I got 58.5 mpg on the M6 in my 1.8 tsi

I was happy with that

Best I have seen claimed for a 1.8tsi. The 2.0tsi engine versions rarely better 50mpg on a run although high 40's is easily achievable.

However:

a) I'm presuming that this was a relatively exceptional event for you so there must have been a lot more positive than negative factors involved. For instance, when I am rarely holidaying in Britain with a hire car, I get far better consumption on a busy moving motorway than I do on an empty one (the race-cycle peloton effect)

b) You have quoted the displayed consumption, which may or not be accurate unless confirmed against actual consumption

My now 11-year-old 1.4tsi consumption display used to be pessimistic (consumption better than display) when new but over the years progressed through truly accurate to being optimistic. Today if it shows 5.6l/100 (50mpg) then it is probably 5.9l/100 (48mpg) actual.

My odometer is accurate, but the speedo is about 7% optimistic and always has been.

I get the unusual situation where the average speed display (calculated by distance and time) is accurate while the digital speed display reflects the analogue speedo inaccuracy.

Sorry about the full-on nerdy reply.

7 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Sorry about the full-on nerdy reply.

That's fine - we do full on nerdiness, pedantry and nasel-hair (car) spotting here at Briskoda! 😁

I was drafting at 55-60 mph and eco mode on the downhill sections

^^^ That will do it.

Not intimidatory drafting I hope. It amazes me how little gap British drivers leave as standard anyway.

On 14/04/2025 at 03:09, Gerrycan said:

2.0tsi engine versions rarely better 50mpg on a run

On a run, my TSI 2.0 190bhp (lowest power output of EA888 engine) gets 52-55mpg running on super unleaded and tyres in ECO inflation.

8 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

It amazes me how little gap British drivers leave as standard anyway

If you have ACC, the standard 'distance' between cars - is very German, i.e. quite close and a little intimitatory. I set my ACC to Far which seems to be a little less agressive.

3 hours ago, varaderoguy said:

If you have ACC, the standard 'distance' between cars - is very German, i.e. quite close and a little intimitatory. I set my ACC to Far which seems to be a little less agressive.

I don't have ACC on my cars but I have noticed on a couple of hire cars that the ACC ran a little closer than I liked.

A 100km out of Adelaide the interstate highways go down from Motorway/Dual-carriageways to just an undivided single lane in each direction, bit like the British "A" roads before Motorways.

It means if you are following a large truck, or B-double then you don't want to be too close because they could run over a kangaroo/emu/wombat and clear it with their high ground clearance, but which would cause a lot of damage to an Octavia when you run into it. Around 50k kangaroos are killed on Aussie roads a year.

I like to allow 3 or 4 seconds distancing here but have to cut it to around 2 seconds or less in Britain, otherwise it's just an invitation for other vehicles to drop in the gap.

4 hours ago, varaderoguy said:

On a run, my TSI 2.0 190bhp (lowest power output of EA888 engine) gets 52-55mpg running on super unleaded and tyres in ECO inflation.

Impressive economy for a 2.0tsi

I filled up tonight and calculated our "since last refuel" average consumption display optimism has worsened by 0.5l/100. So the displayed 5.8L/100 was an actual of 6.3L/100 (45mpg). Which is still not bad considering it is primarily my wife's car. 97% urban environment and 70% peak traffic times.

I have the same 190bhp 2.0TSI and it is nicely economical when you want it to be.

On 14/04/2025 at 03:09, Gerrycan said:

Sorry about the full-on nerdy reply.

Full-on nerdy posts are a feature, not a bug.

16 hours ago, TDIum said:

I have the same 190bhp 2.0TSI and it is nicely economical when you want it to be.

The EA888 Gen3B is a very economical engine if driven gently.