1.5 DSG MPG horrific

[Doombar]

Some simple sums based on the Uk Kodiaq configurator for Sportline spec. Feel free to point out all the flaws, but if they’re not material perhaps the model holds up…

 

Basic prices: 

1.5 dsg £37k.

2.0 tsi or 2.0tdi 150 - £4K more

2.0tdi (200bhp) £5.5k more

 

Skoda claim 10mpg difference at best among all those engines 

 

Model assumptions

10k miles a year

28mpg average (1.5tsi)

38mpg (2.0tdi150)

5p difference between petrol and diesel

 

Fuel costs for 1.5dsg (petrol 28mpg) £2354

Fuel costs for 2.0dsg (diesel 38mpg) £1794

Difference £560 every 12m. 

 

If I divide the cost of the £4K engine upgrade cost by £560 savings each year it would get me - it would take 7.14 years to break even. Even if I got 20% discount on the 4K cost - we’re still talking 5.7 years.

 

If I do less than 10k miles (we will do about 6k probably) then it’s £336 a year and would take over ten years of fuel savings to recoup.

[J.R.]

8 hours ago, roottoot said:

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. 

It was not while sitting stationary, it was the first average MPG reading after travelling 200m but critically after the engine had been running at idle for say 5 minutes, what I wanted to get across was that the average MPG shown during or at the end of a journey includes the fuel that is burnt when idling at standstill at traffic lights etc etc.

 

The instantaneous MPG reading while idling at a standstill will be - - - -

[Ggsumo]

I do about 14k a year so petrol is over £14k for 4 years ownership at 26mpg average 

[Ootohere]

@Ggsumo

You really are not getting just 26 mpg average over 12 months and 14,000 miles are you?

You said you were getting at best into the 40's mpg & in winter.   

 If so then what is the lowest MPG that you actually get in winter and in summer nor what the car shows as 'an average'. 

 

 If you fill the tank and have in 50 litres does that not even take you 300 miles?

 

 

Edited 24 February, 2022 by roottoot

[silver1011]

1.5 petrol, 2.0 diesel, 30mpg or 40mpg, it's all largely irrelevant.

 

The cost of putting fuel in the car and therefore the cost to run a petrol or diesel car is expensive, and is only going to get more expensive.

 

If when financing or outright purchasing a brand new car and the affordability of running it becomes a concern, then it isn't fuel economy that's the issue, it is often the price of the car purchased.

 

Spend less on buying the car and put the rest into running it.

 

Most of the fuel economy concerns come from owners who have determined affordability by the monthly payment alone, and forget a modern, flat fronted, 1.5 ton, small engined, petrol SUV on short runs in the winter months is never going to achieve more than 25mpg.

 

I have a 1.4 TSI (after several VAG diesels) and love it. The 25% increase in fuel costs are worth it for me. The car was cheaper to purchase, is more reliable, is more refined, is near silent, warms up faster and (in my opinion) nicer to drive. It also does a sterling job of towing our 1.5 ton caravan. Diesel is dead for me. Petrol isn't far off either.

 

My other car is a 3.5 V6 two-ton petrol people carrier, imported from Japan. Probably my last chance to own a proper engine. It is currently averaging 16mpg and requires the use of super unleaded. But, I bought it with my eyes wide open. Expensive to run, but cheap to buy.

 

The manufacturers quoted fuel economy doesn't help either. I appreciate they're created for a fair comparison between different manufacturers, but they are often a long way off reality, and trip-up a lot of potential purchasers.

[Yogi-Bear]

15 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

Most of the fuel economy concerns come from owners who have determined affordability by the monthly payment alone

 

Some of.

 

17 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

The manufacturers quoted fuel economy doesn't help either. I appreciate they're created for a fair comparison between different manufacturers, but they are often a long way off reality, and trip-up a lot of potential purchasers.

 

I'd say this is where most of the economy concerns come from, to be honest.

 

Thing is - I got close to the quoted figures on my 1.4TSI Edition, but unless the VRS improves drastically with age, there's no way it's ever going to get anywhere near what Skoda think it should get. And it is these sorts of inconsistencies in testing vs real-life that cause the problems... if everything was 10-15% (or whatever) below the test figures, it would be easy to compensate and compare properly.

 

Anyway, no complaints of economy from me. Would be nice to get 50mpg, but I bought the VRS knowing it was going to drink like a very thirsty fish.

[skomaz]

25 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

1.5 petrol, 2.0 diesel, 30mpg or 40mpg, it's all largely irrelevant.

 

The cost of putting fuel in the car and therefore the cost to run a petrol or diesel car is expensive, and is only going to get more expensive.

 

A modern, flat fronted, 1.5 ton, small engined, petrol SUV on short runs in the winter months is never going to achieve more than 25mpg.

 

I have a 1.4 TSI (after several VAG diesels) and love it. The 25% increase in fuel costs are worth it for me. The car was cheaper to purchase, is more reliable, is more refined, is near silent, warms up faster and (in my opinion) nicer to drive.

 

The manufacturers quoted fuel economy doesn't help either. I appreciate they're created for a fair comparison between different manufacturers, but they are often a long way off reality, and trip-up a lot of potential purchasers.

 

Agree with all of the above - we knew that the mpg figures on our 1.4TSI would never be anywhere near the previous Octavia TDi but went with it partly on the basis that it was a great drive and because diesel was being pilloried and was potentially going to be subject to some heavy penalties and restrictions etc.

 

Do we regret it - no - although I'm still slightly on the fence over whether a good petrol is a better drive than a good diesel (I do like that big slug of torque).

 

Am I upset that the figures seem low compared to manufacturer's ones - not in the slightest as I'm well aware that the manufacturers figures are not worth the paper they are written on and only useful for comparison purposes under very specific test conditions.

[Ootohere]

@Yogi-Bear

Skoda only publish the WLTP figures and do not expect anything other than the WLTP figures can be replicated under a WLTP test if a car is imported into a country and retested.

 

If on the road in the real world you get similar figures then that is the luck of the draw because not everyone can with different locations, weather, weight carried and distances travelled each cold start.

Edited 24 February, 2022 by roottoot

[Ggsumo]

I had a Citroen Spacetourer before this it was a 1.5hdi and used to around 50mpg on the combined and over 40 around town which was pretty much on quoted numbers so forgive me if I expected to be a little closer to what was claimed in this one.

 

I didn’t choose the car based on monthly payments, but obviously it had to be affordable but I did have other options, I chose it because it was roomy inside as we needed 7 adult seats at the time and both me and my son are 6ft 3 and the Citroen was tight in the third row for 7 adults

[Ootohere]

@GgsumoIt maybe did 40 mpg around town,

but in winter you never got 40 miles from 4.546 litres of diesel if you were doing 8 x 5 miles trips with cold starts.

[silver1011]

Manually calculated over several tanks across the year or are you relying on the onboard computer?

 

It is almost impossible to accurately compare fuel economy from one day to the next let alone one car to another. 

 

To do that you need to drive the exact same journey with the exact same traffic conditions, accelerate and brake at exactly the same point and for the same duration, on the same roads in the same weather conditions (wind strength, wind direction, wet or dry roads and ambient temperatures) with the same amount of fuel in the tank. Same brand of tyres, tread depths and equivalent pressures, same number of passengers and boot contents. Branded or supermarket fuel, octane levels. Then there are electrical loads and emissions related systems all of which differ and all of which can have an impact on fuel economy.

 

Then there is E5 versus E10 petrol.

 

The list is endless.

 

Take the manufacturers combined fuel economy figures and half them to avoid disappointment.

[Ootohere]

You do get to know a cars economy if you are paying for it, know the cost and are always brimming it. 

I know the consumption of every keeper i have ever ran for more than just a few months for every route i drive and every weather condition.

(I know how someone else driving my cars can get very different economy, or poor economy if i am putting the fuel in.)

 

I went to fill up my seldom used 16 year old Shogun auto. 

It does 26 mpg from every tankful pretty much any weather any time and sometimes even when towing.

So as long as at the speed limit on the same roads and routes i know exactly the cost of a trip.

I did not know that diesel had been put in by somebody else since i last put in and i wanted to fill it with Winter Spec Diesel before parking up for a while.

It only took 2 litres @ 150.7 pence a litres and that was brimming it and i noticed the mileometer had been zeroed 10 miles back. 

 

My 11 year old 1.6 N/A petrol auto does 42 miles to the gallon as long as it is doing the same 6 miles each way regardless of the weather 

and it does 48 miles to the gallon when i take it the 20 miles to fill up with Tesco Momentum 99 Super Unleaded.

[J.R.]

1 hour ago, silver1011 said:

It is almost impossible to accurately compare fuel economy from one day to the next let alone one car to another. 

 

To do that you need to drive the exact same journey with the exact same traffic conditions, accelerate and brake at exactly the same point and for the same duration, on the same roads in the same weather conditions (wind strength, wind direction, wet or dry roads and ambient temperatures) with the same amount of fuel in the tank. Same brand of tyres, tread depths and equivalent pressures, same number of passengers and boot contents. Branded or supermarket fuel, octane levels. Then there are electrical loads and emissions related systems all of which differ and all of which can have an impact on fuel economy.

 

Then there is E5 versus E10 petrol.

 

The list is endless.

Pointless me looking at the fuel consumption display then, I put different tyres on each day and frequently shave some tread off or let air out before leaving!

[Ggsumo]

13 hours ago, roottoot said:

@Ggsumo

You really are not getting just 26 mpg average over 12 months and 14,000 miles are you?

You said you were getting at best into the 40's mpg & in winter.   

 If so then what is the lowest MPG that you actually get in winter and in summer nor what the car shows as 'an average'. 

 

 If you fill the tank and have in 50 litres does that not even take you 300 miles?

 

 

26 is my long  term combined over 1300 miles, before that it was 27 over I think it was about 4000 miles. This is my combined number short journeys on the computer tend to register 18 to 22. This includes a trip to the new Forest and one to Loughborough both about 100m e/w We use about 60 quid a week in winter in juice and yes 250 miles for a week in winter is about right on average. We do about 300 to 350 a week in Summer due to athletics comps and yes it will be higher but I have never seen the long term out of the 20’s. 

[Yogi-Bear]

23 minutes ago, Ggsumo said:

26 is my long  term combined over 1300 miles, before that it was 27 over I think it was about 4000 miles.

 

There's either something wrong with your engine, or something wrong with your right foot 😜. Seriously, that is pretty dire, but it also doesn't stack with other reports of fuel economy from 1.4/1.5TSI owners. Out of curiosity, and apologies if I missed this earlier... is it a 4x4 or just 2wd?

[Ggsumo]

It’s 2wd and I Drive like a granny 🤔 it’s purely to much time spent in town traffic on short journeys, she’s just a beast to get moving I think. 

[skomaz]

1 hour ago, Ggsumo said:

It’s 2wd and I Drive like a granny 🤔

 

This may sound daft but that may be part of your problem...   I've noticed that using low revs and changing up early gives worse consumption on ours than allowing the engine to rev and give of its best...   Not to the red line but it certainly doesn't like lugging

[kodiaqsportline]

8 hours ago, Ggsumo said:

I had a Citroen Spacetourer before this it was a 1.5hdi and used to around 50mpg on the combined and over 40 around town which was pretty much on quoted numbers so forgive me if I expected to be a little closer to what was claimed in this one.

 

Out of curiosity, how long have you owned the car and these short trips - how long are they? What's the terrain like? is it flat or hilly?

 

[Ggsumo]

nearly 3 years 30000 miles and yep it’s Luton so pretty big hills 

[Yogi-Bear]

8 hours ago, skomaz said:

I've noticed that using low revs and changing up early gives worse consumption on ours than allowing the engine to rev and give of its best...   Not to the red line but it certainly doesn't like lugging

Totally agree… I found the 1.4 was actually happier and more efficient with the gearbox in sport than in eco at times.

[skomaz]

20 minutes ago, Yogi-Bear said:

Totally agree… I found the 1.4 was actually happier and more efficient with the gearbox in sport than in eco at times.

 

Ours is a manual so we don't have that option but holding onto the gears longer certainly helps.

 

I thought I was imagining things at first but it definitely helps the mpg

[Ootohere]

As high as the fuel consumption appears only £9 a day or so for the family car use in winter seems OK to me.

Maybe public transport in and around Luton would be cheaper but i doubt it.

 

An Electric Car could certainly cost a lot less for doing 250 miles a week or so. 

 

70 kWh of electric @ 30 pence a kWh being £21,

even if 50 pence a kWh it is £35.  

Edited 25 February, 2022 by roottoot

[Ggsumo]

Gonna try the sport mode and see what that does, even if it doesn’t make a difference it will definitely be more fun 😎

 

thanks everybody for all the advice, it’s been really helpful and if nothing else has made me think hard about what to do. My 4 year pcp runs until next March so I don’t have to rush and have the funds to cover the final payment if I decide to buy new and have to wait for delivery. 

[xman]

My experience with a 1.4tsi ACT manual Superb is that keeping revs well above 1500, around 2000-2400 means the engine is in 2 cylinder mode a lot more and 2000 rpm/2 cylinder mode is usually considerably more economical than 1400 rpm/4 cylinder mode. It also feels happier at the higher revs. The faster the rpm, the more often you can use 2 cylinder mode, the criteria being the demand is less than 25% of the available power which increases with rpm.

Edited 25 February, 2022 by xman

[Ootohere]

Basically using coasting mode can save fuel, so that is getting moving and then toe off accelerator, which if hilly area driving can mean often enough downhills after getting up them. 

Stop / Start can save fuel but then the low consumption is a winter issue so maybe stop start is not operating much or is being switched off.