Official Fuel Economy Thread (formerly Highway economy).

[ethosguy]

Our TDI shows 6l/100km neat for Cook / Canberra - Perisher and 5.4-6 return Perisher (actually Guthega for those who would know the difference) Canberra leg. Roofracks and full load. Driven to get there ASAP without running advice from left seat or interference from the law - indicated 110-115kph plus liberal overtaking. Driven smoothly without really chasing fuel economy.

Thats about the same as we see on the Canberra / South coast run too.

It'll do ~8s with a trailer + 2 dirtbikes, cruise at 140 and just touch the imperial ton on the flat.
I'd be interested to see what happens if I can convince myself to flash it with an Oettinger program. I'd like the extra go especially highway passing but $2k is a lot for a non-performance car. Not convinced about the DP 'add fuel pressure' types, especially with the particulate filter.
And...still nowhere near the fun of a TSI either.

For comparison: My 210kw (advertised) tuned WRX uses consistently about 12 with the trailer (That'd be 4l/100 more than the TDI), 10.5s round town with a mixed bag of throttle - mostly flowing with the traffic, some naughty bits. Best I ever got form the WRX was 8.6, but I was in agony...

[donweather]

Team V, are your figures based on actual litres filled up at the bowser or just off the display? I don't baby it, but I also don't floor it every where either. The figures I posted above (626km) included at least 400km highway driving and I generally use cruise control and stick it 10% above the speed limit (ie 110 in 100 zone and 120 in 110 zone). The remainder 200km or thereabouts was pretty much city driving (not a lot of stop start as I use rat runs to get to work) to and from work and around town on the weekend (less traffic so less stop start). And based on actual bowser figures as I mentioned I got somewhere in the vicinity of high 8's (l/100km). God knows how you get 7's around town?

Oh, and I generally leave it in gear and foot off accelerator down steep hills to get the 0 l/100km advantage!!

[team_v]

Team V, are your figures based on actual litres filled up at the bowser or just off the display? I don't baby it, but I also don't floor it every where either. The figures I posted above (626km) included at least 400km highway driving and I generally use cruise control and stick it 10% above the speed limit (ie 110 in 100 zone and 120 in 110 zone). The remainder 200km or thereabouts was pretty much city driving (not a lot of stop start as I use rat runs to get to work) to and from work and around town on the weekend (less traffic so less stop start). And based on actual bowser figures as I mentioned I got somewhere in the vicinity of high 8's (l/100km). God knows how you get 7's around town?

Oh, and I generally leave it in gear and foot off accelerator down steep hills to get the 0 l/100km advantage!!

Mine is based off the MFD but when i have checked the MFD vs actual fuel consumption at fill up it's within 0.3 of the MFD so i just go off the MFD now.

If you are crusing above 100km/h the fuel economy tends to take a hit, i have noticed this on runs down to the Gold Coast.

I can't explain why i manage to get low figures apart from the combination of manual + apr + using gears as soon as i can (i.e. not running aobve 2000RPM if i am being gentle)

I am hopeful of getting a mini cam to record a trip as proof.
Just gotta find one that i can attach to the underside of the dash bulge and have it record for long enough.

[Transporter]

I can't explain why i manage to get low figures apart from the combination of manual + apr + using gears as soon as i can (i.e. not running aobve 2000RPM if i am being gentle)

Perhaps the discrepancy in fill ups.

[donweather]

I am hopeful of getting a mini cam to record a trip as proof.
Just gotta find one that i can attach to the underside of the dash bulge and have it record for long enough.

GoPro Official Store: Wearable Digital Cameras for Sports

[Transporter]

GoPro Official Store: Wearable Digital Cameras for Sports

Are you a spamer now ? Or what ?

[gldgti]

Mine is based off the MFD but when i have checked the MFD vs actual fuel consumption at fill up it's within 0.3 of the MFD so i just go off the MFD now.

If you are crusing above 100km/h the fuel economy tends to take a hit, i have noticed this on runs down to the Gold Coast.

I can't explain why i manage to get low figures apart from the combination of manual + apr + using gears as soon as i can (i.e. not running aobve 2000RPM if i am being gentle)

I am hopeful of getting a mini cam to record a trip as proof.
Just gotta find one that i can attach to the underside of the dash bulge and have it record for long enough.

I'd be more willing to believe your figures if they were calculated from litres put in at the pump and trip distance. True enough, you can have error in fill up and that sort of thing, but over a long time this error goes towards 0. I generally use a tank of fuel/week. My normal fill up is about 48l (my mk3 has a 55l tank). From fillup to fillup, I might see a discrepancy of up to (for the past 3 months) 0.7l/100km - but you can never be 100% sure (especially over 800-900km tank) if its due to filling error or driving habits, weather, tank venting efficiency etc (i'm generally cosistent but human nonetheless). But its easy to see long term trends, as the average changes (with mods and stuff).

If you can get better than 6l/100km out of a whole tank, I'll eat my straw hat that I use when mowing the lawn.

[jimbomort]

Mine is based off the MFD but when i have checked the MFD vs actual fuel consumption at fill up it's within 0.3 of the MFD so i just go off the MFD now.
If you are crusing above 100km/h the fuel economy tends to take a hit, i have noticed this on runs down to the Gold Coast.
I can't explain why i manage to get low figures apart from the combination of manual + apr + using gears as soon as i can (i.e. not running aobve 2000RPM if i am being gentle)
I am hopeful of getting a mini cam to record a trip as proof.
Just gotta find one that i can attach to the underside of the dash bulge and have it record for long enough.

No need for a minicam, per earlier posts Team V and my experience is almost exactly the same, including the +0.3 on the MFD. I compared tank averages using MFD versus my actual with litres filled etc and over 5-6 tanks MFD was consistently just 0.2 to 0.3 over actual.

Likewise for Donweather, crusing at more like 110-115 will generally push your fuel economy up quite a bit vs 100. If I take it easy now on longer trips (really anything more than 50klm though I have achieved it in much less), cruising at 100, no air con, its almost a given that on MFD, consumption will be low 7's if not mid to high 6's (that depends on wind direction etc). Now of course add 0.3 to that and actual for an MFD of 6.8 becomes 7.1. Likewise 7.2 becomes 7.5.

If you can get better than 6l/100km out of a whole tank, I'll eat my straw hat that I use when mowing the lawn.

I think its completely doable, especially if done out west in the cooler months as they do for the ecnomy challenge, but I'd be driving at about 55-70 on a highway. Not very practical and about 16-17 hours driving to exhaust the tank at that rate! I actually recorded a 5.8 over a 100klm trip on the MFD once (day I was going to get the APR upgrade). There was a strong tail wind so its possible, but I have no way of confirmign that one and it was a little suspicious. I have recorded 6.5 a number of times on longer trips, but plus the o.3 and that's more like 6.8.

Again Team V's and my experience on fuel cons in the TSI's show the figs we are posting are not based on just one vehicle and we have good reason to give some credence to the figs on the MFD.

[MGV]

Not directly economy related (or is it?), but here it is:
I have heard somewhere that fuel doesn't take long to go 'stale', particularly 95 & 98 fuels. The aromatics evaporate, or something?
Can anyone eloborate on this? Was basically wondering if you didn't use the fuel, say, within a week, would you miss out on some of the benefits of premium fuels? And if that was the case, would it be better to only put in the tank what you would expect to use in, say, a week?
Curious is all...

[Transporter]

In the fuel tank probably 2 months, in jerry cans bit longer but I wouldn't want to drive on it too often. Ideally for those who don't drive very often use the fuel in tank within the month.

[jimbomort]

I think its completely doable, especially if done out west in the cooler months as they do for the ecnomy challenge, but I'd be driving at about 55-70 on a highway. Not very practical and .......

TSI averages 5.5l/100. Distance to empty 990km after already driving 125km!

Yes you read correctly, though I should qualify that this is both a fair statement and unfair one.

First 5.5 is the MFD reading and that was over a trip of 64klm. Second I had the cruise set at 85km/hr, increased tyre pressure to 38psi and no air con (which I dont use much normally anyway). Else pretty normal driving and not all hwy, about 10-15% of that distance was 'city' driving. Indeed the MFD was reading 5.3l/100 and 1020 to empty with 120km already driven shortly before the end of the trip!. The reason it went up was about 3km of stop/start traffic in town doing an errand right at the end of the trip. Else reading to home would have 5.3 (after 64 km) and distance to empty for the tank would have been 1020 to go after having driven a total of 120 already!

So is this rubbish? I dont believe so. Average for whole trip was 5.6 over 125 klm (and I cruised at 90 for the first half). Based on previous experience that makes actual around 5.9l/100 for the trip (do I hear someone eating hats!!). As per earlier thread I have recorded a 5.8 previously and did again on this trip, on the way up I cruised at just over 90 and MFD read 5.8 at the end of that leg, which confirms the first time it happened was probably due to the tail wind that day which reflected what I'd get if I'd driven slower without the tail wind.

Had I continued the trip I have no doubt MFD would have got to 5.2 or even lower. But of course the greater distance you've already done and the closer you get to the true average, the MFD reading slows its descent and you need to drive longer and longer to reach the bottom. Having travelled just 64klm on the way back, I'd be certain I hadn't found the true bottom yet.

So in summary I think a genuine 5.5 and over 1100 out of a tank is completely doable with a TSI, and at a more realistic 85 klm/hr on the hwy than my previously suggested 55-70. Sure I'm not going to be doing that on any long trips, but I do think now that a genuine sub 61/100 is possible if running at higher tyre pressure or with low roll resistance tyres and cruising at say 95. Again not for everyone nor perhaps even me, but it also shows the impact hwy speed has on fuel consumption.

And what about TDI? Surely 4.5 or even lower is possible!

[Transporter]

...And you must be living and driving in the area without the hills, cause the hills would kill the fuel economy. I can see figures as low as 4.6 average on the MFD when I arrive in the city at 9 PM and when I get almost all green at the traffic lights. But my wife drives Tig 99% of the time to work and to the shops, we live at the hills and average now is 7.0L (MFD) at 2350km. I'm quite happy with that.

[team_v]

...And you must be living and driving in the area without the hills, cause the hills would kill the fuel economy. I can see figures as low as 4.6 average on the MFD when I arrive in the city at 9 PM and when I get almost all green at the traffic lights. But my wife drives Tig 99% of the time to work and to the shops, we live at the hills and average now is 7.0L (MFD) at 2350km. I'm quite happy with that.

The hills are a bit of a killer when it comes to fuel economy.
I was happily sitting on 6L/100km this morning until i hit a long hill run which pushed it up to 7.
Had another hill just before home which pushed it up to 7.4 but that is pretty decent in my mind (especially since my 19" wheels and grippy tyres would have pushed it a bit higher)

I also have a photo for proof that i can upload later today.

Sure i enjoy giving it the beans so most of the time my average is around 8-9 but on monday morning's there is hardly anyone to play with so i do the gentle run home and get a decent fuel economy figure.


So the diesel would be a good car if your aim is frugality, however the 125TSI shouldn't be discounted.
You also get the added bonus of the 189kw (or more in my case) with the remap.

[Transporter]

I also have a photo for proof that i can upload later today.

I believe you, all the fuel economy is in the driver, where he lives and how he drives, even the weather will affect the fuel consumption.

I would struggle too, convincing someone that I get 8.4L/100km in our Touareg driving to the city at 9am (20km) and i could get even better, if it wasn't for the roadwork. What others know or don't know, is that not everyone will get a good fuel economy all the time and everywhere. There are two average fuel consumption that could be displayed, the one that is longterm consumption and it is no.2 average, that should give even smaller difference when you compare the fuel docket to MFD.

[team_v]

I really only use the trip meter (Avg consumption 1) because i reset it for each trip.
The total Average (#2) sits around 8.5-9 becasue i tend to be on the leadfooted side most of the time (can't loose the traffic light GP)

I think we can safely say from all of this that the VW figures are based off heavy footed driving and are probably so high to avoid customer complaints.