23 hours ago, xman said:

Am finding the mid 60's mpg claim a little hard to believe. Will be nice if mine gets anywhere near when it's loosened up.

 

My car definitely took a couple of months from new before it started to deliver good economy.

 

By no means do I get 60+ mpg on most journeys, not even on most motorway journeys, but mid 50s mpgs are commonplace on long runs.  Did Worcester to Lincoln on Saturday (120 miles of M-way and A46), averaged 62 mpg, return journey today (same route but in heavy rain) averaged 53 mpg. I find just the tiniest reduction in pressure on the throttle is usually all it takes to cut into fuel-sipping 2 cylinder mode with no noticeable drop in speed.

 

What does occur to me is how much this large car would benefit from being a hybrid. The fuel economy plummets in stop-start traffic even with the engine cutting out automatically. If there were a battery (charged from regenerative braking) to boost it on launch I'm sure the short-hop economy could be improved dramatically. Didn't I read Skoda were going to launch a hybrid Superb in 2019 / 2020?

 

 

23 hours ago, Offski said:

^^^ VW were Simply Clever,  it was not just the knowledge they used from Bentleys & Cylinder Deactivation to get ACT / COD in the 4 cylinder 1.4 TSI's.

 

They had those 1.4 TSI's that went down from 4 cylinders to 3 or even in Limp Mode to 2 Cylinders and Turbo Disabled and could still do 60 mph and get 60 mpg.

Obviously those engines were gubbed, but at least the were on the game.  'Vorsprung Durch Technik',   Turn the negatives to a positive.

There is a big difference between losing a couple cylinders due to electric  or fuel issues and a properly engineered ACT system.

The benefit from proper cylinder deactivation is closure of valves and reduced pumping losses.

 

Hope your passenger took those photos while you were driving.

37 minutes ago, Awed said:

 

My car definitely took a couple of months from new before it started to deliver good economy.

 

By no means do I get 60+ mpg on most journeys, not even on most motorway journeys, but mid 50s mpgs are commonplace on long runs.  Did Worcester to Lincoln on Saturday (120 miles of M-way and A46), averaged 62 mpg, return journey today (same route but in heavy rain) averaged 53 mpg. I find just the tiniest reduction in pressure on the throttle is usually all it takes to cut into fuel-sipping 2 cylinder mode with no noticeable drop in speed.

 

What does occur to me is how much this large car would benefit from being a hybrid. The fuel economy plummets in stop-start traffic even with the engine cutting out automatically. If there were a battery (charged from regenerative braking) to boost it on launch I'm sure the short-hop economy could be improved dramatically. Didn't I read Skoda were going to launch a hybrid Superb in 2019 / 2020?

 

 

Indeed the Golf/Passat GTE engine/hybrid electric motor combo is coming to the facelifted Mk3 Superb next year probably with the 1.5Tsi engine and DSG.

I hope so. I need a replacement in 2020 and I'd like a hybrid superb. Plug in if possible

27 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

There is a big difference between losing a couple cylinders due to electric  or fuel issues and a properly engineered ACT system.

The benefit from proper cylinder deactivation is closure of valves and reduced pumping losses.

 

Hope your passenger took those photos while you were driving.

 

I think you'll find Offski was having one of his many sarcastic digs about VW. Quite funny and understood what he was getting at!

Gerrycan, 

that was a non serious post.  And yes a Gopro on a harness or such is usually used so no wuckin furries.

Or sometimes cameras or phones on a stick are handy

Edited 26 August, 20187 yr by Offski

I would strongly advise everyone to perform real brim to brim checks and compare with what the infotainment is telling you.

 

My 1.4tsi infotainment since last refuel 46.3 mpg, actual real brim calc 40.9 mpg a discrepancy of over 13%.

 

Of course for even more precise calcs, the odometer should be checked too.

 

I think that puts those claims of mid 60s mpg into context 

Edited 29 August, 20187 yr by xman

4 minutes ago, xman said:

I would strongly advise everyone to perform real brim to brim checks and compare with what the infotainment is telling you.

 

My 1.4tsi infotainment since last refuel 46.3 mpg, actual real brim calc 40.9 mpg a discrepancy of over 13%.

 

Of course for even more precise calcs, the odometer should be checked too.

 

I think that puts those claims of mid 60s mpg into context 

 

A very valid point.

 

5 hours ago, xman said:

a discrepancy of over 13%.

 

Only if you assume that your result is 100% accurate. 

 

 

 

 

The only accurate way is to note how much fuel you put in and calculate it after 6,000, or even better 10,000 miles.

Edited 29 August, 20187 yr by facet edge

Someone in the Citigo section is saying their odometer is 6% out. showing more miles driven than actually done. (maybe that is not what they are saying but i read it as being that...)

Meaning that their car if on fixed serves is getting serviced early if it goes in at 9,400 miles as the display shows.

If this was to be the case people leasing could be getting charged extra for over mileage when they are not over the miles.

That 999,999.9 mile car would be nothing of the sort.

 

I find the odometer / mileometers accurate and the mileage between 2 places that have never drifted apart over many years are the same distance in different vehicles, and the difference with a small change in tyre circumference really is not the difference between Ooo & Ahhhh.

http://kouki.co.uk/utilities/visual-tyre-size-calculator 

On 25/08/2018 at 15:18, shyVRS245 said:

Pictures never lie and regular 26 mile commute involving 14 roundabouts and probably aided by using a truck to punch a big hole in the air (spot on as usual OFFSKI), but also plenty of 2 cylinder action as ACT did the business!

Pictures don't lie but the cars computer does, i reckon if you take 10% off you will be closer to the actual MPG.

 

still very impressive though, I would really like to test drive this engine in a superb.

23 hours ago, xman said:

I would strongly advise everyone to perform real brim to brim checks and compare with what the infotainment is telling you.

 

My 1.4tsi infotainment since last refuel 46.3 mpg, actual real brim calc 40.9 mpg a discrepancy of over 13%.

 

Of course for even more precise calcs, the odometer should be checked too.

 

I think that puts those claims of mid 60s mpg into context 

With one exception I have found the odometer on most cars to be reasonably accurate.

My 1.4tsi octavia trip consumption was slightly pessimistic when new then moved to parity and now at 4 years and 45k km is slightly optimistic compared to actual consumption.

No change to actual consumption over that period that cannot be accounted for by changes in journey type.

 

My current Superb II 1.4tsi Onboard Computer Figures agree with the real life tank to tank figures. but my last Superb I 100pd was 4mpg pessimistic.

 

I always fill tank to tank but stop at the first click (on advice of a German dealer!) and sometimes the figure may be a little lower/higher but when I fill up again the average balances out.

 

As mentioned above you need tank to tank fill figures over many tens of thousands of miles - In my case collated by Spritmonitor. OK I'll get my coat and go and get a life!

 

 

Edited 30 August, 20187 yr by bigjohn