The MK6 Fuel Consumption (Most / Least per Tank) Thread

[Brian916]

Would a stage 1 tune lower fuel consumption?

Until I see proper laboratory testing, I will always remain sceptical about the claims of improved fuel efficiency. The simplest rule is that for more power you need three things: More air, more fuel and more rpm. Putting more fuel in needs more air to burn properly so more throttle is needed.

Where the equation WILL come back in favour of the remap is where the standard map is set very lean for the pollution factor. If you put less fuel in with the air, and make it just burn, you have less pollutants emitted. This also has a negative effect on power and economy. Problem is in most cases that this point is NOT at an rpm where the car cruises. For some reason it was decided that the test would be a simpulated drive by at a set speed/rpm. All the manufacture does is lean out the map for that point and they pass the emission tests.

By addind fuel to bring the ratio to the right level for economy - around 13.6:1 for an air cooled V twin (have to use the one I"m most familiar with) you get better economy as the engine is not under as much load. On the bike, I can use less throttle opening to keep the rpm at the sweet spot and use less agressive movement to maintain the speed I want.

I guess the easiest way to look at it for a car with a remap is simply to look at the factory tested figures for the higher output engines. The 155 motor has an 'average' of 7.9l/100km and the 188 is higher for the same test.

So, until somebody gets a car and puts it through the Australian standard test, then flashes the ecu and reruns the same test in the same car, I'm going to be a sceptic about the claims.

You can sort of approximate these tests yourself by NOT flashing the ecu until you've done your own tests. Let the car get around 5000km on it, then drive for several tanks of fuel in the most economical manner you can, trickle fill the car each time so you can't get any more fuel in, then work out the mileage. When you have done that, flash the ecu and do he same test - you'll have to be very diciplined. Compare the results and see if you get better or worse. Also take note of what the trip computer tells you. Most add on boxes will appear to give better consumptions as they change the signals AFTER the trip computer has got it's readings so it lies. Some trip computers are calibrated specificall for the factory map, and if you change that, it doesn't change what the computer was told to use as values and it will still lie to you.

I have had chips/remaps on a couple of diesels now, and have enjoyed the change in how the vehicles drive. Being diesel, the changes were done at 25000km (just on run in for a common rail engine), and doing the carefule trickle fill to GPS mileage, they were both less economical - in the case of the Astra, by a whole 1mpg average worse, and 1.5 in the 4wd.

When the lease is up on the Golf, if I decide to keep it, it WILL be getting an ecu upgrade, so I'm not against these remaps, just very sceptical about claims of improved economy.

[SilvrFoxX]

Hey Brad, wouldn't that mean that a sprint booster would have solved your driving requirement over a remap.?

[brad]

If you did use less fuel, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of doing the Stage 1 tune?

If people used 100% throttle more often then a tune wouldn't be needed by most people.

I avg 6.7L/100km in the Skoda with remap. Rarely put the boot in. I like the tune because it made the car much more driveable, not for the peak power it gave. Yes, I'm odd.

[hooba]

Apparently it does....

If you did use less fuel, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of doing the Stage 1 tune?

[masev]

Apparently it does....

[jrgti]

My mk6 GTI fuel consumption is down to 4.9l/100km , ok sorry my wife's fuel consumption is down to that and she runs between 4.9 and 5.2l/100km . but when i'm driving it jumps to 5.9 and 6.7l/100km . But in saying that i only get this low fuel consumption due to the modifications and overall the running gear is very different to standard vw gti .

Would a stage 1 tune lower fuel consumption?

[Ideo]

Thought it was about time i checked my usage on the R and i'm pleased to say it is a respectable 10.4 L/100km.

I'm at 9.2 now.

I spend most of my time on the open road.

[brad]

But in saying that i only get this low fuel consumption due to the modifications and overall the running gear is very different to standard vw gti .

Do tell? What changes have you made to improve the economy?

[Brendan_A]

On our trip to the Gold Coast today the 118tsi averaged 5.2L/100km. Not bad, almost as good as our tdi Jetta.

[GTI Go Karter]

My mk6 GTI fuel consumption is down to 4.9l/100km , ok sorry my wife's fuel consumption is down to that and she runs between 4.9 and 5.2l/100km . but when i'm driving it jumps to 5.9 and 6.7l/100km . But in saying that i only get this low fuel consumption due to the modifications and overall the running gear is very different to standard vw gti .

[Prodigy]

Thought it was about time i checked my usage on the R and i'm pleased to say it is a respectable 10.4 L/100km.

[Brian916]

According to the computer, I'm doing aroun 7.8l/100km but that's in Canberra to/from work, with little or no stopping, and gentle 80kmh zones. Makes good economy simple. Current fill is at 9, but that was filled up at peak hour, and I had to drive around a car park looking for a spot so I'm not counting this as 'normal'

[shakespeare]

I think I might need lighter shoes or something! I've averaged about 13.5L/100 km since new, though most of this is city and the few times I've gone country I've thoroughly enjoyed the drive therefore fuel use was a little high!

Still, I didn't buy this for economy and is similar to my old MPS

btw the fuelly hasn't been updated for a while!

[furiousgibbon]

Not quite babying the car entirely though because I have 'accidentally' boosted to almost red-line on 4 occasions I hope I don't kill the engine.

don't worry about it, my last car was redlined 4 times by my friend with 140km on the clock when i took it up to his place, and after 101,000km of HARD driving it doesn't burn a single drop of oil nor have there been any engine issues. The same friend picked up his Alfa Giulietta a couple of months back and with about 200km on the odometer I added another 50km or so of wide open throttle and redline (partly as payback!), and neither of us were concerned.

The GTI I picked up 3 days ago is getting driven as it will for the rest of its life, as hard as it needs to be. I've tapped the redline about 6 times now in 500km and i don't think that's bad, it was done because I had to get the car moving fast for a particular driving situation. Plenty of WOT but usually shifting at 4000-4500.

Average fuel consumption for me at the moment is 8.7L, but this is majority peak hour freeway work, I think that's a pretty good average so far.

[Corey_R]

Yeah - it's not just the rolling resistance of the bigger wheels. What is the weight difference between the stock and new wheels. Rotational weight has the highest impact on performance than any other type of weight in the car (unsprung, sprung, etc). In the case of wheels, it's unsprung rotational weight - so it's the worst possible place to be putting on weight.