During the winter months on my 130 mile round trip commute (90% motorway and dual carriageways) then I average 60mpg. During the summer months that improves to an average of 67mpg. That's measured from brimming many times and my driving style is moderate but not hypermile style. That's just me in the car.

Just as an aside to the main topic, there are some good reasons why the Superb should achieve very high mpgs on a long steady run.

If a steadyish speed is being held for a long time period - like going up the motorway for a couple of hours - then the significance of the car's weight is greatly diminished. Instead Newton's First Law becomes the dominant factor i.e. speed will remain constant unless acted upon by an external force. What are those external forces? Without getting bogged down in the details and rigour of it all, then let's say, at motorway speeds, the dominant external force is air resistance. So long as we apply a force equal to the air resistance then our speed will remain constant (let's ignore the other losses for this example).

But, as big cars go, the Superb has a front cross-section that's probably closer to that of a Golf than an A6 or a 5 Series or S-class. That's because the Superb is narrower than most big cars. All things being equal (ha!) it should have less air resistance than those other big cars.

This is why, to maintain 60mph, we only need press the throttle very gently - we're just trying to balance the losses caused by the air resistance (in our simplified example). The mass of the car, when maintaining a steady speed, is of no great significance. Actually, it's of no significance. In this situation the engine is under relatively low load - certainly compared with say briskly pulling out into a roundabout. Factor in a frugal engine and suddenly you have a heavy car capable of maintaining steady speeds and achieve very high mpgs. Like my long commute.

Around town the whole game is reversed. The weight of the car becomes the dominant factor because we're constantly having to accelerate its mass up and down. We will be at quarter, or half, or more throttle to get the car up to speed over and over again. The mpgs plummet. Whereas to maintain a constant speed all we need do is overcome air resistance and the other losses, which tends to require far gentler throttle input.

And that's why it's cheaper to drive my diesel Superb to work than my wife's Smart car...

If id have wanted a road racer id have bought one, its torque that moves cars...

 

1.6tdi has 184lb ft @ 1500-2500rpm (249Nm?) which seems adequate and provides 75/80 mph cruising at 2100 rpm (approx) and my required mpg, 55-64 

My 2.0TSi has max torque of 266 lb/ft @ 3900 rpm, but it never falls below 200 lb/ft over the entire working range up to 6300 rpm.

Max power is 249 bhp @ 5844 rpm, but it makes 200 or more bhp from 3900 to 6500 rpm.

 

Before the remap, it made 214 lb/ft @ 3119 rpm & 211 bhp @ 5464 rpm.

 

So with more torque & power anywhere in it's operating range + no noticeable turbo-lag makes it quite nippy for those "red-mist" days,

or reasonably economical for the other 350 days in the year!  

 

When trying for economy it has achieved 41 / 42 mpg on a regular 18 mile trip, mostly on NSL single & dual carriagways, but if I'm

in a bit of a hurry it drops back to 35 / 37 mpg.

 

Doing the same journey in similar traffic condition my EOS usually returns 35mpg, but SWMBO's Octy2 vRS can show up to 44 mpg.

It's a smaller / lighter car with 40k miles, twice as much as my Superb, so it's probably a little bit looser.

 

All cars have remapped 2.0 TSi's & 6-speed DSG's, but the EOS has taller gearing with a much wider spread of gear ratios which "should"

be more economical but it's not, probably 'cos it's the heaviest & it's driven harder, being a sporty little coupe............

 

As had been said elsewhere, our total annual mileage is about 13k miles, so fuel consumption isn't such a high priority for us, but having

a decent amount of power / torque in reserve is important for the odd moments when there is "a need for speed".

 

DC 

with no 

re #26,  Love it. 

& for every up hill there must be a down hill, and driving in Norfolk or Holland is best of all for MPG, and low temperatures for better oxygen intake and lower road friction / grip. Pump the tyres up as well.

 

Its great for the economy going downhill from  Glasgow to Plymouth, you can coast 75% of the way but a hell of a climb heading back up towards  the magnetic north.

I always go for the 2 litre diesel, a good compromise between performance and economy. My S model is great on fuel , easily does high 50s at 70 mph

That's near to what I get. I normally return around 37/38. When new (24,000 miles ago) I got mid thirties on standard unleaded. After a couple of months I changed to super unleaded and have found the car more responsive. I bit more umph when I want it and also pottering around town I need to use less pedal to get going.

At the end of the day if you want economy buy diesel, if performance is what you are after then it's petrol.

People get too hung up on fuel economy.

 

 

The 2.5mpg difference between what you are getting versus what you'd like to get is negligible.

 

1 (UK) gallon = 4.55 litres.

 

Average UK fuel price (petrol) per litre is currently £1.02 (11th January 2016).

 

37.5 mpg would therefore cost you...

 

£1.02 x 4.55 = £4.64 / 37.5 = £0.123 per mile

 

40 mpg would therefore cost you...

 

£1.02 x 4.55 = £4.64 / 40.0 = £0.116 per mile

 

So assuming average annual mileage (12,000) the car is currently costing £1,485 on fuel.

 

If it managed your preferred economy it would cost £1,392 on fuel.

 

A whopping yearly saving of £93.

 

Far, far less than you'd lose by selling the car early.

 

Forget the fuel economy and enjoy the car for what it is, an effortless and reliable luxury barge.

 

I think this is one of the most sensible posts in this thread. 

 

The actual costs over the time of the car aren't worth changing it. I do 15k a year in a 1.8TSI and since owning it averaged 33MPG (recorded brim to brim method). See attached for the stats. 

I do 30 miles each way to work and back, with 18 roundabouts (!) each way! The TSI is 10MPG down on my old 2.0PD 140 Octavia but is much more pleasurable engine to drive with. Happy to rev, nice spread of torque and power, responsive and quiet when its needed to be. It has also been (touches wood) cheaper to run overall than my previous diesel cars as the maintenance costs are coming out at less. 

 

The Fabia 1.2TSI we now have is about as economical for my wife to drive to work as her previous mk1 Fabia vRS. And its not that much slower in the driving she does. But the insurance is lower and actually cheaper to tax and service!

 

Personally I can't see me heading back to diesel any time soon. Petrol is much nicer to drive imo.

Very methodical work there!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two things I've noticed with the TSi.  Both seem obvious, but they're worth reflecting on:

 

1. Change up before 2000rpm if you want decent economy.  If you just can't resist pushing beyond that (like me), then you WILL pay at the pumps.
2. The engine is VERY sensitive to operating temperature - even a slightly or vestigially warm engine will deliver markedly better economy; I've never noticed it to this extent on previous cars.  My car has to be parked outside, but if it was in a garage, I'd get one of those Kenlowe engine pre-heaters.

 

1. The engine is VERY sensitive to operating temperature - even a slightly or vestigially warm engine will deliver markedly better economy; I've never noticed it to this extent on previous cars.  My car has to be parked outside, but if it was in a garage, I'd get one of those Kenlowe engine pre-heaters.

 

 

You have a good point here. 

 

My poverty tsi does initially seem to have a drink problem :cocktail:  after starting from cold - especially this time of the year. Improves substantially after a few miles though.

 

Two things I've noticed with the TSi.  Both seem obvious, but they're worth reflecting on:

 

1. Change up before 2000rpm if you want decent economy.  If you just can't resist pushing beyond that (like me), then you WILL pay at the pumps.
2. The engine is VERY sensitive to operating temperature - even a slightly or vestigially warm engine will deliver markedly better economy; I've never noticed it to this extent on previous cars.  My car has to be parked outside, but if it was in a garage, I'd get one of those Kenlowe engine pre-heaters.

 

 

Agreed on both points. This morning I started it several minutes before leaving to begin warming it up. When I started off it was reading a whopping 6MPG

 

You have a good point here. 

 

My poverty tsi does initially seem to have a drink problem :cocktail:  after starting from cold - especially this time of the year. Improves substantially after a few miles though.

 

This is also true; once up to temperature the economy really does improve. 

 

I notice the 1.8TSI is slightly recalcitrant when cold and first started up. It's lumpy around 1800rpm until warm. 

You have a good point here. 

 

My poverty tsi does initially seem to have a drink problem :cocktail:  after starting from cold - especially this time of the year. Improves substantially after a few miles though.

I'd agree, if I do the 12 mile round trip to Tesco, with maybe an hour or more of shopping then I get 27/28 mpg, but on a regular 18 mile / 26 minute one-way trip

then I'll see 36 - 40 mpg , depending on traffic & average speed. 

 

One suggestion, that you activate the oil temperaIure display in the maxidot.

It can take 4/5 miles at cruising speed before it reaches the 50C mark. The water temp is usually up to 90C, in a mile or two, but that's only the cylinder head temperature,

whereas normal oil temperatures (90-105 C ) indicate that engine is hot enough to be as efficient as possible. 

 

DC