4100 on the clock now in my l&K 280 4x4,98 mile round trip commute of which 18 mile is twisty stop start country lane stuff,rest of it motorway,four days a week (if it was six would have gone diesel) ave according to trip computer 31.8 mpg.not too bad for a big powerful 4x4 petrol motor,not a million miles off some of the diesel ave com ive seen on here,but around 9 mpg worse than my octavia vrs tsi dsg 220 petrol i had before the superb,didnt think the difference would be that great.still lovin the car though,and boy does she go!!! Kevin.

 

Kev how do you think it's compared to your Vrs performance wise ?

Standing start acceleration miles better,traction problems with the vrs,rolling performance not too much in it.biggest plus with the 280 is performance is there all of the time,no matter what the weather,road surface,point and squirt,easy.the octy vrs could get near,but you need to be giving it 110%,much more demanding.thats why they dont offer the octavia vrs with the 280 engine,chassis wouldnt handle it! One thing i have noticed with the vrs/280 if youre heavy with youre right foot the fuel consumption plummets,having had a string of diesels prior to the vrs/280,some of which quite powerful(audi a8 3.0 tdi,chrysler 300c to name a couple) that for me is the one area diesel wipes the floor with petrol power,consumption doesnt vary too much between taking it easy and going for it in a diesel,sure makes a difference when pressing on in the superb petrol tsi.

In every other way its petrol all tha time for me nick.

After 1500 miles in my 280 petrol, about half and half motorway/town use, I am getting 28.5 mpg overall.

Best I have seen is 34.5 on a busy motorway run.

Would like to think I can get 30mpg overall when it is totally run in, the weather improves  and I have learnt how to drive it properly.

Edited 18 January, 201610 yr by philsmith

P.s to all,im not anti diesel,ive had my fair share of them,they are just the ticket for high mileage/tax savings/mid range,if limited rev band,grunt,its just when you go back to petrol power you realise what great engines petrol now are,smoothness,non rattly start ups,full rev range,what a feeling revving the 280 up to nigh on 6800 rpm with that lovely growl from the engine bay,exhaust bass behind you,makes you grin like a chesire cat,cant ever recall a diesel engine doing that too me! So if needs be,diesels are fine,if you can afford the extra costs/dont do too many miles,its a no brainer for me.have fun in a petrol,31.8 mpg of petrol heaven!!

Best thing about going back to petrol is that you no longer have to wear special clothing to refuel it!

lthats why they dont offer the octavia vrs with the 280 engine,chassis wouldnt handle it!

Odd that it does in the Golf R, Seat Leon Cupra and Audi S3/RS3 then. To name a few with the same chassis......

As for note on costs. It's cheaper to run my 3.0 V6 Diesel Merc than it was to run my TSI Octavia.

Edited 18 January, 201610 yr by vRS Carl

You should all think yourselves lucky. My C350 Diseasel Merc will do 51mpg on a pure motorway run.

However at the moment I am getting around 22-23mpg (mainly round town) and over it's life the car has averaged 35mpg on all journeys (nearly 51k)

But then again it is a 300bhp/500lbft near 2ton car so I'm actually quite pleased with it .

But in all seriousness.

Modern cars do require running in.

Cold weather has an impact on your car. You're using the Aircon/Heating more than you realise. Cold dense air means a Diesel engine takes longer to warm up. So the needle/gauge may indicate the coolant is up to temp. But your oil won't be until about 10miles or so at M'Way speed and 15 miles or so at round town speed. So it is a lot more viscous than when fully up to temp.

Using things like heated seats, screens, modern complex infotainment systems etc all place quite a lot of load on the car.

Tyres play a big factor and also the condition of the roads. Wet/cold roads create drag on the tyres which in turn means the vehicle works harder. Different tyres give different MPG. As much as 4mpg difference between an A rated and E rated tyre.

Cold dense air is harder for the car to drive through etc.

All this plays into reducing the MPG.

Also remember the min weight for a Superb Estate 2.0 diesel is 1430kg. The max weight is 1560kg. 130kg additional weight will make a lot of difference.

Don't forget winter diesel, lowers fuel economy. Most fuel suppliers will change to summer diesel during March.

Went back to work today 32mile each way commute 58.5mpg this morning and 55mpg this evening with my 1.6tdi SE DSG .

Interesting thread, especially that folks are seeing such widely varying economy. Out of curiosity, has anyone with a few miles on their 1.4 TSi ACT worked out their true average mpg yet?

Having compared winter and near summer temperatures for driving I have seen no variation between mpg and external conditions. Modern climate control has little impact on Diesel engines because of the torque available. I have never seen a difference of more than 0.3mpg on any of the 9 different diesel powered cars I have owned when using a/c. Petrol engines do get affected a little more.

having used diesel cars all year round for three decades I can't say I have ever noticed a huge drop in mpg on winter fuel.

I have monitored the car both with and without high electrical loads (lights, seats, windscreens etc) and there is no significant difference.

Skoda quote figures for 4x4 and 2WD cars, with and without DSG but mine fails to meet even the worst case data.

At least the Dealer is taking it seriously and has flagged it to Skoda UK. We are still awaiting a response but the comment from the dealer is it should be much better than I'm seeing and the car is reporting on their diagnostics.

The car should be returning better than 50mpg but is struggling to get past 40mpg, never mind achieving a better rate. I know 'official data has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but come these figures are poor.

Edited 18 January, 201610 yr by FelisBengalensis

Folks, currently awaiting my new 150 DSG hatch. My current car is 140 DSG 4x4 done 116k miles with lifetime average of 52mpg. My previous Octavia 109 DSG did 105k miles averaged 49 mpg. Have to say justified ordering the new one on basis of getting higher mpg than current car. Ok yes I know never economically justifiable to buy new but nonetheless nice to think my commute will be cheaper than currently. IF I don't get way better than 52mpg I will be really peeved. Must say my expectation is to get nearer 60 mpg. So now after reading this thread feeling somewhat concerned I am going to be disappointed. Ok so my commute is 39 miles with 95% of that on the m25 and I guess therefore 90% of the total miles are commuting miles. Due to traffic generally driving 60mph on the motorway so we will see.

As a matter of interest this is how Skoda (and other manufacturers) calculate official consumption figures. Hardly real world conditions

 

Urban Cycle

 

The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20 to 30 degrees on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerating and idling. Maximum speed is 31mph (50km/h), average speed 12mph (19km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4km).

 

Extra-Urban Cycle

 

This cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75mph (120km/h), average speed is 39mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3miles (7km

​

I broke my record tonight, 50 mile round trip. 70mph with acc on 52mpg there 48mpg back. Much better than my 40mpg average but still only ok, not great... Would be nice if a remap is done as a recall. Could it be an effect of the ongoing emission shambles?

Yes I think we all know how the tests are done. The point here though is this. If you check honestjohn real mpg site http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/skoda/ you can see that:

1. The average real mpg across the whole Skoda range is 90% of the test figure.
2. The lowest reported average is for the Octavia Estate at 78%
3. There are only a few S3 but the figure is 58%.

Agreed that the sample size for the S3 on HJ is not yet valid but nevertheless put with the comments on here it suggests very strongly that something is not quite right

Interesting thread, especially that folks are seeing such widely varying economy. Out of curiosity, has anyone with a few miles on their 1.4 TSi ACT worked out their true average mpg yet?

Logging with fuelly, my manual 1.4 ACT has an average of 45mpg over 1288 miles. Average speed somewhere around 45, mostly motorway, dual carriage way and rural roads, with limited town centre miles. And that's using ACC a reasonable amount of the time. Climbing a couple of mpg with each tank which is me trying to better last rather than engine running in I suspect.

Logging with fuelly, my manual 1.4 ACT has an average of 45mpg over 1288 miles. Average speed somewhere around 45, mostly motorway, dual carriage way and rural roads, with limited town centre miles. And that's using ACC a reasonable amount of the time. Climbing a couple of mpg with each tank which is me trying to better last rather than engine running in I suspect.

 

Ironic (and somewhat satisfying) that a petrol lump is pulling similar - or better - economy in the real world than the diesels. I honestly don't know what some people were expecting. Some of the very low figures quoted in this thread I can understand being frustrating. But some people complaining they 'only' get 45 to 50mpg? With today's emissions technology I'm amazed it's even that. My last diesel was a 2.0 CDTI Astra and that was pulling 28-30mpg cold around town and 45mpg if I really tried on long steady motorway runs. That seems about the norm with modern diesels, and is another reason my S3 will be a 2.0 TSI. My older tech S2 with the 1.9PD engine returned way better economy than the current crop of diesels, and others seem to be reporting similar. Again, I'd cite the ever increasing emissions tech and restrictive maps etc.

 

Bearing in mind the S3 is the best part of 1.5 tonnes and some of the diesel lumps are throwing out close to 200hp I don't think they're doing too badly at all. The 1.6 seems to be giving rather better numbers but I would imagine that's partly due to its glacial acceleration and the owners' commensurate ease on the throttle.

Ironic (and somewhat satisfying) that a petrol lump is pulling similar - or better - economy in the real world than the diesels. I honestly don't know what some people were expecting. Some of the very low figures quoted in this thread I can understand being frustrating. But some people complaining they 'only' get 45 to 50mpg? With today's emissions technology I'm amazed it's even that. My last diesel was a 2.0 CDTI Astra and that was pulling 28-30mpg cold around town and 45mpg if I really tried on long steady motorway runs. That seems about the norm with modern diesels, and is another reason my S3 will be a 2.0 TSI. My older tech S2 with the 1.9PD engine returned way better economy than the current crop of diesels, and others seem to be reporting similar. Again, I'd cite the ever increasing emissions tech and restrictive maps etc.

 

Bearing in mind the S3 is the best part of 1.5 tonnes and some of the diesel lumps are throwing out close to 200hp I don't think they're doing too badly at all. The 1.6 seems to be giving rather better numbers but I would imagine that's partly due to its glacial acceleration and the owners' commensurate ease on the throttle.

 

I think the point you have missed is that Škoda claim up to 64 MPG and most users are struggling to get over 50 MPG ... that is a BIG difference, Škoda’s claims of more powerful engines that are over 20% more efficient are simply not proving to be the case.

Pleased to report a massive jump in my mpg over the last few days. Same commute, similar conditions but now averaging 52mpg via Maxidot.

Only two conditions have changed - I've stopped using acc and my CarPlay has packed up so my phones not been connected. Will use acc again over the next few days and see if I can narrow it down as one of the two.

Can't understand how having a phone charging or using acc could have a 10mpg effect though.

It´s not using CarPlay, that´s for sure!

Vrs karl.think the cars you mention have either 4x4(golf R) or a limited slip diff,the octavia vrs doesnt allthough the new 230 octy vrs does.having owned both vrs and superb 280,the superb does handle the power far more easily,4x4 does make a huge difference to traction,and unfortunately fuel consumption!! Kevin.

I think the point you have missed is that Škoda claim up to 64 MPG and most users are struggling to get over 50 MPG ... that is a BIG difference, Škoda’s claims of more powerful engines that are over 20% more efficient are simply not proving to be the case.

 

With respect the point that you are missing in return is that Škoda aren't claiming anything.  The figures they publish are those given to them by the NEDC testers, and it's the only figure they're allowed to advertise by law. I think it's safe to say it's just easier to game the test with a diesel engine than a petrol one, hence petrols get closer to book figures. That, and/or the weirdly slow and steady pattern of accelerations on the test is just more suited for diesels. For the last ten years diesel engine test results are getting higher and higher, but mostly the real world economy has stayed the same (or slipped slightly). That's just manufacturers getting better at playing the test game, not necessarily any reflection on engine technology. 

 

I remember at one point on this forum (forget which, maybe the Octavia mk3 1.4TSI thread?) it was shown time and again that the OBC MPG readout for the petrols was fairly accurate, but the Škoda diesels were consistently over estimating MPG. We wondered out loud at the time whether that was to assuage the MPG conscious diesel buyers' minds. Who knows?

In my dsg 190 I'm getting between 45 to 51 mpg on my daily commute. Done 500 miles so far. Already a touch better than my old 170 TDI vrs

Depending on the outside temperature (right now changing from -12 to -2) I get around 43 - 50 MPG on my daily commute (23 miles, mixed driving) with studded tires.

Latest figures on my 150 TDi Estate Manual - 1687 miles, ave speed 35mph, 49.7mpg.

 

Best I've seen on a run is 60.3mpg. 

Ironic (and somewhat satisfying) that a petrol lump is pulling similar - or better - economy in the real world than the diesels. I honestly don't know what some people were expecting. Some of the very low figures quoted in this thread I can understand being frustrating. But some people complaining they 'only' get 45 to 50mpg? With today's emissions technology I'm amazed it's even that. My last diesel was a 2.0 CDTI Astra and that was pulling 28-30mpg cold around town and 45mpg if I really tried on long steady motorway runs. That seems about the norm with modern diesels, and is another reason my S3 will be a 2.0 TSI. My older tech S2 with the 1.9PD engine returned way better economy than the current crop of diesels, and others seem to be reporting similar. Again, I'd cite the ever increasing emissions tech and restrictive maps etc.

Bearing in mind the S3 is the best part of 1.5 tonnes and some of the diesel lumps are throwing out close to 200hp I don't think they're doing too badly at all. The 1.6 seems to be giving rather better numbers but I would imagine that's partly due to its glacial acceleration and the owners' commensurate ease on the throttle.

With all respect, you are talking nonsense. I drive a taxi for a living and have done for the last 12 years. My 1.9 105bhp 09 Superb would give me around 40mpg around town. That's no dual carriageways or motorways, just town driving. My 2.0L 170bhp 63plate Superb is giving me about 44mpg around town and at a steady 60-65mph on a motorway run I am seeing about 65mpg.

Granted, I'm going on the maxi dot figures but even if they are off by as much as 10% (which I don't think they are) then it's still a far higher mpg figure than you suggest it should be.

I said it earlier in the thread and I'll say it again, I think the poor MPG figures quoted for the Superb III are down to remapped ECU's since dieselgate.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk