maxidot is averaging you for the times you are extra urbaning it, the combo figure is 30mpg so split yours as 10 miles at 18mpg and 30 miles at 35mpg would indeed show you a reading of 26ish,

 

A better partial way to check it is to reset it on a day you know you will only be pottering about the city, this then gets cold to hot engine readings into the mix for a realistic reading, if you do it please have some tissues with you :-) and the Samaritans number.

I think what I will do is fill it to the max (60 litres) and run it until (amost!) empty then use the odometer reading to compare against fuel level. It's not something that really bothers me personally BUT it would be good to get a real-world idea of mpg rather than myth and hearsay however it turns out.

Dave

[psycholist]

Just fill to the brim. Reset trip meter and drive. Record the amount of fuel you need to add to get the tank completely filled and this is the amount of fuel you've used. Then get out the calculator and see how it compares with the car's figures. The trip 2 readouts don't reset every time you leave the car for a few hours, so that's where you get a reliable distance figure from.

[Albervin]

I bought my car knowing full well the figures published (here in Australia) for fuel consumption are calculated using bull droppings. I just know I get 440Km from a tank around town before I need to fill up and in excess of 750Km out in the country or on highways. The V6 is old fashioned but almost perfect for the car. Same goes for the R36 Passat. All the local owners of R36s just do not give a rat's about fuel consumption; it is the smooth glide from 0-160 we all want, or the ability to fill the wagon to the gunwales and hardly notice any loss of power. 

[lowedb]

I have the 170CR 4x4. My feeling (and it is a feeling) based on the MFD figures for other VW group cars with the same 170CR but no 4x4, is that 10% is about right. By far the worst I had was the 170CR in a Seat Exeo estate which really had a habit. Smaller car, no 4x4, and on the display I struggled to get mid forties extra urban. My Superb 4x4 is late forties extra urban (on the display) and a Leon 170CR I had was more easily 50s on the same run. A previous Superb 4x4 was pretty much the same as this one. On motorway runs I get indicated well over 50MPG. On the other hand my current journey to work varies widely, and I'm not really sure what causes the variations. Having the aircon on is one for sure, as if I've used the demist, sometimes the AC stays on. It's not traffic since there isn't any. Some days I barely get above 40MPG indicated, but it is a twisty back road with lots of braking!

 

As I say these are all purely comparing MFD figures which are generous. But I am comparing like for like.

[Huskoda]

 

I'll take your word for it. I'm basing my % on when I had an AWD Subaru which (obviously) uses a different system than the Haldex.

Well done VW for using such an efficient AWD system because those Subarus drink like a sailor on shore leave.

Yeah, but Subaru engineers couldn't make a fuel efficient car to save their lives. I don't think they're even aware of the concept. It is something that is really destroying their sales. I am also talking from experience.

 

To the OP, your figures seem perfectly normal, from what I've seen around.

[brad1.8T]

Yeah, but Subaru engineers couldn't make a fuel efficient car to save their lives. I don't think they're even aware of the concept. It is something that is really destroying their sales. I am also talking from experience.

 

 

That and the fact that each model hits an extra branch of the ugly tree as it falls out.

 

No arguments from me about the fuel efficiency of Subarus

[peterposh]

I had a 2004 skoda octavia 4 x 4 1.8 t estate . If you were really careful you could get 30 mpg . Mostly it was 25 mpg so it's range was only 200 ish miles and you could see the gauge going down. I got rid of it, waste of space. I've got the 2 l diesel 4x4 now and that's 45 plus

[brad1.8T]

 

I had a 2004 skoda octavia 4 x 4 1.8 t estate . If you were really careful you could get 30 mpg . Mostly it was 25 mpg so it's range was only 200 ish miles and you could see the gauge going down. I got rid of it, waste of space. I've got the 2 l diesel 4x4 now and that's 45 plus

 

2004 would have been the old 5-valve unit? It was very different to the current 1.8tsi but I get yuour point regarding petrol v diesel.