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.

good point mate. My quoted mpg's above were obtained in Sport mode. Fully agree with the Eco evaluation above. Not for gridlock, more for open road.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

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.

 

Great post...

Are we married to the same person..????

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

 

This is good advice & exactly what I'd do.

If you use (have) cruise control this will also take the driving style out of the equation.

If here you don't get reasonable consumption figures you have a good case to discuss with the dealer.

 

 

As another train of though, is stop-start working all of the time on the car?

I was thinking if the DPF pressure sensors are connected the wrong way round, the car thinks the DPF is constantly full & will try to regenerate very often.

This can have a big effect on fuel consumption but would probably take some time before the ECU would register a fault/warning to tell you about this.

 

Common signs the car is trying to regenerate are:

    - Idle speed 1000rpm instead of 780rpm

    - StopStart is unavailable & in the entertainment unit->VehicleInformation it will say "Engine must be running"

    - Fan running very fast for 60s after you stop & switch-off the car.

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.

Understood, i would probably have bought the petrol vrs if i hadnt been confident of getting 45mpg+ and the cheaper road tax, but that's a different topic at the moment!!

Edited 13 November, 201510 yr by jimmyp2

You dont buy a VRS for good fuel economy.

If you want that you buy a 1.2 or 1.4.

Let's face it if you put alloys, spoiler and black pack on a 1.2 it looks like a VRS to the general public anyway.

You dont buy a VRS for good fuel economy.

If you want that you buy a 1.2 or 1.4.

Let's face it if you put alloys, spoiler and black pack on a 1.2 it looks like a VRS to the general public anyway.

 

I disagree,

 

I did buy the VRS for good fuel ecomomy.

It's the first diesel I have owned for a few years, I wouldn't have bought any other Octavia as for me it needed the extras and looks of the VRS for me to be interested.

You don't buy a PETROL VRS for the economy but the diesel you do, otherwise why did you buy the diesel over the petrol in the first place!!

What I don't fully understand is why people by a diesel vRS type car then drive slowly doing a max of 55mph trying to get 50+mpg out of it. Surely the point of diesel vRS (other than company car policies or taxes) is to have the looks & spec of a vRS whilst still getting 40+mpg with decent performance.

Another note on fuel consumption that I noticed this morning. I thought I'd leave climate on auto but turn off a/c to see what difference it makes... Start stop was disabled a couple of times because it was using the heated windscreen to  demist the screen instead of the ac.

 

Not sure/don't care what affect that has on fuel economy but worth noting if anyone is trying to save fuel

 

 

@Classic 40+ is the target I've set myself for my mon-fri commute and I'm just about managing it so far by being careful how I drive.

The target for weekends is to change the maxi-dot to speed instead of mpg and go enjoy my car for what it is

You can get 50mpg driving to speed limits, my 13 mile commute to work mixes 30,50 and 70 limits, I drive to the speed limits and as long as I time the traffic lights well I can get 50mpg. If I don't it can be as low as 42.

Also if you own another car for performance thrills you don't necessarily need to drive your economy diesel VRS hard.  I just like the looks of the VRS over the standard car, I didn't buy it for performance, although it's nice to know it's there if required.  

I think what people are forgetting is that the OP was happy with the reasonably good fuel consumption he got in his previous car and now he is experiencing poorer consumption where he should be getting improved consumption.

 

It is his new car that is not performing anywhere near as well as it should, he knows how to drive.

 

It is gathering the proof to throw at the dealers so they do a proper investigation and fix it rather than just fobbing off the issue as his fault as most are doing here.

On a slightly related subject - I have a 2.0 tdi estate. I don't make a habit of it but I drove 10 miles last night with the range saying zero. I filled it to the top and got 44,2 litres in. What size is the tank on the estate?

I think what people are forgetting is that the OP was happy with the reasonably good fuel consumption he got in his previous car and now he is experiencing poorer consumption where he should be getting improved consumption.

It is his new car that is not performing anywhere near as well as it should, he knows how to drive.

It is gathering the proof to throw at the dealers so they do a proper investigation and fix it rather than just fobbing off the issue as his fault as most are doing here.

Yes! What he said!

What I don't fully understand is why people by a diesel vRS type car then drive slowly doing a max of 55mph trying to get 50+mpg out of it. Surely the point of diesel vRS (other than company car policies or taxes) is to have the looks & spec of a vRS whilst still getting 40+mpg with decent performance.

I want both goood fuel economy and performance.

On the daily work commute I'm stuck in long lines of traffic and cannot use the performance so I want a car that's cheap to run and returns high mpg. In the evenings and weekends, when the roads are clear, then I want to enjoy the car and performance becomes the primary factor.

I'm pleased to say that for me the octavia is able to fill both roles well.

Well I just did 250 miles trip across while Croatia to seaside (Zadar). I was on highway, keeping it at 87mph with ACC. Air conditioner was off also (nice sunny day with 20°C). What I got was 37mpg. Is that fine? I bought VRS, yes. It's almost 200hp engine, yes. Consumption is fine.

But how to hell to get 50mpg out of it? Driving 40mpg in 6th gear downhill? I simply don't know how You guys drive to achieve over 50mpg if we are talking about 2.0 184hp engine.

Poslano sa mog Mi-4c koristeći Tapatalk

Well I just did 250 miles trip across while Croatia to seaside (Zadar). I was on highway, keeping it at 87mph with ACC. Air conditioner was off also (nice sunny day with 20°C). What I got was 37mpg. Is that fine? I bought VRS, yes. It's almost 200hp engine, yes. Consumption is fine.

But how to hell to get 50mpg out of it? Driving 40mpg in 6th gear downhill? I simply don't know how You guys drive to achieve over 50mpg if we are talking about 2.0 184hp engine.

Poslano sa mog Mi-4c koristeći Tapatalk

 

Cruise control is not the most efficient way of driving, I would imagine you could of got an extra 5mpg by regulating the accelerator with your foot. Also 87mph will use far more fuel over 250 miles than what the UK speed limit of 70mph will use. I drove from the midlands to Somerset (about 200 miles) last month sticking to UK speed limits with no cruise control. The result was 59mpg.      

The OP has only done 200 miles from new.

He needs to monitor it for at least 1000 miles. Dealer will tell him that also.

He might want to try the higher ECO tyre pressures also, to see if that helps.

Difference between 70 and 80mph is approximately 10% more fuel due to air resistance.

Think how much fuel company fleets would save if they enforced 70mph...

Difference between 70 and 80mph is approximately 10% more fuel due to air resistance.

Think how much fuel company fleets would save if they enforced 70mph...

You have miscalculated. 70 to 80 mph increase is closer to 14% increase in speed, and air resistance quadruples when you double your speed so the effect on consumption is more than you think.

Way back when fuel crises occurred a blanket 50 mph speed limit was imposed and people were stunned at the consumption they achieved.

Edited 13 November, 201510 yr by Gerrycan

Hi all thanks for all the advice.

It's seems to be getting a little better, we are at 38-40 now. I'm still disappointed, i dont think I'm being unreasonable wanting 20% better than the last vRS, that's what the brochure tells me I should get.

In reply to comments about not getting a vRS for fuel economy. Well that is one of the biggest reasons I bought it along with other things like size, comfort etc.

For me a Skoda VRS is about having a grown up car that's got a bit something about it. It's not a Megane 275 but it's got enough about it to keep me interested.

Did my 13 mile commute tonight, temperature 5.5 degrees, averaged 50.1mpg in my manual vrs, economy is driving style aswell as speed, not sure how much more economical the manual is against the dsg in the real world but the manuals do seem to do a fair bit better i believe

I think what people are forgetting is that the OP was happy with the reasonably good fuel consumption he got in his previous car and now he is experiencing poorer consumption where he should be getting improved consumption.

It is his new car that is not performing anywhere near as well as it should, he knows how to drive.

It is gathering the proof to throw at the dealers so they do a proper investigation and fix it rather than just fobbing off the issue as his fault as most are doing here.

hardly think that's a fair assessment of posters on here. In my case I posted my experience and then added some observations. Hardly fobbing off. In fact it's probably strengthening his case that something is amiss. I'd have to be driving like a complete loon 100% of the time to get anywhere near his figures and he's already said he doesn't drive like that. It's not a common level of performance though, so, as a number have suggested on here, there's an issue. I think that the disparity between the levels is that great, that people are naturally curious as to whether all obvious potential causes have been ruled out. OP is getting worse economy than my old MK4 petrol golf, so there's definitely a car related issue. But discounting obvious rationales is not the same as fobbing off. And yes it's late. And no I can't sleep. And I could probably have articulated this better. Apologies if any offence was taken.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ive just dropped my 2.0L Elegance DSG at the dealer, 2 miles from home, 30, 70 and 40 limits, showing 40.4mpg since start on arrival. Mine rarely gets cold though, 700 miles this week. Mine always gives worst figures on Monday morning as it gets rested over the weekend.

I have noticed recently that my GTD's mpg has dropped quite a bit recently.

During most of October it was returning late 40's to mid 50's on a mixed run quite happily with barely any miles on the clock....come the colder weather (and I suspect also a change to winter blend diesel at the pumps) Im now seeing low to mid 40's most of the time.

My car is a 6MT though.

Still for the performance on offer the economy still isnt that shabby....and I dont pay for my fuel either so I shouldnt be grumbling!

Edited 14 November, 201510 yr by pipsypreturns

On a slightly related subject - I have a 2.0 tdi estate. I don't make a habit of it but I drove 10 miles last night with the range saying zero. I filled it to the top and got 44,2 litres in. What size is the tank on the estate?

The brochure and the manual both claim a 50 litre tank for 2 wheel drive cars, but some people here have reported getting more than 50 litres in. The fuel warning light is supposed to come on when there are 6 litres left, but when I refuelled just after it came on I only got 42 litres in.

This is really starting to annoy me now. Just a run to the shops today which included a fill up and this is the result.

Surely this is not good enough. The same trip in the old car would be 45 mpg easily.

I don't want to be over dramatic but starting to think I made a bad decision buying this car. At 34mpg it's just not worth having. I'd prefer a megane 275/Golf R/Civic Type R that would yield 27-30mpg.