MPG of 1.6 diesel

[SkodaVRS1963]

9 hours ago, SashaGrace said:

Just a point on that. Skoda don’t make an MPG claim. They list the EU’s tested MPG figure in their literature. They make cars to get as good a result as they can in the test, sure, but they don’t actually claim a figure. It will also take a few thousand miles for the engine to loosen up and start to give better economy.

 

Just looking at Skoda's UK website at the VRS 184bhp diesel, they've actually had the audacity to up their combined MPG claim from 61.4mpg when I bought mine (Dec 2013) to 62.8mpg!!

 

So their p1$$taking knows no bounds and has, in fact, gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

 

They really aren't doing themselves any favours.

 

I now drive a Focus ST petrol and Ford's figures are artificially inflated but only by about 9%.......Skoda's are 25%+.

 

I often wonder how much car manufacturers are bunging the UK Government in backhanders to avoid prosecution for false advertising..........apart from fanboys (and every brand has them) everyone knows that you can't get within a million miles of the mpg claims they make.

[lol-lol]

13 minutes ago, ahenners said:

 

Perhaps we have a different understanding of wafting along... The only time you will see 100mpg or above is when it's practically coasting, i.e. going downhill. It's hardly much of the time, it's probably a few % of your journey at best.

 

Even a hybrid which ignores the electricity consumed will struggle to see above 100mpg "much of the time".

 

When I was wafting it was more like just at that sweet spot where the engine is doing 1500 rpm, ie 50 mph odd, even lower than the extra urban figure which is 67 mpg according to skoda figures, so I guess would be 70 mpg indicated.  

 

I know I was starting to get caught by an articulated lorry on the A road from Crawley to Giuldford so pick it up to 55 to 60  mph.   fuel consumption goes back from the 100 mpg when one gets to the inclines and occasional towns and villages.

 

Tyres came with around 35 psi in them,  Noticed they were Michelin Green ECO ones so added a couple of psi to the front but put the rears up to 42 psi, think the petrol flap actually says 3.2 bar !  Expect this helps as bigger wheels ie the 18s and nono eco tyres cost a bit in mpg.  Cruise control helps it seems as well and the coasting feature in ECO engine/gearbox mode.   

 

Happy with averages in the 60s of MPGs.  

 

[logiclee]

36 minutes ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

 

Just looking at Skoda's UK website at the VRS 184bhp diesel, they've actually had the audacity to up their combined MPG claim from 61.4mpg when I bought mine (Dec 2013) to 62.8mpg!!

 

So their p1$$taking knows no bounds and has, in fact, gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

 

They really aren't doing themselves any favours.

 

I now drive a Focus ST petrol and Ford's figures are artificially inflated but only by about 9%.......Skoda's are 25%+.

 

I often wonder how much car manufacturers are bunging the UK Government in backhanders to avoid prosecution for false advertising..........apart from fanboys (and every brand has them) everyone knows that you can't get within a million miles of the mpg claims they make.

 

Every manufacturer currently does the same NEDC test. The figures achieved are down to the inaccuracies of the test. Skoda do not dream figures out of thin air.

 

Petrol's seem to be closer in the real world to the NEDC test than diesel.

 

For instance if you had gone for the Focus ST Diesel the published figure by Ford is  67.3mpg. Honest Johns average real world mg is 46.4 mpg.

 

Lee

[SkodaVRS1963]

4 minutes ago, logiclee said:

 

Every manufacturer currently does the same NEDC test. The figures achieved are down to the inaccuracies of the test. Skoda do not dream figures out of thin air.

 

Petrol's seem to be closer in the real world to the NEDC test than diesel.

 

For instance if you had gone for the Focus ST Diesel the published figure by Ford is  67.3mpg. Honest Johns average real world mg is 46.4 mpg.

 

Lee

Indeed.

 

So, as a business intelligence analyst with a naturally curious brain (that's why we're business intelligence analysts) my first response to that is under what parameters are/is this test conducted and, more importantly, can I see the bank accounts of those responsible for implementing same.

 

Because someone, somewhere, is getting very, very rich off of the back of the claims that simply don't stack up in the real world.

 

And those that are doing so are only allowed to do so by those further up the chain whose palms have been greased.

 

In short, we're all being forced to get down on all fours and take it up the Marmite Motorway.

 

When are we actually going to get out on the streets and do our best imitations of Guy Fawkes?  Or is this is good as it gets?

[lol-lol]

8 minutes ago, logiclee said:

 

Every manufacturer currently does the same NEDC test. The figures achieved are down to the inaccuracies of the test. Skoda do not dream figures out of thin air.

 

Petrol's seem to be closer in the real world to the NEDC test than diesel.

 

For instance if you had gone for the Focus ST Diesel the published figure by Ford is  67.3mpg. Honest Johns average real world mg is 46.4 mpg.

 

Lee

 

Much of this is down to the warm up phase of engines.

A diesel can take 3 to almost 10 kms to warm up. Petrols tend to take 2 to 6 kms i find.

During this phase the fuel consumption is usually only about double of warmed phase.

Hence if you only do journeys of 5, 10, 15 km one will get **** fuel consumption.

 

I do not use the octy for short journeys, I would use the Spark, 1 litre naturally aspirated. Much quicker warm up.

[logiclee]

18 minutes ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

  Or is this is good as it gets?

 

No,

 

NEDC being replace by WLTP this year so should be closer to real world situations.

[SkodaVRS1963]

10 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Much of this is down to the warm up phase of engines.

A diesel can take 3 to almost 10 kms to warm up. Petrols tend to take 2 to 6 kms i find.

During this phase the fuel consumption is usually only about double of warmed phase.

Hence if you only do journeys of 5, 10, 15 km one will get **** fuel consumption.

 

I do not use the octy for short journeys, I would use the Spark, 1 litre naturally aspirated. Much quicker warm up.

 

But on one than more occasion I drove from Bath to Penzance (and back)......a 237 mile one-way trip, a lot of the journey I had no choice but to stick to 55mph due to sheer volume of traffic (Bristol to Burnham, for example) and I still couldn't get anything better than 43mpg in the 184bhp diesel?

 

If I'd thrashed the life out of it, I dread to think what I'd have got?

 

Reading the posts from some of the fanboys on here who claim 50+mpg in the 230bhp petrol, I wish I'd gone for that model.

[logiclee]

16 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Much of this is down to the warm up phase of engines.

A diesel can take 3 to almost 10 kms to warm up. Petrols tend to take 2 to 6 kms i find.

During this phase the fuel consumption is usually only about double of warmed phase.

Hence if you only do journeys of 5, 10, 15 km one will get **** fuel consumption.

 

I do not use the octy for short journeys, I would use the Spark, 1 litre naturally aspirated. Much quicker warm up.

 

The new EA288 is much quicker to warm up than the previous diesels but it adds a lot of complexity to that.

 

Still not as quick as a TSi though.

 

We have a TDi Octavia, TSi Octavia and a Citigo. I'd say in cold weather the TSi is quickest to temperature.

 

Lee

[lol-lol]

6 minutes ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

 

But on one than more occasion I drove from Bath to Penzance (and back)......a 237 mile one-way trip, a lot of the journey I had no choice but to stick to 55mph due to sheer volume of traffic (Bristol to Burnham, for example) and I still couldn't get anything better than 43mpg in the 184bhp diesel?

 

If I'd thrashed the life out of it, I dread to think what I'd have got?

 

Reading the posts from some of the fanboys on here who claim 50+mpg in the 230bhp petrol, I wish I'd gone for that model.

 

I use to get fantastic MPG out of the 1.9 VAG PDs and had more than half a dozen, Audi A3, A4, Octy Mk1, Mk2 Fabia VRS Mk1, all capable of 60 mpg on a toodle.

 

Then got a 140 hp 2 litre Common rail, actually in a SEAT.  Could not believe the fuel consumption actual dropped by about 10 mpg in comparison to the 1.9 PD.

 

Considering how good the TSIs were getting I saw no reason to continue with diesels, despite being a high miler.  Had two petrol VRSs, a Mk1 and Mk2, just got mid 30s mpg I recall.  Better Skoda, I felt, were the 1.8 TSI DSG L&K and now the 150 hp 1.4 TSI DSG.  Similarly quick as standard TDI VRSs, fuel consumption in 10 to 20 mpg better than the petrol VRS.  Fin being painted and fitted to mine, selecting my 17 or 18 inch wheels, best of both world as Hannah Montana would say.           

 

[lol-lol]

21 minutes ago, logiclee said:

 

The new EA288 is much quicker to warm up than the previous diesels but it adds a lot of complexity to that.

 

Still not as quick as a TSi though.

 

We have a TDi Octavia, TSi Octavia and a Citigo. I'd say in cold weather the TSi is quickest to temperature.

 

Lee

 

Dual circuit "coolant" systems.  Clio and Spark are quick to warm up with their little engines, great on frosty morning but always wanted the "Ford" quick clear windscreens, very clever. 

[ahenners]

3 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Dual circuit "coolant" systems.  Clio and Spark are quick to warm up with their little engines, great on frosty morning but always wanted the "Ford" quick clear windscreens, very clever. 

 

The Skoda heated screen is just as good 

[Rodge]

3 hours ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

Just looking at Skoda's UK website at the VRS 184bhp diesel, they've actually had the audacity to up their combined MPG claim from 61.4mpg when I bought mine (Dec 2013) to 62.8mpg!!

[...]

I often wonder how much car manufacturers are bunging the UK Government in backhanders to avoid prosecution for false advertising..........apart from fanboys (and every brand has them) everyone knows that you can't get within a million miles of the mpg claims they make.

Are you claiming that it didn't achieve those figures when it was tested?

[logiclee]

2 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

Dual circuit "coolant" systems.  Clio and Spark are quick to warm up with their little engines, great on frosty morning but always wanted the "Ford" quick clear windscreens, very clever. 

 

I have winter pack on the TDi Octavia so heated screen, heated washer jets and heated seats. Having owned four Fords with heated screens I'd say the Octavia's screen is just as good and has harder to see wires, they appear thinner.

 

As TDi emission controls have advanced real life economy has suffered. The most economical Octavia I've had was a 110TDi Direct Injection that predated PD. I've also had 1.9PD, 2.0PD, 2.0CR and 1.6CR.

I've still managed good economy even with a 2.0CR Passat that would average low 50's mpg on my 60 mile a day commute. Skodavrs1963 only getting 43mpg at best is something I don't recognise with my vehicles.

 

I manage low 60's mpg to work out of the Octavia TDi to work which is 10mpg better than the TSi. But around town there is very little between the TDi and TSi and I will always take the TSi to give the DPF an easier time.

 

Best to date a 50 mile A road run through Lincolnshire. In reality about 70mpg.

 

As for the the TSi vs the 1.0 normally aspirated triple in the Citigo, the Octavia is heavier and has a turbo and I would assume that's why it appears to warm up quicker in winter.

 

 

Lee 

[SkodaVRS1963]

10 hours ago, Rodge said:

Are you claiming that it didn't achieve those figures when it was tested?

 

I'm sure it did, but then manufacturers have a number of ways to make sure they obtain the best results possible; turning the lights, infotainment unit and the aircon off, disconnecting the alternator, pushing back the brake pads to reduce friction, removing extra trim, taping over cracks around doors and grills to minimize air resistance, using special super-lubricants and only simulating the weight of one (thin) person in the car.

 

Now the test parameters allow them to do all this.

 

But it’s not exactly how the rest of us drive, is it?

 

For example, the extra-urban results are supposedly representative of the vehicle accelerating and decelerating.  However, this is done at a very slow rate, a lot slower than normal and over a very short distance (accelerating to 9mph in 4 seconds and over only a distance of 4.3miles).

 

If you don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, the next time you're stopped at traffic lights try doing that on the open road with a police car behind you and see how long it takes him to pull you over.

Edited 24 June, 2018 by SkodaVRS1963

[Ootohere]

The figures were achieved at an Official Facility of their choice inside a building. Results they submit.

Why in December 2015 / early 2016 VW, Audi & SEAT had to revise some Results (VED Bands) of Euro 6 emission petrol and diesels after the investigation into Implausible / Irregular results for Co2  g/km and they had 'Made errors' / 'mistakes'  known also as cheated at facilities, some models were even withdrawn from sale.

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

 

We will see what the WLTP published figures are for a 1.6TDI and the other models that they sell / first register after September.

Which models / trims are discontinued.

VW had to change the figures for the UP GTI as there was a15% difference on emissions / consumption from the old tests not in the outside world to the new ones not outside.

They never test with say 100 kg on a weight in each seat and luggage in the boot. Even for the new figures that will be published.

Then they could do both, car with just driver and car as might be driven at 'Revenue weight'.  Best & worst possible figures.

http://volkswagen.co.uk/owners/wltp 

 

 

VW emissions scandal_ Nine VW vehicles have false CO2 ratings _ Autocar.mhtml

Volkswagen lists MY2016 vehicles with false CO2 emissions data – 430k Audi, SEAT, Skoda, VW models – Auto Breaking News.mhtml

Edited 24 June, 2018 by Offski

[Ootohere]

PS

Why would they Tape Gaps, remove mirrors, wipers etc when testing on a rolling road not in a wind tunnel?

They might over inflate tyres and put diesel in the engine oil of a diesel.

 

Now for the WLTP testing VW Group  have gone to VW 508/509 in cars from the factory, and that will no doubt be what is in at any Re-testing as cars enter the UK.

Vorsprung Durch Technik, learn from having used a different viscosity in the past.  ie Diesel in the Oil.....

Edited 24 June, 2018 by Offski

[Novascape]

Hopefully the new way will at least lower the mpg a bit.

 

I get 9p per mile on my expenses which is driven by the gov.uk recommended amounts for under 1.6litre. Guessing it will be based on all these false 70+mpg currently being supplied by the manufactures.

 

I'm driving at a loss at the moment when the cheapest I can fill up is around £1.26 per litre.

 

A true mpg of around 60ish mpg from manufacturers will hopefully push that 9p to 11p+. 

[ahenners]

2 hours ago, Novascape said:

Hopefully the new way will at least lower the mpg a bit.

 

I get 9p per mile on my expenses which is driven by the gov.uk recommended amounts for under 1.6litre. Guessing it will be based on all these false 70+mpg currently being supplied by the manufactures.

 

I'm driving at a loss at the moment when the cheapest I can fill up is around £1.26 per litre.

 

A true mpg of around 60ish mpg from manufacturers will hopefully push that 9p to 11p+. 

 

The rate from June 2018 is 10p for a 1600 or less diesel. Not significantly more but if you cover a fair amount of miles it would help reduce the losses. Have a word with your employer.

[KevC_Derby]

Wind speed and direction

Road Surface coefficient of friction affected by moisture and ambient temperature 

Air inlet temperature

 

All variables affecting your MPG that you can’t control or measure. People worrying about 2 or 3% is madness.

 

[logiclee]

Engineers given a set of parameters will engineer to those parameters.

 

That's why we are where we are today. Technology that does little more than work to recuduce emissions on the NEDC tests.

 

I had three generations of the 2.0CR Passat. The first had a combined economy figure in the 40's and the last in the 60's

 

The changes between the three cars included Stop/Start, smart alternators with recuperation, taller gearing, aerodynamic tweaks and tighter emission controls.

 

And here's the rub. All three did similar mpg on my commute. And the first one without all the fuel saving extras and the shorter gearing was by far the best to drive.

 

So we have to buy more expensive cars, fitted with technology that doesn't work on the road and are worse to drive.

[Gabbo]

On ‎24‎.‎06‎.‎2018 at 08:18, SkodaVRS1963 said:

But it’s not exactly how the rest of us drive, is it?

 

But how do the rest of us drive?

For example, you cant get more than 40mpg others can get 50mpg without trying, so what should they show on the official figures?

 

If for example, VW advertised 40mpg as their combined fuel economy based on worst case driving but Renault advertised 65mpg based on their best case drive profile of course everyone interested in fuel economy would choose Renault.

Its natural that everyone advertises the best that they can achieve following the rules given to them.

Yes the test is with the minimum specc'd car (hence the reason a full sized spare is option etc for all manufacturers) but it is witnessed by an official from the testing agency & it is the same test for all.

 

The problem is that the European countries have not updated their testing process for so long & let the auto makers & fuel companies dictate their targets.

This is why we have advances like StopStart which make a huge difference on the old european cycle instead of real investment in technologies like EV.

 

 

[petecollier]

On 6/22/2018 at 13:57, BOD20 said:

The manual actually states "The fuel tank has a capacity of about 50 litres, including a reserve of approx. 6 litres".

 

Is it just me ore does that seem ambiguous and vague ? Does that 50 litres INCLUDE the reserve, or is the actual total capacity 56 litres ? And the words "about" and "approx" ? Don't they know how much the tank holds ? They manufactured it after all.

 

The volume of the fuel will vary depending on temperature and atmospheric pressure, which are not the same from one day to the next (or indeed, from one hour to the next). For that reason, they can only advise the approximate tank capacity. If you look at the petrol pump next time you fill up, you may see a little note next to the litre meter along the lines of "volume corrected to X degC" for the same reason. On a warm day the volume of the dispensed fuel will be slightly more than the indication, on a cold day it will be a little less and, again, atmospheric pressure will also come into play. The calculations are also affected by viscosity, but that figure should be fairly constant for any given grade of fuel.

[Guest]

On 23/06/2018 at 19:12, SkodaVRS1963 said:

So, as a business intelligence analyst with a naturally curious brain (that's why we're business intelligence analysts) my first response to that is under what parameters are/is this test conducted and, more importantly, can I see the bank accounts of those responsible for implementing same.

 

Because someone, somewhere, is getting very, very rich off of the back of the claims that simply don't stack up in the real world.

 

And those that are doing so are only allowed to do so by those further up the chain whose palms have been greased.

 

In short, we're all being forced to get down on all fours and take it up the Marmite Motorway.

 

When are we actually going to get out on the streets and do our best imitations of Guy Fawkes?  Or is this is good as it gets?

 

After reading that I'd question the term 'intelligence'.  If your brain is naturally curious, you may want to consider how one published figure is going to be accurate for every driver in the EU who drives differently, for every car driving on different road surfaces; every car carrying different loads; everyone driving in all sorts of conditions - Beast from the East to our current 30C here in the UK? different tyre pressures? etc.

 

You're not seriously suggesting a manufacturer can publish a figure which takes in to account every permutation?

 

Currently figures are obtained in laboratory conditions. They are not produced telling you what you'll acheive but are there as a comparison so you can make a choice between cars. The rules are changing in the very near future to make those figure more accurate for 'real-world' conditions but unless they test all the cars at the same time on the same road (and all parallel to each other otherwise they'd be guilty of slip streaming), then you're going to be disappointed because these figures aren't going to be accurate for your personal circumstances either.

 

If you want to know what mpg to expect, go to a website like honestjohn's real mpg where real-world figures have been submitted. The website uses a series of algorithms to weed out all the wildly inaccurate figures and it's the best indication I've ever seen of what Mr Joe Average should expect.

 

As for money being exchanged in brown paper bags as you suggest - time to put your curious brain in use and find evidence of this. You're just making that up without a scrap of evidence. My curious brain is asking if you're suggest those mpg figures are wildly optimistic, then everyone else expects them to be wildly optimistic, (which we do) so what benefit would a manufacturer have of producing a figure which everyone knows is false? It makes no sense.

 

Marmite motorway? Guy Fawkes?  I haven't a clue what you're saying but you seem to have lost the plot.

[Ootohere]

'If' they advertise, they knew after Audi were 'named' that they need to point out that the 'test' figures are not about 'real world', they were the EU Test Figures.

Then after the ASA pulled up Audi they were still caught with EU Test results that were Implausible / Irregular.

Cheating is part of the VW Group business model.   Now surely they will clean up their act.   Pigs might fly though....

 

 

_Misleading_ car mpg claims to be banned - Telegraph.mhtml

ASA rules on 'misleading' fuel figures - What Car_.mhtml

Edited 25 June, 2018 by Offski

[AlexBlue]

Look up equa index, they're an organisation that attempts to put all cars through an identical real world testing regime to monitor co2, fuel consumption etc. I used it to compare cars when I was looking around.