Hi,

 

I currently own an Sel executive. I was wondering have any fellow owners any feedback in terms of driving modes in relation to fuel consumption? I normally drive my car in Sports Mode, however recently I have began driving in eco mode. I was just wondering what most drivers pick as their driving mode & indeed has anyone found a sweet spot in terms of performance & eco whilst playing about with the individual mode settings/options?

 

thanks in advance.

This refers to a DSG equipped car....

Sport is more fun but thirsty.

Eco is a waste of time IMHO as it keeps the engine idling on the overrun instead of cutting fuel (as most injection systems have done since the 1980s).  I found my fuel economy was worse in Eco.

I keep mine in Normal all the time and use the paddles if I need to get into a better position power wise.

SE-L is a trim level. What engine and gearbox are you talking about?  As Felis said, sport mode is a comparative fuel monster as it keeps you in the top half of the rev range to, predictably, keep the power up (and thus use more fuel). You'll get more economy difference by miles (literally) in the way you drive, not what mode you drive in.

 

Extra weight in the car, properly inflated tyres, no roof box or unnecessary drag, looking far down the road and anticipating hazards to keep the momentum up, and taking the lane of least resistance etc will all give you far more gains than a few settings on the car's electronics. It's also better to accelerate briskly (anything up to full throttle, but upshifting at ~2,000rpm) than to accelerate slowly in most cases, though you'll find it better to take it relatively easy until the engine's warm. On any journey, most of the fuel will be used getting the car moving, so easing off much earlier - not braking - and coasting up to red lights etc (allowing you to keep moving and pick up the speed again without stopping) will save the most over the course of a journey.

 

Generally speaking, you'd ironically be better off forgetting 'trying' to do well on fuel by being ultra slow and 'careful' with the throttle, and instead simply REALLY extending your vision and awareness, and trying to hit maximum A-B times / highest average speed on a journey (nb: higher average speed doesn't need to mean exceeding limits). Doing so you'll tend to accelerate promptly, aim for all the gaps in traffic, avoid queues (taking the outside lanes), time lights so they're always green, and always keep moving. You'll get there quicker but ironically usually end up saving fuel. I can add 5mpg+ doing that on a run without too much gridlocked traffic. 

 

Driving at over 65mph you use a large percentage extra fuel for every extra 5mph you travel. Driving at 70mph uses 25% more fuel than driving at 50mph. Driving at 80mph uses up to 20% more fuel than driving at 70mph, yet saves only 42 mins on a 400 mile cross-country journey. Realistically though, do you really care? The difference between 30mpg and 40mpg over a tank is only an extra £40 per 1,000 miles, and the real world differences between driving styles on the same car won't generally be anything like that severe. On my 2.0 TSI 220 I get early 40s mpg at 70mph and 38mpg at 80mph.

 

While I like to know my car's capabilities and limits, at the end of the day it all falls firmly into the 'life's too short' box for me, I'm afraid. In reality you'd save a bucket load more money simply running a second hand shed (i.e. <£1,000) regardless of how bad it was on fuel, instead of a buying brand new car. Then you might only use the car for journeys over, say, 4 miles while making sure you do your shopping monthly instead of three times a week ad hoc. Again, how much do you care? A decent enough run around for £1,000 saves about £25,000 over the price of an average new Skoda. You'd have to gain an extra 10mpg per tank for 625,000 miles to pay that back. Of course you might not want to run a shed, so maybe you could buy a £10,000 car instead and only pay yourself back over 62,500 miles.  It's all a matter of perspective. I'm honestly not being fatuous but I don't get why so many people - not referring to you OP - are so hung up on MPG. If you cared that much about every last pound of your money you'd probably not be pouring tens of thousands into a depreciating asset to start with, right? 

8 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

On my 2.0 TSI 220 I get early 40s mpg at 70mph and 38mpg at 80mph.

are that real values or displayed by the car? 

by refueling calculations ~40mpg have got only once when travel Riga<->Tallin(700km)

with avg speed ~80kmh(50mh) and top speed weren't higher than 94km/h(58,4mh) by GPS

(100kmh by car's speedometer)

usually on 90kmh roads i drive +15km, but not in Estonia

 

there are some long term measures, mostly not mixed City and long trips

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/424691-could-my-thoughts-be-right/?do=findComment&comment=4819065

 

6 hours ago, MartiniB said:

are that real values or displayed by the car? 

by refueling calculations ~40mpg have got only once when travel Riga<->Tallin(700km)

with avg speed ~80kmh(50mh) and top speed weren't higher than 94km/h(58,4mh) by GPS

(100kmh by car's speedometer)

usually on 90kmh roads i drive +15km, but not in Estonia

 

there are some long term measures, mostly not mixed City and long trips

https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/424691-could-my-thoughts-be-right/?do=findComment&comment=4819065

 

 

Both. I tracked economy for the first 5,000 miles (which I tend to do when I first get a car) to see how it performs. The trip computer was always accurate to within 0.1 to 0.2 MPG each time. I have occasionally brimmed the tank, done a motorway journey and refilled at the other end, just to see what result I got. The car easily does 40mpg and above on a long trip, but of course short journeys and driving around the city will quickly crash that down over the course of a tank...

A good test with any vehicle is Brim it so you see the fuel, fill a Fuel can with 4.456 litres, 

drive about for a few miles that day or over longer in town where the Fuel Consumption is showing like 30 mpg, 

so after 30 miles try and put the 4.456 litres into the tank, likely the vehicle was not getting 30mpg, or 19 mpg or what ever, 

the proof being you can not get a gallon into the tank.

 

As to longer runs, you drive your vehicle, you know how so brim it and then drive using S, or D, set on ECO or manual changes

and see your self because other are unlikely to drive as someone else does.

Taking the same car on the same journey using different drivers does not often use the same amount of fuel.

Rainmaker, I agree with your post. People do get fixated on MPG. The only thing I can't understand is when you say it's better to accelerate briskly rather than slowly. Surely it takes a set amount of energy to accelerate from zero to, say, 40. If you do this quickly or slowly the end result would be the same.

3 minutes ago, facet edge said:

Rainmaker, I agree with your post. People do get fixated on MPG. The only thing I can't understand is when you say it's better to accelerate briskly rather than slowly. Surely it takes a set amount of energy to accelerate from zero to, say, 40. If you do this quickly or slowly the end result would be the same.

 

Friction and pumping losses.  A recent experiment by some highly regarded engineers came to the conclusion that full throttle with 2k rpm upshifts were the best option. Either way it's not a massive factor. 

Oh OK, I don't think I'll bother though. There's nothing worse than subjecting your passengers to neck snapping acceleration.

I remember a chauffeur writing about his craft and he said that acceleration, braking and cornering should not be discernable to your passengers.

I must say that driving this car smoothly is very rewarding, the phrase 'magic carpet' comes to mind.