1.5 DSG MPG horrific

[Ggsumo]

As we are all 6footers we needed a big car but even on a run the best mpg in winter is around 42 and as 80% of our driving is being the kids taxi around town we have an average speed of 16mph delivering 26mpg combined. My eco driving as per the car is 93%. Had a Citroen before this 1.5 hdi on same driving profile would go 44 mpg average. Can only put it down to the small engine, big car, fuel to get her moving but we do 15000 per year but 70% of this is round town so that’s around £14k in fuel over 4 years, very scary. 

[kodiaqsportline]

Big heavy car with small engine not great recipe for town driving. Hdi - isn't that a diesel?

 

I've had 1.4tsi Octavia and also drive a 1.5tsi DSG Karoq  but the 1.5tsi DSG Kodiaq is a funny beast when it comes to economy.

 

Around town in winter will be low 30's Even on a longer run, it'll be down in the low 30's for about 20 odd miles before the economy picks up. It's rare to see it break 40mpg in winter. As a comparison, our 1.5tsi DSG Karoq spends most of it's time around town but even in winter that'll be high 30's.

 

Summer months is different. Around town it's mid to high 30's but doesn;t take too loong to reach mid 40's on a longer run. Best I've had is 50mpg during summer.

 

That's on a 1 year old engine. Had it serviced in November. Mpg out of the 1.4 shot up after it's first service but doesn't seem to have made a difference on 1.5tsi.

 

Only thing I can add is given the significant price difference in buying the diesel version, the MPG isn't that much improved.

 

It's rare my car has anyone travelling in the rear but if I had I'd have considered the 2.0tsi.  I very much doubt I'd have been able to make the difference in list price up in fuel economy tho. 

Edited 21 February, 2022 by kodiaqsportline

[Ggsumo]

Yes hdi is a diesel. Interesting to hear Karoq is so much better, it has to be the sheer effort of stop starting the bulk of the Kodiaq it’s a huge car for a 1.5 and I get better around town out of my 15 year old 2lt petrol Mazda 5. 

[xman]

Try pumping up the tyres to the Eco rating usually several psi higher than normal. Select Eco driving mode if that option is available, will allow coasting with a DSG which can save fuel.

[Yogi-Bear]

9 hours ago, kodiaqsportline said:

but the 1.5tsi DSG Kodiaq is a funny beast when it comes to economy

 

The 1.4TSI was the same... definitely very sensitive to driving styles, and also much better on longer journeys when the engine has warmed up (which is also probably why it's better in the summer).

 

9 hours ago, Ggsumo said:

80% of our driving is being the kids taxi around town we have an average speed of 16mph delivering 26mpg combined

 

Don't buy a VRS then... doesn't matter how light-footed I'm being, if the journey is less than a few miles, it's impossible to get the mpg out of the high teens 😳. On longer runs I'm happy if I can get it to the high 20s, and I might even break 32/33mpg on a motorway run. But I didn't buy it for fuel economy...

[Ggsumo]

Ouch, that sounds more like my old Ford Cougar 😀

[Dappernut]

34 minutes ago, Yogi-Bear said:

Don't buy a VRS then... doesn't matter how light-footed I'm being

 

How many miles do you have on it now Yogi?

[Yogi-Bear]

25 minutes ago, Dappernut said:

 

How many miles do you have on it now Yogi?

 

About to pass 2,500 (and I've had it just shy of 4 months).

 

Still absolutely loving it when I get the chance to drive it, rather than just using it as a taxi for the kids and their friends - but on the rare occasion I do, it really doesn't help with the average mpg 🤣.

[Doombar]

I have a new 1.5tsi dsg. Got 41 on a long motorway run at the weekend, never seen a number like that yet. Shorter runs - stop and start - we get about 32mpg and we live in the countryside.
 

No surprise though as it’s a big, heavy car and getting two tons moving is no mean feat. We have a much smaller car to run around in if needed, which is more convenient to park in the town and sips diesel.

 

if we compared the Kodiaq to others a similar size and weight - is there a dramatic fuel difference? I’m guessing not but would be interested if anyone has done this comparison. Off the top of my head an X5, Tiguan Allspace, F-pace, XC90 - any of them dramatically more efficient?

[J.R.]

A petrol engine doing short runs in winter will always give appalling economy compared to a diesel, the gap is closing due to more refined & precise engine management, direct fuel injection etc but the physics involve remain the same, part of the problem is that we have had 2 or more generations of drivers who have never driven a vehicle with a manual choke to understand the enrichment that a petrol engine requires during warm up and the extra fuel that it consumes.

 

Once a diesel engine has fired up the combustion chamber is at operating temperature and there is little if any fuel enrichment required, until this latest breed of DPF equipped abortions to me a diesel was the smart choice for those who only did short journeys, the only downside being the slow warm up of the heating system, testament to the much greater thermal efficiency but that has been overcome with the sliding shroud waterpumps which have brought with them their own problems.

[kodiaqsportline]

7 minutes ago, Doombar said:

if we compared the Kodiaq to others a similar size and weight - is there a dramatic fuel difference? I’m guessing not but would be interested if anyone has done this comparison. Off the top of my head an X5, Tiguan Allspace, F-pace, XC90 - any of them dramatically more efficient?

 

Absolutely not, they're all the same. OP mentions a 20 year old 2.0L Mazda but that's comparing oranges with apples. Not only is the Kodiaq likely to be heavier, modern engines have to meet all sorts of emission targets, all of which affect economy.

 

Interestingly, Mazda have stuck with their none turbo 2.0L petrol engines. Official economy figures aren't that great but if you drive one of these non-turbo engines with an auto gearbox especially around town, economy ifrom a petrol CX-5 can be horrendous.  

 

being your stereotypical Scotsman wearing an old man's hat, I try to get as good economy out of my cars as possible but there's defo been a trend that average economy has gone downwards over the years.

[Yogi-Bear]

24 minutes ago, Doombar said:

X5, Tiguan Allspace, F-pace, XC90

 

Slightly off-topic... but the X5 and the XC90 are substantially larger cars. I'd suggest the X3 and XC60 are more similar in size/weight.

 

The Kodiaq is also not 2 tonnes - kerb weight is anything from about 1.5 to 1.8ish.

[skomaz]

We tend to be getting about 28ish mpg aound town in our. 1.4 and high 30s, so 38ish on a run.  I may recall getting over 40 once...   But then we do live in a hilly part of the country and every journey starts and/or or finishes with an uphill section and often with a lot of hills in between. 

 

Coming from a diesel Octy it is a bit disappointing but we do try to use the swift for as many journeys as possible that's doing 51 ish even on short runs

[Ggsumo]

The Mazda carries over 50kg of throwing equipment (discus and shot) and I drive that a lot less eco than the Kodiaq.
 

I am seriously considering a hybrid 

[Ootohere]

@Ggsumo

60,000 miles in 4 years with an average 35 mpg @ petrol at £7 a gallon is under £12,000

Are you getting much under 25 miles from a gallon at the worst of the economy you actually get? . 

So your figure is on the average of 30 mpg & it is £14,000.

*I take it where you drive that winter temperatures are less than 2 years out of 4 years.*

 

Best borrow or hire a hybrid for a few days then before committing to changing.

That would be a bit smaller than a Kodiaq i assume which might be good for 20-25 miles of running on electric when charged but not really that great on fuel consumption once you have gone beyond the energy that you put in the car.

 

Fine if you have low tariff offpeak home electric to charge with or workplace but if you are paying 20 pence a kWh or more to charge then 13 kWh is costing you £2.60 to get that 25 miles or so and the price of electric is going up in April and then again later in the year.

So is Fossil Fuels though.

(If a VW Group Plug in hybrid or some others that will be needing the ICE engines on fixed service regime oil & filter changes.)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 23 February, 2022 by roottoot

[kodiaqsportline]

6 hours ago, Ggsumo said:

The Mazda carries over 50kg of throwing equipment (discus and shot) and I drive that a lot less eco than the Kodiaq.
 

I am seriously considering a hybrid 

 

A Mazda 5 ain't a Kodiaq nor is it any other SUV - you need to compare like-4-like. In any case, 50kg extra won't make any difference to economy of a vehicle or at least, it's a difference so small you won't be able to calculate outside a controlled environment. 

 

A hybrid SUV? Yes, that may well work in your favour but again that'll attract a higher list price. So if running costs are your primary concern, will you be any better off with a hybrid ? Take a hybrid out town work / short runs and all of a sudden the batteries add to the weight you're carrying around. 

 

There are more vehicles on the market than when I bought my 1.5 DSG Kodiaq last year but a hybrid ( or indeed diesel ) made no economic sense for my circumstances. All depends how you use the car really.

 

Edit: just out of interest I've looked at the Hyundai Tucson page  as off the top of my head, it's one of the few SUV's that come with several powerplants, and for the same car in same spec, a petrol hybrid commands a 75kg penalty over a 48v mild hybrid ( which in effect is just a petrol engine with a bigger battery ) but the plug-in hybrid commands a whopping 300kg penalty. Not sure how far that plug-in will take you but after say 25miles, the engine will be pulling 300kg dead weight. 

 

A mild hyprid  adds £2200 to the price of the std auto, the plug-in adds £6600  😲  It'll be advantagous for some ( company car drivers? ) but certainly not for everyone.

 

Edited 23 February, 2022 by kodiaqsportline

[Ootohere]

An EV is worth considering.  (Especially for a business user but even for private buyers / drivers.)

 

If able to charge a BEV at home or work or free then very much so, and paying 25 pence a kWh and getting 3 miles to the kWh that is 30 miles driven costing £2.50

Even at Public Chargers @ 50 pence a kWh you are @£5.

if 3.5-4 miles a kWh is achieved then that is still pretty cheap travelling when away from home.

[Routemaster1461]

On 22/02/2022 at 10:41, J.R. said:

A petrol engine doing short runs in winter will always give appalling economy compared to a diesel, the gap is closing due to more refined & precise engine management, direct fuel injection etc but the physics involve remain the same, part of the problem is that we have had 2 or more generations of drivers who have never driven a vehicle with a manual choke to understand the enrichment that a petrol engine requires during warm up and the extra fuel that it consumes.

 

Once a diesel engine has fired up the combustion chamber is at operating temperature and there is little if any fuel enrichment required, until this latest breed of DPF equipped abortions to me a diesel was the smart choice for those who only did short journeys, the only downside being the slow warm up of the heating system, testament to the much greater thermal efficiency but that has been overcome with the sliding shroud waterpumps which have brought with them their own problems.

 

Also, cars are tuned to give minimum CO, SO2 and hydrocarbon emissions. To aid this, the engine is tuned not only to the requirement of the engine but also the requirements of the catalyst, extra fuel being needed to heat the catalyst quicker. This obviously will have a detrimental effect on fuel economy.

[Yogi-Bear]

7 minutes ago, Routemaster1461 said:

This obviously will have a detrimental effect on fuel economy.

 

Especially when it's colder... and as it is 'front-loaded', it disproportionately impacts on shorter journeys too.

 

My new* favourite game is to see just how low the 'instant mpg' figure is when I start off and drive down the road. On my old 1.4TSI Edition, it was usually somewhere in the teens/low twenties, possibly getting down into single figures when turning out of the road and accelerating. In the VRS, it's single figures, and I've had it as low as 3mpg by stomping on the go pedal at the junction 😳.

 

Edit: Posted too quick... meant to say that I don't believe that's entirely 150PS vs 245PS as the weight of the vehicles is going to be pretty much the same. I'm convinced it's also partly down to the new Euro6d standard on the VRS engine, compared to Euro5 (I think) on the old car.

Edited 23 February, 2022 by Yogi-Bear

[J.R.]

No cat on a diesel, the game of the instantaneous fuel consumption is a good one but I use the average one and see how it climbs, mine updates every 200m my usual direction is slightly uphill, the first MPG shown 200m after a cold start is usually 28-32mpg, if I drive through my village at 50kph ignoring the 30kph limit for most of it I will bejust shy of 50mpg after 1.5 miles, then on to a Route departemental to my pals village, another 2.5km initially uphill & then downhill, if I'm driving carefully I will hit 58mpg.

 

All that is a little false as its low speed, no traffic and far better than my overall average but it does not reduce even in the coldest weather bearing out my statement that diesels (DPF aside) are far more economical on short cold start journeys where a petrol engine would be running enrichment.

 

If I drive into town or say to Lidl using the rocade (bypass) both a 5km journey then stop for 30 minutes then return amongst traffic I will get my overall average of 47mpg, the 2WD Octavias were much better.

 

I have not driven a petrol engined car with a fuel computer in decades but I reckon if I had say a 1.5TSi with a DSG box on my local journeys in winter I reckon I would get a real shock.

 

As an aside if i leave the engine running while deicing and defrosting the windows before setting off when I get to the 200m mark the average MPG will be about 13mpg, less than half the usual, its nice to know that the fuel consumed when idling at standstill is actually accounted for.

[xman]

56 minutes ago, J.R. said:

No cat on a diesel

 

Not true, CATs have been a legal requirement on new petrol and diesel cars since 1993

[Ootohere]

@J.R.

 The MPG while sitting stationary when it gets down to 11 mpg which many do & is clearly wrong.

You can not be getting only 11 mpg.  

 

You are not moving so doing 0 MPG, or miles / km per litre or cup full of fuel. 

 No moving so no mileage.  

[xman]

Driven several courtesy cars over the past couple of years some 1.5tsi Octavias but mostly 1.0tsi fabias, some manual, some dsg. All from cold start when I drop off my car first thing in the morning at the dealer, then driven for about 5 miles home like a granny. (£1000 excess dampens any urge) A very mixed bunch of mpg results , one monte carlo fabia was particularly terrible according to the on board computer, barely reaching 30 average and at first I thought I was driving a diesel it was that loud and rough even though just 9000 miles on the clock with service due message on. The best was a 1.0 tsi DSG which just scraped into the low 40's which would be around the same as my manual Superb 1.4tsi. Helped by the ECO coasting mode which was a nice feature.

 

What I notice everytime I get what is a similar spec car is how different their engines can sound and feel and how widely varied the average consumption can be.

 

[Ootohere]

3 cylinder TSI's very much sound different from a 4 cylinder and a 3 cylinder MPI's different again.

Whichever can take 5 miles just to get the oil to an indicated 50*oC from a start in the cold. 

[Dappernut]

1 hour ago, xman said:

What I notice everytime I get what is a similar spec car is how different their engines can sound and feel and how widely varied the average consumption can be.

 

Absolutely agreed, though I do find that somewhat amazing now that cars are basically computers on wheels.  Where is the variability coming from I wonder?