Drove from Milton Keynes area to Lancaster last week.  ACC on 60 mph (down to 50 for long road work stretches) I don't normally drive this slowly but had lots of time and podcasts to enjoy - and it is very comfortable in my MKIII.

 

My 2.0 TDI manual returned stunning MPG for the trip. This figure also included a 20 minute service stop.

 

Impressive. 

Getting over 60 mph long term too.

 

What a great car!

I'm sometimes a bit (OK very) anal about long drives like this and would have filled up for the journey, if it was looking that good I'd have refueled there and worked it out exactly.

Obvs not a 4x4 190 dsg then lol 

good figures those. 👍🏻

2 hours ago, mccrosss said:

Drove from Milton Keynes area to Lancaster last week.  ACC on 60 mph (down to 50 for long road work stretches) I don't normally drive this slowly but had lots of time and podcasts to enjoy - and it is very comfortable in my MKIII.

 

My 2.0 TDI manual returned stunning MPG for the trip. This figure also included a 20 minute service stop.

 

Impressive. 

Getting over 60 mph long term too.

 

What a great car!

That is disgusting! 😂

Come back when you get 25mpg! 

 

In all seriousness, they're fantastic numbers on such a large car. Well done 👍

57 minutes ago, Esseesse200 said:

Obvs not a 4x4 190 dsg then lol 

good figures those. 👍🏻

Has the remap had any noticeable effect on mpg?

That's ace mpg! How much do you reckon you'll get out of the tank? I remember being thrilled at getting 56.2 in my 1.4 TSI '60 Octavia once; felt like winning an award getting an MPG higher than the figures thought possible!

46 minutes ago, Markbro said:

Has the remap had any noticeable effect on mpg?

It’s a bit better than original but on a steady run it gets 47. Thats with the increased traction mod for the haldex done on vcds for the 4x4. They reckon that takes about 1.5-2 mpg

I suspect the true brim to brim mpg figure wont be that high, every Skoda I have had has been optimistic and needed to be corrected from within VCDS, trouble is it bursts ones bubble 🙁

 

The system will allow a correction of IIRC +/- 15%, my vehicles have been between 9 and 11% overoptimistic

 

A very good indication of deliberately optimistic programming is when after filling up the range shows as (for example) 600 miles based on the optimistic Maxidot current consumption of for example 70mpg, you may drive 100 miles and it shows 500 remaining, switch off and the next restart it has measured the actual fuel level rather than what it had calculated and now it shows 450 miles as if someone has siphoned off some fuel during the night.

 

If you run the tank to empty you will have done lets say 500 miles and a brim to brim calculation will show the true MPG as 55mpg.

 

All of the above figures are just guesstimates and wont bear close scrutiny but I hope you follow the logic.

 

I'm ashamed to admit that lacking VCDS I allowed myself to believe the dashboard MPG figures from my MK1 despite whenever I did a tank to tank calculation it being significantly less and the tank range never being what was displayed initially after a fill up, I just use the dash display as a comparator.

 

In when I went into VCDS to correct the displayed figure I realised that it had been set to a +ve percenteage from the factory, deliberately overstating the MPG, thinking that seeing the real figures would not actually please me I actually adjusted it the wrong way another 5%, the maximum it could accept, I now have impressive but untrue MPG readings but I am only fooling myself until I come to sell the vehicle.

I reckon it was about 4 years back when a Superb owner posted similar, perhaps even better, returns for his 2.0tdi but over several tanks of fuel which confirmed the display accuracy, so it is indeed possible in the right car and conditions.

However I would endorse @J.R. comment that the OP can do a few simple things to confirm how accurate the maxidot (and general instrumentation) display actually is.

If you compare the actual manually calculated consumption against the 'since refill average display 'over three consecutive refuels then you will get a pretty good idea of display accuracy and easy to compensate for.  

When my 1.4tsi Octavia was new the consumption displayed was actually worse than real life but over 63k km it is now marginally optimistic. It just means that when it displays 5.4L/100 for a journey I know I really got around 5.6L/100 (50 mpg) and that variation is what I work to until my refill checks suggest otherwise.

The speedo and odometer can be inaccurate too, but these are easily checked against a GPS and my experience is that the speedo can be up to 10% optimistic and odometer up to 5% optimistic. Both those extremes were on a large Korean car I owned so the already woeful consumption turned out to be considerably worse than I thought. 

 

After all is said and done I think achieving anything over 60mpg in a car as big as the Superb, while not disadvantaging other road users,  is brilliant.

 

Edited 10 February, 20206 yr by Gerrycan

Agreed 60 will take some doing given the congestion on UK roads, here on very quiet roads and rolling across all the STOP! junctions unless something is coming on a determined afternoon I can get 72mpg but invariably the return journey will be less, this is always the case when the oubound destination is at a lower altitude and higher vice versa.

 

80mpg from a heavier vehicle with a larger frontal area is nothing short of amazing.

 

I went to a BL test day at Brands hatch in the late 80's, invited by the contract hire company that our group used for our fleet, there was a Maestro van with a Perkins diesel engine available for doing 5 or so laps in an economy competition, I recall as you drove off from the pit lane they hit a mushroom switch on the roof to reset and start the fuel computer.

 

I drove fairly briskly aiming to slow down as little as possible for corners and use engine braking not the brakes, I actually outbraked a few vehicles or overtook them exitting the bends.

 

I came second in the day with IIRC 84.8mpg but the winner was miles ahead of that, in a completely different class although he had many attempts over the course of the day.

I am not very good at this 'searching' lark but I did find this old thread.

 

Another notable thread in the Citigo forum

 

 

The computer in my Superb 272 is pretty accurate but under estimates based upon the first 3 tanks before the remap.

Tank 1 after 319 miles maxidot reading 37.1mpg actual brim to brim 37.35mpg.

Tank 2 after 546 miles maxidot reading 37.5mpg actual brim to brim 38.05mpg.

Tank 3 after 495 miles maxidot reading 39.0mpg actual brim to brim 39.73mpg.

Current 4 th tank 503 miles covered so far maxidot 39.2mpg (post remap) will fill later today and update with actual brim to brim (85 miles shown left range in tank).

6 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

The computer in my Superb 272 is pretty accurate but under estimates based upon the first 3 tanks before the remap.

Tank 1 after 319 miles maxidot reading 37.1mpg actual brim to brim 37.35mpg.

Tank 2 after 546 miles maxidot reading 37.5mpg actual brim to brim 38.05mpg.

Tank 3 after 495 miles maxidot reading 39.0mpg actual brim to brim 39.73mpg.

Current 4 th tank 503 miles covered so far maxidot 39.2mpg (post remap) will fill later today and update with actual brim to brim (85 miles shown left range in tank).

Tank 4 after 535 miles maxidot 39.2mpg actual brim to brim (60.82 litres) 39.99mpg.

6 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

The computer in my Superb 272 is pretty accurate but under estimates based upon the first 3 tanks before the remap.

Tank 1 after 319 miles maxidot reading 37.1mpg actual brim to brim 37.35mpg.

Tank 2 after 546 miles maxidot reading 37.5mpg actual brim to brim 38.05mpg.

Tank 3 after 495 miles maxidot reading 39.0mpg actual brim to brim 39.73mpg.

Current 4 th tank 503 miles covered so far maxidot 39.2mpg (post remap) will fill later today and update with actual brim to brim (85 miles shown left range in tank).

 

51 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Tank 4 after 535 miles maxidot 39.2mpg actual brim to brim (60.82 litres) 39.99mpg.

 

Whilst those figures are indeed impressive, I feel like I'm doing it wrong....

 

I just pop in 30 litres when my refill lamp comes on 🤣

I like the challenge of seeing what the maximum economy I can get can be, especially when its a new vehicle, I got an incredible range out of the first tankfull but then I did run it dry deliberately to do so, wanting to know when empty really was empty rather than still having up to 1/4 of a tank.

 

And it also meant going out for the slowest ever Sunday drive on empty roads so that I could run out without danger or inconveniencing others, I'm pretty sure it was 820 miles but my memory is dreadfull.

 

Nice to practice occasionally, to keep the skills and I do it when I have the time and will not inconvenience others especially coasting (any gain is entirely dependant on the topography after the downhill stretch) but otherwise I want to enjoy my driving, to pass slower motorists safely (there are a lot of 45kph limited vehicule sans permis on our roads) and to sometimes enjoy the extra power from the remap.

 

I know if there is no fuel available what the combination of the car and myself are capable of and dont have to panic when the maxidot says zero miles left, I know exactly how many really are dependant on how I drive, - 60 +.

 

Using the so called "reserve" capacity on every tankfull means I fill up a lot less times per year although the current Octavia 2 rings an annoying bing-bong at 1/4 tank and the maxidot alternates between the normal display and an orangge low fuel warning, 1/4 tank based on the real remaining capacity and not what the guage or remaining miles  would have you believe.

Edited 11 February, 20206 yr by J.R.

If I wanted to boast and mislead I could take a photo of the dash showing a moderately long journey with unbelievable fuel economy, I had my MK1 over the maximum 99.99mpg that could be displayed when I was staying in the mountains above Grenoble and coasting down into town each day, of course the return uphill journey was a different story 🤣

 

When I do a Sunday afternoon economy run its not unusual for one leg of the journey to be as much as 20% better or worse economy to the other dependant on the altitude of the destination assuming the return journey is back to base using the same route.

 

Every time I drive to Arras I get great economy on the way there and the overall will be a lot less when I have returned to my higher altitude, and we are only talking 90m.

Edited 11 February, 20206 yr by J.R.

55 minutes ago, J.R. said:

If I wanted to boast and mislead I could take a photo of the dash showing a moderately long journey with unbelievable fuel economy, I had my MK1 over the maximum 99.99mpg that could be displayed when I was staying in the mountains above Grenoble and coasting down into town each day, of course the return uphill journey was a different story 🤣

 

When I do a Sunday afternoon economy run its not unusual for one leg of the journey to be as much as 20% better or worse economy to the other dependant on the altitude of the destination assuming the return journey is back to base using the same route.

 

Every time I drive to Arras I get great economy on the way there and the overall will be a lot less when I have returned to my higher altitude, and we are only talking 90m.

Why would you set the display to Imperial values while you are living in France?

There's no 'maximum' limitation in L/100 .

 

Edit: Just realised you said mk1 so it might not be an option?

Edited 11 February, 20206 yr by Gerrycan

Not that its any of your concern but my Maxidot is indeed set to l/100km however when speaking on this forum MPG are quoted and understood by the majority.

 

The 99.99 was in my MK1 in April 2005 when I was studying French in Lyon, I have done the same since with the current car calibrated to L/100km but we dont have mountains around here and I cannot recall what the figure was.

 

Another answer to your question is that if you have been brought up with MPG you are more likely to relate to that then metric units, I bet if you moved to Asia you would probably continue with them, I'm happy with either now hence its set to metric units but the fuel consumption increments are much courser at 0.1 l/100km compared to 0.1 MPG.

 

I got 4.3 L/100km going to and from the eye hospital today, I know off the top of my head what that represents in MPG, _ would you?

 

And by the way, you would not be looking for a "maximum value" in metric units but a minimum value for an economical car.

Edited 11 February, 20206 yr by J.R.

5 hours ago, J.R. said:

Not that its any of your concern but my Maxidot is indeed set to l/100km however when speaking on this forum MPG are quoted and understood by the majority.

 

The 99.99 was in my MK1 in April 2005 when I was studying French in Lyon, I have done the same since with the current car calibrated to L/100km but we dont have mountains around here and I cannot recall what the figure was.

 

Another answer to your question is that if you have been brought up with MPG you are more likely to relate to that then metric units, I bet if you moved to Asia you would probably continue with them, I'm happy with either now hence its set to metric units but the fuel consumption increments are much courser at 0.1 l/100km compared to 0.1 MPG.

 

I got 4.3 L/100km going to and from the eye hospital today, I know off the top of my head what that represents in MPG, _ would you?

 

And by the way, you would not be looking for a "maximum value" in metric units but a minimum value for an economical car.

I'm sorry I did not mean to offend you, it just seemed a little odd as I also live in a metric based country and Imperial settings are not a natural fit on a daily driving basis.

You got me with knowing 4.3L/100 in mpg off the top of my head. Without looking it up I would not have known it was 65.69 mpg, my best guestimate would have been at least a couple of mpg out. But what we don't know is if you really knew or were double bluffing 😜

 

 mpg increments are more accurate at the pointy end but funnily enough not for the 24L/100 (11.77 mpg) average displayed on the supercharged V8 6+Litre Jeep Trackhawk I drove recently. Could not get the bugger under 9L/100 instant at the 60kph urban speed limit. Don't suppose the owner cared much about consumption or about global warming either.