1.4 TSI "real world" MPG

[Gadget007]

I once received a friendly warning, but not booked, for speeding when a police car pulled up beside me at some traffic lights. In my defence it was a steep hill and I did not have a speedo on my bicycle. Wish I had a GoPro to record the incident.

 

I must have met the same officer as I too was pulled up for speeding on my bicycle, going down a steep hill.  He said i was speeding to which i replied "was I, didn't know as my bike doesn't have a speedo".  He then then said I should have been able to estimate my speed in relation to the traffic around me, but I told him that all the cars were passing me, he let me go with a warning.

[Railroad]

We have a 2018 Superb 1.4TSi 150BHP manual hatch. Yesterday I drove 300 miles from home to Canterbury and back, and the average MPG on the dash for that journey was 55.4.

Edited 23 April, 2018 by Railroad

[Gerrycan]

1 hour ago, Railroad said:

We have a 2018 Superb 1.4TSi 150BHP manual hatch. Yesterday I drove 300 miles from home to Canterbury and back, and the average MPG on the dash for that journey was 55.4.

Remarkably good for a petrol isn't it, you probably did not try too hard either.

Unlike the 1.4tsi in the Octavia your car has cylinder deactivation to two cylinders, but comments I have read suggest that those with ACD (including the new 1.5tsi) can get better consumption in Normal mode than Eco because it is more likely to run at slightly higher revs and lighter engine loads so the cylinder deactivation kicks in more frequently rather than lugging in lower revs on four cylinders.

Have you experimented with that?

 

 

[Railroad]

I try to keep it in two cylinder mode as much as possible. Interesting that they'll achieve better MPG in Normal mode rather than ECO though. I'll give that a go. Yesterday's journey was a mix of motorways and A roads. Our Superb has Adaptive Cruise Control, and I did make a lot of use if it, driving mainly between 50 and 70mph. It's a fantastic engine. I'd recommend it over a diesel any day.

[skippy41]

Here is mine

Edited 24 April, 2018 by skippy41

[Lingnoi]

1.4 TSI DSG 140 - my commute is all traffic lights and queues, very stop start. There I manage 34 MPG. I drive gently and accelerate gently.

 

Longer clearer runs I get well over 40 MPG without problem. Even late 40's but I've yet to top 50.

 

It's an economical cruiser and not bad around town but it's a heavy big car so town driving isn't the best.

 

But I came from a 56 plate BMW 320i. My Skoda has better performance and is way more economical than that was.

[domhnall]

my 1.4 tsi 150 2015 manual estate tells me it is doing 50.1 Mpg but my measured performance is shown below in fuelly and it is not 50.1 :-)  more like 43mpg. I mainly do journeys of around 15 miles on A roads but once a week do a run on dual carriageway sitting at 70 when traffic permits. 

 

Edited 24 April, 2018 by domhnall

[Gerrycan]

18 hours ago, domhnall said:

my 1.4 tsi 150 2015 manual estate tells me it is doing 50.1 Mpg but my measured performance is shown below in fuelly and it is not 50.1 :-)  more like 43mpg. I mainly do journeys of around 15 miles on A roads but once a week do a run on dual carriageway sitting at 70 when traffic permits. 

 

That is one of the larger variances from reported to actual I can recall. Usually there is another factor involved such as having installed a DTUK box where optimistic consumption displays are a byproduct of manipulating the sensor outputs for improved performance.

You are not going by the 'Long-term' display for the average are you? That resets automatically after only 99hours so your reading may have been soon after your dual carriageway run.

[domhnall]

On 4/25/2018 at 08:52, Gerrycan said:

That is one of the larger variances from reported to actual I can recall. Usually there is another factor involved such as having installed a DTUK box where optimistic consumption displays are a byproduct of manipulating the sensor outputs for improved performance.

You are not going by the 'Long-term' display for the average are you? That resets automatically after only 99hours so your reading may have been soon after your dual carriageway run.

 

nothing extra installed on the car, I don't really pay much attention to the fule figures shown since I track consumption via fuelly. I didn't know about the 99 hour thing, that may well be behind it. 

[ccosmin]

I have 1.4 O3 FL with 225/45/R18 Tires, 2.3 pressure set. I think with tires 205/55/R16 tires I would get better mileage, but looks over efficiency

 

Driving in the city I usually get around 25-28 MPG- UK. This is with traffic and normal driving. If I'm trying to drive more "carefully" I can get around 31-35 MPG-UK.

I sometimes get 40 MPG but in very light traffic.

On the highway with speeds up to 80 mph I get in average 47 MPG

If I lower the speed to 70 MPG I get around  50-52 MPG.

[BigK]

I'm surprised the efficiency isnt better of the 1.4 TSI in my Manual VRS 2.0 TSi I average around 43MPG per tank which is a 50/50 town/motorway driving. On a motorway run I get around 48mpg+ sitting in cruise @ 70mph I've cracked 51mpg when theres been a lot of 50mph avg speed camera zones.

[classic]

Mine had been averaging 41.6mpg in eco mode, measured tank to tank using the Fuelly App.

I changed it to normal mode last week after reading this thread. Just filled up and my average for the last tank on fuelly has gone up to 44.4mpg. I have done more or less exactly the same journeys. I noticed straight away after reverting to normal that a couple of individual journeys were showing over 50 mpg on the trip computer, I had never seen it go beyond high fourties before. The trip computer is about 3 mpg optimistic compared to the fuelly results.

Its not very scientific but I’ll be leaving it normal mode.

[Lingnoi]

4 hours ago, classic said:

The trip computer is about 3 mpg optimistic compared to the fuelly results.

 

I make a note of the details of every fuel purchase (filled to the brim every time) and use a spreadsheet. I completely concur, the trip computer is about 3MPG optimistic compared to actual measurement.

[Gerrycan]

16 hours ago, BigK said:

I'm surprised the efficiency isnt better of the 1.4 TSI in my Manual VRS 2.0 TSi I average around 43MPG per tank which is a 50/50 town/motorway driving. On a motorway run I get around 48mpg+ sitting in cruise @ 70mph I've cracked 51mpg when theres been a lot of 50mph avg speed camera zones.

Your 70mph consumption figure is a little better than that claimed by most 2.0tsi users and almost identical  to what I have always calculated for my 1.4tsi at a true 110kph (68mph) on the flat.

Honestly I would expect them to be reasonably close at UK highway speeds and possibly go in the 2.0tsi favour at continental highway speeds.

My logic is that the cars are of identical shape (cd) and maybe a 100kg difference in weight (which makes little difference at a constant speed on the flat) so they would both require circa 30kw of power at that speed to overcome the principal factor of aerodynamic drag. I think the greater reserves of power of the 2.0tsi should make it more efficient at higher outputs than the 1.4tsi

At 50mph my 1.4tsi (and I presume others) displays around 60mpg (although I'm not sure how accurate it is at those lower consumptions) which I think makes sense as you have reduced the aerodynamic factor significantly and the frictional losses of the engines become more important where I would expect the smaller capacity 1.4tsi to have lower losses than the 2.0tsi and reflect in better consumption.

Surprised they have not put cylinder deactivation on the 2.0tsi yet.

Edited 28 April, 2018 by Gerrycan

[Gerrycan]

8 hours ago, Lingnoi said:

 

I make a note of the details of every fuel purchase (filled to the brim every time) and use a spreadsheet. I completely concur, the trip computer is about 3MPG optimistic compared to actual measurement.

Up to about 20,000 km my 1.4tsi consumption display was consistently pessimistic by about 2%. Now at near 45,000 km I think it has dropped back to about 2% optimistic. 

The types of journey (fewer long runs and more very short runs) have changed a lot in that time so that may be a factor?.

Edited 28 April, 2018 by Gerrycan

[Ootohere]

Maybe an ickle change in the total circumference of the tyres as well.

[Gerrycan]

6 hours ago, Offski said:

Maybe an ickle change in the total circumference of the tyres as well.

The slight reduction of the tyres circumference (less than 2%?) from wear would result in slightly lower real distance covered and slightly lower speed relative to what the car 'thinks' it is doing. In that case you would expect the consumption display to become more optimistic rather than less optimistic that I've experienced. I have only just put new tyres on and have not had an opportunity to reassess consumption display accuracy.