New 1.5 DSG fuel consumption

[Ecomatt]

30 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

I disagree with you.

The 1.4tsi offers effortless torque at lower revs compared to a NA engine unless it is quite large capacity.

 

With the 1.4tsi it is the turbo enabling low rev grunt which you can only get with revs on an NA engine.

What I am saying is that you cannot compare a NA engine to a Turbocharged engine for comparative power. Yes the 1.4 TSI may have more torque than 2.0 NA. But it does not have the same torque or pulling capabilities as the 2.0 TSI. So the 1.4TSI does have to work harder to make the power. Perhaps my original post should have included a 't' after the 2.0 as skoda dont make any 2.0 engines that are not turbocharged in the current line up.

I have included a dyno print to show how hard the 1.4TSI works compared to a 2.0TSI. You can see the 1.4 doesnt hold its power that well above 3000rpms where as the 2.0 holds on. I would say a lot of that is down to the turbocharger fitted. But put the 1.4 in to a bigger car and it will struggle to shove it a long like a larger engine would.

leon14TSI150psACT.pdf

GolfGTIMk7230PSStage1.pdf

Edited 16 January, 2020 by Ecomatt
Added info

[Ootohere]

Correct,  but to truck along the road at 70 mph then a 115ps 1.0tsi has enough power / torque and need not use it unless climbing or fully loaded and might be using 80 ps max, 

same as a 1.5 tsi with 150ps or a 2.0 with 220 or 245 ps.

The 1.0 3 cylinder 115ps might even use less fuel. 

[Gerrycan]

@Ecomatt , I did not pick up that you were comparing the 2 litre turbo with 1.4 tsi so yes of course the smaller engine is working nearer to its limits.

 

The smaller engines are more economical upto a certain output then I am sure the larger engine does better.

The thing is that the larger engine is rarely operating that hard in normal UK road conditions so the smaller engine  'always' offers better real life consumption.

 

My experience of the 1.0tsi in a loan Fabia was that it was noticeably more economical than my 1.4tsi. 

Lighter car I know but remarkably good none the less.

[superchiwawa]

1 hour ago, Rockinghorse said:

I just did two fairly long journeys and drove very carefully trying to squeeze the max out of a tankful. 50% was motorway but the best I achieved was 40.4 MPg.

 

 Yeah sounds about right... 😕

 

49 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

I really feel for the OP as his 1.5tsi consumption figures are far worse than I would be expecting from the engine. Either an individual fault in his or a generic problem meeting the new emission figures.

I appreciate the empathy Gerry! Is/was your 1.4 twin charged ? Or with a variable turbo ? 

 

Well my gut guess is they prioritised fixing the roo and power dip issues for the fuel mapping, and probably got some derogatory paperwork for the WLTP data, as the EU seemed to be allowing going over the required figures over a set time... I wonder if they released the final WLTP figures for this engine...? 

Maybe I should also point out that my daily commute  involves some up down start stop accelerating...

Terrain has to be a factor, but it’s Bière & frites land not the Swiss Alps...

But let’s get some more data before drawing conclusions...

[Ootohere]

WLTP & RDE and now RDE2 is the issue with the 1.5TSI EVO.   The cars engine / engine management is to pass the testing and get the results.

VW 508 / 509 oil in TSI's & TDI's to get low C02 g/km as well.  

When it comes to real world driving with people and luggage and non test regime, real world testing is nonsense.

 

VW breaks out the 1.4 TSI updated to use with the plug in hybrid models.  Not low enough C02 if tested running petrol but have it tested with a full charged battery plugged in and then the results are fine for RDE2.

Then with the other engines have Light Hybrid and get low figures again because it is the average they need to get down and very soon.

 

Edited 16 January, 2020 by Roottootemblowinootsoot

[Gerrycan]

3 hours ago, superchiwawa said:

 Yeah sounds about right... 😕

 

I appreciate the empathy Gerry! Is/was your 1.4 twin charged ? Or with a variable turbo ? 

 

Well my gut guess is they prioritised fixing the roo and power dip issues for the fuel mapping, and probably got some derogatory paperwork for the WLTP data, as the EU seemed to be allowing going over the required figures over a set time... I wonder if they released the final WLTP figures for this engine...? 

Maybe I should also point out that my daily commute  involves some up down start stop accelerating...

Terrain has to be a factor, but it’s Bière & frites land not the Swiss Alps...

But let’s get some more data before drawing conclusions...

The 1.4tsi in my 2014 mk3 is a simple small fixed turbo, variable valve timing of course but no cylinder deactivation.

The small turbo reduces lag at low revs but cannot move the volume for higher revs but quite honestly it suits me fine.

The 1.0tsi utilises the same ethos with one less cylinder.

The Octavia in Australia still is sold with the 1.4tsi but the 1.5tsi is sold in other models without gpf due to our lax emission laws and poorer (high sulpher content) petrol.

We are so far behind the rest of the world we still think digging and burning coal is a good idea 😞

All the Skoda I have owned/driven have easily met or exceeded claimed consumption in reasonable driving circumstances. 1.9pd, 1.4tsi and 1.0tsi.

I cannot say the same for other brands so I know what you are going through and proving your point to thr dealers is well nigh impossible.

[iriches]

Smaller turbo engines typically give better fuel economy than a larger normally-aspirated engine of similar power when driven gently - but use more fuel when driven hard.

 

There's a good explanation as to why in this video:

 

 

[Lingnoi]

13 hours ago, Ecomatt said:

Yes that is correct but you cannot compare a NA engine to a turbocharged engine for power or torque. Compare your 1.4t to a 2.0t and your 1.4t will have to work harder to make the power.

Apologies, you're absolutely right a 1.4TSi will make less torque than a 2.0TSi, I thought you were talking about larger capacity NA engines. My mistake, sorry.

[Ootohere]

@iriches

So the solution was small Dual Charge petrol engines, Turbo & Supercharger.   VW did the 1,390 CC Twincharger.  Power and Economy.

Only issue was they coc-ked up as usual and penny pinched and had a crap inlet manifold and internals and software and consumables as in OEM Spark Plugs / NGK and Long Life Oil.

 

Nothing wrong with the concept, and Volvo did OK.  but then the CEO of VW USA left in 2010 after introducing Green TDI's with Defeat Devices to the USA in 2007 

and off he went to head Volvo for Geely.

Now we have Electric Superchargers and 48 v motors, water pump / alternators that can do the job.   Vw never were hot on cooling / water pumps or catching snagging faults early.

 

They were fine at 112 / 150ps,  then @ 180ps, and remapped to 200 +.   

Just not with in the main with the VW software & consumables.   & really Super Unleaded makes all the difference.

(Long life oil & super unleaded really can make the Borewash issue & burnt out valves & one cooked spark plug, the one that gets fouled the cause oft he premature demise.)

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 January, 2020 by Roottootemblowinootsoot