First Long Trip in the RS

[Antiplastix]

Just returned from a quick visit to relos. in Albury. The TSI RS computer tells me I averaged 107 km/h and used 7l/100km and the trip took roughly 4hrs 50 min. Very impressive consumption I thought for the performance available. Next time hopefuly it wont be double demerit points and there wont be a radar behind every tree.

[K1W1]

If the speed average is accurate and you were in Victoria you would have accumulated enough fines to pay for another vehicle when you got your licence back after loosing it due to all the accumulated demerit points.

[wombatoutofhell]

I drove my pre fl RS from Cranbourne to Linton (about 40km past Ballarat towards Hamilton) via Frankston and back via Mooroolbark and Frankston yesterday. Average speed was about 84kph and consumption was 7.4l/100km. Not sure how far but it would have to be around 500km. This was sitting on almost all speed limits and using the cruise control, climate control on, 3 people on board. Not quite as good as yours but then mine's not a diesel!

[K1W1]

If we are going to be like that I drove my 200km old TDI around Gippsland yesterday, windy undulating roads very little main road a small amount of cruise control 2 adults, 2 kids, 280km. 5.8l/100 average.

[Calais]

My 1Z RS FSI is averaging 7.1L/100km. Most of my driving is semi-rural, high speed with a few hairpins thrown in for good measure up and down the Blue Mtns every day.

So far with 12000km on board, and an average speed of 74km/h in that time, I am more than happy with the economy, considering I don't wait around when it comes to overtaking or when taking off from traffic lights and stop signs etc.

[gregozedobe]

Before you all get too excited about what fuel consumption the trip computer is telling you I'd suggest you do some fill to fill calculations to get a more accurate figure.

I find my trip computers can be up to 20% optimistic ! Interestingly enough they are ALWAYS optimistic, never pessimistic. A cynic might think it is a bit of clever marketing by VAG, as unless you do the fill to fill caclulations you'd never know your vehicle is actually using more fuel than it tells you.

But I'm still happy with the actual fuel consumption of both mine, and if I go slow (80Kmh) my large, heavy van can get amazingly good fuel economy: 4 l/100kms (generally I don't drive that slowly as I am too worried about being hit from behind by an unobservant cruise control jockey, as well as being in too much of a hurry to get where I want to be).

Also trip (2) resets every 99.99 hrs, so it doesn't record a "life time" figure as some people think.

[K1W1]

Before you all get too excited about what fuel consumption the trip computer is telling you I'd suggest you do some fill to fill calculations to get a more accurate figure.

Agreed.
All that actually worries me is that the fuel gauge tells me it"s time to refill in plenty of time.
On that subject are VW gauges regarded as being generally accurate?

[Antiplastix]

Not quite as good as yours but then mine's not a diesel!

Neithers mine, but there was only me and the dog in it, and about 1 kg of white dog hair afterwards. I think he enjoyed being able to walk around the cargo area with the seats laid flat.

[wombatoutofhell]

Neithers mine, but there was only me and the dog in it, and about 1 kg of white dog hair afterwards. I think he enjoyed being able to walk around the cargo area with the seats laid flat.

oops-misread your sig line-thought it was TDI as I'm so used to saying TFSI for the petrol. Oh well.
I'm still on the same tank and now have 685km from it after a trip to Warburton and back today. I'll do the manual calculation when I fill up tomorrow.

[gregozedobe]

All that actually worries me is that the fuel gauge tells me it"s time to refill in plenty of time.
On that subject are VW gauges regarded as being generally accurate?

Define "accurate"

The fuel guage is definitely non-linear (ie the top "1/4" of the fuel gauge covers considerably more litres than the bottom "1/4", which is why the needle seems to take a long time to drop at first, but sinks like a stone as you get near empty.

The distance-to-empty figure can be a bit wonky too, and if you keep a close eye on it as your tank gets near empty it can be un-nerving if you are cutting it a bit fine to get to the next servo. Some cars seem to have 2-4 litres left when the DTE is 0km, but others conk out pretty close to that reading (and the owner of that car was one of the few people I've read complaining that his instrumentation was "too accurate" )

The analogue speedo is always optimistic, but the odometer is usually very close to the actual distance covered.

The coolant temp gauge has a software fiddle to keep it reading a constant 90C even when it is actually a few degrees hotter or colder.

I suspect my external temp reading is 2-3 degrees higher than what it actually is.

[K1W1]

Define "accurate"

The fuel guage is definitely non-linear (ie the top "1/4" of the fuel gauge covers considerably more litres than the bottom "1/4", which is why the needle seems to take a long time to drop at first, but sinks like a stone as you get near empty.

So they are just like everybody else. my last car had a 55 litre tank and on several occasions I put 57 litres into it and the 5 litre reserve light had not lit up.
In the real old days you would never trust a Falcon if the gauge was even minutely below half full.

The analogue speedo is always optimistic, but the odometer is usually very close to the actual distance covered.

That is for legal reasons so you can't sue them if you get ticketed driving at the indicated speed limit. Also they have to allow for tyre wear and inflation and even different sized tyres being fitted.

The coolant temp gauge has a software fiddle to keep it reading a constant 90C even when it is actually a few degrees hotter or colder.

Once again I think that's common. IMO they would be better off with a simple warning light (and loud siren ) that came on if there was a problem. A gauge that doesn't really do anything is a waster of space I think.

I suspect my external temp reading is 2-3 degrees higher than what it actually is.

Hadn't thought about that. So far I would say mine is about right but I might check it against another thermometer.

[woofy]

The external temp is definitely higher than what it should be. My 6 is always bang on, but the MPS 6s are always higher due to the sensor being in the air intake and the turbo heating things up. I figured the RS must do much the same thing hence the higher temp.

[wombatoutofhell]

Getting off topic but I just did my calculations.
MFD says:
689km
20km left
ave speed 77kph
time 9hr 37 min
consumption 7.4l/100km.

Calculation
Trip metre 789.7
fuel 52.34l
consumption 7.59l/100km

Car is 2007 RS with 44827km using 98octane fuel. Most of this was country driving although some was slower due to my wife who was following be being unable to go through a bend without slowing down so even though I was in a 100 zone, I had to slow to 70 or so for her to catch up. I will educate her later. I possibly filled the tank more this time than last time so it might be a little out.