As the title and apologies if already asked but cannot find a thread on it but do we have any vrs petrol owners with some ideas to real world mpg?

 

Tia

9.3 L per 100 km or around 25.3 mpg. I'm stull running it in. No rpms above 3500. Around half of the total distance is on highway at around 145 km/h (90 m/h).

Mostly shorter journeys of around 8 miles in cold weather using heated seat and steering wheel. Was mid to high 20s but has been improving to low 30s. I’d expect it to improve  to mid 30s  when weather improves

 

 

Should say mine is dsg ran only on 97ron

Well my Vrs245 bought new in August 2017 had a stage 1 map at 7,000 miles and stage 2 mods at 14,000 miles and went from 249 to 302  to 336bhp but over 29,000 miles it averaged 40mpg the same as my 2019 stage 1 Superb 272 Sportline Plus managed over 9,000 miles with 360bhp. All based upon my 27 mile each way commute using 99 octane Shell V-Power Nitro+ or Tesco Momentum. You can have performance and economy with the right tuner and the right commute.

Yep, you can also have engine go pop and warranty refused on repairs. I know from experience and that was one of the main VAG tuners. Vag are now able to detect both piggyback and remap. 

Edited 27 January, 20215 yr by parsey83

3 minutes ago, parsey83 said:

Yep, you can also have engine go pop and warranty refused on repairs. I know from experience and that was one of the main VAG tuners. Vag are now able to detect both piggyback and remap. 

Decent tuners don't blow up engines even if you have upto 94bhp more than standard. This I know from 38 years of driving and 400,000 miles without a single engine problem. There are some bad tuners out there so as always buyer beware.

Don’t want to take the thread  off topic so will simply agree to disagree. However buyers beware is an appropriate statement 

Only half way through my first tank but getting low 30mpg when I go further than a few miles. 

Appreciate the replies so far. I'm.wondering if high 30s low 40s is achievable similar to the mk3 petrol that had been reported on here and also backed up largely by honest john. Also appeared that the manual was significantly better mpg than dsg. 

 

Will be interesting to see what develops over the coming weeks and months regarding mpg.

 

As a family car that needs to commute also I'm looking at one... dont want to get stung at fuel pump though is my only concern..don't do.miles to warrant a diesel tho...the hybrid interests me but too expensive currently...

Edited 27 January, 20215 yr by Cranmasterflash

I ran an mk3 vrs Tsi estate in manual for 6 years and some 80k. I was however doing around three times my current annual mileage. I averaged mid to high 30s in that.  The mk4 to me feels a heavier car. I would say what you seek mpg wise is achievable dependant on driving style and mileage. 
 

On my current 8 mile each way commute I am only seeing oil temps get to 70ish and gearbox temps lower. So she isn’t running efficiently . I’ll report back in a few 100 miles and I will also do an oil change circa 1,500 miles. I know it will improve.

 

 

2 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Well my Vrs245 bought new in August 2017 had a stage 1 map at 7,000 miles and stage 2 mods at 14,000 miles and went from 249 to 302  to 336bhp but over 29,000 miles it averaged 40mpg the same as my 2019 stage 1 Superb 272 Sportline Plus managed over 9,000 miles with 360bhp. All based upon my 27 mile each way commute using 99 octane Shell V-Power Nitro+ or Tesco Momentum. You can have performance and economy with the right tuner and the right commute.

Your MPG alarm must’ve been going haywire when this was created.
 

Are you copying and pasting the same paragraph all the time btw?

51 minutes ago, parsey83 said:

I ran an mk3 vrs Tsi estate in manual for 6 years and some 80k. I was however doing around three times my current annual mileage. I averaged mid to high 30s in that.  The mk4 to me feels a heavier car. I would say what you seek mpg wise is achievable dependant on driving style and mileage. 
 

On my current 8 mile each way commute I am only seeing oil temps get to 70ish and gearbox temps lower. So she isn’t running efficiently . I’ll report back in a few 100 miles and I will also do an oil change circa 1,500 miles. I know it will improve.

 

 

 

Quick search online suggests the MK4 is about 80kg more like for like (petrol dsg hatch). Similar to an extra average weight adult passenger in a MK3. Probably not enough alone to noticeably impact mpg.

 

I'd be surprised if similar mpg figures weren't achievable in the MK4 i.e. low to mid 40s on a decent run. Be interesting to know your thoughts once it's run in a bit more.

 

The

24 minutes ago, ahenners said:

Quick search online suggests the MK4 is about 80kg more like for like (petrol dsg hatch).

 

The Octavia MK4 is very aerodynamic. 0.24 for the hatchback and 0.26 for the estate.

 

The 110HP hatchback has a top speed of about 130mph which is very good for that amount of power. If the car only had an aerodynamic performance of 0.34 I expect the car would only do 120mph with 110HP.

 

Steady speed cruising at 50mph+ or on a long run will probably see the MK4 use less fuel than the MK3. Around town where wind resistance has much less significance the lighter MK3 would be better.

 

It's disappointing that Skoda have made the MK4 heavier than the MK3, if that is the case.

 

Edited 27 January, 20215 yr by Carlston

Mostly highway, driving to and from work, between 110 - 140 km/h.

 

 

Edit: anyone else's RS displaying ~50km range while still having >8L of fuel in the tank?

Edited 28 January, 20215 yr by RRovan
typos

On 28/01/2021 at 05:22, Cranmasterflash said:

As the title and apologies if already asked but cannot find a thread on it but do we have any vrs petrol owners with some ideas to real world mpg?

 

Tia

 

My tuppence worth, and this is only my opinion:

The vRS is a good, versatile car and probably matches, or even slightly betters, the consumption of any of its rivals of similar weight/power/performance/price in like conditions but if fuel consumption is an important consideration for you then the vRS may be the wrong choice.

You have already (and sensibly imo) ruled out the potentially much more economical diesel and I assume because of relatively low annual mileage and consequent possible dpf issues which compromise its potential, so have you considered the 1.5tsi petrol option?

I'd expect the new 1.5tsi to match or better my 2014 1.4tsi manual estate with an overall average of 45mpg with variations of 40 to 60 mpg per fill depending on driving environment and it really has not done many longer journeys over the last 3 years. It is not that much 'slower' than a diesel vRS.

 

The advantages of a 1.5tsi, other than consumption, is if you are buying new then lower initial purchase/lease costs (lower depreciation?), lower road tax and insurance while retaining the inherent versatility of the Octavia. 

The disadvantages are that you would not get the irs of the vRS, or the performance and handling package, and if you are looking at an automatic then you get the potentially less durable 'dry' DSG as opposed to the more durable 'wet' DSG on the more powerful engines.

 

Pragmatically, the extra performance of the standard vRS is unlikely to reduce your regular commute by even a minute, I mean look at the average speeds quoted previously from existing vRS owners, in one case I would say they could better it on a bicycle and that is not a reflection on the car or driver but congested public roads.

 

I personally would not even consider a performance re-flash on a new car because apart from the probable warranty invalidation, greater wear and tear on tyres and traction issues, even greater risk of speeding fines and possible risk to my family if I'm tempted to drive like an abbreviated richard (apologies to all Richards) I don't think I would get my money back on improved consumption.

 

Having said all that; current low petrol prices and low annual mileage mean that the current cost saving of better consumption is relatively small (under a thousand pounds?) so it is only important as insurance against future fuel price increases or the satisfaction of being more socially responsible and trying to reduce your carbon footprint.

 

I'm just saying you should at least test drive a 1.5tsi, which can be surprisingly spritely and pulls well from low revs, if only to discount it as an option, and then there is the 1.0tsi.... 

 

 

 

 

Edited 30 January, 20215 yr by Gerrycan

If you're referring to my average speed I'm working from home because of lockdown. It'll soon go up when I'm back at work 😁

 

Lots of short essential journeys to drive the car when I can. 

57 minutes ago, Jmagee said:

If you're referring to my average speed I'm working from home because of lockdown. It'll soon go up when I'm back at work 😁

 

Lots of short essential journeys to drive the car when I can. 

I forgot the UK lockdown. That makes your reported consumption is really quite impressive as a lot of really short runs really cruels the economy figures for any wholly ICE powered vehicle (I know that from the number of trips I make supporting aged relatives at their local retirement village). I've seen our long term average speed as low as 18kph :( .

Thinking about it a bike loaded with shopping through Cumbrian hills, in winter would struggle to match that speed as well

Be interesting to hear how you go with the new car through a 'vaccinated' summer though.

Doh!

 

Edited 31 January, 20215 yr by Gerrycan
Stuffed up my previous edit