Mk3 RS 162TSI fuel consumption...

[brad]

I picked up the car during winter month and it has averaged about 450-500km per tank before I re-fuel, which is pretty average. Now that the weather has gone warmer in Brisbane, the fuel consumption is positively mind boggling, I can get 350km on just under half a tank which is somewhat as advertised 6.4l/100km. Not that I'm complaining but that much difference?

Started doing this about a month ago, I thought i forgot to reset the trip meter but this keeps happening after two re-fuel cycle and I kept an eye on how many liter went into the tank, everything seems to adds up. I'm under the impression the car only has 50 liter tank.

I'm trying to get a consensus on the fuel consumption of other mk3 RS TSI. Does your car produce better mileage on warmer months?

FYI, I use Mobil 98 octane from my local 7-11 and the car has done about 8000km.

The new engine was probably really tight. I know my EA888 V1.0 showed a noticeable imptovement in economy after 5000km and again after the 15,000km service. It bottomed outaround 25,000km.

IMO, during the first 5000km don't even think about economy. Try & drive briskly & visit the higher revs on occasions. Long-term it will be a better engine.

edit: I get my absolute best economy when the air temp is 23-28 c

[Lucas_R]

Although im aware that the latest 2.0 TSI engine is more efficient than ever, its also the most powerful ever. Im having a bit of a chuckle about all the talk on economy and efficient driving......you bought the sport model with a turbo engine!!

Ride the boost and enjoy the power. I drove a Mk3 vRS a few months ago and they go well.

The question on my mind is, has anyone got a manual Mk3 vRS?

FWIW my modified Mk6 Golf R averages 9.5L/100km and that's almost entirely short drives around town. I don't drive it with economy in mind, but i do drive it with respect and mechanical sympathy. Our modified Mk6 GTI sits on around 7.5L/100km and it sees less around town driving and more open road 80-100kph trips. The engines in both cars are modified and yet they still return excellent economy (actually better than stock in most cases) and smoothness.

[vEnOm_oz]

Would have been driving one for a couple of months now, if not for the dealer fumbling with the order and a DSG turning up instead. Sighhh...

The question on my mind is, has anyone got a manual Mk3 vRS?

[donweather]

The manual Octavia 1.4 in 6th is 2100 but it should be about 1900 rpm or even lower. It does not seem right that you can still accelerate up a relatively steep hill in 6th

The manual vRS sites around 2200 at 100kph if I recall correctly and I agree this is too high for highway driving. The MFD wants me to put the car in 6th gear at 65kph......to me 6th gear should always be an overdrive for highway driving. My wife's Tiggy has a better 6th gear IMO.....more suited to an overdrive.

[donweather]

Double post

[GTR27]

2100/2200 isn't bad. Means the car is still responsive in to gear. To speed for an rs is still ~245 so even taller gearing isn't needed.

[godzilla_110TDI]

Considering I'm buying a manual RS im very curious to hear from Mk3 RS owners and their long term L/100 figures from their MFD

maybe post up the transmission, L/100 and % split highway/city cycles?

[brad]

Mk3 RS & long term is an oxymoron isn't it?

[Gerrycan]

I know you get a great deal of pleasure out of modifying and driving your vehicles and good luck to you.
I drive at the applicable speed limit on public roads. I may (usually) apply a bit of wellie getting there, and I get there a lot quicker than I did in my diesels. I do not think that a slow take-off from lights is fuel efficient or socially acceptable.
I am not that good a driver but I do know how to overtake having learnt on sub 1.5 litre British 60's era cars on English B roads and country lanes.
I reckon I can do a better job of overtaking on my daughters 8 yo 1.3 manual Echo than most Australian drivers in their V6/8 . Why do they tailgate the trucks they want to pass, so they cannot see anything?
I think that Octavias, whatever flavour, provide pretty much the best of all worlds.
With most cars it is choose any two of the following a)cheap b)good c)reliable
The octavia has all three

[Dzl_Dubba]

Although im aware that the latest 2.0 TSI engine is more efficient than ever, its also the most powerful ever. Im having a bit of a chuckle about all the talk on economy and efficient driving......you bought the sport model with a turbo engine!!
Ride the boost and enjoy the power.

Using fuel is easy, trying to see how far I can get with one tank is a challenge I'm up for.

[donweather]

2100/2200 isn't bad. Means the car is still responsive in to gear. To speed for an rs is still ~245 so even taller gearing isn't needed.

Sub 2000 would be even better fuel consumption wise. And if you want the car to respond you either remap the ecu or change down a gear....simple. 6th gear should be seen as an overdrive.....not a gear to change into at 65kph!!!!

And I can't see your point of the 245 comment.......we don't have any roads capable of that speed so it's irrelevant. Out of curiosity, do the Euro's get the same gearbox as us Aussies? With their autobahns, they would most def need a 7 speed manual!!!!

[donweather]

Oh and who drives an RS for fuel economy calculations anyway!!!

[GTR27]

245 shows that the car is really capable of higher speeds, so cruising at 110 isn't an issue, regardless of revs.

Fuel economy isn't solely dictated by revs. Having it closest to peak torque usually give best economy, however torque figures are rated at Max load, full throttle. So peak torque on light engine loads is higher in the rev range, hence the shorter gearing. The gearboxes are set with evenly spaced ratios, because in the real world that's much nicer to drive than a car with one odd moonshot gear. Commodore v8s are a great example of 'overdrive' gearboxes. And 6 th happens to be completely useless under 110, thereby reducing the number of usable gears to 5. Which is what would happen if the ratios were lengthened to accommodate a taller 6th gear. It would just mean one less ratio for most circumstances.

Someone who only drives on the highway might appreciate it, but 90%+ of drivers don't drive solely on the highway. I'm sure they did a lot of testing to determine the best mix of gearbox ratios/engine combo.

Edit: I'm sure you might feel it's better for one tall ratio. If it really bugs you, you could get it changed, but it would cost lots. (Either that specific gear, or the diff ratio)

Edit2: sounds a bit harsh. I'm just trying to get at 'the manufacturer would have done it for a reason. If they could have gotten better economy with a taller gear, they would have done it'

[GeeMatt]

Would have been driving one for a couple of months now, if not for the dealer fumbling with the order and a DSG turning up instead. Sighhh...

[geoffs]

I'm feeling much relieved after reading this thread.
I'm up to 750kms and my RS is still drinking fuel like a drunken sailor. If I try to be as light footed as I can and leave the car in Economy mode I'm only getting 11l/100kms which was scaring me a bit.
I'll see how it goes when we get a few more kms on the clock