Fitted new filter and put the glovebox damper inside the actual glovebox- not faffing around trying to fit it in 30 degrees!

On 17/07/2021 at 19:06, FlyingGecko said:

 

If you were trying for a peloton effect you were driving dangerously and illegally close to the car in front. 

 

Based on my experiments in my mk3 1.4tsi estate then if the OP was travelling at an accurate 70 mph on a flat stretch of motorway, ambient 20C temp, no other traffic and little to no wind then he would struggle to achieve 50mpg, and yet he is claiming 60mpg, and I believe him.

Its 35 years since I lived in the UK but when I return I am appalled by how much traffic load on highways has increased and the close proximity that cars travel behind each other.

On UK motorways if I left what I consider a reasonably safe 2.5 second distance to the vehicle in front then it seemed to be an open invitation for everyone to cut in which was ridiculous, so I found myself driving almost as close as everyone else does to the vehicle in front. Not surprisingly my consumption improved significantly, and all I was doing was driving like everyone else.

 

Although I consider my car gives very good consumption it is only typical of the breed, but I am well aware of how the driving environment affects my consumption.

By the way I agree with you that using the air conditioning in warmer weather is vital and when travelling at speed it has far less effect on consumption and is more comfortable than opening a window.

Mark you when the temp pushes over 40C in urban conditions then consumption will worsen by 40% or more.

 

Interesting statement on aircon usage here:

Quote

According to airconco.com, motorists should be opening their windows at speeds up to 55mph to save fuel economy.

 

The website states: “It is more economical to open your windows up to speeds of around 55mph as running the a/c at low engine speed creates extra stress and demand resulting in increased fuel consumption.

 

“Above 55mph, it’s better to run the air con as opposed to the extra drag caused by open windows.

 

To keep it simple, the following relates only to petrol and diesel powered vehicles, not hybrids or pure electric powered ones.

 

What's being missed here is the difference between manual air conditioning and climate control, otherwise known as automatic air conditioning.  The former (manual AC) keeps the aircon running all the time while the latter (CC) turns it on and off (adjusting fan speed, interior vent positions and compressor operation) as necessary to maintain the pre-set temperature (or temperatures, where there is a multi-zone system with separate temperature controls.  True, this is a simplistic explanation of the operational differences.

 

In practice, manual AC is a permanent drain on power and thus causes an increase in fuel consumption.  Climate Control systems, not being permanently running even when permanently switched on, do not have such a deleterious affect on fuel consumption.  Their on/off switching is encouraged by the manufacturers recommending that the car's temperature control is set to within a couple of degrees of the ambient temparature.  Hence the CC has only a fairly easy target to reach before turning itself off or reducing its fan and/or compressor useage.  Another way to put it is the CC just ticks over rather than running at full throttle as would manual AC be doing.

 

I've had a long conversation with a local independent service garage who've been doing aircon work for years.  One of the first to be awarded "trusted trader" by Which magazine, and also a national independent garage award winner, they know their stuff.  They said apart from minor adjustments to vent direction and screen demisting on cold mornings, etc, or opening every window for a couple of minutes if the car's been standing in open hot temperatures for a while, then most suitable operation of CC whatever the maker or model of car is to have all vents open,  including any for the rear cabin, dial in your preferred temperature (again, within few degrees of ambient temperature), set the master control to "auto", and just leave it do do its job. 

Suggestions to open a window below an arbitrary road speed but not above will make no material difference to fuel consumption - maybe just a few pounds over several thousand miles.   Again, I stress this all relates to automatic Climate Control.  Manual aircon WILL cost more because it's running constantly when swiched on.  

9 minutes ago, FlyingGecko said:

Manual aircon WILL cost more because it's running constantly when swiched on. 

Hmm.

You know that manual A/C systems in some (most?)  Skodas have have had variable-displacement compressors for more than 20 years, right? So they can be 'partially on', in exactly the same way as climate control compressors (which may well be the very same units).  

Yes, but apart from the compressor any fan will still be running in a manual system until turned off by a human whereas in an auto/CC system the fan speed will be modulated according to the need to push more or less air through the pipes to maintain the pre-set temperature, and therefore will only be an intermittent not a constant drain on power reserves.

 

My OH's VW Up requires the fan to be running before the (manual) aircon has any effect, regardless of whether the aircon button is on or off.  In the cars I've driven over the past 18 years with CC the fan always controls its own speed, including complete or near switch-off. 

 

The original discussion was the effect of aircon (manual or auto) on fuel consumption compared with opening a window and thus effecting aerodynamics.  All we're really doing is counting angels dancing on pinheads here, and the difference is whether they've got their wings open or folded.  The little beggars are too small to count anyway!

Good luck with calculating the fuel consumed by a ventilator fan running a little faster than it might

 

I quite liked Climatronic and was initially dissapointed that my Yeti has a manual heating and aircon system; look a little further though and you find it has nearly all the elements of a Climatronic system but not the complicated & possibly temperamental controller to go wrong.

 

The manual controls are anything but, when you turn the temperature knob it does not operate a water valve like a real manual system, it commands the same air blending vents as Climatronic and measures their angle in the same way, it blends hot, ambient and refrigerated air just as a Climatronic, it does not have the temp sensors at the eye level vents as it does not have the function to set individual temperatures for driver & passenger.

 

The knob controlling where the air comes out and the recirc button operate exactly the same flaps as the Climatronic, the heater/AC unit is to all intents and purposes the same simply lacking a couple of sensors and the computer taking control which for old school me is a big big advantage.

 

To my delight I recently discovered that if the A/C is switched off (its not really off as still recirculating fluid) and you set the vent control to defrost the windscreen it turns the A/C on automatically and off again when you return the airflow to the face or feet, it may well have some of the other functions like recirc when reversing but I really dont give a four X for gimmicks like that so neither know nor care.

 

So for me not having Climatronic is no longer a deal breaker, quite the opposite really, its something I would now seek out.

Edited 18 July, 20214 yr by J.R.

9 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Good luck with calculating the fuel consumed by a ventilator fan running a little faster than it might

...

 

 

I'm too busy with these flippin' angels.

I think the starting 57 mpg is really rather good if the speed is 70-75mph. If it's 60mph or lower, those numbers are only decent. 

I'd get 5.7 easily in the old car and 4.2 on a slow run (lots of 60-80km/h), which translates back out to well over 60mpg... but the new one drinks far faster and so my average is in my sig. I have a clear run to the office most days and cruise is on to the office, with 120 and 80/60 limits. 

If I were to drive up north with 3 up and a light load, I'd expect to see 4.8 or so, so around 58mpg with 50-60 mph on the tacho as permitted.

No major differences in my experience between 1.0, 1.4 and 1.4 DSG, i had them all at one point in quick succession last winter and the differences were negligible.

 

57mpg was at 70-75 yes and not on my own as said passenger and an old British sportscar gearbox in boot- second journey was 60mpg same speed but no need for aircon at all and i cant see how the car could be any more economical unless it had better aerodynamics- I have fitted the diesel full engine undertray along with the extended gear linkage tunnel tray too so my car will be a tiny bit better than all other 1.4tsi cars on the road. Looking back to 2005 I had a VW Bora 1.9tdi Highline 5 speed diesel and I never got better than 55mpg with just me as the driver- back then I thought that was good economy but these direct petrol injection engines with sequential fuel injection have come a looong way in the last 16 years!

Not sure but I think some later Octavias had the 1.4tsi with ACT (CZEA engine) whereas earlier didn't have ACT. ACT gives a nice uptick in economy at motorway speeds on level roads when in 2 cylinder mode (eco mode). Whether it had that engine variant may have been higher spec dependent . 

No ACT on my engine - but I see that the new VRS uses the 1.4tsi with ACT and Hybrid technology- not the 1.5tsi - I wonder why????

The 1.4tsi hybrid on Octavia IV and Superb IV doesn't have ACT. The 1.4tsi hybrid has been around a long time, started with the Golf GTE I think. 

The 1.4 in the gte and other VAG hybrids is a different engine to the original 1.4.  It has some different coatings and components to make it better for continuously stopping and starting the engine.  It's one of the reasons it is the only size engine available for the hybrid systems.  Otherwise they may as well put a 2.0 on it for more power or a 1.0 for smaller cars/low power.  Actually I think it would work really nicely with a 1.0 and use even less fuel.

15 hours ago, xman said:

Not sure but I think some later Octavias had the 1.4tsi with ACT (CZEA engine) whereas earlier didn't have ACT. ACT gives a nice uptick in economy at motorway speeds on level roads when in 2 cylinder mode (eco mode). Whether it had that engine variant may have been higher spec dependent . 

In the Skoda range I have only seen the 1.4tsi with ACT mentioned in conjunction with the Superb.

I have been considering the Scala as that is now available in Australia, the base model comes with a manual box and 1.5tsi with ACT without PPF, and non climate controlled aircon which I like.

My previous mk2 1.9pd Octavia had a basic climate controlled aircon system with a manual rotating temperature control (temps marked around the dial) and manual fan speed selection. To be honest it was not very good and seemed to have a mind of its own as what temperature it chose to support in what conditions.

The current 2014 mk3 1.4tsi just has an honest simple aircon system that does what I want and like @J.R.I find it quite efficient and effective for my needs.

My consumption is set to metric L/100 and when stationary and ticking over (no stop/start) the consumption shows as 0.5L/hour with no aircon on.

If the outside temperature is in the mid 20's, and sun shining (you get a lot of radiant heat from the Australian sun), then I will have the aircon on and fan set to the lowest '1' speed. When the aircon cuts in the idling consumption will increase to 0.8L/hour, it will hold that until it reduces the cooling matrix to a couple of degrees above freezing (to avoid icing up) and then cut out until the matrix warms up to a point where the aircon starts again. in those conditions I'd say it runs at the higher consumption for about 66% of time.

So if I extrapolate that to travelling at 100kph in similar conditions then consumption is only affected by about 0.2L/100 when running the aircon. I reckon that is pretty good.

When temps are in the 30's and aircon on with higher internal fan speed then idling consumption will rise to 1.2L/100 and drop back to 0.8L/100 which affects higher speed running consumption by about 0.5L/100.

 

In an extreme situation where I had 4 people in the car, in the city, with 47C outside temperatures, I had the internal fan on the highest speed, the radiator fan was going full bore and idling consumption was 2.3L/hour. It was the first time I had wished the aircon had a bit more reserve, but it was still a lot better than opening the window.

To be fair the water temperature gauge still did not move off 'normal'.

 

Our other runabout is a 2003 Toyota Echo with a 1.3L engine. The aircon still has the original gas, never been serviced and still works well, however it takes a lot of the engines power and the aircon gets turned off when overtaking or wishing to get up steep long hills on hot days.

 

I still can't believe that we did not option aircon in the first new car we bought here because we could not afford it! We must have been a lot tougher then.

Edited 19 July, 20214 yr by Gerrycan

I notice alot of topics on the 1.4 av mpg are very pessimistic yet this one, on a whole is very positive 

 

What gives?!

11 hours ago, Hugo_Stiglitz said:

I notice alot of topics on the 1.4 av mpg are very pessimistic yet this one, on a whole is very positive 

 

What gives?!

Not sure where you read the pessimistic comments? Sure you get the occasional issue as they have been around for 8 years or so but most reports I've read are fairly complimentary.

When I got mine 7 years ago and joined this forum most were averaging around 45 mpg (6.3L/100) with general driving.

There was of course one exception, "He who must not be named" was getting 30 mpg (9.5L/100) and was still pretty pleased with that with his 'drive it like it was stolen' approach. 

 

Edited 4 October, 20214 yr by Gerrycan

I'd be more than happy with 45mpg+.

 

I've started a topic recently as I've got two shortlisted. 

 

A 2.0tdi and a 1.4tsi. Both 2016 (well 1.4 Jan17), both same mileage. 

 

The diesel needs a new clutch/dmf (dealer is replacing) but it also still faintly smells of cigarette smoke from the last owner. 

 

I read the odd comment about 40mpg av and I guess sub 40 (odd comment).

 

I'm sold on the 1.4. But a nagging thought is 'its a small engine?'.

 

There would be at least two European Road trips a year in the car. 

Took our 1.4TSI to France going down to the Med and back, never felt under-powered even when fully laden (with wine!) climbing onto the Massif Central.

we have the 1.4TSi in a manual Kodaiq and it's fine.  I did have similar concerns previously coming from a mapped TDi 4x4 Octavia but the little 1.4 copes admirably.  Sure it's not a pocket rocket but can be fair hustled when needed and has had no issues heading up and over the Pennines with a full boot and passengers.

I did a 350mile trip recently, 2 adults and a small amount of luggage- averaged 59.1mpg- and I didnt try to be economical in my 1.4Tsi 2015 Octavia- still only git 19500 miles on it too!

I did a 350mile trip recently, 2 adults and a small amount of luggage- averaged 59.1mpg- and I didnt try to be economical in my 1.4Tsi 2015 Octavia- still only got 19500 miles on it too! You do know that although rated at 140bhp these are rather low figures as some people have had them tested on a rolling road and got a reading of 168bhp! 

Edited 4 October, 20214 yr by Michaeldavis39

Rolling roads have an error built in too. 168 sounds very optimistic but not out of the question. We have a 1.5 in a seat arona and it's ok. It seems the 1.4 is a much better engine to drive and has a better low end. Part of me thinks we should have gone for the 1.0 115bhp engine. Tested the 85 bhp version and it was plenty for town work. 

4 hours ago, Michaeldavis39 said:

I did a 350mile trip recently, 2 adults and a small amount of luggage- averaged 59.1mpg- and I didnt try to be economical in my 1.4Tsi 2015 Octavia- still only got 19500 miles on it too! You do know that although rated at 140bhp these are rather low figures as some people have had them tested on a rolling road and got a reading of 168bhp! 

 

 

Possible the previous owner mapped it?