MPG

[FabiaGonzales]

6 minutes ago, sikejsudjek said:

Had another run this time and got 60 mpg on half A roads and half motorway. How much difference does tyre pressure make ?

 

Tyre pressures don't make that much difference. Personally i set it toward the lower end when cold, when you've been driving a while they heat up and the pressures rise anyway, just helps the ride be a bit smoother.

 

From what i've noticed it doesn't make a huge difference on wear either, the biggest thing that affects wear is the alignment.

[Gerrycan]

@GeneralPurpose, I cannot really argue against that sort of experience or resource. I suppose the conclusion/inference is that most, if not all the measured gains were from reduced friction in engine and driveline.

I only drive on public roads and I rarely, if ever, use the performance capability of any car I've owned so I for one would not recognise any power increase. However I do take an interest in the fuel consumption and I do what I can with the onboard facilities to recognise factors that affect my results.

By observation I have confirmed (to my satisfaction at least) that all the standard general factors of air temperature, tyre pressure, road surface, winds, loads etcetc all hold true, but it is more than annoying that I've never recognised an improvement from 'running in'. and believe me I would have loved it if I had.

Having said all that my 1.4tsi Octavia is still the most economical petrol car I've owned by far and by every measurement I've made it matches a speed/gear/consumption graph I have for a manual VW Golf 1.4tsi, so I am far from being an unhappy camper.... but

 

Let me put something to you though. Maybe your rolling road test methodology of subjecting a tight new engine to at least three maximum efforts is actually much more beneficial to the running in process than my 'steady as she goes' approach?

On the web there is a 'respected' US American race mechanic who swears by a similar tough love running in process for standard car engines, claiming similar results to yours for the hundreds of new engines he has applied his system to.

 

[Gerrycan]

17 hours ago, FabiaGonzales said:

 

Tyre pressures don't make that much difference. Personally i set it toward the lower end when cold, when you've been driving a while they heat up and the pressures rise anyway, just helps the ride be a bit smoother.

 

From what i've noticed it doesn't make a huge difference on wear either, the biggest thing that affects wear is the alignment.

When I had company cars I was obliged to attend a couple of Defensive Driving courses, once pre and the other, post ABS on my cars.

The emphasis was almost completely on effective emergency braking and steering the car under heavy braking.

The preceding classroom element was about maintaining the correct tyre pressure, they had gone around every attending participant's car and measured their tyre pressures and most were either at or below the minimum manufacturer's recommended pressure (mine were ok on my 2nd visit of course)

Their recommendation, in fact insistence, was that the front tyres should be at least 5 psi over the placard to avoid tyre deformation during emergency braking by the multiplication of the car's weight onto the front tyres that reduced the tyre road contact. They did offer considerable and persuasive supporting evidence for their argument from police archives of the middle portion of normally inflated tyre lifting off the road as the outer edges flexed massively under the extra weight of braking.

 

So my general rule is that around 5-7 psi over the placard/weight recommendation, but I vary that slightly depending on the tyre, the prevailing temperatures (Australia).

I definitely get better consumption with the higher tyre pressure especially at lower urban speeds where rolling resistance is a more obvious factor than at higher speeds where aero drag dominates. I also think the ride improves at the higher pressure but that is a personal preference.

Excessively high pressures are counter productive and even dangerous.

 

[GeneralPurpose]

Excellent Gerry. Yes I agree with your above analysis. I get better consumption by far when my tyre pressures are at the recommended limits. Both wear and safety are improved if you stick to manufacturers recommended pressures.

Edited 9 July, 2019 by GeneralPurpose

[FabiaGonzales]

On 09/07/2019 at 03:56, Gerrycan said:

When I had company cars I was obliged to attend a couple of Defensive Driving courses, once pre and the other, post ABS on my cars.

The emphasis was almost completely on effective emergency braking and steering the car under heavy braking.

The preceding classroom element was about maintaining the correct tyre pressure, they had gone around every attending participant's car and measured their tyre pressures and most were either at or below the minimum manufacturer's recommended pressure (mine were ok on my 2nd visit of course)

Their recommendation, in fact insistence, was that the front tyres should be at least 5 psi over the placard to avoid tyre deformation during emergency braking by the multiplication of the car's weight onto the front tyres that reduced the tyre road contact. They did offer considerable and persuasive supporting evidence for their argument from police archives of the middle portion of normally inflated tyre lifting off the road as the outer edges flexed massively under the extra weight of braking.

 

So my general rule is that around 5-7 psi over the placard/weight recommendation, but I vary that slightly depending on the tyre, the prevailing temperatures (Australia).

I definitely get better consumption with the higher tyre pressure especially at lower urban speeds where rolling resistance is a more obvious factor than at higher speeds where aero drag dominates. I also think the ride improves at the higher pressure but that is a personal preference.

Excessively high pressures are counter productive and even dangerous.

 

 

On 09/07/2019 at 09:14, GeneralPurpose said:

Excellent Gerry. Yes I agree with your above analysis. I get better consumption by far when my tyre pressures are at the recommended limits. Both wear and safety are improved if you stick to manufacturers recommended pressures.

 

Personally i set my tyres to 2.2 bar, 32psi, at 20c, after a while of driving, my tyres read at 36.5 psi front, and 35 at the rear, i suspect with a bit more driving, especially spirited, they would rise a bit further still.

Think the standard is 2.1 bar, or 30psi, and the Eco standard is 2.4 bar, or 35 psi. I went for a little in between as the ride seems quite negatively impacted going much higher than 32.

 

I did test very shortly at their upper rated pressures with a fully laden car (2.4 on front and rear to 3.2 bar?!?!?!), and by the holy mother of chicken nuggets the rear end was loud and rough, front wasn't particularly comfortable either, really crashy and harsh, reading hot pressures on arrival at destination, were on the lines of 41.5 psi front and 49.5 rear! I would definitely not recommend that to anyone. My tyres are rated to something like 55 psi and that's getting a little close for comfort (not that it was comfortable driving with that high pressures anyway)!

 

Achieved 51.8 after a 55 mile journey. Most of which sat at 65-70mph, occasionally slip-streaming behind a lorry! My car doesn't seem to score great on the MPG side of things. Though that could just be a heavy right foot..

 

 

 

[Gerrycan]

@FabiaGonzales

The recommended tyre pressures apply when the tyres are 'cold' and I think you will find the tyre manufacturers' ratings are the same, so there is probably a little more latitude than you suggest for max psi.

If you have a big load in the back on a longer, faster journey then you must have the tyres pumped accordingly (as you did) to avoid the tyres overheating from the sidewalls over-flexing. 

Overly inflated tyres do cause discomfort. A story from the Defensive Driving Course was that one past participant had gone to a petrol station and inflated the tyres as per the recommendation (+5psi) and rang them back saying her Datsun 120Y was now shaking her to pieces.  Living locally she went back and they put a standard pencil pressure gauge on a tyre and the measure popped out the end. Pressure was eventually measured near 90psi and they expressed several levels of disbelief;  the garage's gauge inaccuracy, that the compressor was capable of reaching that level and that the tyres did not blow off the steel rims.

I've read of drivers at the Nürburgring lowering their tyre pressures for the circuit, but I am not sure how 'especially spirited' your driving on public roads would be to require that.

Edited 12 July, 2019 by Gerrycan

[FabiaGonzales]

13 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

@FabiaGonzales

The recommended tyre pressures apply when the tyres are 'cold' and I think you will find the tyre manufacturers' ratings are the same, so there is probably a little more latitude than you suggest for max psi.

If you have a big load in the back on a longer, faster journey then you must have the tyres pumped accordingly (as you did) to avoid the tyres overheating from the sidewalls over-flexing. 

Overly inflated tyres do cause discomfort. A story from the Defensive Driving Course was that one past participant had gone to a petrol station and inflated the tyres as per the recommendation (+5psi) and rang them back saying her Datsun 120Y was now shaking her to pieces.  Living locally she went back and they put a standard pencil pressure gauge on a tyre and the measure popped out the end. Pressure was eventually measured near 90psi and they expressed several levels of disbelief;  the garage's gauge inaccuracy, that the compressor was capable of reaching that level and that the tyres did not blow off the steel rims.

I've read of drivers at the Nürburgring lowering their tyre pressures for the circuit, but I am not sure how 'especially spirited' your driving on public roads would be to require that.

 

Sounds like they put 5 bar or something in, though i'm not sure even that would be 90psi lol. Steel rims seem to take pressure quite well, watched a number of youtube videos a while ago pushing them to and beyond 120psi, it was usually the side wall that went out first, but the wheel was intact.

 

I don't think driving spirited on public roads would have near the effect a lap of the ring would on pressures, though it would probably still make them at least a little warmer and higher than normal driving.

[GeneralPurpose]

On 09/07/2019 at 03:26, Gerrycan said:

@GeneralPurpose, I cannot really argue against that sort of experience or resource. I suppose the conclusion/inference is that most, if not all the measured gains were from reduced friction in engine and driveline.

I only drive on public roads and I rarely, if ever, use the performance capability of any car I've owned so I for one would not recognise any power increase. However I do take an interest in the fuel consumption and I do what I can with the onboard facilities to recognise factors that affect my results.

By observation I have confirmed (to my satisfaction at least) that all the standard general factors of air temperature, tyre pressure, road surface, winds, loads etcetc all hold true, but it is more than annoying that I've never recognised an improvement from 'running in'. and believe me I would have loved it if I had.

Having said all that my 1.4tsi Octavia is still the most economical petrol car I've owned by far and by every measurement I've made it matches a speed/gear/consumption graph I have for a manual VW Golf 1.4tsi, so I am far from being an unhappy camper.... but

 

Let me put something to you though. Maybe your rolling road test methodology of subjecting a tight new engine to at least three maximum efforts is actually much more beneficial to the running in process than my 'steady as she goes' approach?

On the web there is a 'respected' US American race mechanic who swears by a similar tough love running in process for standard car engines, claiming similar results to yours for the hundreds of new engines he has applied his system to.

 

 

Sorry for the late reply Gerry. You make an interesting point. Yes, the power increases were due to two factors. One, the reduced friction, but by far the biggest improvement in power output was due to increased compression ratio from the better piston and ring sealing which raises the compression slightly to the designed limit as the running in process occurs. This improves power output quite markedly in some cases, and by some good degree in all the others. The short time on the dyno does little if anything to actually run in the engines. It's a very brief encounter with the upper limits of the rev and loading range of the engine. It has no discernable effect on the engines once they have covered 250 miles. That's why we chose the 250 mile interval because it won't harm the engine to briefly go to maximum power. Of course, most folks would not do that to their own engines as it is not recommended by the manufacturers. Our cars were purchased test vehicles and some were our fleet vehicles. No vehicles were harmed in the testing of their engines!

[Gerrycan]

6 hours ago, GeneralPurpose said:

 

Sorry for the late reply Gerry. You make an interesting point. Yes, the power increases were due to two factors. One, the reduced friction, but by far the biggest improvement in power output was due to increased compression ratio from the better piston and ring sealing which raises the compression slightly to the designed limit as the running in process occurs. This improves power output quite markedly in some cases, and by some good degree in all the others. The short time on the dyno does little if anything to actually run in the engines. It's a very brief encounter with the upper limits of the rev and loading range of the engine. It has no discernable effect on the engines once they have covered 250 miles. That's why we chose the 250 mile interval because it won't harm the engine to briefly go to maximum power. Of course, most folks would not do that to their own engines as it is not recommended by the manufacturers. Our cars were purchased test vehicles and some were our fleet vehicles. No vehicles were harmed in the testing of their engines!

I found the US web site I referred to (mototuneusa.com) and the maximum rev approach is recommended in the first twenty miles and for the same reasons you mention to get a better ring fit and higher compression. The high revs do not seem to be held for a particularly long duration.

Most other sites debunk his argument saying that it is contrary to all manufacturers advice.

I would have thought that a poor piston ring fit would have resulted in lower compression and a noticeable increase in oil consumption. The latter being an unfortunately common complaint on VAG sites.

I've never had to add engine oil between any service for any of my Skoda.

 

Edited 17 July, 2019 by Gerrycan

[GeneralPurpose]

There are quite a few sites that have jumped on the band wagon with this 'fast run-in' advice. It does go against manufacturers advice and can do damage to a road going engine under some circumstances. Sometimes that damage can be severe and any manufacturers warranty can be invalidated. There is considerable evidence to support the fact damage is being done without the owners knowing what they are doing to their engines. Notice I say there can be damage to 'road going' engines. As an engine design and development engineer, we try to allow for the fact some individual buy cars and don't treat them right to begin with by finishing the engine components off in a certain way that will give some protection to anyone doing bad things. But this fast run-in advice was originally intended only for racing engines, aircraft engines, and some other engine types. Those types of engine have very specific running in requirements. Those requirements do not generally apply to road going engines. For example, racing engines are set up with larger engine tolerances and clearances between pistons and rings to allow for the extra heat that is generated by racing. Therefore, the extra heat produced during a fast run-in doesn't trouble the engine. It's not going to seize and rarely will suffer 'pickup' off the cylinder walls. (damage).

 

During fast run in on a racing engine, large amounts of metal are removed from the cylinder walls by the piston rings being pressed out very hard against the cylinders. The cylinders are finished with a honed cross hatching using a 'plato' system. This fast run in removes quite a bit of the plato honing which is in fact quite soft compared to other parts of the engine. The idea is of course to allow the cylinders to 'wear in' and get a good seal between pistons, rings and cylinder and at the same time, harden the surface of the cylinders to prevent fast wear.  Little or no oil or gases will get past the rings once the engine is run-in. This run in can take as little as 5-6 laps of a good circuit during which time the technician or driver doing the run-in will follow a set routine to bed in the engine. It is in effect removing large amounts of metal from the cylinders and gets very hot in the process. But that's ok on a racing engine because it's needed and the engine only has to last a few races, not years on the road without being stripped down like our car have to.

 

One of the issues connected with this fast run-in is that it does not allow the full running in process to happen when carried out on road going engines. Road going engines get so very hot if it's not done absolutely correctly that the rings and cylinder bores glaze and or the surfaces of the cylinders don't get time to undergo the chemical changes that need to happen to cause the proper hardening process to take place. So not have you removed large amounts of metal from the cylinders, but the hardening process hasn't happened properly either. This means the engine can wear out very quicly and will start to use oil early in it's life, amongst other things.

 

[Eccles]

This subject just runs and runs as usual. I do around 57 on a long run and 50 "around town" which some would say is good. But my driving style is not what it once was. I only do more than 60 if I am in a hurry which is not often. It is known that the car has to work quite hard against air resistance as speed increases above 60 and thus uses more fuel. Unless you have a long journey to do in a short time a speed of 80 mph achieves very little but just watch how many people do it. Also part of so called "defensive driving" is anticipation of what is about to happen. However, we have all seen that bloke who rushes up to the traffic lights even though it is quite obvious from some distance away that the lights are red or about to turn red. He is the man who wastes fuel, brake linings, tyre rubber, probably some oil and can easily get into trouble on an icy morning but he is seemingly unable to engage brain amd disengage ego.

[abaxas]

^ agreed.

Since I moved to live in the middle of nowhere my driving style has changed dramatically. Gone are the days of the urban GP where everything needs to be done as fast as possible. Now I just chill out, enjoying some music and keeping my eyes open for deer or sheep.

Another weird thing is I travel on Hartside pass about twice a week. I know every curve like the back of my hand and it's amazing to see sports car drivers who are desperate to overtake only to realize that since they don't really know what is coming, I'm never far behind.

 

[ShazzenFrazzen]

The wife's 2018 Fabia Estate with the 95PS 1.0TSI has just clocked 10,000 miles, average is 52.3mpg.  Goes better and much more fuel efficient compared to her previous car, a 2008 i30 1.4 109PS which did 41-42mpg.

 

My Ibiza, also a 95PS 1.0TSI has a whole 35 miles on the clock (only got it on Tuesday), so no real fuel economy figures on it, but the Ibiza has much better sound insulation - compared to the Fabia the engine is inaudible at idle both regarding mechanical engine noise, and exhaust noise.

[FabiaGonzales]

3 minutes ago, ShazzenFrazzen said:

but the Ibiza has much better sound insulation - compared to the Fabia the engine is inaudible at idle both regarding mechanical engine noise, and exhaust noise.

 

Interestingly i found that the 1.0 Fabia Monte Carlo i got to drive for a day as a courtesy car was almost silent at idle, far quieter than my 1.2, and when driving you only got any kind of  engine or exhaust noise if you stamped on the loud pedal because the DSG kept revs so low you couldnt hear it. Much better vibration dampening too, my 1.2 is a little rough if im drizzling around below 1500 rpm, drop a gear so its closer to 2000 and its smooth as butter, and has better power 'cos gearing too

[GeneralPurpose]

I too found the 1.2TSI 2015 engine onwards to be very very noisy mechanically. Never hears so much clatter in my life from any engine. The valve gear in particular is insanely noisy.

[FabiaGonzales]

22 minutes ago, GeneralPurpose said:

I too found the 1.2TSI 2015 engine onwards to be very very noisy mechanically. Never hears so much clatter in my life from any engine. The valve gear in particular is insanely noisy.

 

The only times its quiet is between 2-3k rpm in 3rd gear or higher, or when it's idle without AC at about 650 rpm.

 

I find when i'm cruising about i always end up in one gear lower than the display says, if im at 30 itll say to use 4th but i'll keep to 3rd because its smoother and quieter, pretty much same economy and it's more responsive for when i want to speed up. At 40 ill be in 4th instead if 5th etc. I only go to 5th around 45-50 mph, 5th is by far the roughest gear, but i guess that's cos it stays in low revs alot. Keeping a little higher revs is probably better for the entire drivetrain and any bushes and mounts. Smoother power = less harsher stresses.

[Gerrycan]

The wide diversity of opinion of the refinement of the 1.0tsi in the Fabia is typically Briskodian   

I really struggle to work out how much is personal perception and how much variation between individual vehicles. I guess we will never really know until two parties meet with their respective vehicles to compare.

 

Unlike some I still regard my 5 year old 1.4tsi as pretty refined, being almost turbine smooth throughout the rev range and almost inaudible in the cabin. However lift the bonnet and the injectors sound like a bag of nails being constantly shaken.

The Fabia 1.0tsi I had the serious pleasure to drive was not in the same league of refinement, the 3 cylinder engine was quite apparent and under acceleration sounded a bit like my old diesel 1.9pd. I just accepted that as reasonable for a cheaper smaller car and  like my diesel was not particularly intrusive anyway.

 

Unlike FabiaGonzales I found on the flat I could run at low revs and small throttles quite easily to achieve remarkably good consumption figures (the best I have ever got in a petrol engine). I actually had not expected that capability at low revs as I had read complaints that it lacked torque at low revs, but agree if I wanted to accelerate then dropping down gears was always a good idea.

 

I know what FabiaGonzales is talking about though as I drove a hire Kia manual diesel in the UK a couple of years back and that was torqueless below about 1500 revs and found by adopting a similar gear to speed regime (6th over 60mph, 5th over 50mph, and so on) I got far better consumption and smoother response than following the onscreen gear recommendations. I found the Fabia was better than the Kia diesel at low revs, but again that is all personal opinion.

[FabiaGonzales]

1 hour ago, Gerrycan said:

Unlike FabiaGonzales I found on the flat I could run at low revs and small throttles quite easily to achieve remarkably good consumption figures (the best I have ever got in a petrol engine). I actually had not expected that capability at low revs as I had read complaints that it lacked torque at low revs, but agree if I wanted to accelerate then dropping down gears was always a good idea.

 

I'm assuming this was the 1.0, the one i drove was a completely different beast to my 1.2, it was much quieter at idle though you could feel vibration just a little more (i think they improved the top right engine mount with the 1.0), the DSG seemed to keep it in the highest gear possible, id often find it going at 30mph in 6th at barely over 1000 rpm, though if i added a little throttle it wouldn't downshift but still felt like it had plenty of torque, even below 1500 rpm, and there was no noticeable turbo lag or surge when the turbo kicked in like my 1.2, just very smooth power delivery.

 

Engine noise in the cabin was somewhat quieter when accelerating, but this 1.0 had barely 400 miles on the clock, my 1.2 has 52,000! On top of that it was a much more satisfying sound, as if there was a bigger engine in there than there actually was. If both were the same age they'd probably sound similar volume wise. 

 

From the outside it was a similar story, the 1.2 idles lower, but has quite a lot of noise from the valve gear, the 1.0 was better in that regard but did idle about 300 rpm higher (950 vs 650).

 

Again for MPG i cant say much, i only had it for a day, and the engine was far from fully ran in, but it did seem to achieve unrealistically high figures, in the low 60s in the first few minutes after setting off, attempting to replicate the same driving in me 1.2 saw about 45 when i got to the same place as before, that was only about 5 miles down the road of 40 and 30 limits.

 

I'd take the mpg figures given by the car with a grain of salt until after a few refills and calculating it manually and seeing how it matches, it seems the 1.0's seem to over-report a bit. So far my best on a 1.2 was 59.5 mpg following lorries for 60 miles.. Though i've found my 1.2's mpg readout is actually fairly accurate, almost exactly matching my calculations from tank to tank.

[Ootohere]

The 4 cylinder 1.4 TSI or a 1.2 TSI are not that different but then with a Manual or DSG is rather different.

 

Then a 1.0 TSI 3 cylinder is a different creature again and mix with a Manual or DSG,

and then start talking about Kia manual Diesels without saying what engine and it gets to comparisons with Apples, Pears, Oranges and Coconuts.

[Gerrycan]

On 27/07/2019 at 17:41, FabiaGonzales said:

 

I'm assuming this was the 1.0, the one i drove was a completely different beast to my 1.2, it was much quieter at idle though you could feel vibration just a little more (i think they improved the top right engine mount with the 1.0), the DSG seemed to keep it in the highest gear possible, id often find it going at 30mph in 6th at barely over 1000 rpm, though if i added a little throttle it wouldn't downshift but still felt like it had plenty of torque, even below 1500 rpm, and there was no noticeable turbo lag or surge when the turbo kicked in like my 1.2, just very smooth power delivery.

 

Engine noise in the cabin was somewhat quieter when accelerating, but this 1.0 had barely 400 miles on the clock, my 1.2 has 52,000! On top of that it was a much more satisfying sound, as if there was a bigger engine in there than there actually was. If both were the same age they'd probably sound similar volume wise. 

 

From the outside it was a similar story, the 1.2 idles lower, but has quite a lot of noise from the valve gear, the 1.0 was better in that regard but did idle about 300 rpm higher (950 vs 650).

 

Again for MPG i cant say much, i only had it for a day, and the engine was far from fully ran in, but it did seem to achieve unrealistically high figures, in the low 60s in the first few minutes after setting off, attempting to replicate the same driving in me 1.2 saw about 45 when i got to the same place as before, that was only about 5 miles down the road of 40 and 30 limits.

 

I'd take the mpg figures given by the car with a grain of salt until after a few refills and calculating it manually and seeing how it matches, it seems the 1.0's seem to over-report a bit. So far my best on a 1.2 was 59.5 mpg following lorries for 60 miles.. Though i've found my 1.2's mpg readout is actually fairly accurate, almost exactly matching my calculations from tank to tank.

The complimentary near new Fabia 1.0tsi manual was allocated while my 2014 Octavia 1.4tsi was undergoing somewhat protracted water pump replacement, earlier this year.

Family circumstances meant I ran up a fair distance over the week I had it, including a 600km round trip with passengers. It was also really hot with daily temperatures well over 40 deg Centigrade so the air con was on flat out the whole time.

I did refill the tank a couple of times and so on the basis of one refill over which I had some confidence the maxidot display was pretty accurate.

The 600km round trip averaged 4.6L/100 (61mpg) and the various speed limits and traffic allowed about 90kph average. I honestly think that is outstanding in the circumstances even bearing in mind that I am quite happy to sit 3 seconds behind a semi doing a genuine 100kph (10 below our speed limit) on our single carriageway highways until an official overtaking point comes up.

 

My understanding of the 'TSI' nomenclature is the 'S' stands for 'Stratified' and this stratification applies when the engine is in relatively low rev/low load situations where the direct injection allows a higher fuel/air ratio in the spark plug vicinity, than the rest of the cylinder, so you get an overall economical lean burn situation.

Combine the stratification benefits with a low friction 3 cylinder engine,  the lack of engine  throttling allowed by direct injection, the low weight of the Fabia and I found there was an almost incredible potential for economy when pottering around urban areas.

I turned off the aircon on one long stretch of very flat urban (60kph zone) carriageway running in top (5th) gear and the instantaneous display was hovering around 3.0L/100. In the same circumstances my 1.4tsi Octavia would show 3.6L/100 (also in 5th). Mark you in 40 deg temps you don't run around with the aircon off for long.

Even allowing for probable inaccuracies in the instant display a Fabia with a decent hybrid system and the 1.0tsi engine would be very interesting indeed.

 

I am no automotive engineer, just interested in the topic and so I appreciate others like @GeneralPurpose discussing/correcting/clarifying my observations or understanding

Edited 29 July, 2019 by Gerrycan

[ShazzenFrazzen]

So, now done 180 miles in the Ibiza (mileage is 187miles on the clock), it showed an average for a 50 mile each way trip yesterday of 49.8mpg one direction, 51.2mpg the other direction.  That's country roads in relatively hilly country, doing speedlimits. 

 

This morning did the short 1.5 mile commute and it managed 42mpg. 

 

Which is all looking very similar to wife's Fabia.  Hers has a CHZL I believe, and the Ibiza a DKLA.

Edited 29 July, 2019 by ShazzenFrazzen

[sikejsudjek]

Well I'm up to 1600 miles now. Having swapped back to normal 95 unleaded from Sainsbury's super I've concluded that I'm getting more mpg from 95 ron than 97.

The 1.0 tsi definitely seems to be set up for 95 ron. Recent trips that would give me 60 mpg on super unleaded are now up to 67 mpg ! I'll still use v power twice a year to clean the engine - but 95 ron for normal running.

[vc-10]

I'm averaging 51mpg long term, with lots of motorway commuting. Very happy with that! My car is a 2019 Ibiza 1.0 TSI 115PS 6-speed manual. 

[Benz3ne]

I'm getting very similar to @vc-10's reported mileage. Around 51mpg from real-world calculations with the 2019 5sp 95ps 1.0tsi Fabia after ticking over 8,000 miles since March yesterday.

[FabiaGonzales]

My 1.2 TSI 90 has been running along nicely around 50mpg the past few weeks, mostly A/B roads.

Even on odd days where i feel a like being bit more spritely it still gets around 44-45mpg.