1.5 TSI disappeared

[Ootohere]

@Gmac983

Even when it was set up that they could still cheat they struggled and are struggling even more for next year.

[Gmac983]

That's very interesting. Historically that's how vehicles were tested but manufacturers went away from this type of test a long time ago as not all were done equally, inconsistent road conditions/weather/and the test drivers themselves. The same used to be applicable to performance stats, cars rarely achieve their advertised 0-60 and top speeds. A good example was the mk1 Ford focus RS, engines were optimized along with more aggressive limited slip diff settings for the press fleet. Ford did this to ensure the car measured up to its claimed figures and also the arch enemy Astra VXR had to be matched up to on the track and under fast road conditions that journalists were testing the cars. 

[Silverbear]

20 hours ago, AndyMorris said:

How does the onboard figures compare with yours? 

I don't know, I've always found onboard computers inaccurate so don't even bother to look. I'm pretty sure my pump figures are accurate because I'm getting very close to the same figure time after time and my motoring is very repetitive, more or less just the same commutate to work and the same school run.

[Silverbear]

17 hours ago, Gmac983 said:

 

Wow that's pretty mediocre. My box fresh 2.0tsi sportline is doing mid 30's on mixed A and B roads in normal drive mode. 

The WLTP figures are approx 30 to 33 MPG for my car so I think 36 MPG driving a mixture of town and country lanes and 42 MPG on the motorway is pretty good.

[Gmac983]

If your satisfied with what your getting that's all that matters. Apologies if you felt I was having a dig. 

[Silverbear]

17 hours ago, Gmac983 said:

 

Wow that's pretty mediocre. My box fresh 2.0tsi sportline is doing mid 30's on mixed A and B roads in normal drive mode. 

What are those roads like? On clear A and B roads I get 42 MPG. In London gridlock and then congested narrow, often single track, lanes with frequent stopping and sometimes reversing to let oncoming vehicles pass I get about 36 MPG. My commute to work is anything but efficient. I'm happy with the figures indeed I think they are better than I expected and indeed I'm not spending any more on fuel than I did on my 10 year old diesel people carrier.

[Silverbear]

8 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

If your satisfied with what your getting that's all that matters. Apologies if you felt I was having a dig. 

It's physics at the end of the day so it is what it is. Given the results are better than WLTP I'd say I'm getting good mileage irrespective of whether I'm happy with it.

[Silverbear]

13 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

If your satisfied with what your getting that's all that matters. Apologies if you felt I was having a dig. 

I've just checked the official figures for the Sportline available at the time I purchased my car. It was available as a 1.5 & 2.0 TSI 4x4 and the MPG figures are extremely similar with the 1.5 more efficient by a hair. You seem to be getting the same MPG as I am so both are cars would seem to be near identical in MPG and in line with their specification. The 2.0 TSI has more power but there is no reason to think it is particularly less efficient. It is impossible to do a precise comparison as the journeys are different.

[Gmac983]

The roads I'm on mostly are very rural single track and fairly clear A/B roads no city driving at all. I would imagine in start/stop city traffic I would be sub 30mpg. 

[Gmac983]

Yes your correct there. Would have to back to back test them to see for sure. 

[Guest BigJase88]

false economy small engine in a big car, little things puffing its heart out that's why mpg suffers, 2.0tsi will get better mpg than the 1.5tsi I would imagine

[shyVRS245]

4 minutes ago, BigJase88 said:

false economy small engine in a big car, little things puffing its heart out that's why mpg suffers, 2.0tsi will get better mpg than the 1.5tsi I would imagine

Managed 64.6mpg in our manual 1.5TSi Karoq today. Shame is departs at the end of the week. Hope the new owner can get similar economy after it's first service at 18,700 miles. Looks like it will do well over 700 miles on the last 70 litres of 95 octane I put in the tank.

[silver1011]

17 minutes ago, BigJase88 said:

false economy small engine in a big car, little things puffing its heart out that's why mpg suffers, 2.0tsi will get better mpg than the 1.5tsi I would imagine

 

True, 50 years ago, not today.

 

My 1.4 TSI is barely over 2,000 RPM at an indicated 70mph, hardly puffing it's heart out.

[Guest BigJase88]

16 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

 

True, 50 years ago, not today.

 

My 1.4 TSI is barely over 2,000 RPM at an indicated 70mph, hardly puffing it's heart out.

its not about rpm's its about engine load

 

my 1.5tsi leon long-term average is 36mpg so its not fantastic either and I'm very disappointed in the fuel economy it can achieve

[silver1011]

9 minutes ago, BigJase88 said:

its not about rpm's its about engine load

 

Engine load (torque) is directly related to engine speed (RPM). Both torque and engine speed have a direct effect on fuel consumption so it is as much about engine speed as engine load.

 

250Nm and 150PS is plenty enough for a 1,700kg Kodiaq for it not to be breaking a sweat.

 

The 2.0 TSI's official fuel consumption is worse than that of the 1.5 TSI by approx 1mpg.

[Guest BigJase88]

3 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

 

Engine load (torque) is directly related to engine speed (RPM). Both torque and engine speed have a direct effect on fuel consumption so it is as much about engine speed as engine load.

 

250Nm and 150PS is plenty enough for a 1,700kg Kodiaq for it not to be breaking a sweat.

 

The 2.0 TSI's official fuel consumption is worse than that of the 1.5 TSI by approx 1mpg.

I bet in the real world the 2.0tsi is better on fuel

 

going by official fuel consumption figures I should be achieving 57mpg in my 1.5tsi, I am not getting anywhere near that

[silver1011]

I'm sure there will be some situations where the bigger engine will be more fuel efficient, towing for example, or driving up steep inclines and into strong headwinds etc. where it's higher torque levels will pay dividends.

 

I'm not so sure on day-to-day driving though, stop start traffic or the school run etc. Here my money would be on the 1.5 TSI.

[xspartx]

1 hour ago, silver1011 said:

I'm sure there will be some situations where the bigger engine will be more fuel efficient, towing for example, or driving up steep inclines and into strong headwinds etc. where it's higher torque levels will pay dividends.

 

I'm not so sure on day-to-day driving though, stop start traffic or the school run etc. Here my money would be on the 1.5 TSI.

 

I went through the same thought process too.

 

 

 

[Gmac983]

It all really depends on what you expect from the car. If you value economy over everything else then you may be quite satisfied with the 1.5tsi However if you wish to trade of a little economy for a lot more performance (whether your a speedster or tow things or whatever) then you won't be disappointed with the larger engine or its economy. I found the 1.5tsi to be a little gutless and that was sampled in the octavia not the larger/heavier kodiaq. 

[Gmac983]

2 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Managed 64.6mpg in our manual 1.5TSi Karoq today. Shame is departs at the end of the week. Hope the new owner can get similar economy after it's first service at 18,700 miles. Looks like it will do well over 700 miles on the last 70 litres of 95 octane I put in the tank.

 

Long range fuel tank on your karoq then? Thought the karoq only had a 50 or 55 litre fuel tank model depending. Maybe I'm wrong. Kodiaq has a 60 litre tank, wouldn't have thought karoqs' would be bigger. 

[shyVRS245]

4 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

 

Long range fuel tank on your karoq then? Thought the karoq only had a 50 or 55 litre fuel tank model depending. Maybe I'm wrong. Kodiaq has a 60 litre tank, wouldn't have thought karoqs' would be bigger. 

No just the 50 litres like everyone else but as it is going back to the dealer in 3 days only put 20 litres in last week rather than fill it. Currently on 601 miles since last full tank and 175 miles range left.

[Gmac983]

So that would be a theoretical 775 miles on 70 litres of fuel going by your projected fuel range. Which would work out at 50.4mpg I presume the 64.6mpg you mention is just of the trip computer and not manually worked out? Just trying to work it all out. 

[DaveMiller]

> going by official fuel consumption figures I should be achieving 57mpg in my 1.5tsi, I am not getting anywhere near that <

 

Is that the old “extra urban” figure?  Who says you “should” be achieving that?

 

Well, you probably would get close to it .... if you drove according to the way that’s specified.  Do you, for example, always start with a warm engine (which is specified)?  Do you average only 39 mph (which is specified)?  If not, you won’t get similar figures.

[Ootohere]

There is no Official Fuel Consumption Figures, not from the Old NEDC System , that told you it was not about real world,

or the WLTP / RDE,  That is not about cars with people or luggage in them.

 Harmonisation Light Vehicle Test Procedure, Real Driving Emissions / RDE economy and emissions.

 

People can get better economy than figures given and others worse, just as it has always been. Location location location and roads, weather and driving styles, 

tyre pressures and weight in the car.

[krigl]

Someone once said to me an interesting fact regarding the Ford EcoBoost engines... I feel the exact same is also completeley the same for TSI engines. 

 

There is either Eco or Boost with these engines... You can never have both! 

 

You are eaither a slow and jentle with gas pedal and achieve superb economy or you use the turbine to be quick and anything else than eco. The moment the turbine gives the extra omph, you throw the eco word out of the window.