I picked up my DSG diesel yesterday and over the 290 mile journey home (mostly motorway but some A roads) I got over 57mpg average. I can't remember the average speed but didn't go much above 70 even with a clear road. Being new, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be running it in!

 

Regardless, I expected it to be worst being brand new, and am already disregarding some posts I read before about other owners not reaching over 45mpg ('ever' I think one person posted).

I picked up my DSG diesel yesterday and over the 290 mile journey home (mostly motorway but some A roads) I got over 57mpg average. I can't remember the average speed but didn't go much above 70 even with a clear road. Being new, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be running it in!

 

Regardless, I expected it to be worst being brand new, and am already disregarding some posts I read before about other owners not reaching over 45mpg ('ever' I think one person posted).

Congratulations. That is pretty reasonable mpg so it seems you have a 'good one'.

I would not disregard the poor mpg complaints, they are often from drivers who get good results from their other cars. I have experienced it myself.

Modern cars are very complex and it is not always easy to diagnose the issues involved especially when the dealers would consider a best of 45 mpg as quite reasonable, which for a modern diesel it is certainly not.

I would humbly suggest that there is either something wrong with your car, or your driving style. 

 

My wife isn't the best at looking ahead/reading the road, and she's a heavy foot; but she still manages 47-49 on the maxi-dot without trying. I got 51 over a 100 miles of mixed driving whilst still enjoying the performance...

 

There's not much you can do wrong when you sit at 56mph for 6 junctions on the M4?

 

I'm quite prepared to accept I've got a "wrong 'un", you win some and you lose some.

 

But reading other comments here, low 40s mpg seems to be quite common.......so there must be a lot of "wrong 'uns" out there.

I drove both back to back and bought the Diesel because with front wheel drive and a less than cutting edge chassis it struggles to put down 220 bhp in anything but bone dry conditions without a lot of feathering of the throttle and/or cutting in of T/C.  I'm sure over time you'd get used to it and drive around these limitations, but I felt the different power delivery of the diesel made for a smoother more progressive drive.  Albeit ultimately with less performance.

There's not much you can do wrong when you sit at 56mph for 6 junctions on the M4?

 

I'm quite prepared to accept I've got a "wrong 'un", you win some and you lose some.

 

But reading other comments here, low 40s mpg seems to be quite common.......so there must be a lot of "wrong 'uns" out there.

True. A steady 56, over a distance, with uphills balancing out downhills, should see much better than the low 40s. I'm not trying to have a dig at your driving style, but some people (like my wife) seem unable to grasp that harsh acceleration and braking, together with being in the wrong gear, has a huge impact on economy. I regularly get 10-15% better economy than my wife, and that's after taking into account that it's normally just her and a bag in the car when she's driving, and all the family and luggage when I am (it's her "daily", I run a 1959 Land-Rover as mine). Maybe one of the forum economy experts lives near enough to see if their driving style improves things with your car or not? If you've satisfied yourself that your right foot is not to blame, then the next logical step is the car.

I drove both back to back and bought the Diesel because with front wheel drive and a less than cutting edge chassis it struggles to put down 220 bhp in anything but bone dry conditions without a lot of feathering of the throttle and/or cutting in of T/C.  I'm sure over time you'd get used to it and drive around these limitations, but I felt the different power delivery of the diesel made for a smoother more progressive drive.  Albeit ultimately with less performance.

We test drove the 230 petrol, and it was quick, flexible and refined, but chose the diesel because ownership over time would work out cheaper and we both like the way modern performance diesels drive (we had a GTTdi Golf before the vRS Octavia). I'm not sure that in real-world driving conditions the diesel is any slower; the 380NM of torque makes the 50-70 (or 70-100) sprint effortless. It's probably only one extra gearchange from a standing start to 60 that costs the diesel that extra second; you win that back when you need to accelerate from 70 and you can do so without changing down...

It's horses for courses though, the diesel gives us an enormous amount of performance per pound. If I could afford a little more I might have plumped for the petrol instead, but then if I could afford a little more maybe I'd have bought an Audi...

Don't forget the 230 has a proper diff. Booting the 220 and 230 will be different entirely.

If the petrol came as a 4x4 then this argument would be moot. The difference in consumption between the petrol and diesel is minimal and is offset with the initial cost for the oil burner. The compromise argument should be about the drive in a sports model and the petrol wins

Also as we know the 220 like its vRS predecessors is a blank cavas

Many have taken the engine to bewildering performance beyond Golf R with tuners.

 

The 230 ediff may be of the cards for 220s but for sub £1k (yes thats not a lot) you could just get an aftermarket diff?

There is a lot that could potentially be done, I'll review when the warranty is up myself.

 

The petrol is always going to be the thoroughbred on performance

 

You can try to replicate the same with the diesel but unless you are into stinky locomotives a la Sin City Motors I'd say you always have the wrong car if you have a mind on performance. Unless you enjoy leaving smog trails in your wake.

 

Choosing the diesel is a compromise if you were buying on performance but you pay your money take your choice.

If you were more concerned about your wallet then go the diesel although even thats a gamble as diesel could be loaded by future tax decisions.

I think you'd be mad to get a diesel in the light of the current health issue focus on diesel etc.

I went to London from Harrogate on Wednesday and return the next day Via Leamington Spa.

 

 

95% motorways, I don't drive slow 70+  and 70 +++  and still managed a nice  average of 57 mpg for the whole trip. not bad.

 

Can't wait for my 230 though, I'll be aiming for the low 20's

Can't wait for my 230 though, I'll be aiming for the low 20's

 

Just to give you a target figure, I've just done my worst tank to date - 25.3mpg  :sun:

 

Gaz

True. A steady 56, over a distance, with uphills balancing out downhills, should see much better than the low 40s. I'm not trying to have a dig at your driving style, but some people (like my wife) seem unable to grasp that harsh acceleration and braking, together with being in the wrong gear, has a huge impact on economy. I regularly get 10-15% better economy than my wife, and that's after taking into account that it's normally just her and a bag in the car when she's driving, and all the family and luggage when I am (it's her "daily", I run a 1959 Land-Rover as mine). Maybe one of the forum economy experts lives near enough to see if their driving style improves things with your car or not? If you've satisfied yourself that your right foot is not to blame, then the next logical step is the car.

My daily commute doesn't vary; 6.5 miles through villages (30mph in 4th) followed by a 3.5 mile run down an A road with a 50mph limit (6th gear).

 

Return journey is 9 miles back up the M4 followed by a 1 mile drive down an A road (national speed limit, 6th gear).

 

43mpg solid.  You can set your watch by it.

 

I've no doubt I've got a "wrong 'un".......or maybe a "normal 'un" and it's a Skoda manipulation of the expected fuel economy numbers.

 

And this isn't a dig at Skoda; there doesn't seem to be any (effective) regulatory body that oversees motor vehicle manufacturers and the claims they make?

In the same way that a Mitsubishi PHEV gets 150 mpg and monkeys fly out of my butt.

I have a deep mistrust of any manufacturer claim on mpg. The only true calculation is the pump volume dispensed and the mileage your car trip meter displays, and even then, because half that data comes from the car, it probably lies

I get mid thirties in my tsi but I don't trust it.

Also, I don't care, because if you buy a tsi, you don't look at the mpg. You might as well sleep with a hooker repeatedly and them moan that you have a nasty rash.

Edited 30 July, 20169 yr by Mallettsmallett

I average 36mpg so far in my vrs230 estate DSG.

Edited 30 July, 20169 yr by KjetilRos

I average 36mpg so far in my vrs230 estate DSG.

33mpg in mine, 200 mile old.

33mpg in mine, 200 mile old.

Mines about 4500 miles. Delivered 6th june.

It is not entirely the manufacturers fault that consumption claims appear too optimistic as the official test regime is very soft.

No air-con required, no DPF regen as part of the test, ambient 20 degree temperature and a 'smooth' rolling road.

 

Although the test involves a (not very) cold start and a lot of stop/starts, the test is very specific on what gears and revs and acceleration rates are achieved, well at least for manuals, which is probably why some auto are reportedly more economical in the tests.

 

VW produce a very good document to encourage economical driving and give a full breakdown on a 1.4tsi (90kw) Golf official results. I have to say that the speed v consumption graph is almost identical to what I get in my 1.4tsi (103kw) Octavia so it is a bit difficult to be critical of their honesty in my case.

 

PHEV results in the official test are also representative but of course rubbish when you drive beyond the 50 km battery range.