Real economy?

[bigjohn]

Fully seems to be widely regarded and does the job pretty well.

 

For your Yeti did you select "other" for a lot of the selections. Against the Superb could only select Base model, Drivers Edition and Elegance. Also could only click on "other" for the engine. I got bored and used Spritmonitor instead

Edited 12 March, 2016 by bigjohn

[KBPhoto]

I set mine up before the masses of options came in. I've also stopped using it due to pressure of time and through knowing that my displayed trip computer is pretty accurate now I've adjusted it.

[Brijo]

...Rather than reinvent the wheel, can anyone point me in the direction of a good spreadsheet or ideas so I can create my own  please?....

 

The shortcoming of both Fuelly and Spritmonitor is the inaccessability of period figures such as annual or seasonal.  Many years (and cars!) ago I started a straightforward tabular record that I still maintain, latterly in parallel with Fuelly; I wish I'd converted the table to a spreadsheet, with flexible retrieval.  Here's a couple of grateful recipients, then, if anyone's got a suitable template they could offer !

[muddyboots]

Some recent journey figures for my CR170 4x4 with Stage 1 remap.

Typical journey is a 40 mile cross-country commute (roughly 30 miles rural A-road, mile or so of dual carriageway, and the rest slower urban).

Figures from Maxidot - not far off, as I partly recalibrated so it's closer than it was.

Best: 59mpg (driving very gently, and sticking to speed limits everywhere, early morning very little traffic)

Typical: 40-45mpg (normal driving)

Worst: 36mpg (enjoyable driving)

By contrast, our brand new Superb 150 TDI 4x4 - with an official combined MPG figure of over 61mpg - is averaging only 40mpg (and that's relaxed driving by my wife!).

Edited 25 January, 2016 by muddyboots

[Ryeman]

Mine must have had a drag problem (I had problems budging it (pushing) on the flat) the best I ever got pussyfooting around was 49.

[oriki]

40 MPG is in fact not too bad,in my opinion.

I have a 2.0LT 140 HP DSG and i get less than that,unless I am on a longish haul with not too much use of the brakes on the way.

The best I have acheived is like you,40.

I too find it hard to understand people claiming any higher.

I would like to see to beleive.

[Jimrod]

40 MPG is in fact not too bad,in my opinion.

I have a 2.0LT 140 HP DSG and i get less than that,unless I am on a longish haul with not too much use of the brakes on the way.

The best I have acheived is like you,40.

I too find it hard to understand people claiming any higher.

I would like to see to beleive.

 

I think the DSG has a fair impact, most I see quoting good figures seem to be using manual boxes.

[Ryeman]

I think the DSG has a fair impact, most I see quoting good figures seem to be using manual boxes.

The hydraulic pump shouldn't cost that much - 1 to 2 perhaps.

[Jimrod]

The hydraulic pump shouldn't cost that much - 1 to 2 perhaps.

 

Yeah, my old Scirocco was more economical with the DSG than the manual strangely enough - but perhaps the characteristics of diesel don't suit the automatic transmission so well, for the most part with a manual diesel you can put it in a gear and coast along where the DSG will change up and labour the engine a little more or rev higher than you might when accelerating.

 

In mine I can't see me ever having a trip where I get more than 45mpg average. Driving on the dual-carriageway today sitting at around 65mph shows between 41-51mpg on the instant read-out with a warm engine, low to mid 40's average for a trip seems normal IF I drive carefully - actually around town I can average around the same! Do people getting mid 50's mpg drive everywhere at 50mph with no traffic or something? 

Edited 25 January, 2016 by Jimrod

[Ryeman]

?....

! Do people getting mid 50's mpg drive everywhere at 50mph with no traffic or something?

Beats me, under the most ideal conditions at only 1750rpm ~ 56 mph, the best I ever got was = to 49. But I'm wondering if there was some sort of transmission or brake drag all along.

[muddyboots]

Do people getting mid 50's mpg drive everywhere at 50mph with no traffic or something?

The 59mpg I mentioned in my post above was done under exactly those conditions!

[KBPhoto]

40 MPG is in fact not too bad,in my opinion.

I have a 2.0LT 140 HP DSG and i get less than that,unless I am on a longish haul with not too much use of the brakes on the way.

The best I have acheived is like you,40.

I too find it hard to understand people claiming any higher.

I would like to see to beleive.

Not sure on the practicalities of this, but you can look at mine and, with me driving it, I regularly get high 40's mpg. That was tracked over quite a long period using Fuelly which shows long term average to be 48/49 (it's in my signature strip below).

However, I stopped tracking my usage in October last year due to pressure of time and because my displayed long term consumption average was very close to that of Fuelly.

Im not really sure what will convince you that figures higher than 40 mpg are achievable (even with a CR170 CEGA engine) though.

[KBPhoto]

Do people getting mid 50's mpg drive everywhere at 50mph with no traffic or something?

I'll sit at an indicated 65/66mph on the motorway with CC enabled and get well over 50mpg every time (unless very windy or wet or loaded).

My drive to work today (mostly downhill and behind slow traffic) displayed mid-50's. The journey home (uphill) will most likely be low- to mid-40's, hopefully, being able to drive at 50-55 most of the way. That's a rural journey that is twisty and undulating with quite a few villages to slow down to 30 for.

I've calibrated my displayed consumption to be fairly accurate and it still tallies with my last Fuelly calculated averages (it is actually slightly lower than Fuelly, but only 1-2mpg).

[Jimrod]

I'll sit at an indicated 65/66mph on the motorway with CC enabled and get well over 50mpg every time (unless very windy or wet or loaded).

My drive to work today (mostly downhill and behind slow traffic) displayed mid-50's. The journey home (uphill) will most likely be low- to mid-40's, hopefully, being able to drive at 50-55 most of the way. That's a rural journey that is twisty and undulating with quite a few villages to slow down to 30 for.

I've calibrated my displayed consumption to be fairly accurate and it still tallies with my last Fuelly calculated averages (it is actually slightly lower than Fuelly, but only 1-2mpg).

 

Well I'll be interested to see if mine actually improves with mileage (1200 miles on clock at mo) or indeed when it gets warmer anyway.

 

I think the main benefits of the new 150tdi all come in "urban" driving looking at the official figures and I must admit I can quite easily get high 30's - low 40's around town.

 

The DSG may well be a factor too...

 

How about tyres? That's the one difference between mine and my friend's (who seems to average 3-4mpg better on exactly same trip) - Hers came with Goodyear Efficientgrip's and my car which is a few weeks newer came with Pirelli P7 Cinturato's. What psi are people running too? I have about 33psi in mine. Grasping at straws a bit now! I still think hard running in when new makes a marked difference based on the evidence I've seen.

[KBPhoto]

I have Goodyear Efficient Grips on mine and the consumption improved by about 3mph over whatever was on before. I had similar improvements in my Octavia when I switched to the Goodyears.

DSG is a factor (so I'm told) as is the running in period. Tyre pressure does make a difference. I keep mine at the recommended pressures although how accurate my gauges are I do not know.

I have noticed the outside edges of both my front tyres are scrubbing despite having a full laser geometry alignment when the four Goodyears were fitted.

Will be getting this checked soon and the front and rear wheels swapped around to even out wear. That might make a small

Difference to mine (if we are clutching at straws).

Edited 25 January, 2016 by KBPhoto

[Citigopher]

Out of interest, has anyone calculated their mpg using sat nav (GPS) distance rather than the cars milometer? Lots of us negate the effects of a potentially inaccurate trip computer by measuring fuel-in brim to brim over several fill ups, but we still rely on what the car says for distance covered. From what I've seen, speedometer error can be significant when compared real-time with GPS readings. The GPS should be more accurate, both for speed and distance covered. Using that and brim-to-brim fuel removes the 'car' readings from the equation.

[JCP]

I have always heard and believed that milometers are pretty accurate whereas speedometers are intentionally rather inclined to over read speed -so no motorist can ever claim their speed was excessive and they did not know. The technology is capable of giving a more precise result than GPS which can inaccurately react to gradients on an otherwise straight route.

Edited 25 January, 2016 by JCP

[valep]

Went out to day maxidot read range 200 miles did a round trip of 18 miles range now reading 270 miles last filled it up end of October 2015

[clv101]

Out of interest, has anyone calculated their mpg using sat nav (GPS) distance rather than the cars milometer? Lots of us negate the effects of a potentially inaccurate trip computer by measuring fuel-in brim to brim over several fill ups, but we still rely on what the car says for distance covered. From what I've seen, speedometer error can be significant when compared real-time with GPS readings. The GPS should be more accurate, both for speed and distance covered. Using that and brim-to-brim fuel removes the 'car' readings from the equation.

Distance wise, it all depends on how accurate the wheel circumference is, that's all Maxidot has to go on. a 45R17 tyre might have a circumference of 2050mm when new. Take 6mm of tread of all around, reducing the diameter by 12mm and the circumference drops to 1974mm or -3.6%. That's the uncertainty on distance depending on tyre wear, around 1.8mpg variation! Inflation will add more uncertainty.

I took a long drive virtually all motorway today. Google Maps said it would be 167 miles, Maxidot recorded 167 miles! That's pretty damn accurate. My speedo is also very close to GPS. I'm running 215/60 R16 at the moment.

Edited 25 January, 2016 by clv101

[Ryeman]

I used to think odos would be out by the same amount as the speedo but I think there PDG in fact.

[KLM]

170 4x4 - 38-42mpg. I would not say I'm a particularly economical driver though.

 

Best I have got is about 52 on a long run at 50mph (ish),

[Ryeman]

170 4x4 - 38-42mpg. I would not say I'm a particularly economical driver though.

 

Best I have got is about 52 on a long run at 50mph (ish),

The only figure that counts is fill > fill and accept that the odo is accurate.

[KLM]

The only figure that counts is fill > fill and accept that the odo is accurate.

 

True - should have said 38-42 is brim to brim. 52 is odo.

[Ryeman]

True - should have said 38-42 is brim to brim. 52 is odo.

Are you saying fill > fill accurate 38-42

But

odo but meaning maxidot error showing 52?

[Yety]

Just out of interest I checked maxidot today - average over the last few months 62.1.

 

Probably helped by las tweekend in which I did nearly 500 miles.