MKIII VRS TSI drivers getting more than 30Mpg...how do you drive?!

[SkodaVRS1963]

Now, since the car has been run in I've been 'enjoying' it considerably more. With my last tank of fuel I got 35mpg with a mixture of driving and hard acceleration at times.

So, 1963, you're talking out your anal sphincter, my friend ????

 

You aren't claiming to get 50mpg out of a chipped 220bhp > 300bhp engine?  You're claiming you got 35mpg.

 

I don't understand why you're being disrespectful just because I questioned something that was so obviously impossible to achieve?

Edited 2 October, 2016 by SkodaVRS1963

[Skyrat]

Ok, I apologise. The OP says 30mpg, which is easily achievable. You seemed to question this

[SC03OTT]

FYI. I drove from Dunfermline to Dundee this weekend. 41MPG.

#bullsh*t #fanboy

[GainfulShrimp]

Petrols are much more thirsty. And much more fun too imho.

 

I had a mk2 Leon FR TFSI 2.0 DSG before my current treehugger 1.6 diesel version, and it was fantastic fun, but at the time I did >30k miles per year and really struggled to keep the FR fuelled.  Driving carefully, I could get about 30mpg.  Any heavy traffic on my route combined with a couple of spirited uses of S mode on the DSG for overtaking and country lane rollercoaster roads etc, would see it drop to mid-to-high 20s.  

I read up about hypermiling (perhaps I should get out more) and tried to use all the techniques for a bit: driving with load (i.e. constant engine load, variable speed), avoiding cruise control (which does the opposite and keeps speed constant by varying load excessively), very careful and smooth use of accelerator, accelerating at just the right pace (too slow and too fast both cost more fuel), I even used to hang behind lorries on long straights... and I could manage 41mpg over the tankful if I was lucky.  

 

It just wasn't worth it; I couldn't enjoy the car if I drove it in a manner that I could *almost* afford to fuel it.  So I switched to a much slower diesel version.  My insurance costs dropped through the floor and I could suddenly afford to run a car again.  (The free tax disc was a nice cherry on top, but a drop in the ocean compared to fuel and insurance savings tbh.)

It was a hard decision, as I bloody loved my FR when I used it properly, but couldn't keep up with its thirst for super-unleaded (the TFSI I had never really liked standard petrol, which hurt the wallet even worse!)...

 

Nowadays, the James May side of me loves to try to get >60mpg average over a tankful, and I regularly achieve that with my Ecomotive - I use the Road Trip app on my phone to work out real mpg from odometer readings and fuel receipts, so I know the trip computer isn't bull****ting me.  I got 63.5mpg average over a tankful recently.  I still do a lot of miles - a mix of country B roads, dual carriageway and a small amount of urban.

 

Moral of the story - if you've got a lovely car with a powerful petrol engine, have fun and enjoy it ffs!  If you're doing too many miles to justify the subsequent fuel bills, face up to it and get an oil-burning version of the same.  

And if you get obsessed with mpg like I did (oddly fun in itself after a while, I'm almost ashamed to admit), you probably should just accept it and enjoy the cheaper insurance, tax and fuel bills.

 

I can't wait to see what long term mpg I can squeeze out of my Greenline III Estate, when I get it (and once it's run in etc).  Sad but true!

[Leeboy22001]

I had a seat leon fr PD150 (stage one 190BHP) before my petrol VRS, was a great car, good mpg, long term average of 46MPG. I had planned to get the VRS 184 diesel, took it for a test drive and liked it, had a bit more oomph then my leon. Then that night I spotted the petrol 220, with all the extras I wanted including full leather red trim seats, which give it a luxury feel and quality!, and thought why not give it a test drive, and the rest is history!.. it gave me that buzz again I remember when I had an old seat leon 20vt 180BHP, that I never got from either diesel !.. just the way it pulls hard right up the rev range and makes your Heart race !.. yes there is no denying it will cost more in fuel to run, but I only do 10k a year, and the cost to me justifies the extra fun you get in return :-)

[vRSNZ]

Scenic Drive, Godley Road, Blockhouse Bay Road.....

I'll look out for you on Kinross

 

Did 7.4L this monring, traffic is everything. School Holidays.

 

Yes.. I need to get out more.

 

We must all travel at different times... but pretty much the same route!

[Item]

We must all travel at different times... but pretty much the same route!

 

I see a red VRS Wagon coming in the opposite direction sometimes in the morning...

[vRSNZ]

I see a red VRS Wagon coming in the opposite direction sometimes in the morning...

 

Yep, I've seen that one as well (guessing it's the same one... don't see too many red)... also other steel/meteor grey & a black one lurking around Titirangi.

[Item]

Yep, I've seen that one as well (guessing it's the same one... don't see too many red)... also other steel/meteor grey & a black one lurking around Titirangi.

 

My metallic grey has been known to lurk in Titirangi on occasion...

[snala]

In NZ too. I swapped TDI VRS for the 206 TSI DSG motor and I am getting 9.1L on average and got 7.3L on trip to Ruapehu etc so depends how you drive.

Interesting thing in comparison to the VRS is that it is 2200rpm at 100kph (62mph) vs <2000 in the Petrol VRS, DSG (TDI manual I had was 1700rpm).

 

News though is that Skoda NZ rung another VRS owner yesterday saying Golf R motor Octavia VRS AWD is out next year as standard order car, not a special. Ties in with the face lift timing.

Can't see anyone talking about it here so.....

Edited 4 October, 2016 by snala

[Gerrycan]

In NZ too. I swapped TDI VRS for the 206 TSI DSG motor and I am getting 9.1L on average and got 7.3L on trip to Ruapehu etc so depends how you drive.

Interesting thing in comparison to the VRS is that it is 2200rpm at 100kph (62mph) vs <2000 in the Petrol VRS, DSG (TDI manual I had was 1700rpm).

 

News though is that Skoda NZ rung another VRS owner yesterday saying Golf R motor Octavia VRS AWD is out next year as standard order car, not a special. Ties in with the face lift timing.

Can't see anyone talking about it here so.....

Sorry, I got a bit confused with some of the info in your post.

So have you changed from a diesel RS Octavia to a 4WD Superb (206kw petrol)?

If so then the lower gearing in top gear is a big surprise, but the mpg is still surprisingly good.

 

The bit about a petrol AWD vRS Octavia might well be a 'scoop'. It will really (and justifiably) p off the poms if it not offered in their market as there are currently no petrol AWD models offered at all.

[Item]

News though is that Skoda NZ rung another VRS owner yesterday saying Golf R motor Octavia VRS AWD is out next year as standard order car, not a special.

 

Can't justify an upgrade after just 6 months dammit!

[snala]

Sorry, I got a bit confused with some of the info in your post.

So have you changed from a diesel RS Octavia to a 4WD Superb (206kw petrol)?

If so then the lower gearing in top gear is a big surprise, but the mpg is still surprisingly good.

 

The bit about a petrol AWD vRS Octavia might well be a 'scoop'. It will really (and justifiably) p off the poms if it not offered in their market as there are currently no petrol AWD models offered at all.

Hi GC. I won't lie but lets say I kind of have a Superb 206..... but it has LED head lights, progressive steering, darker interior roof lining and Golf R seats and steering wheel at a Superb 206 price..... Yep, Passat TSI AWD 206 you will get in November over there. Would have bought the Superb but after having progressive steering on the VRS which is really nice, it was the first thing I missed in the Superb 206 as I drove it.  

 

If SNZ had mentioned the petrol VRS AWD, when I was minutes off buying the VRS TDI AWD wagon over here that they wouldn't up spec with ACC for me 8 weeks ago, then maybe I would still be driving a Skoda!

Edited 5 October, 2016 by snala

[SkodaVRS1963]

Ok, I apologise. The OP says 30mpg, which is easily achievable. You seemed to question this

 

Cross purposes at play here I think.

 

I was questioning post #6 in THIS THREAD

 

Nothing to do with the OP.

[GoneToBeemer]

If you drive fairly steadily on a motorway run, low 40's should be achievable - I used to get an indicated 42/43 and that was on my MK2 FL TSI. In reality that would have been 38/39 given how the computer will overstate economy as a generalisation.

Expect to cut 5/6 mpg off that if you have DSG.

Don't believe for one second anyone in TSI is achieving 50mpg, even indicated, let alone real world MPG.

On a very steady run, my 150 DSG diesel is only managing mid 50's real world economy.

[Gerrycan]

If you drive fairly steadily on a motorway run, low 40's should be achievable - I used to get an indicated 42/43 and that was on my MK2 FL TSI. In reality that would have been 38/39 given how the computer will overstate economy as a generalisation.

Expect to cut 5/6 mpg off that if you have DSG.

Don't believe for one second anyone in TSI is achieving 50mpg, even indicated, let alone real world MPG.

On a very steady run, my 150 DSG diesel is only managing mid 50's real world economy.

Two questions:

1) Can you explain to me why a DSG would be less efficient than a manual at steady speed cruising. I own and prefer manuals so genuinely curious because even when driving a four speed torque converter box and you got it 'locked in' then I found economy was little different to a manual at that speed.

 

2) What is your definition of a very steady run? Average speed wise to get some context to the mid 50's return?

[GoneToBeemer]

Two questions:

1) Can you explain to me why a DSG would be less efficient than a manual at steady speed cruising. I own and prefer manuals so genuinely curious because even when driving a four speed torque converter box and you got it 'locked in' then I found economy was little different to a manual at that speed.

 

2) What is your definition of a very steady run? Average speed wise to get some context to the mid 50's return?

 

I've found DSG to be a lot less efficient, as traditionally automatics are - even Extra Urban consumption Skoda call 8MPG deficit vs. manual on the 2.0 TDI 150 engine. I'm not an expert, but there is clearly a difference, and I think (by experience only) the DSG is a lot less efficient than Skoda actually claim. My friend's 320d auto gets far better economy than I do, and he doesn't hang around.

 

Steady run would be constant motorway driving - I frequently do the London to Birmingham trip up the M40, anywhere between 70-85 MPH will see me returning around 53 mpg quite easily. If I start putting my foot down properly to overtake etc, can see that dip fairly easily into the high 40's.

[PetrolDave]

Two questions:

1) Can you explain to me why a DSG would be less efficient than a manual at steady speed cruising. I own and prefer manuals so genuinely curious because even when driving a four speed torque converter box and you got it 'locked in' then I found economy was little different to a manual at that speed.

One factor is that a DSG has two layshafts (one for the odd gears and one for the even gears) which are both always turning but a conventional gearbox only has one layshaft.

[old newbie2]

I've found DSG to be a lot less efficient, as traditionally automatics are - even Extra Urban consumption Skoda call 8MPG deficit vs. manual on the 2.0 TDI 150 engine. I'm not an expert, but there is clearly a difference, and I think (by experience only) the DSG is a lot less efficient than Skoda actually claim. My friend's 320d auto gets far better economy than I do, and he doesn't hang around.

 

Steady run would be constant motorway driving - I frequently do the London to Birmingham trip up the M40, anywhere between 70-85 MPH will see me returning around 53 mpg quite easily. If I start putting my foot down properly to overtake etc, can see that dip fairly easily into the high 40's.

We have had 4 different 2.0TSi's with the 6-speed DSG.

 

The worse long-term average is the Golf R, at 33.5 mpg, not too surprising perhaps as it's only done 2400 miles so far.

SWMBO's old '11 plate vRS FL managed 38, but that's not too surprising given that it had covered 41K miles.

The '10 plate EOS at 29K miles is showing 35 mpg @ 29K miles & my '12K Superb is a little better at 36 mpg.

 

We've also owned two '07 plate 2.0 TFSi + manual 6-speed cars, an EOS & a vRS Octy2.

The manual EOS never average better than 33 mpg, but the lighter Octy averaged 35 / 36 over two years of ownership.

 

All the above cars were remapped by AMD Tuning, (except the Golf R....) & were / are driven sensibly but briskly where possible.

 

It's quite probable that the increase in torque after the remaps may have helped, all the remapped cars were / are much nicer to drive,

& didn't "need" to be spun up to the red line to make good progress.

 

The R is, as yet unmodified, & the much bigger turbo may have a little more lag tan the others, but it still pulls very well at low engine speeds,

& copes quite well with DSG's obsession with early shift-up rpm (2K).

 

We don't have an unlimited fuel budget, & we wouldn't have bought 4 DSG fitted cars if their fuel consumption was noticeably worse than our manuals.

 

One final point, during our last round of test drives we "had" to drive diesel Superbs, 'cos that's what the dealers were allocated as demonstrators &

were not overly impressed with the DSG + diesel combination.

We spent some time in a 150 PS diesel, which was quite acceptable, but the 190's seemed to be ill-matched to the transmissions, no real "go" &

unimpressive economy as well.

 

Never tried a diesel vRS Octy, or a Golf GTD, because apart from the better economy, & since we only do app. 10K mile per year between us, we can't see the point

in running a "sporty" 4-cylinder diesel...

 

Cheers, DC. 

[SkodaVRS1963]

Don't believe for one second anyone in TSI is achieving 50mpg, even indicated, let alone real world MPG.

 

Alas, I have already been labelled "a troll" for daring to question the claim.

 

As my dear old, lately departed, dad used to say: "there's nowt so queer as folk".

 

Forums always attract fanboys, it's a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff............

[Gerrycan]

One factor is that a DSG has two layshafts (one for the odd gears and one for the even gears) which are both always turning but a conventional gearbox only has one layshaft.

 

That may be but the official consumption claims for the 7 speed dry DSG (on the 1.4tsi at least) is markedly better than the manual version.

The wet 6 speed version on the vRS tsi has marginally worse consumption than the manual so vtectovrs is probably right the 6 speed DSG is not quite as efficient as the dry version at least.

[PetrolDave]

That may be but the official consumption claims for the 7 speed dry DSG (on the 1.4tsi at least) is markedly better than the manual version.

The wet 6 speed version on the vRS tsi has marginally worse consumption than the manual so vtectovrs is probably right the 6 speed DSG is not quite as efficient as the dry version at least.

But official fuel consumption tests do not in any way shape or form represent real world conditions.

[Gerrycan]

Don't believe for one second anyone in TSI is achieving 50mpg, even indicated, let alone real world MPG.

On a very steady run, my 150 DSG diesel is only managing mid 50's real world economy.

 

 

I've found DSG to be a lot less efficient, as traditionally automatics are - even Extra Urban consumption Skoda call 8MPG deficit vs. manual on the 2.0 TDI 150 engine. I'm not an expert, but there is clearly a difference, and I think (by experience only) the DSG is a lot less efficient than Skoda actually claim. My friend's 320d auto gets far better economy than I do, and he doesn't hang around.

 

Steady run would be constant motorway driving - I frequently do the London to Birmingham trip up the M40, anywhere between 70-85 MPH will see me returning around 53 mpg quite easily. If I start putting my foot down properly to overtake etc, can see that dip fairly easily into the high 40's.

 

You do know that the original post for the 50mpg return was from a maxidot display for specific 250(ish) mile trip on a Motorway at cruise set below the speed limit. It was later verified that the driver got somewhere around 43mpg for the tank on refill.

The owner also makes no special claim for his general consumption other than it generally exceeds the 30mpg relevant to this post.

Now it may be that the Maxidot may be a little optimistic and he may have only achieved 48mpg which is still pretty darn good and far from fanciful in the circumstances.

Yet you dismiss it and expect us to believe your claim that your friend's 320d auto get far better economy despite ragging it. Unless you drive around on each other's bumper and compare mpg at the end of every trip why should that original statement be an acceptable standard of evidence of anything?

 

Sorry but SkodaVRS1963 was labelled a troll by others in another thread and continues to twist and distort the truth of the matter.

 

As far as your own fuel returns are concerned well 53mpg also seems pretty good for the speeds you quote. You do realise that if you obeyed the speed limit then you would probably get 60 mpg.

[Gerrycan]

But official fuel consumption tests do not in any way shape or form represent real world conditions.

 

Nonsense, it represents at least one form of real world conditions.

The trouble is there are an almost infinite number of different 'real world conditions'

 

It is very flawed but it is all we have got.

Edited 7 October, 2016 by Gerrycan

[PetrolDave]

Nonsense, it represents at least one form of real world conditions.

It's not a real world that anyone living outside of a test lab would recognise.

 

I used to be a senior manager at an automotive consultancy, and I never met anyone in the automotive industry who would admit in private they in any way represent what anyone other than the most enthusiastic hypermiler can achieve - which isn't surprising when you consider that they EXCLUDE cold starting, wind resistance, accelerating at a rate that will not get another vehicle inside your boot, etc.

 

All you need to do is read the motoring press to see how unrealistic the mpg figures are, which the industry is acknowledging by switching over (slowly) to consumption and emissions figures measured on real roads and not on rollers in a climatically controlled chamber.