poor fuel economy 1.0 TSI 3 clylinder

[Fab Estate]

On 9/27/2017 at 23:31, pinkpanther said:

This Toledo looks to be doing well on the MPG front

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/seat/toledo/2017/slowcar/663626

 

I guess the key is only 25% city driving. Mine is averaging 45.5 MPG, but is mainly an urban commuter.

 

That is my Toledo on Fuelly, Probably 40% of my motorway driving to work is on the M60 with a speed limit of 50mph due to roadworks, I am sure that greatly helps the 60mpg I got out of the last tank full.

[cypher007]

Mine seems to do 56-58 on a run on Lincolnshire’s finest A roads with all the obstacles they attract. so maybe I’ll get 60 on the motorway?

[kinetic747]

On 05/10/2017 at 18:58, Fab Estate said:

 

That is my Toledo on Fuelly, Probably 40% of my motorway driving to work is on the M60 with a speed limit of 50mph due to roadworks, I am sure that greatly helps the 60mpg I got out of the last tank full.

Should be ok for the next 3 years at least if that's the case lol.

[cypher007]

ok the results are in.

 

525 miles on pretty much a 100% momentum 99, might be the odd ltre of 95 left in, and no real improvement. vent to vent brim = 45.5mpg of fairly mixed driving.

 

will this significantly improve once ive done 10k?

 

ive put another full tank of 99 in but if no improvement think I will try standard Tesco 95.

 

I wonder if this result is because of 1 or 2 possibilities:

 

1) the 99 at my local is sitting in the tanks too long? which pump is the best? do they all come from the same underground tank?

2) the current map in the cars ecu cant utilise the extra octane, maybe a tuner economy remap in the future might fix this.

Edited 7 November, 2017 by cypher007

[pinkpanther]

Hi cypher007

 

Your average MPG is broadly similar to mine (Fully link below).

 

45.5 mpg seems a reasonable return, although this will depend on the type of driving you're doing - what is your long-term average speed?

 

My Toledo has seen a best of 52 mpg (420 mile road trip) and a lowest of 43 mpg.

 

I wouldn't expect super unleaded to result in a marked improvement in fuel economy, although it is conceivable it might go a little better?? Certainly my old (mapped) 1.8T 20v Octavia 4x4 used to love the stuff

 

 

 

Edited 8 November, 2017 by pinkpanther

[Gerrycan]

I don't have a 1.0tsi engine but I did migrate from a pre-DPF diesel (mk2 Octavia 1.9pd) to a 1.4tsi (Mk3 Octavia) just over 3 years ago. So I'll throw my tuppence worth of experience on a subject of fuel economy which is close to my heart .

Like @pinkpanther I record my fuel consumption and have never really noted much consumption improvement over the life of any car diesel or petrol that I could not account for by my driving in a way better suited to the engine characteristics.

Comparing diesel consumption with petrol consumption is fraught because fuel is sold by volume (litres) and the denser diesel fuel has about 10% more calorific value than the equivalent volume of petrol. This is a distinct advantage for diesel which with its higher compression ratios is already more efficient than petrol. The downside of modern DPF equipped diesels is that a lot of short urban journeys may result in worse consumption than you would get from a petrol engine. High mileage still favours diesel though.

 

I live in Adelaide Australia so the fuels we get here are largely sourced from SE Asia and their refineries so currently have high sulphur content compared to that sold in Europe, but on the plus side we can get 'pure' petrol without Ethanol although fuels with Ethanol added are also available.

The problem with Ethanol is that while it is does increase the Octane rating of fuel it is less dense than petrol and so has less calorific value per litre, about 10%.

I have not done this myself but there are Internet stories where people have stored a quantity of petrol with ethanol in clear containers and over a period (week?) the ethanol floats on top of the petrol (note it is the internet). If true I'm not sure what actions are taken to avoid occurring during storage at a low turnover  fuel station.

 

Ignoring the ethanol issue but looking at the effects of Octane rating then my reading and experience with Australian fuels is a follows.

IF your car is designed to utilise higher than minimum recommended Octane then at best you can expect about 1% consumption improvement per higher Octane rating.

So in Australia my car's recommended minimum is 95 Octane and if I run on the available 98 Octane then I might expect 3% improvement, However since I could detect absolutely no improvement when I ran 98 Octane AND it was 10% more expensive, I choose to standardise on 95 Octane.

 

I would say that your mid 50's on a run is not that bad nor your mid 40's average, although like you I would expect maybe 4 or 5 mpg better for both with your engine/car. I take it you have checked for the usual suspects such as binding brakes, a leaking air hose in the engine compartment. It takes very little to affect consumption.

[Ootohere]

^^^ Octane/ Mon rating do not work like that.

How nice it would be if 102 ron gave 7% better consumption than 95 ron. 

(I used to pay £77 for 25 litres of 102 ron compared to £29.50 for Filling station 99 ron minimum Tesco Momentum 99)

The Hiperflo 250 is lovely running stuff and not bought for economic driving, but if driven as such it does not give 3 mpg more than the Momentum 99.

Tesco Momentum 99  / Costco 99 or Sainsburry 97 ron might cost no more per tank even less in the uk than BP / Gulf or others 95 ron.

Shell V-Power Nitro + 99 Min or BP Super Unleaded 97 ron might be £2.25 extra a tank compared to others super unleaded.

http://en.wikipedia.net/wiki/Octane_rating 

http://www.vitalequipment.co.uk/carless-hiperflo-380-c.asp 

 

Edited 9 November, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[Gerrycan]

You have misinterpreted what I wrote.

I began with a big "IF"! As in "IF your car is designed to utilise a higher than the minimum recommended Octane etc etc.....". In that case the 1% consumption will be true.

To look at it from a different perspective: My 1.4tsi is designed for 95 Octane and if I put the locally available (crap) 91 Octane in then the knock sensors will retard the timing resulting in lower power and poor fuel consumption. That is an untested assumption on my part, but it seems logical.

Another perspective: Our other car is a 2003 Toyota Echo/Yaris with 1.3L petrol engine designed for our local 91 Octane and the manufacturer's manual quite specifically says that putting a higher Octane fuel in will not result in better power or consumption.

 

Some Australian fuel stations sell E85 (85% Ethanol) and some local cars were designed to be able to run both normal petrol and the E85 fuel but because the early flex-fuel design was compromised they could not take full advantage of its 105 Octane rating (together with the lower calorific value per litre) resulting in an overall consumption drop of nearly 30% when they used E85.

 

100% Ethanol is used in some racing formulas because they can justifiably claim their fuel is from a renewable source (biomass) and their engines are designed to fully utilise  the 110 Octane rating.

When ethanol looked as though it would be a thing in the US (before electric cars and Trump) Ricardo Engineering produced a prototype engine utilising some diesel components and a turbo for a very high compression engine. They claimed a 3.3L engine in this format running E100 could match a then current 6.3L diesel for efficiency.

 

 

[Ootohere]

In the UK there is no retailers selling 98 ron at Filling station pumps.  just 95,97,& 99 ron.

(You might get 98 as 97 ron is 97 ron Minimum, & 99 ron minimum...

http://volkswagen.co.uk/need-help/owners/Fuel 

So for VW in Europe, 95 is 'fine', maybe 98 'better' For some, maybe 100 better still. But then maybe Skoda could say so, and in some Owners manuals do.  Even if no more MPG, less Co2 g/km..

 

If 1 digit higher in octane did give 1% better economy, then that would mean 2% for 97, 4% for 99 ron, 5% better or 6% where 100+ ron is readily available in continental Europe.

Some UK filling stations in the UK also sell E85. Or were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_by_country 

Biofuels _ AA.mhtml

Morrisons opens SCOTLAND'S First BioEthanol E85 Fuel Pump in Johnstone - Morrisons.mhtml

 

PS.

I used to have as my tow barge a 4.6 V8 110 LR that RPI Engineering built as their project car.

Ran only on LPG, needed no petrol to start and had no petrol tank. Lovely octane with LPG.

Morgan racers& others used LPG as a fuel for this very reason. Lovely stuff.

There were owners of Classic 3.5 Range Rovers that had their engines because of the increased performance with LPG without 

increasing the Cubic Capacity in countries where that is not allowed.

http://v8engines.com 

RPI's Project Orange 110.

Edited 9 November, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[Gerrycan]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 23:41, Headinawayoffski said:

 

If 1 digit higher in octane did give 1% better economy, then that would mean 2% for 97, 4% for 99 ron, 5% better or 6% where 100+ ron is readily available in continental Europe.

 

Yes that is right, but only if the engine is tuned to utilise the higher octane and only if the higher octane is not achieved only adding ethanol.

The Mazda SkyActive range of petrol engines  use very high compression ratios. The engines sold in Europe are 14:1 because the standard petrol sold there is 95 Octane but the same engines sold in Australia are detuned to 13:1 ( going from memory so I may be half a ratio or so out) for our 91 Octane fuel. Of course we can put 95 Octane fuel in but it is unlikely to achieve 4% consumption improvement because it is not optimised for 95 Octane. I suspect that if 91 Octane fuel was put in the Euro engine then consumption would be at least 4% worse.

 

To the best of my knowledge the official Australian fuel consumption tests for all petrol cars are all conducted on 95 Octane fuel, and our tests are based on the Euro standard, so probably the same there.

 

With regard to LPG, Ford Australia actually sold a production LPG only Falcon (straight six 4 Litre) here.

It used a very sophisticated direct injection system that that had better power and torque figures than the normal petrol version. Consumption was far better than normal dual LPG/petrol conversions and only a little worse than petrol. Apparently the constituent ingredients of LPG vary considerably around the country and season so it required some development. Unfortunately Ford's marketing was woeful and it failed to sell in any meaningful numbers despite the relatively low cost of LPG per litre.

 

There are many older petrol V8 (off-road vehicles) converted to use LPG over here but while the overall running costs are lower I'm not aware they produce more power.

There is an unusual exception though where some large diesel vehicles also add a small amount of LPG to the intake air claiming to achieve power increases of 30% or more and/or much better fuel consumption from the cleaner burn.

Edited 10 November, 2017 by Gerrycan

[Ootohere]

Petrol vehicle EU Tests were also only done on 95 octane.   The issue that caused so much problem for Kia / Hyundai in North America / Canada, and for others is 

the testing was all kidology.

In Temperature controlled building on a rolling road, and the new ones are still a lots about kidology as the vehicle is not at Max Gross Weight in different temps other than those the Testers chose to be doing them in.

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

[pinkpanther]

4000 miles in now and no reliability issues to report.

 

The car is currently running on a set of 15" steel rims / Continental TS850 winter tyres (185/60/15) and rides considerably better (smoother / quieter) than on the OEM 17" alloys / 215/40/17 Bridgestone Potenza RE050's. The speedo hasn't been appreciably affected by this change, given just a 0.4% difference in circumference between the 2 set-ups.

 

I also compared speed reported by the car to a Sat-nav driven speedo on my phone and found the car typically over-reads by 2-3 MPH, across a wide range of speeds. (20 - 70 MPH).

 

The car has averaged 46 MPG over the last 10 tanks of fuel (best = 52.3 MPG / worst = 43 MPG). The OBC typically over estimates MPG by 5-10%,  as below.

 

I've elected to stick with standard unleaded fuel (Esso, Shell and Cost-co), but may throw in a few tanks of Shell V-Power Nitro+ as the miles rise. This will be more for the detergent properties of the fuel, rather than any gain in performance / fuel economy.

 

The six speed box allows relaxed cruising at motorway speeds and I'm constantly impressed that a 1.0 car can run with just over 2000 revs indicated at 70 MPH. I recall running an old "bread box" style Polo many years ago which would spin at in excess of 4000 revs at similar speeds (in fourth). More recently I ran a 1.6 NA Petrol Qashqai for 2 years,which required 3500 RPM for a similar speed (in fifth).

 

I've switched all the interior bulbs to LED and am investigating how best to replace the remaining (external bulbs) -  front fog lights, rear indicators, side repeaters with LED equivalents.

 

I did explore having Full-Link activated, but this remains a relatively costly option (£199) and still requires the phone to be connected by a cable, in order to benefit from Android Auto etc. I'd then lose access to the USB port, which is currently home to a 64Gb mini-USB stick containing MP3's.

 

By no means a remarkable car, but certainly represents decent value (at the purchase price), as well as proving roomy, reliable and economical family transport.

 

 

Edited 12 November, 2017 by pinkpanther

[cypher007]

what I'm kinda of confused about is what happened, not only to petrol but also diesel, in the last decade to reduce economy so much? was it dpf's and associated emissions crap that has nerfed it?

 

I do wonder how much the emissions control equipment has actually made the emissions in cities worse not better due to increased fuel consumption.

[camelspyyder]

Has it anything to do with doubling power outputs?

 

my 02 1.2 Fiat made 59 bhp

my 14  1.2 Seat made 116-120 bhp (according to independent Dyno testing reported on the web)

 

both did 50mpg!

[cypher007]

thinking more 2.0 TDI's doing about 45-50mpg compared to old 1.9 TDI's doing 65+ mpg.

 

I mean if the car is dumping fuel into the dpf to burn off soot it goto use more fuel?

Edited 16 November, 2017 by cypher007

[cypher007]

also our old 1.9 when following it seems very clean even when accelerating. compared to some Ford, Vaxhauls, and white van's of a similar age and newer that leave a black cloud on A roads.

 

why is it people can at present report a bus for being smokey but not a car? if these smokers where taken off the road I'm sure the particulate count would drop in some towns/cities. the current MOT test is obviously not stringent enough, as ive checked the cars and some have only recently been MOT'ed. or some stations are turning a blind eye.

 

I mean they are that bad the back of the car is black.

Edited 16 November, 2017 by cypher007

[camelspyyder]

Modern diesels are too complicated and go off tune too easily, hence we have 2 petrols now. If I was looking for a diesel again, 

 I think the 1.9 PD was possibly the peak of diesel development, unless I consider going back to even older stuff that runs on recycled chip fat like my Citroen or Mitsubishi diesels would.

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 November, 2017 by camelspyyder

[bigjohn]

On 11/9/2017 at 00:23, Gerrycan said:

I don't have a 1.0tsi engine but I did migrate from a pre-DPF diesel (mk2 Octavia 1.9pd) to a 1.4tsi (Mk3 Octavia) just over 3 years ago. So I'll throw my tuppence worth of experience on a subject of fuel economy which is close to my heart .

Like @pinkpanther I record my fuel consumption and have never really noted much consumption improvement over the life of any car diesel or petrol that I could not account for by my driving in a way better suited to the engine characteristics.

Comparing diesel consumption with petrol consumption is fraught because fuel is sold by volume (litres) and the denser diesel fuel has about 10% more calorific value than the equivalent volume of petrol.

 

 

Likewise I went from a 1.9pd diesel Superb I (no DPF etc...)  to 1.4tsi petrol Superb II - On same journey types fuel economy is slightly worse but not as bad I thought it would be. Tank to tank over many 10 of 1000's of miles:-

• Superb I diesel averaged about 50mpg (tank to tank)
• Superb II petrol averaging about 46mpg (45.8 as per Spritmonitor) - tank to tank
• I had a courtesy car 1.2 Rapid that seemed to do about 49mpg (only on board computer reading though)

I've noticed the Karoq comes with both the 1.0 and 1.5tsi engines - think I need to try both - Just don't want to buy an early implementation of a GPF and I'm not sure when they'll be introduced

 

 

 

 

[cypher007]

well this just gets better.

 

totally unrelated but my Tolly just decided to star howling on the front drive, as in the alarm lights the lot. not sure if its the frost that's set it off but it seems a tad sensitive.

 

is there any way of using vcds or something to find out what upset it?

[technics100]

Interesting reading this.. My wife has a 1.2 TFSI yeti (110bhp) which is 18 months old.. it gets nowhere near the claimed figures, but it definitely has improved with time (about 11k on it now).. it started off at 33mpg and now sits close to 40mpg.. I know my mk1 VRS behaved better on premium fuel and avaeraged 34mpg over the 20k I put on it.. The best car I had was a 1.4 TDI Audi A2.. returned 55mpg every tank and went straight to 60mpg when I removed the CAT.. Modern cars can't even get close nowadays.. even my mk1 superb (1.9 TDI PD 100bhp) did 48mpg over the 25k I put on it and it had a tuning box.. 

 

My current motor 2.8 V6 4motion passat.. not so much!! 25mpg if i'm going easy!!!

Edited 17 November, 2017 by technics100

[Delberthot]

My long term average on my Rapid Greentech SE 105ps was about 43ish

 

I'm meant to average 35mpg in my Scirocco but after 5 fillups recorded using the miles done divided by the amount that went in the tank rather than the MFD I am averaging 28.6mpg

 

Interestingly Tesco Momentum superunleaded is costing me 22p per mile at 119p per litre but Shell V-Power is 19p per mile at 129p per litre.

[Ootohere]

So for a gallon of Tesco Momentum (4.546 litres)  costing 541 pence you get 24.59 MPG

& 

For Shell V-Power Nitro+  costing 586 pence you get 30.86 mpg.   An amazing difference..

Edited 18 November, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[Delberthot]

From what I've heard Tesco gets its fuel from whoever is cheapest so with the Momentum you either get rocket fuel or sludge. At least the V-power is consistent from tank to tank

 

I'm half way through what will be my third and last tank of Momentum and indeed Tesco fuel. I'm happy to sacrifice the 25 Clubcard points I get per tank for better economy.

[Ootohere]

That is nonsense though, actual guff.

http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/company_profile/greenergy-12 

 

They all get their fuel from which ever source has it on the world market at the cheapest, refineries all around the world.

Base fuel from Grangemouth Cracking Plant, others in the UK or overseas.

Higher Octane fuels with additive packages are 97 ron minimum unless from Super unleaded from Tesco, Shell or Costco and 99 ron min in the UK.  Tesco Momentum 99 min can be 100 ron plus at times, winter fuel started being delivered mid October in Scotland, 

the only inconsistent thing is that while 99 octane is a minimum. there can be higher octane delivered.

Continental Europe winter fuels purchased and imported because of surpluses and low prices after March.

http://platts.com/latest-news/oil/london/uk-still-buying-winter-gasoline-as-european-refiners-8114744 

 

Tesco Momentum in Scotland goes into tankers in Scotland at Scottish Depots.

 

Greenergy that produce Momentum are co-owners of importation facilities and storage with Royal Dutch Shell.

Greenergy Produces and delivers ESSO Super Unleaded and others Independents fuel.

Base petrol is base petrol nothing special, and then there are additive packages. 

 

You hear lots, best find out though.

http://greenergy.com/uk/independent 

FAQs - Tesco PFS.mhtml

Edited 18 November, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[cypher007]

well going to see how this second tank fares. at the mo it might have a slight edge. maybe the Tesco in Grimsby had some old stock compared to Boston. if not much improvement ill try standard Tesco. then probably end up back on Esso standard.

 

the other day I took the 850 out and had some issues on full throttle with misfiring. not had that for years. last tank full Tesco 99.

 

I duno what is going on here as they should be from the same supplier as mentioned above. maybe Tesco gets the stuff that's been stored longer or something.