For any diesel drivers wondering about 2.0 TSI thirst. My avg over 1500 miles is 39.7 Mpg and today with admittedly it's summertime with no jams, nearly 44Mpg at 70Mph travelling from Gloucestershire to Lincolnshire. 

It is quite economical if your journeys aren't primarily short stop/start trips. My commute is largely motorway, and even with some short trips some evenings and weekends, I tend to average close to 40mpg calculated per tank.

 

The economy still isn't diesel rivalling, I think the diesel still makes sense, but I think it's quite good for what it is and why I chose petrol despite a higher than average mileage.

Edited 2 July, 20178 yr by ahenners

With a 12 mile each way commute, I don't expect to see anything like that sorta economy.

 

With my right boot I'll be happy with mid 20's when my vRS arrives but, I'm sure as hell not gonna take any notice of the fuel economy, this is gonna be a fun car

Hope no one takes offence but I think cars that can no longer achieve at least 50 mpg, should be phased out over the next few years.

5 hours ago, Redboy said:

For any diesel drivers wondering about 2.0 TSI thirst. My avg over 1500 miles is 39.7 Mpg and today with admittedly it's summertime with no jams, nearly 44Mpg at 70Mph travelling from Gloucestershire to Lincolnshire. 

 

I think that is actually some sort of record for a 2.0tsi for returning that sort of economy for that average speed.

The fact you averaged 70 mph on British motorway for a full 122 miles is probably another recent record because it means no jams and no road works encountered, or you did and had to make up time. Either way 44 mpg return is impressive.

Just one question though: how comes the distance to empty is only showing 145 miles on the 'Since refuelling' screen when you have only covered 122 miles? Do you only put in half a tank at a time?

2 hours ago, POWYSWALES said:

Hope no one takes offence but I think cars that can no longer achieve at least 50 mpg, should be phased out over the next few years.

I don't think it is possible to make an ICE engine that TMWNA could achieve 50mpg with ( TMWNA in normal operating mode of course).

 

I actually agree with your sentiment but the reality is that there has to be a number of changes in attitudes to transport for there to be real savings in Fuel used and effects on the environment.

There is a Robbie Llewellyn video on the River Simple vehicle project that is the most interesting coverage of a complex topic I've seen. It is extreme but what it does is to highlight the extremely high energy demands of a large box on wheels moving from one to 4 people over given distance at high speed, safely.

A 28kwH battery in a conventional EV is good for about 120 miles and I could run my house for a couple of days or more on that sort of energy.

10 hours ago, POWYSWALES said:

Hope no one takes offence but I think cars that can no longer achieve at least 50 mpg, should be phased out over the next few years.

 

I agree with the principle but I think most manufacturers will argue that it is possible to achieve 50mpg it most production cars these days, even petrol, given the right driving conditions.

The main contributers to fuel economy are the driver & traffic conditions.

You can see the difference even with the same car people can get hugely different economy (<20mph to >40mpg) by the way that they drive & the types of journeys they make.

 

 

I think with electrification, petrol can easily achieve 50mpg.

 

We all know how your MPG nose dives when you do slow town driving. So hybrids is the answer. What is good about ICE engines? They work great at a small range of RPM, less internal resistance when spinning fast. What's good about electric motors? They give instant torque at low RPM. Combine both: EV town driving and (if needed) use engine to charge a small battery at optimum RPM. Use engine at optimum RPM at higher speeds.

 

My ideal car would be Octavia sized car, with Honda's new hybrid system. No unreliable transmission, instant torque at low speeds, optimum high speed operation. Or a Tesla Model 3 because it's got a big enough battery, much simpler power system and I don't have to beg + pay a dealer to do software updates.   

7 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

I think that is actually some sort of record for a 2.0tsi for returning that sort of economy for that average speed.

The fact you averaged 70 mph on British motorway for a full 122 miles is probably another recent record because it means no jams and no road works encountered, or you did and had to make up time. Either way 44 mpg return is impressive.

Just one question though: how comes the distance to empty is only showing 145 miles on the 'Since refuelling' screen when you have only covered 122 miles? Do you only put in half a tank at a time?

 

Good spot, I had forgotten to refill the tank and ran low, therefore I had to fill up on the motorway and at 138.5 per litre for Super fuel, I only put £30 in to get me home.  I sat at 73-75 Mph on the Satnav for most of the way. The final 17 miles was at about 40-50 on an A road. My MKII VRS TFSI did 40-41 mpg from Lincolnshire to Edinburgh via the A1 at around 60 Mph avg. on two separate round trips.  Petrol isn't for everybody especially if they do lots of short stop-start in urban areas. 

10 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

I think with electrification, petrol can easily achieve 50mpg.

 

We all know how your MPG nose dives when you do slow town driving. So hybrids is the answer. What is good about ICE engines? They work great at a small range of RPM, less internal resistance when spinning fast. What's good about electric motors? They give instant torque at low RPM. Combine both: EV town driving and (if needed) use engine to charge a small battery at optimum RPM. Use engine at optimum RPM at higher speeds.

 

My ideal car would be Octavia sized car, with Honda's new hybrid system. No unreliable transmission, instant torque at low speeds, optimum high speed operation. Or a Tesla Model 3 because it's got a big enough battery, much simpler power system and I don't have to beg + pay a dealer to do software updates.   

 

Depending on circumstances, I would say you're right. I spoke to a Mitsubuishi PHEV owner last week and he raved about electric power around town, it hardly costs him a penny to drive, has been problem free and charges in about 3 hours. He gets about 30 miles per charge and that's sufficient for his daily use, plus as you said, instant power. 

12 hours ago, themanwithnoaim said:

With a 12 mile each way commute, I don't expect to see anything like that sorta economy.

 

With my right boot I'll be happy with mid 20's when my vRS arrives but, I'm sure as hell not gonna take any notice of the fuel economy, this is gonna be a fun car

 

I don't watch my right foot for economy reasons. With increasing levels of traffic, fewer safe overtaking opportunities and electronic monitoring of the road network, I am trying to protect myself and my license, which is hard enough at times in the car let alone on my motorcycle.  My commute is 9 miles but with only 1 roundabout and a few farm vehicles to negotiate. Unless you boot it everywhere, holding it in 2nd-3rd, at well above legal limits, you should get reasonable economy. Enjoy your new car. 

Even with my remap I'm still getting mid - late 30s, I find it's all traffic (and right foot) dependant.

 

I don't drive like a tool, but admittedly have days where I don't hang around and still struggle to get much below 30mpg on a decent (20+ mile) mixed trip.

 

On motorway runs it easily goes into the 40s, but I find you have to stay below 75mph to get decent economy.

 

Really depends how much of a rush you're in, but overall really happy with it and can adjust my driving style if I want to easily save fuel.

it's not possible to get 40mpg from this engine, mine has averaged 30mpg from new, never over 35mpg even on motorway, mine must be faulty...

4 hours ago, marko said:

it's not possible to get 40mpg from this engine, mine has averaged 30mpg from new, never over 35mpg even on motorway, mine must be faulty...

There is always that possibility but it is not easy to get evidence to convince a dealer.

 

The first thing to do is record the petrol you put in the car in an app, there are lots of free ones around and most people have these android or applely phone thingos.

Comparing your actual consumption against the "Since Refuel" return over a few tanks will determine how accurate your in-car monitor is and while you are at it use a GPS to check the speedometer and odometer accuracy (the former is usually 5 to 10% optimistic but the odo is usually within 3% in my experience).

 

All that faffing around is to get a feel for the consumption display accuracy. I think my display is accurate under heavier consumption or normal driving conditions but a little optimistic under low consumption or good driving conditions.

 

Then it is a question of monitoring a longer drive, preferably flat, preferably low traffic so a constant speed can be maintained, and just drive sensibly without excessive acceleration or use of the brakes. If I am driving economically then my brake disks are cool enough to touch (be careful with that). 

If you cannot get close to the official combined consumption under those conditions then there is definitely something wrong and I think it is reasonable to approach the dealer with your evidence to investigate.

It is probably just one of the many sensors playing up but unless there is an error code then good luck determining which one it is.

 

 

 

21 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I think with electrification, petrol can easily achieve 50mpg.

 

The problem with hybrid is you are introducing a lot of weight by adding the batteries & electric motors.

The are good for reducing emissions in towns & cities but once you are driving on the IC engine you are wasting fuel carrying around 200kg of electrical gubbins. all the time.

 

The main problem these days is convincing people they don't need an 2tonne SUV for their 5mile commute or that they don't neeeeeed a 2L engine with 400bhp.

A 1L - 1.4L turbo-charged petrol engine would be more than adequate for most peoples useage.

Car companies offer these options but obviously they wont shout about the benefits of their smaller engines too loud because they make a lot of money on the premium sales.

 

I'm sure a 1L or 1.4 Octavia can achieve 50mpg in normal useage if driven carefully.

My brother has the TSI engine in the Ibiza & his average mpg is around 50mpg.

 

For now it seems like full-electric cars will be the next big step but it will be a few years yet before the infrastructure is updated with charging stations & the national powergrid is able to cope with the increased demand & the battery technology advances enough to charge sufficiently in 30minutes to be able to make extended journeys.

1 hour ago, Gabbo said:

The problem with hybrid is you are introducing a lot of weight by adding the batteries & electric motors.

Agreed, but with the right sort of hybrid you can get some of that back by using a less powerful engine and getting rid of the starter motor, alternator, clutch, gearbox and differential, and reduce consumption by always running the engine at its most efficient speed and loading, since it is no longer locked to the road speed.

Tesla is already there with the infrastructure, range and charging time. Only thing missing is charging for on-street parking (like converting lamp posts into charging point at minimal cost). Model 3 will solve the affordability issue and it will replace my current Octavia 3.

 

You can save weight by removing or massively simplify the gearbox, remove starter motor, alternator and others. You can also put in 1L engine. The wasted fuel will be minimal at higher speeds when IC is running, because at higher speed where IC is being used, air/tyre resistance will consume more energy. i3 REx owners are actually saying their next i3 will be battery powered only because they are wasting energy carrying the IC around!

 

The problem with current hybrid is, as you've said, the extra weight. Because cars like BMW 330e, Merc C350e, Passat GTE are all traditional cars with added battery to sell the "performance" aspects. The hybrid architecture need a re-design, not simply adding a battery pack. That Honda design, i3 and Ampera are on the right lines by making EV the primary drive.

 

On 02/07/2017 at 23:01, POWYSWALES said:

Hope no one takes offence but I think cars that can no longer achieve at least 50 mpg, should be phased out over the next few years.

It's arguably a noble suggestion, but what does achieve 50 mpg mean? I think my 7 year old petrol VRS can probably average over 50mpg under fairly tightly controlled circumstances. According to the Maxidot it can also achieve over 100mpg on an instantaneous basis.

 

Do you also mean that all historical cars that cannot 'achieve'  50mpg will be forced off the road? That would surely be a sad day

 

No offence taken, but sorry too sweeping a statement for me.

I have the 1.4 TSI.

 

It does 0-60 in 8.5s, which for me is fast enough for a family car.

 

But, get this, I can get 60 mpg on a stead A-road drive, and long distance motorway drives have returned 53 mpg.  Low CO2 means £30 a year tax.

 

Very happy.