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

[PetrolDave]

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. That's the future, and it's going to be a whole lot more believable than the current load of b*ll*cks that the official test cycles provide.

[ahenners]

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

Very true... But the point is that the official figures are obtained from a standardised test where the results of one car can be directly compared with others, because they were all tested under exactly the same conditions.

Far too many people talk about what they average, when their figure is a result of a combination of journeys, speeds and traffic conditions which almost nobody else can accurately replicate or match.

At least the "on a run" figure quoted by someone earlier in the topic can reasonably be replicated by others; a largely continuous speed on a long straight road, with next to no traffic/stops, for a few hours.

[SkodaVRS1963]

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.

 

No distortion of the truth.

 

I merely doubted the veracity of the claim.

 

50mpg out of a 300bhp petrol engine isn't possible; believe me.

 

If you think it is, go and post on pistonheads and see how long you last.

[GoneToBeemer]

Very true... But the point is that the official figures are obtained from a standardised test where the results of one car can be directly compared with others, because they were all tested under exactly the same conditions.

Far too many people talk about what they average, when their figure is a result of a combination of journeys, speeds and traffic conditions which almost nobody else can accurately replicate or match.

At least the "on a run" figure quoted by someone earlier in the topic can reasonably be replicated by others; a largely continuous speed on a long straight road, with next to no traffic/stops, for a few hours.

I've done 388 miles today - London to Blackpool, then Blackpool to Newcastle.

Brimmed the car before I left, filled up when I arrived.

Car showed 59.4 mpg on the computer, with an average speed of 66 mph.

Actual consumption was 50.7 mpg.

[GoneToBeemer]

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.

To be fair, I didn't know the ins and outs of the story around the "50 mpg in a VRS petrol" so please forgive my ignorance of not knowing everything - I was more referring to the fact that 50 mpg as a long journey average would be pretty unbelievable, given what I'm getting from a diesel (just put an updated post following my epic journey today!)

At no point did I put that my friend was "ragging" his 320d, I merely said he doesn't hang around, meaning more that he doesn't drive like he is driving miss Daisy, not that he drives like he stole it. His commute is around 50 miles a day (mainly motorway) and the point I was trying to make was around 2 people with comparable driving styles, 2 cars with Diesel engines coupled with auto boxes, his is considerably more efficient than mine is.

I think I would have to drive VERY carefully to get mine up to 60 mpg.

To your point on the chap who was labelled a troll - I'm not trying to come across like that at all, and to be fair there is some validity in what he is claiming in my opinion...it's not what you say though it's how you say it.

At the end of the day, it's a forum where there are hundreds of people, hundreds of different situations, and hundreds of different opinions...not everyone is going to agree!

Have a good weekend all!

Edited 7 October, 2016 by vtec to vrs!

[Rodge]

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

Forums always attract fanboys,

You've been labelled a troll for labelling everyone you disagree with as "a fanboy".

[Gerrycan]

No distortion of the truth.

I merely doubted the veracity of the claim.

50mpg out of a 300bhp petrol engine isn't possible; believe me.

If you think it is, go and post on pistonheads and see how long you last.

Your distortion of facts was that he was getting 50 mpg from a 300 pa engine whereas his claim was that he once saw the consumption under idealised circumstances. Big difference.

I am not trying change your opinion, just improve your manners.

[FlyingGecko]

Anyway. Back to the original topic title.

 

6500 miles, overall 34.94 mpg, best tankful 41.3, worst 30.4.  How do I drive? Within speed limits generally, or the prevailing traffic speed, whichever is most practical and licence-friendly.

But the needle often hits the red line and I enjoy using the paddles on roads in the middle of nowhere.

[SkodaVRS1963]

Your distortion of facts was that he was getting 50 mpg from a 300 pa engine whereas his claim was that he once saw the consumption under idealised circumstances. Big difference.

I am not trying change your opinion, just improve your manners.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

AA RoutePlanner puts a Sheffield to Edinburgh trip at around 250 miles and taking 4hr 40mins........so it's not just a case of sticking the cruise control at 68mph and driving the entire journey at that constant speed.

 

The guy making the claim did so for a reason - but if you post something that is so obviously suspect on a public forum then you should expect it to be challenged.

 

It's called healthy debate - the snowflakes here might not grasp that premise.

[dsj20v]

My leon st 290 is a week old and know it's new but struggles to get to 30mpg, I've had 33 but with granny driving

[SkodaVRS1963]

My leon st 290 is a week old and know it's new but struggles to get to 30mpg, I've had 33 but with granny driving

 

Maybe you should get it chipped to 300bhp and then you'll be cruising.............apparently.

[dsj20v]

Well by all accounts they are generally 300-310 but if I do get mapped to 350 hopefully I'll get 50mpg

[Leeboy22001]

I managed 44.7mpg today :-), average speed 50mph over 20 mile journey, mix of town and dual carriage way

[Leeboy22001]

I got 46.9mpg on my usual way home, tank was almost empty (40 miles left in it), so may have helped !

[Ant-Vrs]

I've just got 196 miles to £30 of tesco 99 fuel and 20 miles lefted In the tank.

[ahenners]

I managed an indicated 45mpg both ways on a return trip to Cambridge earlier this week, without particularly trying in my MK2 FL TSI. Hoping my MK3 DSG TSI is as good or better.

[Leeboy22001]

Good going :-), does amaze me how many mpg you can get from the tsi, considering the power it can produce on tap !.. my old 20vt struggled to get 32mpg doing the same route, and driving as carefully as possible!

[marko]

my new 230 is doing about 25mpg at the moment and that's not thrashing it, I do hope it improves like my dealer says it will after running in!

 

Mark.

[loveman]

I am a town driver and averaged between 27 - 28 mpg. I once got 42 mpg on a run to inverness with average speed cameras for a large part of the journey. Don't believe skoda's claimed mpg figures petrol vrs is a thirsty beast.

[Auric Goldfinger]

Just done a 190 mile round trip in my 230 ( 300 miles on the clock )  70/80 ( In 6th ) mph and returned a Average fuel reading ( Maxi Dot ) of 35 mpg

[Redboy]

My leon st 290 is a week old and know it's new but struggles to get to 30mpg, I've had 33 but with granny driving

290 Bhp and fuel economy aren't words that I'd associate together. The VRS TSI should only be bought by people who don't agonise over fuel costs. All modern powerful family cars return fairly decent economy. Now if you'd driven a Triumph 2.5 PI or 3.8 S Type you would have cause for complaint.....

Edited 29 October, 2016 by Redboy

[stanian]

Just come back from cornwall, 4 persons and a boot full of luggage. I have used 28 litres of fuel and covered 270 Miles this was at an average speed of 51 MPH due to traffic queues and roadworks. Between the queues and roadworks was travelling at about 70-75MPH. This works out at an MPG of 43.54, based on actual fuel used and miles covered.

[flybynite]

As I think I have said before, economy from modern turbo engines relies on the use (or not) of boost. A small engine, getting its power from the turbo is back to being a small engine when not on boost and entirely capable of good economy even if it is capable of high power on boost.

 

The trick is driving it in such a way that it stays in low or no boost. Not as easy as it first seems. It should be entirely possible to get a car to silly speeds without too much use of the turbo. If you labour the car it will be boosting and not getting anywhere, same as the accelerate - back off - accelerate - back off type of driving.

 

In days when we had big boost gauges (and even bigger turbo lag) it was easier to feel when you were approaching boost and stay away from it if you needed to stretch a tank of petrol. There was also a bigger benefit then as boost was overfuelled more to richen the mixture, cars stay scarily close to stoich' at full boost these days so there is slightly less benefit to staying off boost.

 

There are people (some in my family  ) who seem to do all of the above, foot down on boost and not getting any where as they back off before the effect kicks in. Just the same as people who saw their way round a bend with the steering chewing their front tyres. (They tend to be the same people, the end result is the same just the getting there uses fuel/tyres)

 

In days gone by it was harder to see as you needed data-loggers, but these days the likes of VCDS can log many things and can show people how they drive and it makes a huge difference

 

We change machines and drivers around regularly. Good/bad economy follows the driver not the machine through the changes. The difference can be quite surprising given similar average speeds.

Edited 29 October, 2016 by flybynite

[marko]

sounds like a silly question but is there any benefit to driving around in eco mode? has anyone made any notes from driving in all 3 modes? I find normal mode is fine for most occasions, I tried sport mode for the 1st time the other day and the sound generator just annoyed me and somewhat masked any advantage of going faster as that's all that I noticed!

[Leeboy22001]

Driving round town does drink petrol, I get between 25-28mpg, longer runs is where I get the higher mpg