Pretty impressed with new VRS TSI MPG

[ScoobyVRS]

Had my new FL VRS 230 for about a month now and averaging 35.1MPG over around a 1000 miles. Did a drive yesterday for work on a mixture of A roads, town and motorway and got 43.7MPG! Granted that was slow cruising, and good luck with traffic, but nice to know the TSI can get some good mileage if the conditions are right.

 

My last car was a VRS TDI, so missing the MPG I used to get from that, but the TSI is just a different beast

 

 

[Andyjm2uk]

Glad to hear you are enjoying it...

 

Can I ask how you are getting on with the ride?

Do you just have the standard suspension or the fancy DCC?

18s or 19s?

 

Thanks

[Snowman89]

Nice to see that the 230 can achieve nice MPG!

I guess the 245 SHOULD be the same or even better?

 

Ive just seen some early reports, but they seem to be quite low on the 245 :(

[marko]

after 11 months I'm still only averaging 30mpg, bit more on a long motorway run.

[ahenners]

TSI VRS can be good on fuel with the right conditions. I've seen 49mpg from a long journey before with my pre facelift 220.

[ScoobyVRS]

2 hours ago, Andyjm2uk said:

Glad to hear you are enjoying it...

 

Can I ask how you are getting on with the ride?

Do you just have the standard suspension or the fancy DCC?

18s or 19s?

 

Thanks

 

I had a Mk3 TDI VRS for the last 3 years, so already used to the ride :-) Don't have DCC so this is the standard setup.

 

I've actually found the FL to be a slightly nicer ride than my pre-FL VRS. It feels a little better put together and less noisy as far as I can tell.

Edited 19 September, 2017 by ScoobyVRS

[Andyjm2uk]

6 minutes ago, ScoobyVRS said:

 

I had a Mk3 TDI VRS for the last 3 years, so already used to the ride :-) Don't have DCC so this is the standard setup.

 

I've actually found the FL to be a slightly nicer ride than my pre-FL VRS. It feels a little better put together and less noisy as far as I can tell.

Ahh good to hear...

 

Thanks for responce

[juan27]

On 9/19/2017 at 16:09, Snowman89 said:

 

I guess the 245 SHOULD be the same or even better?

 

Ive just seen some early reports, but they seem to be quite low on the 245 :(

 

Early days but my 245 seems to like a drink. Its official figures are worse than the 230 so there is absolutely no reason to expect it to match the 230. Not sure why you would expect it to be "even better". 

 

As I say early days but all the evidence so far suggests it uses more petrol than the 2010 80K O2 VRS it has replaced, which is a bit disappointing.

 

(Although the official figures suggest otherwise)

Edited 22 September, 2017 by juan27

[Ootohere]

Just shows how little petrol cars have moved on over the past 30 years. Supposedly less emissions, but that's about it really.

You could get 35 mpg with a heavy car back then, and many still on the road 30 years old or younger still do 35 mpg.

[stever750]

1 hour ago, Headinawayoffski said:

Just shows how little petrol cars have moved on over the past 30 years. Supposedly less emissions, but that's about it really.

You could get 35 mpg with a heavy car back then, and many still on the road 30 years old or younger still do 35 mpg.

Except not  many cars produced 245bhp 30 years ago, that was borderline super car territory. 

[SC03OTT]

^ Yeah, what he said.  You wouldn't find many Average Joe's running around in 245bhp family hatchbacks back then. 

 

Youre not getting the full picture by only looking at one statistic/parameter of the engine. 

[Ootohere]

The 245ps makes no difference really does it,  at 70 mph are you even using 115bhp?

30 years later is the Average Speed over that journey with 245ps any quicker than it was with 120ps & 35 mpg.

 

And the cars 30 years ago, or even 10 with 145 ps could still do double the 60 mph NSL speed limit. (non Dual / Motorway)

Edited 20 September, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[GoneToBeemer]

I would also recommend doing an actual calculation based on fill-ups rather than paying attention to the computer.

 

My L&K would tell me I was getting 59/60 mpg on the display, when in reality that was more like 51!

[juan27]

3 hours ago, Headinawayoffski said:

The 245ps makes no difference really does it,  at 70 mph are you even using 115bhp?

30 years later is the Average Speed over that journey with 245ps any quicker than it was with 120ps & 35 mpg.

 

And the cars 30 years ago, or even 10 with 145 ps could still do double the 60 mph NSL speed limit. (non Dual / Motorway)

 

It makes a difference how quickly you can get to 70 and how often. Acceleration uses masses more fuel than driving at a steady speed. 

 

Assuming the (manual) 245 has the same gearing as the 230 its not clear to me why it uses more fuel at a steady speed.  Anyone got any insight?

 

From the Skoda specs its 25KG heavier in standard spec, but surely that won't make that much difference?   

 

I do wonder if some of the anecdotal evidence for the 245 being thirsty is because 245 owners are more likely to be driving less economically?   

 

IIRC the O3 VRS is certainly not much of an improvement economy wise over the O2 VRS, considering its supposed to lighter and apparently only needs a 50L fuel tank.

 

Those extra injectors cleaning the inlet tracts must be to blame?  

 

[juan27]

5 hours ago, Headinawayoffski said:

Just shows how little petrol cars have moved on over the past 30 years. Supposedly less emissions, but that's about it really.

You could get 35 mpg with a heavy car back then, and many still on the road 30 years old or younger still do 35 mpg.

 

"Could" being the important word. If I recall correctly it was fairly easy to get low 20s mpg out of a 2 litre Mk3 Cavalier if you tried hard enough.  I don't have the figures to hand but I would bet that weighed significantly less than an O3.

 

[Ootohere]

Real World Testing was coming,  *Next new Type Approved Cars will be showing these Co2 g/km,  MPG's,

and Implausible / Irregular EU Testing had been proved clearly to be happening up to 2016/17, so there was some better fictional testing happening using the not fit for purpose testing.

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx 

 

Testing never was done and results provided with maybe a fat driver, fat passenger, full boot and full fuel tank, 

and still will not be, 

& 0-62 or 0-70 MPH times are never given at Full Revenue weight either.

 

245ps Rep / Taxi / Airport Transport/ Family sized cars doing 35 miles per each gallon per tank, 

and about able to keep up with warm hatches is fair enough, nothing special though really,

what it can do fully laden is going to be good to know.. 

Edited 20 September, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[peterhardy]

40 minutes ago, juan27 said:

 

"Could" being the important word. If I recall correctly it was fairly easy to get low 20s mpg out of a 2 litre Mk3 Cavalier if you tried hard enough.  I don't have the figures to hand but I would bet that weighed significantly less than an O3.

 

 

The worst I ever got was 13 mpg from my Sapphire Cosworth in 1998, flat out on the way back from the Lakes.  Curiously, this was when I got my fourth speeding ticket, a couple of months into ownership, giving me a mandatory six month ban.  Happy days!!

[Rodge]

7 hours ago, Headinawayoffski said:

Just shows how little petrol cars have moved on over the past 30 years. Supposedly less emissions, but that's about it really.

You could get 35 mpg with a heavy car back then, and many still on the road 30 years old or younger still do 35 mpg.

I get 50 mpg out of a car that can do 0-60 in 10 s. How many cars could do that 30 years ago?

 

My Focus is 12 years older, slightly slower and only gets about 42 mpg.

[Ootohere]

So no great advances then.

There you go proving a point with a 1.2 TSI  not very quick really off the line & to 60 mph due to how heavy & not much poke, and just so so mpg,

some can get 60mpg and do 0-62 in under 7 seconds, & then get 20mpg driving fast not just going to 62 mph.

Point was, 35 mpg nothing very special is it, 

only difference over the years is more power to power more stuff in heavier cars, maybe a bit safer and less polluting, or maybe not

& it took about 1 hour of a low paid workers hourly rate to earn enough to buy a gallon on petrol to go 35 miles, 

and just now £7.50 an hour minimum wage will buy you about 1 1/2 gallons.

Edited 20 September, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[stever750]

8 hours ago, Headinawayoffski said:

The 245ps makes no difference really does it,  at 70 mph are you even using 115bhp?

30 years later is the Average Speed over that journey with 245ps any quicker than it was with 120ps & 35 mpg.

 

And the cars 30 years ago, or even 10 with 145 ps could still do double the 60 mph NSL speed limit. (non Dual / Motorway)

No it doesn't, you're sort of  right in that it's torque that's really important, or rather acceleration. You cannot accelerate fast enough, so you can always have more torque so long as grip is adequate to use it. Power though is directly related to torque, so the argument still holds. 

[Ootohere]

^^^

Makes perfect sense, more torque, get up to speed quicker, just not great fuel economy, 

the  same type of body but with only the lowly 110Ps & 150ps  without passengers or much weight in them get more miles per gallon and still get there at much the same speed as the 'sporty driving machine'. just does it 3 seconds slower getting up behind the car in front though...

[mo1965]

On ‎19‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 16:32, ScoobyVRS said:

 

I had a Mk3 TDI VRS for the last 3 years, so already used to the ride :-) Don't have DCC so this is the standard setup.

 

I've actually found the FL to be a slightly nicer ride than my pre-FL VRS. It feels a little better put together and less noisy as far as I can tell.

Yes I tend to agree. Only a week in with my FL vRS TSI hatchback and definitely quieter than the previous model. I have also found that the boot lid appears lighter than the previous model, has anyone else found that or is it just me. I wonder if the boot lid has been redesigned to counter the many previous posts about "cabin boom". During the first few weeks of ownership on the previous vRS, there was a lot of noise and passengers did comment about pressure on the ears but all this soon faded as miles added.

[Rodge]

5 hours ago, Headinawayoffski said:

So no great advances then.

There you go proving a point with a 1.2 TSI  not very quick really off the line & to 60 mph due to how heavy & not much poke, and just so so mpg,

Are we comparing against modern cars or those from 30 years ago? Yes, apparently it's slower than most modern cars (although I never have any trouble keeping up with the traffic), but modern cars are much faster and bigger than they were 30 years ago, and most of them are much more efficient. My bottom of the range *Skoda* is faster than every 1987 Golf except for the GTI. It's also much bigger and more efficient and already 2 years out of date. The new 1.0 is faster and quite a lot more efficient again.

[themanwithnoaim]

If I was concerned with fuel efficiency I'd have brought some of that tractor technology but, I'm not so, I didn't. 

 

On a full banzi run to work over 12 miles at 5am, I can get 14 or 15mpg but, it takes a full 20 mins at work to wipe the grin from my face so, my 245 is doing just great.

[LemonLime]

I think I hit 42 mpg on the way back from work once, 30 mins at 60 on a dual carriageway. My 230 is mostly averaging slightly better mpg as my old 2001 1.6 focus. But Its so much bigger and quicker and much more fun to drive.

When looking to buy I wanted a 2ltr turbo car. Fuel economy priority aims was no worse than the Focus.