VRS MPG - Miles per Gallon

[JohnnyType2]

3 hours ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

 

My spidey senses are tingling.........

same engine..... and my mouth is watering i have the same mods cp3 and the 2260
 

 

Edited 16 March, 2019 by JohnnyType2

[shyVRS245]

17 minutes ago, flash222004 said:

I take it the mpg should improve as the miles clock up? The 28-32mpg over first 200 miles has been with Shell V Power which I plan to stick with.

Yes I averaged 37mpg over the first 7,000 miles and now after 20,400 miles the average has climbed above 40mpg overall. All on Shell V Power.

[Mickvrs220]

Mines a 220 estate and ime averaging about 25 on on short town driving but i do like 220 horses 

[stubev156]

My 220 Estate does about 25 mpg or about 350 miles to the tank around town.  Longer journeys I get about 30 plus mpg and about 420 to the tank. Tyres at eco pressures. Is the 245 better on fuel? 

[shyVRS245]

8 hours ago, stubev156 said:

My 220 Estate does about 25 mpg or about 350 miles to the tank around town.  Longer journeys I get about 30 plus mpg and about 420 to the tank. Tyres at eco pressures. Is the 245 better on fuel? 

The manual 245 combined figure is 42.8mpg and the DSG claims 44.1mpg before the GPF was fitted. Best figure on a trip to London last August was 53.5mpg on the maxidot.Even in winter have seen 43.2 and 43.3mpg.

[bigman1976]

Over 25000 miles, my 220 has averaged 34mpg.  This is a mix of driving. The lowest it’s been is 29 (first tank - really enjoying the ponies) and the best 39 (on a week away with 2 long drives and lots of small ones). Reckon mid 30s is a very reasonable expectation, possibly more. 

[jonnyboy78]

Any Diesel vRS owners like to comment on real world mpg, going by the petrol numbers I am guessing they average around 50, always good to know when diesel is 10p more expensive but at the moment the diesels models are now cheaper to purchase than the petrols.

[GenOtmin]

average 7.2l/100km, (39 mpg/imperial) town/suburban drive to/from work
Been as low as  5.9l/100km, (48 mpg) on a long drive, mostly 80 km/h roads on that one though .

Highway average around 6.5-7l/100km

if you want some fun on smaller roads 12-13l/100km

Track day coming up soon. see what that will bring in numbers

RS 245 DSG

My numbers so far

 

Edited 17 March, 2019 by GenOtmin

[SkodaVRS1963]

4 hours ago, jonnyboy78 said:

Any Diesel vRS owners like to comment on real world mpg, going by the petrol numbers I am guessing they average around 50,

 

Behave.

 

There are those here who will tell you they get 70mpg and tyres that last 60,000 miles.

 

My real world experience in a VRS 184bhp diesel was 16k out of a set of front tyres and never more than 43mpg.  Shocking, seeing as Skoda claimed 61mpg.

 

Don't get suckered in by the fanboys driving 230bhp petrols who claim 50+mpg........it doesn't happen.

 

Really.....it does *not* happen.

 

It's actually high time that the forum moderators clamped down on these claims.  I appreciate that most of the perpetrators are site sponsors so they get to post what they like but it just makes a mockery of what is actually achievable by the brand.

 

 

[Ootohere]

^^^

Where did Skoda claim 61mpg.?   Did you not read the Skoda Fuel Consumption Statement?

 

All that is ever shown before the WLTP / RDE is EU Testing in a building on a rolling road under temp control.  Comparison Figures.

Audi made claims and were called out by the Advertising Watchdog.

[SkodaVRS1963]

4 minutes ago, Skoffski said:

^^^

Where did Skoda claim 61mpg.?  

 

In their brochure in 2014.

 

Before my Skoda I drove a Ford Focus CC 2.0 136bhp that was allegedly capable of 53mpg; I got nothing more than 44mpg.

 

So I thought "ok, the manufacturers are able to inflate their claims by 20%, fair enough".

 

So when Skoda claimed 61mpg I did the maths and got to 49mpg.......good for me, I was going to get 5mpg more than I was used to plus a 30% increase in power.

 

Didn't even get close.

Edited 17 March, 2019 by SkodaVRS1963

[Ootohere]

^^^

So they never claimed then.

They posted the EU Test results. Well known to be discredited.  But nothing to do with driving a car in the real world with people and stuff in them.

Just the Urban, Extra Urban and Combined on a rolling road.

 

They were retested for 'Investigations' they can reproduce the tests results.  Drive your car in a building on a rolling road with diesel in the engine oil and over inflated tyres you might get the same results.

If you are a 60kg driver, without a full tank of fuel and with no optional extras.

[SkodaVRS1963]

5 minutes ago, Skoffski said:

^^^

So they never claimed then.

They posted the EU Test results.

 

 

Thank you for correcting me.

 

I will remember your advice when I open a brochure in a showroom with some numbers printed on a glossy brochure that claim x, y and z.

 

 

[Ootohere]

Good idea.

Look out for 'claims', mis-selling, mis-advertising.  and think, is that a claim or a lie.  You will be able to take actions if they make false claims.

Obviously if you are the UK Government and they falsify testing, have defeat devices and own up in other world regions but not in the EU / UK then don't bother.

Edited 17 March, 2019 by Skoffski

[shyVRS245]

1 hour ago, GenOtmin said:

average 7.2l/100km, (39 mpg/imperial) town/suburban drive to/from work
Been as low as  5.9l/100km, (48 mpg) on a long drive, mostly 80 km/h roads on that one though .

Highway average around 6.5-7l/100km

if you want some fun on smaller roads 12-13l/100km

Track day coming up soon. see what that will bring in numbers

RS 245 DSG

My numbers so far

 

Track day could be as low as mine at 10.6mpg.

[Kenai]

1 minute ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

 

Thank you for correcting me.

 

I will remember your advice when I open a brochure in a showroom with some numbers printed on a glossy brochure that claim x, y and z.

 

 

Look up the NEDC cycle that those numbers are based on, you'll soon realise why higher power vehicles can post up some surprisingly good numbers compared to similar lower powered cars. You'll also realise how massively things like stop start tech can boost the numbers and lastly, how it almost certainly bears absolutely no resemblance to the sort of driving you or I or anyone else are doing. 

 

A quick check of Fuelio tells me I'm still averaging 39mpg in my 245 long term. If you were driving it, where you live, amongst those hills etc. it would probably see you about 28 to 30mpg. Likewise I could probably get 60mpg out of yours with the slow and steady commuting I'm doing on uncongested A roads. 

[shyVRS245]

5 hours ago, jonnyboy78 said:

Any Diesel vRS owners like to comment on real world mpg, going by the petrol numbers I am guessing they average around 50, always good to know when diesel is 10p more expensive but at the moment the diesels models are now cheaper to purchase than the petrols.

I had a diesel Vrs DSG hatch for 7 months and 7,000 miles and it averaged 45mpg with a one off 66mpg.

[KevC_Derby]

57 minutes ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

 

In their brochure in 2014.

 

Before my Skoda I drove a Ford Focus CC 2.0 136bhp that was allegedly capable of 53mpg; I got nothing more than 44mpg.

 

So I thought "ok, the manufacturers are able to inflate their claims by 20%, fair enough".

 

So when Skoda claimed 61mpg I did the maths and got to 49mpg.......good for me, I was going to get 5mpg more than I was used to plus a 30% increase in power.

 

Didn't even get close.

 

Or your driving style can’t get as close to the published figures than some people can?

 

My 2018 MY vRS230 DSG has achieved a maximum of 46mpg last summer - a 170 mile journey, this Winter my 18 mile commute sees around 37mpg and if I’m having a bit of a blast it’s 21mpg.

Usually running on Sainsbury Super Unleaded.

[teescom09]

Forget diesel they are history and will cost you a lot more overall. About 5 mpg more at 10p a litre more. 60HP less! And eorth much less second hand. Noisy, rough and a power band as wide as knats  whisker.

 

My manual pfl 230 VRS estate if driven with the flow will get 38-39 mpg. On a run, over 40. Seen 45. Never had less than about 34 overall on a tank. Manuals are slightly more economical than autos. 

 

 

[teescom09]

2 hours ago, Kenai said:

Look up the NEDC cycle that those numbers are based on, you'll soon realise why higher power vehicles can post up some surprisingly good numbers compared to similar lower powered cars. You'll also realise how massively things like stop start tech can boost the numbers and lastly, how it almost certainly bears absolutely no resemblance to the sort of driving you or I or anyone else are doing. 

 

A quick check of Fuelio tells me I'm still averaging 39mpg in my 245 long term. If you were driving it, where you live, amongst those hills etc. it would probably see you about 28 to 30mpg. Likewise I could probably get 60mpg out of yours with the slow and steady commuting I'm doing on uncongested A roads. 

Higher powered vehicles no longer post higher numbers with real world wltp. The obvious has returned to normality. More power generally = more fuel, always if you use the power. It’s very predictable now. More power more fuel autos more fuel. Fords Autos aroun10-15% more fuel. 

[SkoctyvRStsi]

We don't buy "sports cars" to worry about fuel return. Put your foot to the floor and away you go. I have a mk3 tdi vRS which used to be 220 BHP with a remap but now had a uprated turbo, intercooler, better hoses, ngk glow plugs, uprated clutch and box with a short shifter, custom exhaust. Just over 320 now she's very fast when needed but can still get around 47/50mpg on a motorway run can also see 7mpg a lot if the m3 insists on winning lol. Get a 13 plate tdi and remap it. 

[steved83]

220 TSi DSG. 230miles Norfolk to Shropshire, fully loaded with kids seats and a boot full of kids stuff packed to the ceiling. 37mpg indicated on maxi dot. I'm now sitting on half a tank having left on full.

 

Long term average is 36.

[Ootohere]

WLTP / RDE has nothing to do with the general driver unless they do Domestic / Pleasure / Leisure / Commuting driving to a WLTP test or RDE regime.

 

That will not be a car with passengers or luggage, maybe a roof rack / bars , bike rack and bikes etc.

 

A 1.0TSI might do the same MPG as a 2.0TSI over an identical journey taking the same time and one following the other and changing places.

If the 115ps car does better than the 245 ps when both have 5 people on board then fandabidozi.

 

People might actually notice that Skoda do not sell Automatics.

They do sell Automated  manuals with 2 pedals.

Now 'Coasting Function' and the ability to use less fuel than a manual car of the same weight, ps / torque, or the same fuel use or more.

All about how driven and where driven.

 

Edited 18 March, 2019 by Skoffski

[Maggle]

On ‎16‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 11:20, TheWanderer said:

I have DSG 7 which helps a bit, I also have a bonnet liner which means that the engine warms up quicker and that helps a smidgeon too. 

Where did you get the bonnet liner from? And how much was it?

[ahenners]

1 hour ago, SkoctyvRSTDI220 said:

We don't buy "sports cars" to worry about fuel return. Put your foot to the floor and away you go. I have a mk3 tdi vRS which used to be 220 BHP with a remap but now had a uprated turbo, intercooler, better hoses, ngk glow plugs, uprated clutch and box with a short shifter, custom exhaust. Just over 320 now she's very fast when needed but can still get around 47/50mpg on a motorway run can also see 7mpg a lot if the m3 insists on winning lol. Get a 13 plate tdi and remap it. 

 

Buy a TDI to save a few quid on fuel each week but spend loads improving it's power? Surely the cost of getting it to 320 bhp wipes out a significant amount of fuel savings?

 

A remapped stage 1 TSI would be knocking on 300 bhp and can easily see 45mpg on a run, with the fuel being significantly cheaper per litre too.