Hey all. So with the latest real world fuel test Information out how are we finding are rapids compare. 

For me My16 sport 1.2 110ps 6 gear manual has done very well over its 3 weeks of me having it. 

My average mpg is about 45. My green score is mostly between 80 and 92. 

6 gear flat Norfolk roads and get me up into the 80mpg and Im not experimenting with coasting as I've only had the car for 3 weeks so we'll update back shortly. 

I will take some pictures of the car information screen when I get a chance and posted on here. 

The only thing I'm slightly disappointed would is motorway MGP which seems to be best at 80 miles per hour and returns anywhere from 30mpg to 45mpg. This can drop to low 20s with steep gradients and cruise control activated, but can also get up to 55 once you start going quicker than 70 miles per hour. So this engine is extremely economical if you do a lot of 60 miles per hour roads or b roads. 

Great engine either way. 

Last point I'm getting about 500 miles from a tank which costs about £57 from my local Sainsbury's. 

The only figure I look at these days is the long term one. (currently 50.7 indicated over the last 3000 miles)

because these small petrol turbos give such wildly varying results on a day to day basis. (lowest real time figure I ever saw was 6.9mpg - HA!)

I find the motorway consumption plunges at over 75 too.

 

Often driving 100 to 200 miles to visit family, I regularly get 53 mpg on the way and 47mpg coming back. Same roads, same speeds.

So my assumption is that the small engined Rapid is heavily affected by headwinds or the slightest gradient and, having had both, the new 1.0 is worse for this than the 1.2.

 

As our previous diesel cars have not done this to anything like the same degree, I expect the Rapid TDI would be far more consistent. Alas I cant stand the noise and harshness.

 

 

Edited 5 January, 20197 yr by camelspyyder

Thanks for the feedback camel, I guess unlike you I'm still to take mine out for a proper run. Most it's done is about 50 miles. Rest of my trips are either 10-15 miles or my tiny little work run which is about 3 miles down the road. 

But I 100% agree, if you are just accelerating (even like an old man) the turbo will be on helping push the car up to cruise and yeah the mpg may aswell be 0 ahah. 

Either way I'm not complaining, I came from the MK2 Octavia 2litre. Loved the power and speed but the fuel consumption was awful. It's hate the small distance driving two. 

Will check my long term too when I'm out in a little while. 

I'm running a 1.0 petrol engine, keeping a log of fuel use since purchase. Now have driven 30k miles, MPG log is showing 47.3 overall since purchase, recent averages have been closer to 50 ... 500+ miles per tank is easy to achieve.

On ‎05‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 22:39, camelspyyder said:

Often driving 100 to 200 miles to visit family, I regularly get 53 mpg on the way and 47mpg coming back. Same roads, same speeds.

So my assumption is that the small engined Rapid is heavily affected by headwinds or the slightest gradient and, having had both, the new 1.0 is worse for this than the 1.2.

 

I had similar consumption experiences with my 1.4tsi Octavia during our (Adelaide, South Australia) late 'winter' period when we used to drive 80 km out into the country areas to watch our son play Australian rules football. Always worse coming back home.

There was no question of any headwind influence or any start/finish height variation involved so it was pretty clear it was air temperature related.

During that time of year it is common to get relatively still cloudless periods (high pressure sits over us) so the midday temperature (when we travelled up) would be around an ideal 20 deg C and by the time we travelled home the sun would have long gone  and the air temperature dropped to around 4 deg C.

Speed was always at the speed limit (true gps speed not speedo), and relatively empty roads so the journey time was the same in both directions.

 

My earlier mk2 1.9pd was similarly affected by air temperature, just not quite so much.

It certainly was less affected by higher speeds or hills than the petrol. I remember one occasion when I was accelerating in top (5th) gear up a steepish 12% gradient from 90kph to 110kph with full throttle and the instant display refused to drop below 12L/100. I thought that was quite remarkable.

I have not tried the same experiment with the 1.4tsi but while I know it could match it for performance I'd expect the instant consumption would be around 20L/100.

 

Out of curiosity how big is the Rapid fuel tank?

Edited 10 January, 20197 yr by Gerrycan

55l.

I've never got more than 53l in it though.

15 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

55l.

I've never got more than 53l in it though.

Thanks for the reply.

I did not expect it to be bigger than my mk3 Octavia.

On ‎12‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 12:29, Gerrycan said:

Thanks for the reply.

I did not expect it to be bigger than my mk3 Octavia.

Often I would see 600 mile range when filling after a gentle run on the motorway due to the surprisingly large 55 litre tank.

7 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Often I would see 600 mile range when filling after a gentle run on the motorway due to the surprisingly large 55 litre tank.

Is that in your Octavia sir? In the end I was using it to do very short few mile journey's so it wasn't economical. 

10 hours ago, chicken93 said:

Is that in your Octavia sir? In the end I was using it to do very short few mile journey's so it wasn't economical. 

No the wife had a Rapid 1.2Tsi for 3 years from 2015-2018 and it could match my 2016 Superb 1.4Tsi for economy if not performance.