vrs tdi dsg estate mpg

[GoneToBeemer]

There's must be something wrong to be getting figures like that in my opinion...the worst I used to get in my mk2 FL vRS TSI was about 30 and that was remapped and I drove it quite enthusiastically!

I would get it checked out.

Edited 9 November, 2015 by vtec to vrs!

[Gabbo]

Just checked the car.

30.9 for the last 15 miles, the wife's commute.

35.9 long term which was only 30 miles

37.9 since last fill which was 260 miles ago.

100 miles in the tank, so 360 total.

My track clio can do that!! (Not on track lol)

 

My wife has taken the Octavia for the last 2 months. Her commute is similar to yours (18km ~11miles) 50% espressway at 50mph & the rest in stop/start traffic in the city.

We use our other car for longer journeys as the fuel is free.

You can see the calculated fuel economy as the last 2 fuel-ups if you follow my fuelly link.

They were 5mpg lower than my normal highway commute but both still over 50mpg

 

I would take your car to the dealer & ask them to check it out.

[KarlO3V5]

If your wife drives anything like mine then that's probably about right!

 

She has no concept of the accelerator having any travel - it's either on or off. Then its hard on the brakes to stop - rinse and repeat.

[Emblem]

There's a graph of your driving efficiency captured for each trip in the head unit. Might be worth a look. For my approx 55mpg average I have a driving efficiency around 75-80%.

What's your score? I guess heavy acceleration and braking will drop this score.

[Beef]

Mine DSG has just turned 40k, getting about 44mpg long term, and 50mpg on a run if I nurse it around 65mph. My old Mk1 130 1.9 with remap to 160bhp would get over 60.

[PhilbvRS]

So the wife just messaged me. 33mpg on her we to work and a green score of 86%. She said traffic was bad. That's 11 miles.

[SnailUK]

So the wife just messaged me. 33mpg on her we to work and a green score of 86%. She said traffic was bad. That's 11 miles.

 

My TDi DSG gives high 30s in stop start traffic of a similar distance. My 1.8T petrol Seat Leon gives high 10s on a similar journey.

[jimmyp2]

This varies so much depending how much stop/start you do, time of year, gearbox and obviously driving style. I get anywhere between 42 and 50 day to day in my VRS manual. On a long run at speed limits can get 60. 

[pipsyp]

Will get a bit better with the miles,VAG diesels take a good dose of miles before they start returning their best MPG.

A 6 speed wet clutch DSG isnt as efficient as the manual though is probably 5-10 mpg worse in most conditions compared to the manual.

The newer 7 speed dry box is supposed to be more efficient than the manual so you can expect an increase over a manual with this box....though due to the relatively mega torque output of the 184 TDI its stuck using the older 6 speed box.

VAG do make a more efficient 7 speed wet box but for reasons unknown theyve seen fit not to fit it to many variants that could probably benefit from it.

[JPH0091]

Manual vs DSG 6, you can expect 6 to 7% more mpg.

DSG 7 dry box improves the mpg at homologation tests, but you never get it that way in real life. Better to assume 5-6% mpg reduction instead.

(data based on spritmonitor user results, on RS TDI for DSG 6 and 1.8 TSI for DGS7)

 

Edit: I hope the results seen on DSG 7 is not the next lie/cheating from VAG to pop up...

Edited 10 November, 2015 by JPH0091

[Skodev]

Ok so this got me thinking A LOT about my consumption for my VRS tdi manual estate. Just over 2k on the clock. My daily commute is 16 miles to Manchester Airport on the M60 /M56. Absolute nightmare of a journey and due to having to drop the nipper off, no way I can avoid the peak traffic. Anyway yesterday I could not get over 35mpg on my way into work. I was devastated. So today took a different approach. Whereas I would normally seek the quickest flowing lanes and switch half a dozen times at key spots, today I stuck to the slow lane and kept a few car lengths free in front so I could regulate my speed smoothly. The result 43.6mpg. My point, driving style can make huge differences, but more importantly, you don't have to be thrashing it to have an impact, just holding the car in gear longer before changing up, accelerating and braking rather than smoothly regulating speed will eat into your MPG heavily. I was amazed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PhilbvRS]

I wonder if I can complain about the mpg if it doesn’t improve? I mean I never expected 59 as the official is but mid 30s is a joke and it should be better than the old one as least.

[te@lc]

Don't worry, it's not all about distance and driving style.

I had Audi 2.5 163bhp V6 diesel which was more efficient than Škoda with 200k km on clock.

Traffic got a lot worse in my commuting route in past few months, so with 3k km on clock TDI manual I can hit 30mpg in peak hours on 7km trip. It is due to a bad driving in heavy city traffic (lights, few schools with crossings etc.). If I take a trip to my brother from work, only 3km more (10km trip) with open intercity road in that route I can hit 40mpg easily and trashing it. If I want I can hit 50, but I didn't buy VRS for that to be honest ;-)

Eitherway, I don't see VRS as a fuel saver in any case.

When salesman told me about fuel consumption figures I just looked at him under eyebrows, told him I have 1 milion km under foot, and that I will give him complete discount amount if this engine will be under 6.5l/100km for my use. He refused to shake hands with smile, and I am at 6.9l/100km average.

Poslano sa mog Mi-4c koristeći Tapatalk

[Iamholam]

I wonder also how much of it is due to the figures being massaged with minimum weight in the car when testing?

Whenever I drive mine I have 2 adults, 2 kids in the back (with their kid seats) and a buggy in the boot. The extra 200kg or so must be affecting it pretty badly.

Having said that my last car had all that to move and was still better.

[Gabbo]

I wonder if I can complain about the mpg if it doesn’t improve? I mean I never expected 59 as the official is but mid 30s is a joke and it should be better than the old one as least.

 

Did you try driving with the instantaneous fuel economy on the display?

What does it say for exmaple if you drive at 50 or 60mph on the highway with cruise control activated for a few minutes?

[Emblem]

Ok so this got me thinking A LOT about my consumption for my VRS tdi manual estate. Just over 2k on the clock. My daily commute is 16 miles to Manchester Airport on the M60 /M56. Absolute nightmare of a journey and due to having to drop the nipper off, no way I can avoid the peak traffic. Anyway yesterday I could not get over 35mpg on my way into work. I was devastated. So today took a different approach. Whereas I would normally seek the quickest flowing lanes and switch half a dozen times at key spots, today I stuck to the slow lane and kept a few car lengths free in front so I could regulate my speed smoothly. The result 43.6mpg. My point, driving style can make huge differences, but more importantly, you don't have to be thrashing it to have an impact, just holding the car in gear longer before changing up, accelerating and braking rather than smoothly regulating speed will eat into your MPG heavily. I was amazed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fully agree. I drive in this manner most of the time (I'm too laid back to be driving on the bumper of the car in front in heavy traffic) and am still getting 55mpg+ with a best of 62mpg. I tried driving in an Audience driver style and I immediately dropped to low 40's for the same daily journey. 20mpg lost by being impatient!

Is not that I drive slow normally, just efficiently. I only accelerate hard when necessary, leave enough gap to the car in front that I can use the engine to do most of the braking and coat up to roundabouts and junctions.

The car is capable of getting fairly close to the official figures.

[Gabbo]

Fully agree. I drive in this manner most of the time (I'm too laid back to be driving on the bumper of the car in front in heavy traffic) and am still getting 55mpg+ with a best of 62mpg.

The car is capable of getting fairly close to the official figures.

 

+1

[Iamholam]

+1

I drive like this too, but still don't get more than 45mpg...

[te@lc]

Well, due to my experience and short city runs, I can drive it literally as a granny with feather on foot and hit 37mpg well above 86 green score. That 7mpg on 4-5 miles to work compared to normal driving is not worth beeing gentle and 99% concetrated on smart driving.

On the other side with longer runs it can return good values. Especially if running 70 instead of 90mph on highway, a huge difference.

I drove only few cars that were capable running more than ~33mpg while keeping pace on 90mph, the upper edge of 'allowed' speed (81mph officially) on highway in Croatia. VRS is not one of them.

I agree You can hit officially figure, but the question is what number of conditions must be met... Like thoose Kia's with 70mpg tag, some Chinese 50ccm delivery bikes cant hit that in normal use ;-)

Poslano sa mog Mi-4c koristeći Tapatalk

[KarlO3V5]

Did a fill to fill tank today - seems that for me at least the FCD is near enough spot on!

 

[Gerrycan]

Philbvrs, I don't have a diesel nor a DSG, so I cannot offer any first hand experiences but here is my tuppence worth anyway.

 

I've noted that a lot claim to get better economy in Normal or Sport mode rather than the Eco mode for the DSG. I think that is probably true as the Eco mode offers 'freewheeling' which is really of real benefit it you are a hypermiler type who anticipates traffic conditions well in advance. Normal driving conditions (congested) in the UK are better off utilising engine braking in the other modes.

 

I'll assume you have got the display set for imperial gallons rather than US gallons as suggested by someone else. It was a good point as the figures you are getting would pretty well match the US setting.

 

If you have got some good flat and relatively empty roads in you area then go for a run and check that the Odometer and Speedo are reasonably accurate against GPS. A long shot but there is always some variation and I for one  like to know what it is. At the same time see what the steady speed consumptions are on the instantaneous setting for say 50mph and 70mph. I am thinking that you should get about 65+mpg for the former and at least 50+mpg for the latter.

Pick a nice day, not too cold, not wet or windy, engine warmed up and tyre pressures set to specification

 

Record your consumption in something like Fuelly.com, for at least a couple of fills and try and be consistent on your refilling (some like to do it on the first or second click and others like to squeeze in a couple more litres) and compare the results against the display to get an idea of how accurate it is.

 

If after all that your consumption is still ***e then at least you have built up an argument for when you return it to the dealer to be fixed.

 

Hope it all works out.

Edited 12 November, 2015 by Gerrycan

[brad1.8T]

I wonder if I can complain about the mpg if it doesn’t improve? I mean I never expected 59 as the official is but mid 30s is a joke and it should be better than the old one as least.

The results of the official fuel economy tests are irrelevant to real world driving.  All they allow you to do is compare what economy the vehicles get under test conditions.  have a look at the test cycle & you'll find that nobody actually drives like that.

 

The annoying part is that many manufacturers tune their ECUs and gearing to make the most of the test without regard to any detrimental effects on the result when the cars are put into consumers hands.

 

It might also be that your wife isn't a particularly economical driver - I know my wife uses 30% more fuel than I do.  She doesn't look more than 50m up the road, tailgates, rides the brakes, doesn't anticipate traffic lights or make any allowance for the rhythm of the traffic and uses the accelerator pedal like it only has 2 positions.

[jimmyp2]

So the wife just messaged me. 33mpg on her we to work and a green score of 86%. She said traffic was bad. That's 11 miles.

Just 11 miles and in heavy traffic with possibly lots of stop start not ideal conditions for a cold diesel engine, you may of been better with a 1.4TSi petrol??

[Emblem]

The results of the official fuel economy tests are irrelevant to real world driving. All they allow you to do is compare what economy the vehicles get under test conditions. have a look at the test cycle & you'll find that nobody actually drives like that.

The annoying part is that many manufacturers tune their ECUs and gearing to make the most of the test without regard to any detrimental effects on the result when the cars are put into consumers hands.

It might also be that your wife isn't a particularly economical driver - I know my wife uses 30% more fuel than I do. She doesn't look more than 50m up the road, tailgates, rides the brakes, doesn't anticipate traffic lights or make any allowance for the rhythm of the traffic and uses the accelerator pedal like it only has 2 positions.

Hahahahahaha, that sounds so familiar :-)

[PhilbvRS]

Just 11 miles and in heavy traffic with possibly lots of stop start not ideal conditions for a cold diesel engine, you may of been better with a 1.4TSi petrol??

But a 1.4 is not a vRS.

It's not all stop start, some of her commute is on the motorway too. We use it for long drives at the weekend.