10 hours ago, gregoir said:

I notice that in 50mph motorway sections the mpg is better in 5th gear when cruising in a queue. As you say  6th gear sees the mpg plummeting  when the loud pedal is pressed.

 

The fact you find 5th better in those circumstances surprises me but I guess there might be factors I am not encountering.

UK traffic tends to drive closer to the car in front than I find comfortable so the extra engine braking and acceleration in 5th for coping with constant traffic speed variations is better than 6th and using brakes(?).

 

Assuming I am on the flat (quite a lot where I live, I often don't even have to put on the handbrake when stationary) then 5th below about 40mph and always 6th above. By modern standards this car's 6th gear is not a particularly long one so it is accessible at low-ish speeds with a sympathetic right foot.

My logic on this one is very simple: there's an optimal point for power vs turbo. If it's at 1800rpm, then 80km/h in 6 may be less effective than 5. It's the only way I can explain that there's not a massive difference between 80 km/h and 100 as there is between 100 and 120 km/h. Wind resistance and physics stay the same, it can only be some efficiency issue. 

 

  - Bret

 

Not sure if I have mentioned this already (probably have somewhere) but about three weeks back I did the Dad's taxi service bit picking my daughter and partner from a late night session.

Only a 15 km round trip but I managed to just get under the 4L/100 average barrier for the first time, and caught two traffic lights (50%).

I did it the lazy way, cruise control set to speed limit of 60kph and 6th gear. 3.7L/100 going and 4.1L/100 coming back.

6th was about 0.2L/100 improvement on 5th in those circumstances.

I rented a 1.0 TSI 6 gears on the airport in January. Drove a total of 250 km and 120 km on the cruise control and speed 100-105 km / h and then in the town and local roads, and when I filled up so I filled up 12.2 liters . It was a snowy day and -7 degrees.  This is My ergarenhet of this car .

Now I am waiting for my new Octavia Estate 1.0 DSG7 

Edited 22 March, 20179 yr by mso1000

1000 miles in now...150 mile trip from Norfolk to Guildford. 57mpg. And that was with stop start for almost an hour on M25. Boot full and wife and two kids on board. AC on for short periods here and there...

 

Exceeding expectations at the moment. Couple of niggles...outside wind sound at high speed and relatively difficult to predict when engine cut off will kick in sometimes.  

 

Apart from these impressed. 

When the 1.0 was first announced I was glad that I'd got a 1.2 instead, but now I think I'm missing out! :-(

58.4mpg on the return journey. Averaging 56mpg on the current tank, which looks like it will travel just north of 500 miles...

My 1.4 gets 61mpg peak.

50-55mpg on long motorway runs.

Sounds like the 1.0 isn't that much better? Or maybe I'm mistaken.

Edited 11 April, 20179 yr by guitarman001

3 hours ago, guitarman001 said:

Min 1,4 blir 61mpg topp.

50-55mpg på långa motorvägskörningar.

Låter som 1,0 är inte så mycket bättre? Eller kanske jag är fel.

 

Svårt att jämföra olika förare  och olika förhållanden. 1,0 tsi känns mer kraftfull och det kanske man också använder.  På min bil (1,6tdi) när min fru kör den så förbrukar den 5% mer bränsle vid samma stads körning och när min son kör samma bil så förbrukar den 10% mer.  

will do some 120 km/h testing next week, with and without winter tyres.

 

Currently looks like 5.3l/100 with 120km/h limits, still on Winter tyres, with wind and ambient temps around 2C. I'd expect a little better on the way home, so around 5/100. Summer tyres and slightly higher temps should see that back to 4.7, I expect, but as said, I'll do some brim-to-brim testing next week. I need to drive four days and traffic should be pretty consistent. 

That translates back to 53mpg at 75mph with some town stuff, a good 10 miles at the Helsinki end. I fully expect to better 60 on the motorway next week if it's warm and the summer tyres are back on. I'd also expect to better 65 on quiet, dry A roads at 10C or so. If it's snowing, all bets are off

 

 - Bret

 

I understand your anticipation Brett, but those are pretty optimistic figures for high speeds.

The Octavia has reasonable aerodynamics but certainly not cutting edge, so it would be all down to engine efficiency.

I think I could match those consumption figures but would have to travel at some 10 to 20 kph lower speed.

Hopefully the weather keeps good for you and don't forget to get confirmation of actual consumption on the refuelling.

Edited 11 April, 20179 yr by Gerrycan

Saw this by chance on YouTube. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 11 April, 20179 yr by fergiet

.... and the wind was really strong on the way home, so I hit an average of 5.9. Meh.

 

Agreed, I'm being mildly optimistic. However, experience did tell me once upon a time that I really should drop 7-8% from the switch to summer tyres and the higher speeds see a 15-20% increase in consumption. 

 

Testing next week, then, it is....  Weather is unlikely to play ball, it was +0,5 on the way home and it started snowing.

 

 - Bret

this morning, despite -4C, 5.0 average on the way in. Let's see what happens this evening....

 

 - Bret

so I didn't change to summer tyres - it's currently around -2 outside - and I got some really wierd figures while driving in and home again. Wind didn't help.

 

The section to Helsinki at 120 seems to come in at around 6l/100. Then within Helsinki the drop to 100 and 80km/h and then traffic drops the average back towards 5.2-5.5. The implication - and I can't prove it at the moment - is that there's a 30% fuel penalty for 20km/h more (from 4.7 to 6 is around 33%). I'll have to look into the maths / physics to confirm, but that does seem quite significant. 

 

I'm fine with the tank average of around 5.5 for three day's worth of patrol to the office and back, would have been nice to get a little more.

 

 - Bret

Assuming the displays are accurate, both stated steady state speed consumptions are better than I have seen for any other petrol engine.

 

We have returned from a trip to see our daughter in the country and showed an average of 5.1L/100 for the tank for the 795 km travelled (the fuel display was showing two 'bars' over the red section and 200 km to empty) which all sort of agrees. Nothing over 110kph speeds and we took the longer scenic route with very empty roads, apart from the kangaroos in the evening that is.

Haven't refilled yet as local fuel prices went up over 20% while we were away and I'll wait for them to drop back again.

New car has arrived Sweden. 1.0 tsi style. DSG7.  18 "inch. Quiet and nice. Reporting will arrive soon.

 

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/836524.html

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/756137.html

Edited 25 May, 20179 yr by mso1000

On 22.03.2017 г. at 10:12, brettikivi said:

My logic on this one is very simple: there's an optimal point for power vs turbo. If it's at 1800rpm, then 80km/h in 6 may be less effective than 5. It's the only way I can explain that there's not a massive difference between 80 km/h and 100 as there is between 100 and 120 km/h. Wind resistance and physics stay the same, it can only be some efficiency issue. 

 

  - Bret

 

let me ask you to give an example.

For me (example 2.0 TDI) optimal speed is 110km/h, where wind resistance is ok, rpms are just where optimal torque starts 1750rpms. Do gou mean this, you mean something where hp meets torque?

 

For thw diesel actually torque curve starts to fall dramatically, where max hp is achieved.

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/836524.html

Current average for the 120km/h runs is around 5.5-6l/100, with 125-128km/h tacho and minimal traffic on the autobahn. Might yet get the opportunity to test some more in the next few weeks. On 12000kms. 

 

Will be doing a run mid-July up north, east and then back. That should be fully loaded an always 80-100km/h, so I'm hoping for a 4 at the front for that trip. Should be around 1500 kms; before that, it's time to go up north again anyway. Probably close to 20000kms by end August....  

 

 - Bret

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/836524.html   

Has just cut off more than 100 km of freeway speed and at turns from 140 to 150 km/h, and the car switches round from 7 to 5 gear and increases quite well indeed, but considering empty car. Changing pace between 110 to 140 with overtakes in 150 and a consumption of 0.72 in 110 km and 20 km city and speed cuts at 106 km / h on refueling ... can say there's no problem lying at 140-150 Or more on the cruise control if you want and dare.

 

Hope you understand, translated with google

 

 

so 800km is set for next week, 600+ for this weekend. Current summer tyre average according to the computer is 5.7, so around 49mpg. That's with a hell of a lot of traffic in Helsinki and quite a few shorter trips around Lahti. 

Will need to top it off Monday am, so maybe a pump-to-pump is possible for the "slow" stuff this weekend and again next week. Would be interesting to see the difference between 80-100 and 125 constant. 13000kms now, will add another 3k before July is out.

 

 

 - Bret

The problem with all these planned consumption proving runs is that life, the universe and everything gets in the way of what you want  to achieve.

I have never actually achieved a 1000km or over out of a tank with my 1.4tsi. When we do our irregular run out into the country I'll be getting the required ~5L/100 but that trip usually maxes out at 800km and then we are back in town doing our normal 2km short runs which will end up being annoyingly close but no medal.

There is an amusing thread in the Citigo section where a guy details his attempts to get 500 miles from his 40 litre tank, the frustrations and eventual success. Then someone else posts proof of getting 600 miles which was pretty damned good.

Citigo's have 35 litres tanks and fuel up the pipe unless built in South America and VW UP! with 50 litre tanks.

Edited 15 June, 20178 yr by Awayoffski

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/836524.html