@Scot5

Actually it was an attempt at a wind up as my 3.2 diesel sat ticking over in Crieff high street while i bought a deep fried mars bar.

Crieff high Street seemingly being one of the highest polluted and where the Council or councillors wanted the first low emission zone.

 

Visit Bonny Scotland for the beauty (and Average Speed Cameras), the hill and glens and towns and villages & the fresh mountain air in your Euro 5 TDI with defeat device and good fuel economy.

Best do it an AWD because the roads are not getting salted in the Highlands and it is winter.

http://perthgazette.co.uk/2017/01/18/perths-atholl-street-and-crieff-high-street-among-scotlands-most-polluted-in-2016

http://thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/perth-kinross/957345/action-plan-to-fight-pollution-in-perthshire-town-is-poised-for-approval

 

 

 

Edited 17 December, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

17 hours ago, gSvrs said:

see what happens I have to go fort William after new year in jan 

see what happens then 

if don't get better than 50 ish 

thinking of getting  smaller car 

My 2.0TDi 4x4 DSG etc... has averaged 46.4 over 26K miles so far. On our summer holiday trip to Scotland, it averaged 54mpg on the way up and 52mpg on the way home. Long steady motorway drives and the A9 worked quite well. I'm seeing quite a dip in my averages for winter, so you may struggle to achieve those figures in January.

4 hours ago, Roottootemoot said:

@Scot5

Actually it was an attempt at a wind up.

 

No offence but Chris Sutton you are not.  Best sticking to the day job.  

yes but before the karoq I drove the x1 xdrive  felt faster than to and better on fuel

and a mini countryman all4 

wow that was a lot faster being a 1.5 petrol part eco

2 hours ago, Luckypants said:

My 2.0TDi 4x4 DSG etc... has averaged 46.4 over 26K miles so far. On our summer holiday trip to Scotland, it averaged 54mpg on the way up and 52mpg on the way home. Long steady motorway drives and the A9 worked quite well. I'm seeing quite a dip in my averages for winter, so you may struggle to achieve those figures in January.

Probably down to the winter additives in diesel.

Quite agree. However in my case the arrival of winter fuel mixes coincided with new tyres of a different pattern, so some of it is likely to be increased drag. So hard for me to say how much of a dip is due to winter diesel.

Edited 17 December, 20196 yr by Luckypants
Spelling

Winter Diesel Additives in the UK to have the Diesel / DERV less hygroscopic / have waxing reduced and only happening at much lower temps than the Summer spec DERV, are not increasing fuel use and affecting the UK Economy and Transportation business's,

Putting more tax / duty into the treasury coffers.     If the Diesel goes in your tank in October / November and the weather and roads are the same as they were for you in September the cars range is not less than in September IME.

Edited 17 December, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

may be next car I get is a petrol faster and better fuel and mpg

Not really following on from the above few messages, but still on topic - I thought I'd have a go at getting nearer to shy's earlier reported impressive 1.5 manual consumption figures (my car is 1.0 DSG SE Tech), so on my latest 150mile Bristol trip, I set the ACC to 65mph and achieved 51.5mpg.  Normally get about 48mpg with ACC set to 72mph and accelerating past traffic occasionally at 80+, so result!!

 

On the return I typically do a bit better for some reason and get say 51mpg, but this time set to 65mph again, only 50.5mpg - I was hoping to get near 55mpg.  Why the consumption wasn't better, driving slower and more carefully, is puzzling.  I was stopped quite a lot at lights early on downhill getting through Bristol and it was a bit damp for the first 40mins, but dry thereafter.  Maybe the fact it was only 5-6degrees this time is significant, whereas going out and on previous journeys, it had been substantially warmer.

 

Travel out was last Saturday and the return New Year's Day, both days chosen to avoid traffic and the roads were gratifyingly fairly quiet.  A long stretch of the route on M4 around Reading is being upgraded, so restricted to 50mph, which I respected and of course this aids low consumption.  Both journeys, I hardly touched the pedals to brake or accelerate, except to stop for a coffee in the services.  I doubt I'll ever achieve shy's low to mid 60's mpg figures.  For info, my figures are shown on the central Amundsen screen, not measured at the pump.

 

Near the end of the return journey, I did get round to checking the mileometer accuracy against the motorway small red indicator posts - set at 100m intervals = very nearly 1 furlong (what they used to be set at), so there are 16 of these to a mile.  The mileometer seems pretty nearly spot on, but I'll check again a few times.  However a superficial check then on the indicated speed on the car suggested it was somewhat flattering - 16 posts should take 1 minute at 60mph and with my ACC set to 65, the timing didn't seem much less than the minute, but more checks needed.  Will report back in a few weeks, if not earlier.

 

Incidentally, timing on these slower journeys was not an issue, only 5 -10mins longer for the 150miles.

 

 

3 minutes ago, croquemonsieur said:

Not really following on from the above few messages, but still on topic - I thought I'd have a go at getting nearer to shy's earlier reported impressive 1.5 manual consumption figures (my car is 1.0 DSG SE Tech), so on my latest 150mile Bristol trip, I set the ACC to 65mph and achieved 51.5mpg.  Normally get about 48mpg with ACC set to 72mph and accelerating past traffic occasionally at 80+, so result!!

 

On the return I typically do a bit better for some reason and get say 51mpg, but this time set to 65mph again, only 50.5mpg - I was hoping to get near 55mpg.  Why the consumption wasn't better, driving slower and more carefully, is puzzling.  I was stopped quite a lot at lights early on downhill getting through Bristol and it was a bit damp for the first 40mins, but dry thereafter.  Maybe the fact it was only 5-6degrees this time is significant, whereas going out and on previous journeys, it had been substantially warmer.

 

Travel out was last Saturday and the return New Year's Day, both days chosen to avoid traffic and the roads were gratifyingly fairly quiet.  A long stretch of the route on M4 around Reading is being upgraded, so restricted to 50mph, which I respected and of course this aids low consumption.  Both journeys, I hardly touched the pedals to brake or accelerate, except to stop for a coffee in the services.  I doubt I'll ever achieve shy's low to mid 60's mpg figures.  For info, my figures are shown on the central Amundsen screen, not measured at the pump.

 

Near the end of the return journey, I did get round to checking the mileometer accuracy against the motorway small red indicator posts - set at 100m intervals = very nearly 1 furlong (what they used to be set at), so there are 16 of these to a mile.  The mileometer seems pretty nearly spot on, but I'll check again a few times.  However a superficial check then on the indicated speed on the car suggested it was somewhat flattering - 16 posts should take 1 minute at 60mph and with my ACC set to 65, the timing didn't seem much less than the minute, but more checks needed.  Will report back in a few weeks, if not earlier.

 

Incidentally, timing on these slower journeys was not an issue, only 5 -10mins longer for the 150miles.

 

 

Due to increased aero drag most cars (SUV shape cars even more) use 10% more fuel at 70mph compared to 60mph for example, which would result in about 5mpg improvement for your car.

Yes indeed.  That's why I was expecting close to 55mpg on the return, but 50.5mpg is still respectable enough for a roomy petrol auto.  For info - since the last auto-resetting of the longterm figures at around 3,000miles, I'm averaging 44mpg (similar to previous, initial 3,000miles), with 48mpg overall so far from the last tank fill-up in Bristol - some very local driving since returning.  Car done 4000miles.

27 minutes ago, croquemonsieur said:

Yes indeed.  That's why I was expecting close to 55mpg on the return, but 50.5mpg is still respectable enough for a roomy petrol auto.  For info - since the last auto-resetting of the longterm figures at around 3,000miles, I'm averaging 44mpg (similar to previous, initial 3,000miles), with 48mpg overall so far from the last tank fill-up in Bristol - some very local driving since returning.  Car done 4000miles.

Wife's Karoq SEL 1.5TSi manual Long Term is now 46mpg after 22,500 miles and is nearly 2 years old later in January.

When fuel consumption figures are quoted no-one ever considers wind direction which can have a significant effect on fuel consumption. The effect of a headwind can far outweigh other effects, particularly on a car which is not really aerodynamic. 

6 hours ago, JohnD5314 said:

When fuel consumption figures are quoted no-one ever considers wind direction which can have a significant effect on fuel consumption. The effect of a headwind can far outweigh other effects, particularly on a car which is not really aerodynamic. 

 

...or whether aircon is on. 

 

Tom

Yes thanks, after I posted my last message, I wondered whether the wind direction might have explained the lack of improvement in fuel consumption.  I don't recall noticing it being windy new year's day in the morning but can't say for sure.  Certainly while driving, the car didn't seem affected by wind, but then I find the Karoq fairly stable in windy conditions.

 

I always keep the aircon on.  I think shy's absolute best consumption figures were with it turned off, but still got some very impressive results with it turned on.

The 2019 Superb Sportline Plus 272 I bought 11 days ago has a NEDC average of about 39mpg for the 7 speed DSG and only 33mpg on the latest WLTP figures yet with climate control always on so far had a best over 43mpg and first half tank fill it averaged 37.35mpg after 319 miles not bad for such a large and powerful car (268bhp).

Interesting to read this thread. My current car (Kodiaq Edition 1.4TSI 150PS DSG) has been getting me around 30-35mpg almost irrespective of type of travel (whether short 15-20 minute commute on A roads or longer Mway drive).

 

I am currently trying to decide whether my next motor should be petrol or diesel - it will more than likely be a Karoq Edition 150PS DSG doing about 12-15K per year. Preference would be 4x4 which I realise limits it to diesel but might change

Edited 8 January, 20206 yr by kilted

Soon after I got my, then brand new, 2014 manual 1.4tsi Octavia estate we were able to do a run on a flat open road with little traffic, no wind, about 20 deg C temp with the car set on cruise at a true GPS indicated 110 kph (68mph) and the consumption indicated 5.7L/100 (49.5mpg). These figures have been confirmed on a few other occasions

For background info the odometer has proven to be within 1% accurate (gps confirmed) and the speedo 7% optimistic and the 5.7L/100 matches the official NEDC combined figure for my car. When new the average consumption display for a tank was slightly pessimistic compared to actual refill calculations.

 

Using that as a basis and the 'instant consumption' display I have confirmed to my satisfaction that lower air temperatures result in worse consumption and higher temperatures better consumption (I am talking about 10 deg C either way and 3 mpg differences). I do not know whether this is due to relative engine efficiency or the air resistance due to temperature related air density.

 

Headwinds and tailwinds are pretty obvious factors and visibly effect the 'instant consumption' display. 

Similarly the positive aero contribution from being in the company of other traffic is pretty obvious as well. Being as much as 4 seconds behind a large semi trailer at 100 kph (their speed limit in Australia) will improve consumption by as much as 0.5L/100. I don't like to get closer than 3 seconds for a number of safety reasons. My experience on busy UK motorways is that motorists travel about 2 seconds behind the vehicle in front which resulted in really good consumption (63 to 70mpg tanks) from my diesel hire car

 

My car has a simple air conditioner, not climate control and it does not have that much effect on consumption when used. from 20 deg to 35 deg, consumption seems relatively unaffected, but up to 45 deg C then the adverse effect of a hard working air-conditioner on consumption is apparent.

When I experienced unusually high local humidity and temps (98% and 30+ deg) on one night trip the aircon was too effective and I had to turn on the heater as well to control a comfortable internal humidity and temperature. This knocked consumption down to 6L/100 where I would normally expect closer to 5L/100 in lower humidity.

 

To summarise; my best 250km one way trip with a strong tailwind, speed restricted to (an honest) 100kph in the company of a lot interstate trucks resulted in an indicated average of 4.1L/100 (68.9 mpg). Headwind back was 47 mpg.

Worst experienced consumption was 8L/100 (35 mpg) in recent town traffic at local record 45+ deg C temps, with aircon, and all fans inside and under bonnet at full tilt.

Edited 9 January, 20206 yr by Gerrycan

Just found this useful charting tool on the app I use to record mileage fuel usage. I have been using it since Nov 2018.

 

Just FYI on the variations by month.

Interesting MJ1.  Verifies what people generally say.  Consumption improves as car runs in.  4.5mpg better this January than last.  Have you the approx mileages done by the car for both January's by any chance?

 

Also comparing your last Summer with late Autumn 2019 shows 4mpg better in summer, again as people say, yet the car has run in a little bitb more.  Presumably your's doesn't have a GPF.  My 1.0 DSG SE tech, bought end of July 2019 does have one.  The first 3,000miles long term logged on Amundsen showed 44mpg, starting off in summer but running into Autumn.  Now 1,250 miles into the next long term log, still showing 44mpg, maybe the running-in economy improvement is counterbalancing the winter-driving deterioration just now - this is mixed local, mid-range and long distance driving (150miles).  Looks like things are only going to get better as I approach summer.  Maybe the GPF isn't impacting all that much on performance/efficiency, but always difficult to prove for sure.  On the plus side I think it may make the engine exhaust noise a bit quieter.

 

Going out on a 30mile journey into Bedfordshire 10 days ago on a not particularly cold day gave me 45mpg but the mid pm return was 50mpg - I reckon this shows it takes quite a long time for the engine to thoroughly warm up - it would have been part warm at the start of the return + air temp was admittedly a bit warmer.  I wasn't daudling, but neither was I driving like a madman on the A5/M1/M25.  My father used to keep an electric tube heater under the sump of his garaged car - I would, but no garage - it would then be interesting to compare mpg figures pre warmed & not.  Maybe all cars should have a built in electric engine heater, as I believe do models meant for Scandinavia, to be turned on maybe 10mins before one sets off - could be key fob operated.

 

I generally drive carefully, not that slowly but I believe economically, trying to use the brakes as little as is reasonably possible, though I do sometimes like a bit of fun and use the improved responsiveness with DSG lever put into Sport mode.  The performance then is all I'd ever want from a car, even loaded up - it climbs hills really well like this, yet still stays pretty quiet - no great sporty roar. 

I have had a look at the other charts and nothing really by month for mileage. I could manually work it out based on entries but no time today.

 

This chart shows odo readings over time. Not sure it helps much.

 

 

Thanks, looks something like 18,000 per year, 5,000miles say done by Jan last year & 23,000miles by Jan this year - that's detailed enough - my possibly simplistic view is that running-in was still happening, long after the initial 5,000miles - interesting & surprising.

3 hours ago, croquemonsieur said:

Interesting MJ1.  Verifies what people generally say.  Consumption improves as car runs in.  4.5mpg better this January than last.

I think that graph is interesting - never seen anything like it before. Well done for maintaining the info.

 

People ( especially politicians ) can see stats whatever way they want.  The trouble with the above statement is it can only be true if all things were equal - it doesn't take in to account road conditions or weather conditions, both which heavily affect fuel consumption.

 

For Daventry is the average temp. for Jan 2019 was 4C, the highest daily temp was 6C, the lowest being 2C.  ( If the average was 4C that suggests many a frosty late night/ early morning.

 

We're not quite finished Jan 2020 yet, but so far the highest temp for Daventry has been 12C, the lowest being 6C ( on Sunday ). The average temp so far is: 9.4C, so it's been much warmer this year.  Never mind winds or rain or whatever, that difference in temp alone would be almost enough to account for that difference in mpg.

 

There isn't much 'running in' on a modern engine, most improvements (if any) come after the car has been serviced. What the chart shows to me is the profile folllows that of the average monthly temp.

 

rule of thumb: the warmer it gets, the more mpg you can expect.

Edited 21 January, 20206 yr by Guest

3 hours ago, Scot5 said:

rule of thumb: the warmer it gets, the more mpg you can expect.

 

Even without the background climate data it was the temperature link that caught my attention too.

 

I have owned several modern vehicles from new and always had an (obsessive) interest in their consumption so it is with some regret that I never identified any improvement after running-in. Those with bad consumption stayed bad and those with good consumption stayed as good (so far) but that is just my experience and certainly differs from others.

 

I've not had a paranormal experience either whereas my adult (and generally sensible) daughter had a bedside visitation while house-sitting her boss's old house. Apparently the dogs who shared her bedroom were very upset by the experience but I am still a sceptic. 

Edited 22 January, 20206 yr by Gerrycan

11 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

 

Even without the background climate data it was the temperature link that caught my attention too.

 

I have owned several modern vehicles from new and always had an (obsessive) interest in their consumption so it is with some regret that I never identified any improvement after running-in. Those with bad consumption stayed bad and those with good consumption stayed as good (so far) but that is just my experience and certainly differs from others.

 

I've not had a paranormal experience either whereas my adult (and generally sensible) daughter had a bedside visitation while house-sitting her boss's old house. Apparently the dogs who shared her bedroom were very upset by the experience but I am still a sceptic. 

Some people can get good fuel economy (once saw Jarno Trulli ex F1 driver in a Toyota Prius get 74mpg out of it because they have very good sensitive feet) out of anything and I like to think I'm in that category. Our last 4 cars have all been petrol and my best efforts yielded 60+mpg from Rapid Spaceback 1.2TSi, Superb 1.4TSi ACT and average over 40mpg (over 29,000 miles) in a 336bhp Octavia Mk3 Vrs245 and just averaged 38mpg in my latest car 268bhp Superb DSG 4 X 4 petrol weighing 1,627kg with 2 bests of 43mpg on my commute. Those that can't drive in an economical manner say it's boring but £16 saved per month can pay routine servicing or tyres at the end of the year. Managed 546 miles on 65.22 litres of Tesco 99 octane unleaded which is cheap for the performance it offers.Borrowed Fabia 1.0TSi recently from the garage when they did some work on the wife's KAROQ and managed to squeeze 59.7mpg from it on the 11 mile return journey.