Just now, teescom09 said:

I am sure they will, but effectively it will be difficult as the test reflects real driving. It will be even more interesting when the new CO2 testing starts next year, that is done "on the road" ! 

 

The test is only reflects 'real driving' as much as NEDC did when it was launched though - look at the cycles, they're not exactly wildly different. The biggest change is that WLTP has less periods of constant speed.

 

I honestly think a big part of the effect we're seeing now is simply down to cars being developed to produce good figures on one test being subjected to a different test. I wouldn't be surprised if you took a car from say 10 years time that has been developed to deliver good WLTP numbers and ran it through NEDC, you saw a similar effect but in reverse, simply because regardless of cycle, the numbers are more influenced by the manufacturers developing to pass tests well rather than anything else.

 

The biggest con going IMO is how well they've marketed the idea that WLTP is 'real driving' when in reality it's still a completely arbitrary test performed on a dyno that will slowly fall out of date just as NEDC did before it.

For the Octavia the cars have changed.

 

Diesels get adblue and changes to emission controls and exhaust, petrols get GPF and they all run different maps. VRS petrol now has single exhaust.

Just now, logiclee said:

VRS petrol now has single exhaust.

 

Good God, don't start that argument again!  

13 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

I bought my 245 based upon a road test in Auto Express which compared it to a Focus ST and Golf GTi PP and the Octavia had the best average on test at 38.9MPG which I knew I could at least match but in reality beat. The old NEDC figure for my manual car was 42.8MPG but I've managed 41MPG over 18,500 miles, which confirms my original thoughts from the magazine test.

You can match the NEDC on petrol's, I've done it on all of mine regularly. The old test was a bit more accurate with petrol's, maybe only half as far out as diesels. My VRS is good for high 30's consistently and have seen 46 on a hot summer day and longer steady run. The 230 PFL was 45 mpg.  Our ST3 gets almost identical to the VRS maybe 1mpg more at best on average but it has a lot more torque at low revs which you cannot help using and makes the car a lot faster than a VRS not a lot between them if you cane them, the Focus still feels a bit quicker but little in it. 

 

I need to correct this.... You can match the AVERAGE figure in NEDC with petrols. That is still way short of matching the Urban figures, that was pretty much impossible.

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by teescom09

Just now, logiclee said:

For the Octavia the cars have changed.

 

Diesels get adblue and changes to emission controls and exhaust, petrols get GPF and they all run different maps. VRS petrol now has single exhaust.

No the latest MY19 Vrs245 has a twin exhaust has shown on this forum by an owner.

3 minutes ago, Kenai said:

 

The test is only reflects 'real driving' as much as NEDC did when it was launched though - look at the cycles, they're not exactly wildly different. The biggest change is that WLTP has less periods of constant speed.

 

I honestly think a big part of the effect we're seeing now is simply down to cars being developed to produce good figures on one test being subjected to a different test. I wouldn't be surprised if you took a car from say 10 years time that has been developed to deliver good WLTP numbers and ran it through NEDC, you saw a similar effect but in reverse, simply because regardless of cycle, the numbers are more influenced by the manufacturers developing to pass tests well rather than anything else.

 

The biggest con going IMO is how well they've marketed the idea that WLTP is 'real driving' when in reality it's still a completely arbitrary test performed on a dyno that will slowly fall out of date just as NEDC did before it.

I bloody hope not, we will have to see. I am satisfied wltp is good and very accurate at present, lets see how long for?

12 minutes ago, logiclee said:

For the Octavia the cars have changed.

 

Diesels get adblue and changes to emission controls and exhaust, petrols get GPF and they all run different maps. VRS petrol now has single exhaust.

Not since 31st December when wltp figures became legal?

 

On the 31st December you were told your car got 58 mpg on the 1st January it gets 47? 

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by teescom09

6 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

No the latest MY19 Vrs245 has a twin exhaust has shown on this forum by an owner.

Yes me! Lol

 

On the figures I'm happy they represent closer to reality. I'm guessing road tax will go up/change bands as will bik % for compo car owners. Both of these don't affect me as vwfs pay my road tax and it's PCH. My company just canned it's compo car scheme which even more proved I did the right thing by PCH.

All the MPG figures on cars have always had to have been taken with a pinch of salt. When they had the Urban, Extra Urban and Combined figures, I've always been told by my dad, get the lowest of the 3 figures and take 5 off. If you can live with that, then brilliant. And if you get better MPG than what you were expecting, that's a bonus.

 

I've only got close to the MPG figures claimed on my car when I've been towing my trailer and tootling it up the motorway. 

6 minutes ago, tunedude said:

All the MPG figures on cars have always had to have been taken with a pinch of salt. When they had the Urban, Extra Urban and Combined figures, I've always been told by my dad, get the lowest of the 3 figures and take 5 off. If you can live with that, then brilliant. And if you get better MPG than what you were expecting, that's a bonus.

 

I've only got close to the MPG figures claimed on my car when I've been towing my trailer and tootling it up the motorway. 

I have always done similar, especially with Diesel. For family etc asking advice I told them look at the Urban figure, that is about what you will get within a couple mpg.  Thankfully, that has all changed now and will be even better when the proper CO2 figures are introduced next year. BUT not necessarily for us as the road tax and company tax will be based on the proper CO2 figures, lose lose as you do to the greedy ******s 

16 hours ago, teescom09 said:

Yes always thought the claim an auto was more economical than a manual was doubtful. Pretty much all autos now listed as less economical than equivalent manual, same with Ford. It also lests you see more accurately the difference between manufacturers. The Ford 2.0 tdi 150 in a focus is considerably better than the the equivalent vag unit in anOcty.  M4 dct has dropped to 28 mpg from 34 interestingly the manual has dropped from about 31 to almost the same. So theve been conning us with autos too.

 

The 7 speed DSG is more economical than the manual due to its ability to coast ie put miles on the clock whilst at tick over with no drag from much of the mechanical.  Do believe this can add up to a few mpg.  I get around 55 mpg indicated on my 1.4 tis dsg and 600 miles to a tank if I run it down to near zero range.

1.5 tsi added 100 cc. presumably to deal with NOX, lower specific output the lower the NOX in general but more CCs means less efficiency usually.

Super pleased with the 1.4 tsi dsg with its balance between acceleration ie sub 8 second 0-100 kph but 55 mpg.

Relaxed cruising in 7th gear and felt like petrol VRS needed another gear to feel relaxed on the motorway.  34 mph per 1000 revs and red line at 6500 revs, nice.  Mind my 1.8 tsi revved to 7k and had 7 speed DSG and was about 35 mph per 1000 revs!

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by lol-lol

 

39 minutes ago, logiclee said:

For the Octavia the cars have changed.

 

Diesels get adblue and changes to emission controls and exhaust, petrols get GPF and they all run different maps. VRS petrol now has single exhaust.

 

33 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

Not since 31st December when wltp figures became legal?

 

On the 31st December you were told your car got 58 mpg on the 1st January it gets 47? 

 

Yes but many models (VRS diesels for instance) have only just become listed as available again for MY19.
And others changed for 1 Sept to meet WLTP emissions so there will still be opportunities for tweaking and tuning them as suggested,

1 minute ago, lol-lol said:

 

The 7 speed DSG is more economical than the manual due to its ability to coast ie put miles on the clock whilst at tick over with no drag from much of the mechanical.  Do believe this can add up to a few mpg.  I get around 55 mpg indicated on my 1.4 tis dsg and 600 miles to a tank if I run it down to near zero range.

1.5 tsi added 100 cc. presumably to deal with NOX, lower specific output the lower the NOX in general but more CCs means less efficiency usually.

Super pleased with the 1.4 tsi dsg with its balance between acceleration ie sub 8 second 0-100 kph but 55 mpg.

Relaxed cruising in 7th gear and felt like petrol VRS needed another gear to feel relaxed on the motorway.  34 mph per 1000 revs and red line at 6500 revs, nice.  Mind of my 1.8 tsi revved to 7k and had 7 speed DSG!

The DSG is not more economical, the manuals are, look at the wltp data?

 

I never found the cruise function helped at all on my A6 3.0 quattro, best economy was in Dynamic when it was off. If anything seemed to be worse and took away  control of the car having to use the brakes a lot more. This is a function doing what was mentioned, a little fiddle of the old test. If you leave it in auto and manage the throttle the fuel cuts off completely when lifting off. It doesn't do that on coats, wastes fuel idling.

As long as they don't change my road tax from £30, I'll be happy.

7 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

The DSG is not more economical, the manuals are, look at the wltp data?

 

I never found the cruise function helped at all on my A6 3.0 quattro, best economy was in Dynamic when it was off. If anything seemed to be worse and took away  control of the car having to use the brakes a lot more. This is a function doing what was mentioned, a little fiddle of the old test. If you leave it in auto and manage the throttle the fuel cuts off completely when lifting off. It doesn't do that on coats, wastes fuel idling.

 

I believe the WLTP data as little as I believe the previous data but actually driving these cars hundreds if thousands of miles over the last couple of decades one develops techniques to achieve and exceed the quoted mpg.  In the manual it means coasting in neutral but with DSG it simply does it for you safely.  DSG models weigh a few kilos more than manuals but extra gear can more than overcome that weight disadvantage.

 

Start at the top of a hill and let the car roll down it in gear and out of gear ie DSG clutches opened by the box and the coasting car will be moving substantially quicker.  Fuel use in both scenario is negligible compared to use on the throttle.

 

HAPPY to stick with DSG for both mpg and relaxed driving for us high milers. 

Manuals are so 20th century.

30 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

The 7 speed DSG is more economical than the manual due to its ability to coast ie put miles on the clock whilst at tick over with no drag from much of the mechanical.

You do realise that a manual car can coast as well? I think that coasting is a useful tool for good consumption, in certain circumstances.

 

I would have thought the ability to coast has little effect on a rolling road consumption test as I assume it can only apply drag. It is unlikely to simulate coasting by powering the wheels of the vehicle so that brakes have to be applied. Unless someone with actual knowledge of the equipment used can update me.

 

You are right that the 7 speed dsg has a slightly higher top gear than the equivalent manual. I believe on the 1.4tsi that at 70mph the dsg is about 2300rpm and the manual 2500rpm, so not a massive difference. The new Ford Focus 3 cylinder 1.5tsi (about 135kw/250Nm) with 8-speed 'slush' box runs at about 1900rpm, which is ridiculously long gearing for the engine torque. I have no idea what its economy figures are like though.

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by Gerrycan

1 minute ago, Gerrycan said:

You do realise that a manual car can coast as well? 

 

I would have thought the ability to coast has little effect on a rolling road consumption test as I assume it can only apply drag. It is unlikely to simulate coasting by powering the wheels of the vehicle so that brakes have to be applied. Unless someone with actual knowledge of the equipment used can update me.

 

You are right that the 7 speed dsg has a slightly higher top gear than the equivalent manual. I believe on the 1.4tsi that at 70mph the dsg is about 2300rpm and the manual 2500rpm, so not a massive difference. The new Ford Focus 3 cylinder 1.5tsi (about 135kw/250Nm) with 8-speed 'slush' box runs at about 1900rpm, which is ridiculously long gearing for the engine torque. I have no idea what its economy figures are like though.

 

What knock the gear stick in to neutral?  I have done this though have been criticised for driving dangerously.

DSG does this itself in a safer way ie drops revs to tick over and reducing mechanical drag to the minimum.

At 70 mph tacho shows about 2100 revs but Speedo over reads by about 4% so 73 mph would be around 2200 revs ie about a third way up the rev range which is what I love about the 7 speed DSG SEL L&K FABIA VRSs compared to the Octavia VRSs I have had which seemed buzzy after swapping in from the 7 speed Skodas.

10 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

What knock the gear stick in to neutral?  I have done this though have been criticised for driving dangerously.

DSG does this itself in a safer way ie drops revs to tick over and reducing mechanical drag to the minimum.

At 70 mph tacho shows about 2100 revs but Speedo over reads by about 4% so 73 mph would be around 2200 revs ie about a third way up the rev range which is what I love about the 7 speed DSG SEL L&K FABIA VRSs compared to the Octavia VRSs I have had which seemed buzzy after swapping in from the 7 speed Skodas.

My Vrs245 often reads 100mpg when I lift off in 6th gear (manual) on the motorway, no need to knock it into neutral thanks to 21st Century electronics LOL. 0-100KPH IN 5.5seconds as an added bonus.

I don't use the coast function on the DSG, I find it makes economy worse. The car keeps rolling a bloody long way in 7th anyway and all the while with fuel shut off. It's also irritating as it re-engages the driveline as it doesn't rev match so you feel it every time. (Edit - I always drove manuals by rolling in gear and not coasting too) 

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by Kenai

9 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

My Vrs245 often reads 100mpg when I lift off in 6th gear (manual) on the motorway, no need to knock it into neutral thanks to 21st Century electronics LOL. 0-100KPH IN 5.5seconds as an added bonus.

 

That's nothing.

One sees 300 mpg when coasting on the display but it is neglible what ever it says.

 

0-100 in 5.5 seconds.  My £5k bike is quicker than that.

 

Front wheel drive cars will never be really quick from a standing start, just a matter of physics and especially Octys with so much weight over the non driven rear axle compared to A3 Golfs Cupras unfortunately.  Good boot size for traffic cones and prams though.

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by lol-lol

13 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

  My £5k bike is quicker than that.

 

Does it have an auto box? Because manuals are so 20th century aren't they 

Probably seems a bit buzzy too after driving the DSG 

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by Gerrycan

6 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

Does it have an auto box? Because manuals are so 20th century aren't they 

 

There are very few auto motorcycles instead the move is to quickchangers.

 

Tried one a few weeks ago on a MT09.

0-100 kph in about 2.7 seconds.

200 kph comes up in about 11 second ie its quarter mile time.

One can get quickshifters for the R3 for less than a grand same as they use in World Super Sport racing.

 

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by lol-lol

13 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

That's nothing.

One sees 300 mpg when coasting on the display but it is neglible what ever it says.

 

0-100 in 5.5 seconds.  My £5k bike is quicker than that.

 

Front wheel drive cars will never be really quick from a standing start, just a matter of physics and especially Octys with so much weight over the non driven rear axle compared to A3 Golfs Cupras unfortunately.  Good boot size for traffic cones and prams though.

Trying to remember the last time I saw a bike on the motorway recently. Must be the cold weather and zero grip from those skinny tyres. Perhaps I will see the next one about April when it's warm enough to actually ride one.

23 minutes ago, Kenai said:

I don't use the coast function on the DSG, I find it makes economy worse. The car keeps rolling a bloody long way in 7th anyway and all the while with fuel shut off. It's also irritating as it re-engages the driveline as it doesn't rev match so you feel it every time. (Edit - I always drove manuals by rolling in gear and not coasting too) 

From the 'Save as you drive brochure' - Background information for expert fuel savers.

Issued by VW.

 

2 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Trying to remember the last time I saw a bike on the motorway recently. Must be the cold weather and zero grip from those skinny tyres. Perhaps I will see the next one about April when it's warm enough to actually ride one.

 

I'm an all weather rider. There's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing. To be honest, the grip isn't bad in the cold, as I've got slightly more touring orientated tyres on, so I've a slightly wider footprint. Plus most modern bikes have traction and stability control if things start getting a bit hairy.

 

2 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

There are very few auto motorcycles instead the move is to quickchangers.

 

Tried one a few weeks ago on a MT09.

0-100 kph in about 2.7 seconds.

200 kph comes up in about 11 second ie its quarter miles.

One can get quickshifters for the R3 for less than a grand same as they use in World Super Sport racing.

 

 

There are automatic motorcycles..............scooters!!!!

 

My S1000XR does 0-100mph in less than 7 seconds. It was a scream taking that over to the Isle of Man.