55 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

Sure, the gearbox is different, but this doesn't suddenly adversely affect their throttle inputs.

I would guess their throttle inputs will be more affected by having an extra 34 bhp to play with.

 

2 hours ago, flybynite said:

DSG does not work with diesel very well if throttled hard as it holds gears in the diesel way past their best. Light throttle changes up earlier down later making the most of the torque of a diesel.

Not necessarily. I find that the DSG changes up a bit too soon in sport mode but not soon enough in eco mode.

Possibly, but more power doesn't mean it has to be utilised.

 

I've recently changed to a more powerful car (140PS to 170PS), as it happens that too was manual to automatic as well, but my driving characteristics haven't all changed, I still accelerate at the same rate as before and generally maintain the same speeds at the same points on my commute as I did previously.

2 hours ago, silver1011 said:

So, it is fair to assume that the difference in fuel economy isn't related to your theory, and therefore isn't necessarily applicable to this example / thread.

I tend to enjoy this type of discussion, but it often diverges from the question that was asked by the OP. In this case he was wanting to know how to deselect sport mode in the DSG. We haven't heard from him for a bit and I suspect he may have lost interest.

 

Erm, did you read the thread?

 

The OP got his answer in the second post, and confirmed his appreciation in the third post.

27 minutes ago, OldBoyScout said:

I tend to enjoy this type of discussion, but it often diverges from the question that was asked by the OP. In this case he was wanting to know how to deselect sport mode in the DSG. We haven't heard from him for a bit and I suspect he may have lost interest.

 

 

My opening line was an apology for crap WiFi where I am at the moment (until after Christmas) and as pointed out earlier, I did get the answer I was asking about, but I haven’t been home to try it yet. 

 

I have been tending to read the responses directly within my emails and have been learning loads from the mpg discussion that is currently running within the thread.

 

I’m heading home tomorrow to swap the camper over for the car, before taking the kayaks up to SW Scotland for the new year. I haven’t decided whether to head up to Scotland tomorrow or Saturday yet, but either way I’ll be back in proper WiFi 😀

15 minutes ago, Walterzkoda said:

I have been tending to read the responses directly within my emails and have been learning loads from the mpg discussion that is currently running within the thread.

Good to know you are still with us. Hope you have a safe journey up to Scotland. Regarding the mpg discussion I am thinking that the frequency of gear changes ought not to make much difference to mpg. My thinking is that when driving in city traffic the mpg is going to be poor almost regardless of how you drive, and when out on the open road gear changes are normally going to be relatively few and far between. As to the question of whether it is the DSG or bhp that mostly accounts for the difference in mpg between the manual 150 and the DSG 184, it would be interesting to hear from someone with experience of one of the later DSG 150 Scouts, if such a person happens to be following this thread.

 

1 hour ago, silver1011 said:

Possibly, but more power doesn't mean it has to be utilised.

Maybe not, but it is very tempting, and easy to do, even without realising, as the car will not appear to be under any strain, and whilst this may not apply to you it may apply to the member who commented on the difference between the two cars.

 

True, but no suggestion there is a difference in driving style, and I can only comment on what has been provided.

 

 

Unless @rogerdyer says differently?

According to official figures from a 2014 brochure the combined fuel consumption of both the 150 manual and the 184 DSG is 55.4 mpg. I am assuming that this figure is correct for the 2016 car and that the 2019 car is near enough the same. In the case of the 2019 car the format of the official figure has changed to WLTP, but i believe the assumption is reasonable and valid. We should therefore be asking ourselves why the real world mpg figures for the two cars seem to differ by so much when on paper the official figures are near enough the same. Albeit the newer car is post facelift, the two cars are near enough identical mechanically apart from 2 things: the difference in bhp and the type of gearbox. It follows that the difference in mpg must be down to one or both of these 2 things, or perhaps some related human factor.

 

Although we may all have our own individual driving styles, we may need to adapt them according to the car that we are driving, and moving from a manual to a DSG there are different things that we are able to do, e.g. we have the opportunity to modify how the car will drive by selecting the mode (normal, eco, sport, individual etc) and we can make further changes as we go.

 

Rogerdyer has said that he has tried using normal rather than eco, and getting up to speed quicker in an attempt to improve mpg, but let me comment on my own experience moving from a manual 140 to a DSG 184. In my case the 140 is a 57 reg MK2 Elegance estate with normal 2 wheel drive, so it differs in many ways from the newer Scout. The official combined mpg figure for this car is 51.4, so on paper it is less economical than the Scout 184 which has combined mpg of 55.4, but in real life the economy of the manual 140 generally seems to be better.

 

One thing about driving the manual car is that I feel I have a greater ability to drive in a deliberately economical manner, as I am making all the decisions about which gear to use and when to change. I keep average mpg on display for feedback, so I can see when I am getting it right (avg mpg increasing) and when i am not doing so well (avg mpg decreasing). I also feel it is possible to improve with practice. Am I really doing better than a DSG in eco mode would do? Impossible to say for sure, but I feel like I am.

 

And when I am driving the 184 do I take advantage of the extra 44 bhp? Of course I do. Emerging from a road junction or slip road into a gap in a stream of traffic is just one example of a situation where I appreciate having the extra grunt and make full use of it.

 

I also find that the 184 is more sensitive to operation of the throttle. In the 140 I find it relatively easy to maintain a constant speed by keeping the throttle pedal in more or less the same position. In the 184 I find that the car seems to have a tendency to pick up speed despite my best efforts to keep it constant, and I am frequently needing to ease off the throttle to keep the speed within reasonable limits. This is when the car coasts if it is in eco mode, but perhaps a more constant speed would be more economical overall. I guess I might benefit from using cruise control a bit more.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

You shouldn't assume the official quoted fuel economy on a 2016 pre-WLTP Scout is the same as a 2019 post-WLTP Scout. The WTLP qualification has likely had an effect on both emissions and fuel economy, there are plenty of threads on Briskoda detailing how VAG have been struggling with the software. So while mechanically they might be similar there is a lot going on under the surface that we can't see.

 

Wasn't is also confirmed earlier that the latest Scout is now equipped with SCR, this too might have an effect. Whilst it is implemented after combustion other parameters have likely been adapted to facilitate the systems integration.

 

Whilst having the extra grunt is beneficial and available to use, you don't have to use it, and certainly not all of the time, as previously mentioned I don't.

WLTP Figures are correct for WLTP testing, as are RDE and now from next month if you are not to pay a VED band higher for a new registered diesel the RDE2 figures.

 

No regens are happening during RDE / RDE2 or WLTP testing.

2014 Brochure figures was while TDI's were still getting Defeat Devices / Engine Management to manipulate test results.

http://clm.co.uk/real-driving-emissions-step-2-rde2-standards

 

http://am-online.com/news/market-insight/2019/07/16/rde2-vehicle-emissions-test-prompts-return-of-pre-registrations

 

As it was / is a 150PS TDI SCR DSG are pretty good economy wise, and remap one and it does not become less economic, 

and might well be as economic if not more so than a 190 / 184 TSI SCR DSG when driven in the same manner, say spirited with the intention of getting a shift on.

Sometimes it does not matter how spirited you drive on UK roads, a 1.0 TSI Octavia or the likes might do the journey in the same time and the fuel used will cost the same as the TDI used.

It might do it in the same time and use less fuel than a Octavia vRS 245 or even one with 300 ps +.

 

 

 

 

Edited 27 December, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

Back in the land of proper WiFi for a little while and just catching up.

 

It’s good to see some of the mpg figures that members are achieving, but to be honest, after commuting for over a year in my camper, with a long term average showing as 25mpg, I’m a long way off worrying what my Octavia is doing.

 

I have found another problem since getting back to the car, but I’ll start another thread for that shortly.

On 19/12/2019 at 20:14, FrankLK said:

Pull lever again backwards and it goes back to D. 

 

It’s taken me a while to try it, but yes.... that worked today 👍🏻

4 hours ago, Walterzkoda said:

It’s good to see some of the mpg figures that members are achieving, but to be honest, after commuting for over a year in my camper, with a long term average showing as 25mpg, I’m a long way off worrying what my Octavia is doing.

Most of the time my Octavia is way short of the official figures, but it will usually do better than 50 mpg on a long trip, and that is good enough for me. When I am getting low 40s or even less I blame the driving conditions, not the car. Considering that my Scout has a raised body, DSG, DPF, 4WD and 184ps, I am very satisfied with the fuel economy which is not so far off what I get from my 2007 Elegance 140 TDI that has none of these things.

 

5 hours ago, Walterzkoda said:

 

It’s taken me a while to try it, but yes.... that worked today 👍🏻

I use it always like that, that is why I think new gear lever in octavia IV is crap because I want a normal gear lever, not a switch like in golf. 

On 26/12/2019 at 11:33, rogerdyer said:

Just gone past 7k on the new one, I am hoping it will improve, I know it was better on the old one after more mileage, but can't remember how many miles that was at. Only just started to see what it's like in "normal" mode, but seems to be looking better already.....time will tell.

Just a quick update, if anyone is still interested, I now run the scout in normal mode 100% and now after 13/14k, getting a return of 52/53 mpg. Not sure if it's the car getting looser, or it's just performing better in the warmer weather. I can live with that, what with having more power, when needed and the more relaxed driving style of the DSG.

It takes a while to get used to DSG and if the car's new it takes a while to get bedded in, loosen up etc.

 

This car (albeit a 245 petrol) was terrible for fuel and it didn't like slow speeds after a long stint of motorway speeds, but now it's fine. Economy has improved and now all the gremlins have been sorted out, software updated it's great, in fact it's better than before. 🙂