My petrol car is averaging more MPG than my Diesel car - Fuelly below.

 

I actually love driving my (re-mapped) 2.0 TDi Yeti, but the 1.0 TSi in my latest car (2017 Toledo) is a revy (and characterful) unit and appears reasonably good on fuel (and better on fuel than the equivalent older engine(s) - 40.3 average MPG for my previous 2014 Rapid Spaceback 1.2 TSi (105 BHP) - 2014 SPACEBACK fuelly (~12k MILES) / 38.8 MPG for the earlier 2013 Rapid hatchback 1.2 TSi (105BHP) - 2013 hatch FUELLY (~16K MILES)

 

 for the 1.0 TSi 3 pot

Edited 2 September, 20178 yr by pinkpanther

Think it was the engine i had is the Ibiza i had in Spain.  Getting over 400 miles between refills.  Bit issue on some steep hill starts and some clutch smells but general good performance and got to 150 kph quite quickly.

And if it loosens up in the first 2000 miles like my 4 banger TSI did that 43.9 is going to climb a lot.

7 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

And if it loosens up in the first 2000 miles like my 4 banger TSI did that 43.9 is going to climb a lot.

 

I hope it does, but I've never seen this "loosening up" effect in any of the cars I've owned from new. My current Yeti averages roughly the same now (@ 57K miles) as it did when new.

 

Also the previous 2 1.2 TSi's I ran (over ~30k miles) gave roughly the same MPG when I first bought them, as they did when sold.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, pinkpanther said:

 

I hope it does, but I've never seen this "loosening up" effect in any of the cars I've owned from new. My current Yeti averages roughly the same now (@ 57K miles) as it did when new.

 

Also the previous 2 1.2 TSi's I ran (over ~30k miles) gave roughly the same MPG when I first bought them, as they did when sold.

 

 

 

 

Rather than just "loosening up" (cylinder bores and pistons mating to each other) I believe it is also the exhaust effectively gas flowing itself with a bit of carbon build up and the front tyres getting smaller making the odometer and speedometer lie a bit more than the 5% or so that the usually do when all components are brand new.

 

Similar 900 cc Renault 3 cylinder turbo engine has been consistently brilliant since new and now at 50k miles still lobbing in 45 mpg indicated ie about 43 mpg actual when pushing along but if in relaxed mode well over 50 mpg is possible on the large Logan.  With this engine now putting out 110 hp in the Twingo RS and Mercedes Smart Brabus versions it is awesome what these little engines can do plus the NOX, like the 1 litre TSIs, are less than half that of the diesels.      

 

 

Edited 27 August, 20178 yr by lol-lol

On 27/08/2017 at 07:01, lol-lol said:

 

  With this engine now putting out 110 hp in the Twingo RS and Mercedes Smart Brabus versions it is awesome what these little engines can do plus the NOX, like the 1 litre TSIs, are less than half that of the diesels.      

 

 

NOx may be lower but when you factor in the higher efficiency of some diesels - the NOx output difference may not be as big as appears,we took a wee trip out to the west coast on saturday - so 2 lane roads,up and down dale (A85 etc) ,driving normally at the speed limit when possible and  inc a few overtakes (ambient circa 19deg) as you can see 103 miles since refuel near Oban.Please note I would never claim 71 as an expected avg mpg,in the summer I usually say approx 60mpg.Fabia 1.9tdi PD circa 130hp.Pic taken when we parked up back home.

 

 

Edited 28 August, 20178 yr by YS53

I do not understand how a 15 year old diesel design might be comparably NOXY to a latest tech TSI half the size?

 

How is NOX measured?

 

 

 

 

Edited 28 August, 20178 yr by camelspyyder

23 minutes ago, YS53 said:

NOx may be lower but when you factor in the higher efficiency of some diesels - the NOx output difference may not be as big as appears,we took a wee trip out to the west coast on saturday - so 2 lane roads,up and down dale (A85 etc) ,driving normally at the speed limit when possible and  inc a few overtakes (ambient circa 19deg) as you can see 103 miles since refuel near Oban.Please note I would never claim 71 as an expected avg mpg,in the summer I usually say approx 60mpg.Fabia 1.9tdi PD circa 130hp.Pic taken when we parked up back home.

 

Higher thermal efficiency but at a price of muich higher NOX and it is NOX that is determined to be the main pollution enemy now and not CO2.

 

VW have gone back to using indirect injection, as well as direct, on some TSI engines which has the affect of lowering NOX.  Some high specific output turbo petrol engines ie 125-140 hp per litre, are chucking out NOX nearly up to half what dirty diesels, ie non-SCR, ones are.

 

Multiple answers to the issue, obviously banning EUR4 now and EUR5 engines in the next couple of years from city centre areas at peak pollution time via number plate recognition.

 

The 1.9 PD was quite capable of over 60 mpg and oddly one could get that it the more shape efficient Audi A4 for instant than the bluff nosed Fabias.  my old A4 could do almost 1,000 miles of a tankful of around 15 gallons, something few new car can do!  

 

I was just saying that a lower (real) mpg figure means that per mile the NOx figures may look a little different,there is a large   anti diesel lobby at the moment and it has become fashionable to knock diesels at every opportunity.On the Mway the fabia lopes along at less than 2000rpm @70mph so as Camelspyyder posted - how is the NOx actually measured and under what conditions ?

 

3 minutes ago, YS53 said:

I was just saying that a lower (real) mpg figure means that per mile the NOx figures may look a little different,there is a large   anti diesel lobby at the moment and it has become fashionable to knock diesels at every opportunity.On the Mway the fabia lopes along at less than 2000rpm @70mph so as Camelspyyder posted - how is the NOx actually measured and under what conditions ?

 

 

The current test works out a the CO2, NOX, HC etc on a per kilometer basis for the new car.

 

If an engine with 100k miles on it, a bit of leakage past the pistons etc, the readings of all these gases, and the power output, could well be double or more in the emissions and the power as low as half the quoted when measured on the rolling road. Use to do this fair but when working for Piper on the rolling road, not NOX as that is not a new thing, but CO, CO2, HCs and well as power and older engines with a few miles on them were often stunning how far they were from the as new figures in these areas, and power/torque. you only need about 20hp to do 70 mph !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply LOL - I just wondered if the  'official'  NOx figures are as accurate as the 'official' MPG figures

Edited 28 August, 20178 yr by YS53

Total fiction unless done under the nothing like real world vehicles at maybe revenue weight,  and even towing

.  So starting next month, 'new EU tests on 'new type approvals'  but still not at fully loaded weight of vehicles as they might be and often may be driven on real roads in all weather's. 

43 minutes ago, YS53 said:

Thanks for the reply LOL - I just wondered if the  'official'  NOx figures are as accurate as the 'official' MPG figures

 

Much worse I would say for the emissions that the fuel consumption and particularly NOX.

 

Fuel consumption and CO2, which are closely linked, most people seem to find 10 to 20% worse than the lab test and certification of the vehicle.

 

NOX, and even total hydrocarbons, can be a scale of several times worse than lab test results and are particularly affected by ambient temperature with recent revelations showing that diesels did not cope well with low ambient temperatures as the existing NOX systems like exhaust gas re-circulation do not kicking in fully and properly until standard temperatures such as 15 or 20 C are reached and petrols typically richen themselves up around 30C ambient so the THC go much higher than lab figures.   New cars need to have a much wider working range for their emission compliance and the new real world testing should enforce this thankfully so those of use who have to breath the air of big cities, Heathrow and central London in my case often, are not continually damaged by the really bad emission gases and particles ie NOX, PM2.5/10, THCs.         

 

Meanwhile, just to upset the applecart,my 13 year old oilburner regularly returns 50+ MPG ( apart from time I did 420 miles in six hours including two stops and last 150 miles on single track, to drop to 45)  and constantly slides well under the emissions target.