Hey all

 

Today I was driving my brother 90 miles away. I notice my fuel consumption on my petrol e10 is 16.1km/l 37.8mpg.

 

Is this right or too much? 

 

Also separate question.

 

As I'm thinking to do stage 1 on my car how much improved mpg do you get please ?

 

Thank you 

Hi, is your consumption calculation correct? 

Unlikely that a stage tune will significantly improve your consumption figures, you will most likely be tempted to use the extra performance - and the fuel use will increase.

My long term average - over about 6 years - is about 37mpg.  I did calculate it a few times and the computer there or thereabouts agreed.  So I don’t bother anymore. 

5 minutes ago, Warrior193 said:

Hi, is your consumption calculation correct? 

Unlikely that a stage tune will significantly improve your consumption figures, you will most likely be tempted to use the extra performance - and the fuel use will increase.

Hey I just went back to the car and the consumption calculation was set wrong so i changed it to l to 100km, its all good now it shows 6.2 so im happy now :;)  thank you for answering 

40 minutes ago, Taniv said:

As I'm thinking to do stage 1 on my car how much improved mpg do you get please ?

 

Thank you 

To get more MPG, you need to make the car more efficient, i.e. the remap will need to get more energy from the same amount of fuel, so when driving.

For the increased MPG claim to be true, the remapped car would have to need less fuel to propel the car forward at a given speed than it did with the original fuelling map.

I've never seen any convincing evidence that a remap will improve a vehicle's MPG, though there are plenty of anecdotes about them increasing MPG, and tuners sometimes claim increased MPG as the remap will give the car more torque at low RPM which means you can use a lower gear. (What they don't say is HOW the car gets more torque at low RPM. The answer, presumably, is that they bung more fuel in.) What's needed is a proper before/after MPG test with a remap, and I haven't seen one of those done.

 

Example claim from Superchips. They simply state you'll get better fuel economy and expect you to take their word for it.

If your remapped car fails to give you improved fuel economy, they will tell you it's because you're enjoying all that additional power. (Which is quite likely true.)

 

In my limited experience (two remapped cars and a couple of tuning boxes), a good remap will give you more power when you want it, and no penalty in the form of increased fuel use when you don't.

My remapped car has given me improved economy on the same route to my holiday. However no two journeys are precisely the same, and I would not be able to prove that the difference was not caused by traffic conditions or me driving slightly differently.

What is undisputable is that if I use the extra power, I get worse fuel economy.

 

@Taniv

Maybe compare your cars fuel consumption from the E10 by using E5 for the next fill up.

Maybe Sainbury 97 ron min or Tesco Momentum 99, 99 ron min.     

 

 

2 hours ago, Taniv said:

Hey all

 

Today I was driving my brother 90 miles away. I notice my fuel consumption on my petrol e10 is 16.1km/l 37.8mpg.

 

Is this right or too much? 

 

Also separate question.

 

As I'm thinking to do stage 1 on my car how much improved mpg do you get please ?

 

Thank you 

I am afraid you commited a common 'rookie' error when converting to mpg as you used the smaller US gallon.

The good news is that in Imperial mpg you got about 45 mpg which is about standard for a petrol vrs on the sort of journey you describe.

As @EnterNamesuggests, the only way to get more power is to add more fuel.

However. And this is a big however. My 1.9pd did improve in mpg after a remap. The main reason was the way the power was delivered. Much smoother without the annoying lump of torque at about 2k revs. Just made it easier to drive and easier to get good economy.

But. And this is a big but (see what I did there? 😀). When giving it some it used much more fuel!

2 minutes ago, MarkyG82 said:

As @EnterName

But. And this is a big but (see what I did there? 😀). When giving it some it used much more fuel!

"I like big BUTTs and I cannot lie".

Used in Shrek, but really no song for kids.

A remap can have a vehicle use less fuel.

Not by driving faster, but by driving much the same but getting up to speed and maybe coasting more or just being off the accelerator. 

Just the car running along efficiently as you might have 245 ps available or more, and at UK NSL's not even be needing 100 ps to keep on rolling along.

Actually an Octavia only requires about 30 PS to maintain 70 mph on a flat road.

There you go, coast downhill, power up hill & just use nearly no fuel on the flat once at speed.

That is why a 1.0 TSI 115 ps can be more economic than a 2.0 TSI 245 ps but journeys take the same time. 

On 12/02/2023 at 21:19, MarkyG82 said:

As @EnterNamesuggests, the only way to get more power is to add more fuel.

However. And this is a big however. My 1.9pd did improve in mpg after a remap. The main reason was the way the power was delivered. Much smoother without the annoying lump of torque at about 2k revs. Just made it easier to drive and easier to get good economy.

But. And this is a big but (see what I did there? 😀). When giving it some it used much more fuel!

It sounds like the remap sorted out a poor map with excess fuel delivery giving that lump of torque. One of my tuning boxes has a very on/off power delivery around 70mph and it was a right pain.

On 12/02/2023 at 21:44, toot said:

A remap can have a vehicle use less fuel.

Not by driving faster, but by driving much the same but getting up to speed and maybe coasting more or just being off the accelerator. 

Just the car running along efficiently as you might have 245 ps available or more, and at UK NSL's not even be needing 100 ps to keep on rolling along.

Yeah it can, if it delivers less fuel for a given throttle demand under the same conditions.

The fact that the power improvements are given in pretty specific figures, but the MPG increases claimed are usually very vague tells me the claimed fuel economy improvements cannot be relied upon.

If anyone has some before/after MPG test data under controlled conditions, I'd love to see it.

On 14/02/2023 at 12:20, EnterName said:

It sounds like the remap sorted out a poor map with excess fuel delivery giving that lump of torque. 

 

It was well known for the 1.9pd lump. Especially in the lower power variants. Mine was the 105 and the map took it to 135 ish but the overall gain and gradual curve of the delivery made it feel much more.

I miss that car but family additions etc forced a move to a bigger boot.

Nobody has commented on the fact that Mpg is worse in cold weather at this time of year. 37 Mpg on a run in cold weather is fairly good, traffic conditions and steady driving will aid better Mpg. 

And this time of the year up north in Scotland shire it has been near as warm as summer weather at times and there is winter formulation diesel and petrol in the filling stations and maybe as good or better fuel efficiency as there will be in a couple of months.    Turbo,s like cooler air, and cooler roads have less grip so less friction if you are scooting about on summer / eco tyres once the engine / oil is up to temp. 

On 14/02/2023 at 13:20, EnterName said:

The fact that the power improvements are given in pretty specific figures, but the MPG increases claimed are usually very vague tells me the claimed fuel economy improvements cannot be relied upon.

If anyone has some before/after MPG test data under controlled conditions, I'd love to see it.

 

A remap screws with the fuel computer accuracy, tuning boxes even more so, the Maxidot may show better MPG but the brim to brim fuel consumption calculations will contradict it.

 

After 2 remaps I concur with the view it uses no more fuel than before unless I enjoy the extra power.

'Dieselgate' was a classic example of being able to get improved consumption and performance by ignoring/cheating emissions requirements.

VW are not going to get away with that again so meeting emissions requirements is a major factor in their engine mapping and it had consequences.

The 1.5tsi engine took an age to resume production (trying to meet WLTP requirements) and subsequently there were many complaints on Briskoda about its driving characteristics when it was available. AND it took over a year to get software fixes released addressing most of the 1.5tsi issues.

 

My point is that third party performance maps would have less 'incentive' to meet draconian emission requirements so I would expect there to be real, if minor consumption improvements in steady speed driving than on a standard map. Of course, as others have already said, use of the loud pedal cancels out any consumption benefits  .

Believe me, if I thought a performance map would pay for itself in improved consumption then I would have got one a long time ago!

 

When you buy a 2.0tsi VW engine vehicle you are already committing to a preference for power over good fuel consumption.....however how much depends on a lot on factors, but mainly where and how you drive. Around town they are pretty heavy consumers compared to smaller (turbo) engines, on the motorway I cannot recall reading any validated consumption (refuel figures) bettering  49mpg for a standard tune regardless of how 'gently' the owner claimed they drove. I can recall only one refuel validated mapped 2.0tsi claim over 50mpg, with a full passenger load and driver not pushing at all and just going with the 'motorway flow' upto Scotland.

 

The OP would have been driving in max 8 degree C temps when he posted so I think his 45 mpg consumption returns are pretty typical for the car, conditions and distance, assuming the displayed consumption is accurate.

 

I would have been disappointed to get less than 55mpg in my 1.4tsi in a similar circumstances, but I might not have kept up with him.

 

Edited 16 February, 20233 yr by Gerrycan

http://autocar.co.uk/car-news/business/volkswagen-deliveries-halted-wltp-emissions-certification

 

Just for future so as no internet myth from re-writing history or having alternative facts. 

 

The 1.5 TSI ACT engines were produced and on sale pre WLTP coming in on September 2018.

 

(There were issues reported with cars and the kangerooing pre the WLTP 1.5 TSI ACT's but really it was much more of an issue for some with the cars that were delivered with WLTP Cerification and they needed to start the fight to get vehicles fit for purpose, which is driving on real roads in the real world.)

 

What the issue was that the figures on emissions pre WLTP need to get sorted out as they were far to high to go and get Certification as were other VW Group engines.

The delay was VW having to manipulate Engine Management / Software to get the results needed under testing, WLTP & RDE.

 

That meant some cars then behaved poorly out in the real world compared to under World Wide Harmonised Testing which was not about the Whole World but the EU & Europe.

 

Ones that could not be used like a 1.4 TSI without being a PHEV were fine for other World Wide regions where just being honest with emissions seems to be OK. 

Use the 1.4 TSI and an 8 speed automatic and things are all good.

 

2017

 

....................

Below is not a 2017 car as you can not put on newer plates on older cars in the UK.  (Unless first registering a car built years before.)

 

But there were Skoda 1.5 TSI ACT DSG in 2017. 

http://autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/octavia/101350/new-skoda-octavia-estate-15-petrol-2017-review

 

These were available before the WLTP was coming in, then the issue arose when they had to do the WLTP & VW struggled so cars were bunkered.  Cars could not be imported into the likes of the UK or other countries, so Deliveries were held up for months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 February, 20233 yr by toot

Thanks @toot, have made suitable adjustments to my text.

 

On 15/02/2023 at 20:23, J.R. said:

 

A remap screws with the fuel computer accuracy, tuning boxes even more so, the Maxidot may show better MPG but the brim to brim fuel consumption calculations will contradict it.

 

After 2 remaps I concur with the view it uses no more fuel than before unless I enjoy the extra power.

I don't know whether the accuracy of the fuel computer is adversely affected by a remap.

I don't know if (but I can certainly believe) the accuracy of the fuel computer is affected by a tuning box that "tricks" the ECU into delivering additional fuel.

I suppose it depends how MPG is calculated by the fuel computer.

If anyone who knows how MPG is calculated by the car can explain how it's done by the car, that would shed some light on this.

On 16/02/2023 at 00:49, Gerrycan said:

'Dieselgate' was a classic example of being able to get improved consumption and performance by ignoring/cheating emissions requirements.

VW are not going to get away with that again so meeting emissions requirements is a major factor in their engine mapping and it had consequences.

The 1.5tsi engine took an age to resume production (trying to meet WLTP requirements) and subsequently there were many complaints on Briskoda about its driving characteristics when it was available. AND it took over a year to get software fixes released addressing most of the 1.5tsi issues.

 

My point is that third party performance maps would have less 'incentive' to meet draconian emission requirements so I would expect there to be real, if minor consumption improvements in steady speed driving than on a standard map.

This is a very good point, and I can understand why tuners would not declare that they disregard some of the emissions concerns to get improved efficiency.

If you add @Gerrycan's context to Superchips "How it works" explanation, you can certainly get that impression by reading between the lines when Superchips talks about "...eliminating those 'performance compromises'.",

https://www.superchips.co.uk/HowItWorks

"Superchips invests extensively in development and testing and we bring over 30 years of experience to the job. We arrive at the optimised settings for your make and model of vehicle, ensuring that each remap is as individual as the software inside your ECU, safely eliminating those ‘performance compromises’."

(Incidentally, I have no particular inclination towards Superchips, I've just used them for the purposes of this thread. I've never had a Superchips remap.)

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

I don't know whether the accuracy of the fuel computer is adversely affected by a remap.

I don't know if (but I can certainly believe) the accuracy of the fuel computer is affected by a tuning box that "tricks" the ECU into delivering additional fuel.

I suppose it depends how MPG is calculated by the fuel computer.

If anyone who knows how MPG is calculated by the car can explain how it's done by the car, that would shed some light on this.

 

Cars systems calculate consumption from distance travelled and volume of fuel fed to the engine. 

There are many threads remarking, or complaining, about how optimistic their particular speedometer can be. Mine is about 6% optimistic but I have owned one car that was at the maximum legal of 10% optimistic so speedos are a particular inaccurate data source. My 20 yo Toyota Echo speedo is only 2% optimistic

Odometers are usually more accurate, usually between 1% and 3% variance in my experience with the worst being 6% (yeh, same car as the speedo).

 

Of course this raises interesting questions about odometer accuracy in relation to tyre wear or fitting different wheel/tyre sizes and profiles.

 

A simple test to see what the variance between speedo and odometer accuracy is to set cruise control to a set speed on a clear and straight road and then reset the 'current trip' on average speed display and see what it displays after a few hundred metres at the set speed. I used to do this on rentals to get an indication as to what indicated speed I could safely travel at without getting a speeding ticket due the number of cameras used in Australia.

 

My current 1.4tsi used to display slightly pessimistic consumption values against refuel calculations when new but over 8 years and 90k km it is now slightly optimistic against refuel calculated consumption. I have just fitted brand new tyres which may make the displayed consumption even more optimistic. Not sure when I will next be able to check odometer accuracy though as it was 1% when new, maybe a couple of weeks time  when we go camping?

Edited 20 February, 20233 yr by Gerrycan

3 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

 

Cars systems calculate consumption from distance travelled and volume of fuel fed to the engine. 

There are many threads remarking, or complaining, about how optimistic their particular speedometer can be. Mine is about 6% optimistic but I have owned one car that was at the maximum legal of 10% optimistic so speedos are a particular inaccurate data source. My 20 yo Toyota Echo speedo is only 2% optimistic

Odometers are usually more accurate, usually between 1% and 3% variance in my experience with the worst being 6% (yeh, same car as the speedo).

 

Of course this raises interesting questions about odometer accuracy in relation to tyre wear or fitting different wheel/tyre sizes and profiles.

 

A simple test to see what the variance between speedo and odometer accuracy is to set cruise control to a set speed on a clear and straight road and then reset the 'current trip' on average speed display and see what it displays after a few hundred metres at the set speed. I used to do this on rentals to get an indication as to what indicated speed I could safely travel at without getting a speeding ticket due the number of cameras used in Australia.

 

My current 1.4tsi used to display slightly pessimistic consumption values against refuel calculations when new but over 8 years and 90k km it is now slightly optimistic against refuel calculated consumption. I have just fitted brand new tyres which may make the displayed consumption even more optimistic. Not sure when I will next be able to check odometer accuracy though as it was 1% when new, maybe a couple of weeks time  when we go camping?

It is a pity that there do not appear to be many (any?) measured mile points on roads now in the UK - I used to find these very useful for a spot check on speedo and odo readings.