58mpg on 1.4 Tsi 140ps

[Gerrycan]

52 minutes ago, timxue said:

i m thinking u will get better mpg if u do 50-60mph

Yeh, I'm aware of that.

What I was illustrating was the consumption I get at a specific speed excluding as many factors as possible.

If I travel at an INDICATED 70mph which a few mph slower than actual speed then I get 50+mpg.

 

These are very good and efficient engines but you have got to be realistic about their capabilities.

[themanwithnoaim]

4 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

You are doing better than me then.

At a true 70mph (not speedo) I get 5.7L/100 (49mpg). Flat, no wind, 20 degrees, no traffic. Been like that since new.

It does not take much to push it over the 50mpg though ie tailwind, draft from other fast moving traffic.

 

Do you have DSG? I think their 7th gear runs about 300rpm lower than the equivalent top manual gear (mine shows a smidge over 2500rpm at 70mph).

I've got DSG but, it doesn't seem to make that much difference!!!

[SmurfWagon]

I can get 55MPG for 20 miles of motorway cruising at 60MPH with occasional squirts for overtaking. I reckon on a long flat run and no right foot action I could hit 60MPG no problem.

[themanwithnoaim]

6 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Do you have DSG? I think their 7th gear runs about 300rpm lower than the equivalent top manual gear (mine shows a smidge over 2500rpm at 70mph).

BTW how do you get 7th to engage

 

Flatout is 138 in 5th !!!

[Gerrycan]

9 minutes ago, themanwithnoaim said:

BTW how do you get 7th to engage

 

Flatout is 138 in 5th !!!

Funny, I was going to reply earlier that you had probably never got beyond 3rd gear going to work.

[Gerrycan]

The attached consumption graph for the Golf 90tsi manual is very close to what I and most of the owners posting here achieve.

The greater weight and higher drag of the Octavia compared to the Golf seems to be offset with the slightly better efficiency of the 103tsi (140hp)

Unable to confirm accuracy above 70mph though as the Police are far more diligent here than in the UK.

 

5.6L/100 = 50mpg

110kph = 68mph

 

[BoxerBoy]

A short snapshot is very entertaining, but for a realistic measure you have to go on brim-to-brim over a longer period.

 

(ignoring any possible error in measurement of miles and/or litres of fuel added)

 

As an aside, I just completed a 10 day trip in something totally different and despite the nonsense of the dashboard instantaneous and average fuel consumption being displayed day by day, the "reality" over 10 days, 8 fill ups and 1,400 miles was 25.7 mpg.

[Gerrycan]

Most people who take their consumption seriously usually verify the OBC accuracy (or inaccuracy) by recording actual fuel consumption.

 

What were you driving?

Edited 28 March, 2017 by Gerrycan

[MorrisOx]

Massively encouraging these digital MPG readouts, aren't they? Mine regularly spins me a yarn suggesting I'm eking 56mpg out of my TSi DSG.

 

And what a fibber it is. Tank-to-tank it's actually averaging 43mpg. Perfectly acceptable for a petrol turbo auto, but quite different to those digital readout fantasies.

[bigjohn]

Onboard computers tend to vary 

 

My old Superb I under read by 4mpg - Onboard computer showed 46mpg, tank to tank measurement 50mpg

 

My Panda over-reads by 5mpg

 

My Superb II 1.4tsi is about spot on - Onboard computer quite close to tank to tank mpg (Spritmonitor below is tank to tank)

[POWYSWALES]

8 hours ago, themanwithnoaim said:

BTW how do you get 7th to engage

 

Flatout is 138 in 5th !!!

Mine is a diesel but 7th will engage as low as 42mph on a flat road showing about 1300rpm on the rev counter, you had to be doing at least 47mph in my fabia diesel but I guess that may have been as the fabia 1.4tdi was only 3 cylinder.

Edited 28 March, 2017 by POWYSWALES
Edit

[Gerrycan]

t@MorrisOx ,

That degree of error renders it useless.

If I were you I would take photo evidence of OBC details at refill time for a couple of successive refills and go back to the dealers with the receipts and ask them to rectify it.

Of course that advice is useless if it is the result of some sort of performance enhancement.

 

It is not clear from your post or account details what type of tsi you drive.

 

My last diesel Octavia was about 5% optimistic which was acceptable because it was consistently so and pretty easy to compensate for.

This petrol display is pretty well spot on but as mentioned in one of the previous posts that is in my normal average.

The only way to test short 'exceptional trip' accuracy is to do a long exceptional consumption trip.

 

 

Edited 28 March, 2017 by Gerrycan

[ahenners]

How about 48.8mpg from a 2.0 TSI 220ps Did break 50 but the last 36 miles were a roads with plenty of slowing down and speeding up. My trip computer is usually accurate to within 0.5-1mpg. Will check actual consumption when I fill up back home.

[Gerrycan]

You don't often see that mpg reported from a tsi vRS , I don't see why not though and I hope you don't get labelled a traitor or something.

I don't find traffic speed variation has that much effect on my consumption as long as the slowing can be anticipated early enough to avoid use of brakes.

The acceleration rate that allows the engine to operate at best efficiency is not particularly slow

I try to use that situation as a mild form of legal hyper mile-ing.

When you think about it brakes are the most anachronistic and wasteful component on a car. It's the reason 'ordinary' drivers get excellent results in 'ordinary' traffic from hybrids.

 

I get some of my best (and satisfying) consumption in urban situations where there is a 60 kph limit and I can average close to 40kph, even when catching some lights. In that situation I can achieve an indicated 4.2L/100. Takes a lot of concentration though and allowing sufficient space to those people in front who seem to be performing a light Irish jig on the stop and go pedals.

 

I have often thought if I had a daily 15km commute the average consumption would 55mpg and not the 45mpg it currently is. The reality is that the car is shared and many of its trips are actually only 2 km to shops, where my wife works or elderly in-laws. A small, really basic cut-down, cut-price 80km range, 80kph top speed EV would be ideal for us and most people for most days.

 

 

 

[themanwithnoaim]

Less traffic this morning 

[GoneToBeemer]

22 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

You don't often see that mpg reported from a tsi vRS , I don't see why not though and I hope you don't get labelled a traitor or something.

I don't find traffic speed variation has that much effect on my consumption as long as the slowing can be anticipated early enough to avoid use of brakes.

The acceleration rate that allows the engine to operate at best efficiency is not particularly slow

I try to use that situation as a mild form of legal hyper mile-ing.

When you think about it brakes are the most anachronistic and wasteful component on a car. It's the reason 'ordinary' drivers get excellent results in 'ordinary' traffic from hybrids.

 

I get some of my best (and satisfying) consumption in urban situations where there is a 60 kph limit and I can average close to 40kph, even when catching some lights. In that situation I can achieve an indicated 4.2L/100. Takes a lot of concentration though and allowing sufficient space to those people in front who seem to be performing a light Irish jig on the stop and go pedals.

 

I have often thought if I had a daily 15km commute the average consumption would 55mpg and not the 45mpg it currently is. The reality is that the car is shared and many of its trips are actually only 2 km to shops, where my wife works or elderly in-laws. A small, really basic cut-down, cut-price 80km range, 80kph top speed EV would be ideal for us and most people for most days.

 

 

 

 

I could get my Mk2 FL vRS TSI to 42/43 mpg, keeping it within the speed limit on the motorway / A roads.

[Gerrycan]

49 minutes ago, vtec to vrs! said:

 

I could get my Mk2 FL vRS TSI to 42/43 mpg, keeping it within the speed limit on the motorway / A roads.

That is about the same as vRS tsi mk3 users claim so there is little improvement despite the more advanced fuel injection system on the mk3.

[ahenners]

4 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

That is about the same as vRS tsi mk3 users claim so there is little improvement despite the more advanced fuel injection system on the mk3.

 Agreed, day to day my consumption is pretty similar to the MK2 FL TSI VRS, but I made a long trip to the South West this week and got an indicated 48.8mpg on the way there, and 49.6mpg on the way back. Don't think I ever managed to break 45mpg with my MK2.

[guitarman001]

See my "which engine" thread.

 

I agree it's as easy to get a low figure as it is a high figure. On the way to work I'm sure it's more downhill. At 60mph, which seems to be a sweet spot, I can get 61mpg peak driving sedately (no harsh acceleration) .. 15 miles motorway, 15 miles bypass, 5 miles town. 

 

On the way back it's more like 51mpg. 

 

Definitely depends on driving style and the road.

 

Town driving returns lower mpg.

 

A great engine which is sensitive to the conditions it is put under.

 

I'd love to know the mpg from the new 1.0 TSi engine under all these conditions!

 

[guitarman001]

Also I change gear early like it says.. is weird being in 6th great just over 40mph but hey, it works!