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

saveferris

16-07-2009, 11:59 AM

I have read conflicting info regarding the fuel consumption of the 118TSI. The brochure and website say the 6 spd man gets (combined) 6.5 L/100km and the 7 spd DSG gets (combined) 6.2 L/100km. However, many reviews I have read have it the other way around. So, which is correct? I know most auto transmissions burn more, but is the DSG more economic?

Not too fussed either way and will be buying a DSG 118TSI whatever the answer is, just curious. Certainly better economy than my current manual Mk5 2.0 FSI, which gets about 7.8 - 8.0 L/100km.

That's interesting.

My brochure says the opposite to yours.

118 TSI manual says 6.2 L/100km combined.

118 TSI DSG says 6.5 L/100km combined.

I just checked the VW Australia site, in its PDF brochure its the exact same as my brochure, where as in the seperate specification pdf download is says the opposite.

http://www.volkswagen.com.au/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en_au/New_Cars/golf/Pricing_and_Specifications/Information_Downloads.html

breezerboy

16-07-2009, 12:03 PM

I stand corrected, the brochure is as you say, but the 10 page spec sheet from the website is the other way around and no doubt incorrect.

JasonP

16-07-2009, 02:18 PM

Over the first 3 tanks in my 118TSI DSG, it's averaged 7.5 l/100km, using Shell V-Power.
Mixture of Highway & City driving, but mainly city. (Brisbane).

Real world figures.

Engine is starting to loosen up nicely.

glennbot

16-07-2009, 04:14 PM

The reason for the confusion is because of the way they test the fuel consumption in UK/German compared to Australia.

For some reason the Australian test uses more petrol with the DSG.

IMO the DSG will have better Fuel figures.

Read this link:
http://www.golfmk6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1763

Cheers.
GlennBot

Stealthy

16-07-2009, 08:21 PM

Usually manuals always have better fuel economy figures, don't they?

coastie

16-07-2009, 09:36 PM

Km/L L/100km
14.08 7.16

13.44 7.44
11.13 8.98
13.65 7.33
12.65 7.91
15.43 6.48
13.89 7.20
14.85 6.73
14.37 6.96
14.35 6.97
14.47 6.91
13.83 7.23
15.15 6.60
15.86 6.31

This is the first 6000 km figures from my 118TSI DSG top number in each column is the average of the listed numbers below. There is a trend to lower numbers however I still tend to hit it a bit harder in the stop start but the highway makes up for the heavy foot.

Paul_OH

17-07-2009, 12:19 AM

Usually manuals always have better fuel economy figures, don't they?

Usually yes, when compared to the standard style of torque converter automatic. The DSG doesn't waste power like a standard auto due to it's auto clutches and you'll find that the DSG will quickly shift to a higher gear than if you're driving a manual. The Mk5 GT model is qtd as 7.7/100km for both the manual and auto - which is very realistic for 'normal' driving however on a regular drive to work I can easily get it down to 6.2/100km (50/50 Hwy & Residential) without really trying. My wife's best effort so far is 5.4/100 on a 30km 50/50 Hwy/Residential route.

To the TSI owners above, the engine really loosened up around 10,000km and economy just kept on improving. Early on in the peace the consumption was very ordinary but that was most likely due to my heavy boot 'experiencing' the new toy!

cheers,

Paul

guliver_twist

18-07-2009, 11:50 AM

Love the TSI.. I have a manual.. and once hitting about 6500Ks I really noticed the engine loosen up and the fuel consumption improve.. (Note I also did an oil and filter change)...
With the single trip I easily get figures of around 5.8 to 6.2L for short trips and seem to be avg around 6.5L with a mix of highway and urban... Probably a bit more highway...I also tend to shift up somewhat early i.e. (5th at about 65km/h) and (6th at about 90-95km/h)

I also drove a mk5 diesel recently and drove it in a similar way to my TSI and it averaged 5.8L /100.. The TSI was about 6.2L /100
All and all I am damn impressed with this car...

The only thing I am a bit worried about is the fact that the Turbo only kicks in around 3500rpm and I rarely shift that high (mainly around 2-2.5k) it just doesn't need it...It has me wondering if it is bad that the turbo gets so little use..

Cheers ppl

p.s. I am going of the MFD so I am not sure if it over or under estimates and I have the sports pack with the Michellins (which may also make some difference)..

cktsi

25-07-2009, 12:55 AM

The only thing I am a bit worried about is the fact that the Turbo only kicks in around 3500rpm and I rarely shift that high (mainly around 2-2.5k) it just doesn't need it...It has me wondering if it is bad that the turbo gets so little use..

Do what I do... give the turbo some exercise from time to time ;-) Even if you do it just once a trip, you won't kill your fuel consumption figure. :biggrin:

Umai Naa!!

25-07-2009, 07:41 PM

The figures quoted whether they be in a brochure, or on the yellow label on the windscreen, are not real-world figures. They are for comparison only.

But, as you're comparing the difference between the manual and the DSG, I feel, given the marginal difference between them, it would really come down to which one you'd prefer to drive.

mtaoz3

30-07-2009, 08:14 PM

The original VW 118 Man/DSG were incorrect, both on the web site and in the brochures. The CO2 readings were stupid, with the DSG using more fuel but making less CO2. Not only was this illogical, but it was also in contradiction of the fuel figures in the UK where the DSG was always slightly better than the Manual. Even though the Oz figures are different, the relativity should have remained.
What happened was that the CO2 figures were in fact correct, but they had swapped over (by mistake) the fuel figures. I rang them several times about it and whilst I won't claim that they listened to me, they must have realised the error eventually. The correct results are now on their site, showing the DSG using less fuel and producing less CO2.
I wonder what the legal situation is where somebody decided on the Manual solely based on the incorrect figures? From what I see in the local dealer, there are still some cars with the incorrect stickers, whilst all the latest deliveries have the amended ones...
Cheers

breezerboy

03-08-2009, 01:02 PM

I picked up my 118TSI with DSG from the dealer on Friday and I am in love (with the car, not the dealer, but he was nice if you like that sort of thing!). Anyway, on my first trip to work via freeway and a bit of city driving over 23km I got avg consumption down to as low as 4.8l/100km, with an overall avg of 5.1l/100km. Not bad. I emailed the dealer to ask where the engine was, because I thought they forgot to give me one... bloody quiet!

golfmk6

04-08-2009, 10:16 PM

brad

05-08-2009, 08:33 AM

wow you guys are getting some great km's here.. I have the new TDI Golf with 8023km on the clock

So it seems the Petrol is a lot better than the Diesel.. well have to wait for the lease to run out before I can swap..

I don't think your diesel is run in yet.

Expect your consumption to keep reducing until about the 25,000km mark.

RECRUT

05-08-2009, 12:01 PM

my 118tsi dsg sits around 6.5l per 100 on average

O2inmyatm

10-08-2009, 12:20 PM

My 118TSI DSG (Sports pack) is getting some fairly bad figures compared to what everyone else has posted so far.

Long term average is 8.4 L/100km at the moment. With short distant drives of 15 minutes (<10 km) averaging around 9L/100km. Total kms traveled on the car so far is approximately 2800 km. Have also driven on pure highway once or twice for an hour or so, which has resulted in a trip average of approximately 6.4L/100km.

And I'm not really driving the car hard either. Any suggestions on why fuel consumption is so terrible?

brad

10-08-2009, 12:38 PM

2800km the engine isn't run in yet. Your consumption will gradually improve right through to 25,000km.

Short trips = engine isn't up to temperature = poor fuel consumpton.

I get exceptional economy because 90% of my driving is on the motorway between 70-110kmh. If I was doing similar kilometres between (for instance) Hurstville to homebush in peak hour traffic then i know my consumption would be more like 10L/100km.
Also if my wife was using the car (lots of short trips) - same consumption 9-10L/100km.

Greg Roles

10-08-2009, 06:21 PM

wow you guys are getting some great km's here.. I have the new TDI Golf with 8023km on the clock and I have to say I'm not getting the best km's out of the car. my average is 6.1 l/100km for a DSG and that's not driving it hard.

On the highway I get about 5.2 l/100km with no cruise control and 5.6 l/100km with cruise control.. I have spoken to VW about the usage and they said this is in the normal range so no need to worry

So it seems the Petrol is a lot better than the Diesel.. well have to wait for the lease to run out before I can swap..

at least Diesel is cheaper than ULP at the moment..

Diesel can take 50-100 k's to "settle in" depending on who you talk to, but I didn't start getting lower economy till about 20k's. Also the TSI and TDI are so close in published economy, that in the real world they will always be close. Remember though, the notoriously optimistic VW MFD fuel figures are a factor.

Stealthy

10-08-2009, 09:21 PM

I gotta say I've always had amazing figures in my 103TDI.
I think the average figure has settled now to the claimed combined figures of 5.3 ltrs per 100 km and that's after driving over 3,000 km.
My driving is always surburban, although driving into the city of Adelaide at 6:15am isn't all that taxing.

neil

10-08-2009, 10:36 PM

wow you guys are getting some great km's here.. I have the new TDI Golf with 8023km on the clock and I have to say I'm not getting the best km's out of the car. my average is 6.1 l/100km for a DSG and that's not driving it hard.

On the highway I get about 5.2 l/100km with no cruise control and 5.6 l/100km with cruise control.. I have spoken to VW about the usage and they said this is in the normal range so no need to worry

So it seems the Petrol is a lot better than the Diesel.. well have to wait for the lease to run out before I can swap..

at least Diesel is cheaper than ULP at the moment..

Might be worth doing a manual calculation as the MFD may be out as mentioned.
I have always got great fuel consumption but noticed improvement when I approached the 17,000 k mark.
My overall average todate is 4.7L/100 with 95% freeway driving and definitely no aircon.

logger

14-08-2009, 11:48 PM

I have always got great fuel consumption but noticed improvement when I approached the 17,000 k mark.
My overall average todate is 4.7L/100 with 95% freeway driving and definitely no aircon.
Thats staggerring fuel economy. That equates to 60mpg! So by my calcs you should be getting 1170 KM per tank.

Out of interest are you putting a particular brand of fuel in it or just any 98Ron that you can get hold of?
I assume the car has a low fuel light. Has anyone got around to crossechecking at which fuel level it is supposed to come on as compared to when it actually comes on?
BTW I dont have a MK6 just yet but expect to have one very soon.

brad

15-08-2009, 10:14 AM

Out of interest are you putting a particular brand of fuel in it or just any 98Ron that you can get hold of?
I'd be thinking he has a diesel - nothing in this thread suggests petrol exclusivity.

I assume the car has a low fuel light. Has anyone got around to crossechecking at which fuel level it is supposed to come on as compared to when it actually comes on?
If they are like a MkV. The MFD starts having a hissy fit at just under the quarter tank where the red line starts. Can't remember if there's anything as primitive as an actual "warning light" - I just go by the MFD.

In my 1.8TSI 118kw Octavia, if I really lightfooted around & kept the speed down around 80kmh I'd probably average 5.8L/100km on the MFD (6.1L/100km actual).

logger

15-08-2009, 03:21 PM

I'd be thinking he has a diesel - nothing in this thread suggests petrol exclusivity.

If they are like a MkV. The MFD starts having a hissy fit at just under the quarter tank where the red line starts. Can't remember if there's anything as primitive as an actual "warning light" - I just go by the MFD.

In my 1.8TSI 118kw Octavia, if I really lightfooted around & kept the speed down around 80kmh I'd probably average 5.8L/100km on the MFD (6.1L/100km actual).

Aha.. that makes a lot more sense, thanks. What you can get on the Octavia with benzine sounds good. Although I S'Pose like you say, I expect you can readily get good economy if you drive simply drive uber conservatively. Most of us don't do that of course other than to prove it can be done :smile:

golfmk6

27-09-2009, 07:53 AM

wow you guys are getting some great km's here.. I have the new TDI Golf with 8023km on the clock and I have to say I'm not getting the best km's out of the car. my average is 6.1 l/100km for a DSG and that's not driving it hard.

On the highway I get about 5.2 l/100km with no cruise control and 5.6 l/100km with cruise control.. I have spoken to VW about the usage and they said this is in the normal range so no need to worry

So it seems the Petrol is a lot better than the Diesel.. well have to wait for the lease to run out before I can swap..

at least Diesel is cheaper than ULP at the moment..

Hey Guys,

well last time I posted the above I'm now getting even worse.. my new average is 6.2 l/100km for a DSG and that's not driving it hard. I'm really driving like an old lady some times people blow the horn at me... arhhhhhhh

On the highway I get about 5.4 l/100km with no cruise control and 5.8 l/100km with cruise control.... whats going on I'm using BP diesel I have done 12,356km and I do not drive it hard....

It has been back to VW but the service dept say there is nothing they can do to fix the fuel issues on the cars.....

mtaoz3

29-09-2009, 08:31 AM

Hi golfmk6,
I think you need to be realistic about your expectations, and be a bit sceptical of what others are claiming. I have just clocked over 11,000km on my Manual 103TDI and have averaged 5.84L/100km. This is not from the trip computer, but a measured average based on the fuel I put into the car and the odometer (The odo. is 0.5% out so that corrects the figure to 5.86L/100km). The trip computer reading is a measured 5.6% optimistic, and would show 5.34L/100km if it didn't reset every 100 hours. This figure is better than I got from my Mk5 Golf 103 TDI Manual, which averaged 6.1L/100km over its 78,000km stay with me. I live in Wodonga, where 6 cars at a Stop sign is considered as a traffic jam, and have done quite a few longish country trips and I don't drive hard any more. My driving can therefore only be considered as pretty easy on fuel.
Your average of 6.2L/100km with the DSG seems therefore about spot on for similarly easy driving.
I can't comment on what sort of driving others are doing, or whether they are using the optimistic factory computer for their readings rather than a tank by tank calculation. One can always pick a good run as well. Last weekend I drove to Phillip Island, and got a strong tailwind assist (which can make a huge gain). The trip computer read 4.2L/100km (actual 4.4L/100km) over 560km (which included going through Melbourne) so you can get a brilliant run and brag about it.
Also, remember that driving on a wet road can add as much as 20% to your consumption, dependant on how wet it is. In the wet you are powering 4 water pumps (your tyres) each capable of shifting a hundred litres of water a minute, so if things have been wet in your area your readings will be higher.
I wouldn't be too concerned about a figure of 6.2L/100km. To put that into perspective, my friend's wife has a petrol Astra auto. She is averaging 9.2L/100km whilst his VE SS is getting 14L/100km. We also have the much vaunted Prius as a fleet car, and it gets around 5.5L/100km on country trips, although round town it is lower reflecting the hybrid benefits.
Cheers

cktsi

09-10-2009, 11:29 AM

I drive mainly in very hilly parts of Sydney & don't get a lot of freeway driving. The car has done about 6,700km's on the odo.

I think it's useful to do a comparison of 2 vehicles with the same driver with the same driving pattern & driving routes. So, for comparison:-

Long term average (predominantly city driving)
Manual MarkV 2.0 FSI - 8.3 L/100km (verified by petrol fills)
DSG MarkVI 1.4 118 TSI - 7.7 L/100km (also verified by petrol fills)

If I do trips out of sydney & predominantly freeway driving
Manual MarkV 2.0 FSI - 7.3 L/100km (verified by petrol fills)
DSG MarkVI 1.4 118 TSI - 6.7 L/100km (also verified by petrol fills)

The 118 TSI long term average may improve as I approach 10,000km on the clock. For example, during the first 1,500km I was averaging 8.3L/100km between fills.

I'm not really an economical driver - I have my moments where I like using moderate to heavy throttle from the lights.

People driving in flatter parts of sydney & where there are more freeways may get better numbers for a 118TSI

cube_3

09-10-2009, 06:15 PM

Its good to Hear that the 118TSI is good on the fuel economy as I am considering getting one.

I currently have a GolfMK4 1.6 Litre and do 100Km round trip every day. Its about 60% Freeway and 40% suburban stop start. My long term average is 6.1 L/100 (did 5.6L/100 today due to Fridays lighter traffic) so Its good to know I can get that economy + have more performance with the 118TSI!

GolfAtom

16-11-2009, 06:11 AM

roy

16-11-2009, 07:25 AM

seems air con is the only reason...

LiFers

16-11-2009, 08:12 AM

The hotter the air, the thinner it is, the less O2 is in it.

In a N/A engine this is not a big deal, until you reach quite high elevations and then power loss, fuel consumption increases.

In a turbo car, this makes more difference because normally the car has more air and hence O2 in the cylinder to work with.

In an engine with such small capacity (1.4L) that relies heavily on a Supercharger and Turbocharger for it's normal power band, it would make a big difference. Then add Airconditioning load to that as well...

You will find the same problems with high altitude.

cme2c

16-11-2009, 08:49 AM

I'll see if I can check it out on mine, as we have a hot week coming up. Perhaps a bigger intercooler would help?

cktsi

16-11-2009, 10:15 AM

In a N/A engine this is not a big deal, until you reach quite high elevations and then power loss, fuel consumption increases.

In a turbo car, this makes more difference because normally the car has more air and hence O2 in the cylinder to work with.

I thought it was the opposite that N/A cars are more sensitive to less dense air (either due to higher temps or less air pressure at altitude) simply because the induction isn’t forced as it is in turbo & supercharged cars. By definition, forced induction means you have more control over air going into the combustion chamber.

However, irrespective of the mode of aspiration, all cars would be affected by higher temps.

I think it’s just the A/C. Case in point it was still around 34C out west in Sydney last week on the afternoon trip home and I switched off the climate control system & opened all my windows and sunroof. I actually managed 8.4l/100km on the trip home instead of the usual 9.3l/100km (note it’s only a short 7km trip). I normally run the climate control unit… so it was probably a combination of lighter traffic & the fact I wasn’t running A/C

On Saturday I ran the A/C for a short 4km trip and used 16l/100km as I was stuck in traffic & the climate control was running near full blast (chewing fuel at 1.3-1.4 l/hr at standstill instead of the usual 0.7-0.8 l/hr)

MurphyTheElf

16-11-2009, 10:50 AM

I tested the change in consumption in my GTI, using the airconditioner as the only point of difference. I watched the consumption figures on the MFD during a mixed freeway, suburban street drive. It was approximately 2l/100km, also. The temperature was in the mid 20's.

logger

16-11-2009, 11:16 AM

Should be reasonably easy to quantify. Someone with VagCom take a look at 002,2 (Engine load in %) with AC on and off. Also 050 & 057 look at RPM stabilisation in relation to AC status.

Maverick

16-11-2009, 11:30 AM

I don't know if it is happening to you guys also, but I noticed the fuel consumption of my 118TSI increase by about 2 litre/100km in the 30 plus degree hot days we have been having these last couple of weeks. During my daily commute to work I get around 7.3litre/100km and it jumped to 9.2 with the hot weather and A/C running. I don't think A/C should bump the fuel consumption up that much.

How long is your commute? Do more people drive when it's hot (ie more traffic)? Are you sure that your driving conditions are the same?

The AC system used in the Golf is very economical but depending on the difference between the outside temp and inside desired temp can use a lot more fuel for a short period when the AC has to work flat out but will drop off after this when it only has to maintain a temperature.

Don't forget that in high temperatures that the cooling fans will be running flat out as well.

Winding down the windows also uses more fuel and generally the AC will be more economical to run then have the windows down.

Corey_R

16-11-2009, 12:33 PM

I'll see if I can check it out on mine, as we have a hot week coming up. Perhaps a bigger intercooler would help?

I've heard that a bigger intercooler does make for a more efficient engine. You'll also experience some more HP due to the cooler air temps. On the APR site here (http://www.goapr.com.au/products/why_mkv_fmic.html) they discuss some results of testing they did on the APR FMIC vs the stock MKV GTI intercooler, but they don't mention anything about fuel economy (I guess it's a bit harder to test).

So maybe Guy or someone can elaborate whether the better effiiciency from cooler temps having the larger intercooler would relate into better fuel consumption if it were driven normally.

Guy_H

16-11-2009, 01:04 PM

Colder Air is better air for any combustion engine :)

cme2c

16-11-2009, 01:30 PM

Colder Air is better air for any combustion engine :)

Guy, do you have any intercooler replacements for the 118TSI ?

cme2c

16-11-2009, 01:35 PM

Maverick

16-11-2009, 02:55 PM

I'm wondering if the air control in the climate control makes a difference, particularly the automatic recirculation. Seems to me to be easier to keep 21 degree air at 21, than bring 39 degree air down. This is a different case to the car full of 40+ degree air in the carpark. And why Mrs cme2c only liked black. Just a thought or 2.

Putting the AC on recirculate makes a huge difference, some fresh air is still introduced but not much and the air going into the AC will be higher than the 21 it's coming out at.

Also don't run the AC at 21 if you want to save fuel, run it at like 25. It's the differential temperature that dictates how the AC will operate.

This site has some info that is relevant especially his tests on his golf.

http://www.airconditioningforcars.co.uk/ACpage05.htm

GolfAtom

16-11-2009, 05:04 PM

How long is your commute? Do more people drive when it's hot (ie more traffic)? Are you sure that your driving conditions are the same?
.

It's around 23km and the comparision was noted over weekly intervals and the traffic conditions were the same. This week is going to be a scorcher so I will be monitoring my fuel consumption closely.

My other car is diesel powered and it's fuel consumption doesn't seem to change with ambient temperature. I'm told diesels are more efficient than petrol engines under load.

sillygogo

16-11-2009, 07:04 PM

I would say the A/C did most of the damages.

usually idle at 0.3l/Hr ...with A/C is around 1.7l/Hr...

It pretty cool that the units change when the vehile idles..from L/100km to L/hr.

cktsi

16-11-2009, 07:43 PM

I think it’s just the A/C. Case in point it was still around 34C out west in Sydney last week on the afternoon trip home and I switched off the climate control system & opened all my windows and sunroof. I actually managed 8.4l/100km on the trip home instead of the usual 9.3l/100km (note it’s only a short 7km trip). I normally run the climate control unit… so it was probably a combination of lighter traffic & the fact I wasn’t running A/C

This afternoon I had the A/C on and my afternoon trip home used up 10.4l/100km. I know it's not totally scientific & like for like with my trip last week without A/C, but both occasions it was > 30C whereas my average of 9.3l/100km is from winter/spring.

usually idle at 0.3l/Hr ...with A/C is around 1.7l/Hr...

Wow! My idle uses 0.7l/Hr at best (or 0.6 without A/C). 0.3 is tiny. Does anyone else's TSI do around 0.3?

The AC system used in the Golf is very economical but depending on the difference between the outside temp and inside desired temp can use a lot more fuel for a short period when the AC has to work flat out but will drop off after this when it only has to maintain a temperature.

Absolutely agree the A/C will work harder during cool down versus maintaining. I have noticed the idle l/hr consumption with A/C is significantly less during "maintain" than during "cool down" (0.8 versus 1.3)

Stealthy

16-11-2009, 07:50 PM

Brendan_A

16-11-2009, 08:48 PM

I would say the A/C did most of the damages.

usually idle at 0.3l/Hr ...with A/C is around 1.7l/Hr...

It pretty cool that the units change when the vehile idles..from L/100km to L/hr.

Man 0.3l/Hr is very low. I've got an new TDi Jetta and it only gets about 0.7L/Hr at an idle.

cme2c

17-11-2009, 11:15 AM

The same happens in my 103TDI. Probably not as much though.
My average without air conditioner is 5.3l per 100km versus with air conditioner is 6.0l per 100km.
It really decreases the further I go (obviously).

Someone mentioned recycling the air rather than having fresh (hot) air coming in. Does the "auto" not do that itself? I have never had climate control before, so I've just assumed that on "auto" it would do all that for me. I am bloody lazy!

You set the recycling to auto. It then does it all for you, including switching to fully recirculating if the outside air is too polluted. Better than a convertible in the M5 tunnel:shocker::shocker::shocker:

cme2c

17-11-2009, 11:23 AM

Just refilled the 118TSI. 8.3 l/100Km by calculation . Last fill was 8.4. Last 2 cars used pretty much the same way, both got 10.6-10.8. They were a 2.4l Honda Accord Euro 5 sp auto and a 2.0l Peugeot 307 4 sp auto.

Corey_R

17-11-2009, 12:07 PM

You set the recycling to auto. It then does it all for you, including switching to fully recirculating if the outside air is too polluted. Better than a convertible in the M5 tunnel:shocker::shocker::shocker:

Yeah - but it will use outside air as much as possible and only switch to recirculate when it's poluted. If you manually set it to recirculate then as noted, it only then need to maintain your temp, e.g. 22 degrees, rather than keep cooling 35 down to 22.

It just means you then need to ensure you switch to outside air for a few mins every hour or so on really long trips to keep getting fresh air!

cme2c

17-11-2009, 07:00 PM

Yeah - but it will use outside air as much as possible and only switch to recirculate when it's poluted. If you manually set it to recirculate then as noted, it only then need to maintain your temp, e.g. 22 degrees, rather than keep cooling 35 down to 22.

Interestingly, the climatronic will set the air to recirculate if it is very hot inside the car. I misremembered and thought it was on the outside temperature

It just means you then need to ensure you switch to outside air for a few mins every hour or so on really long trips to keep getting fresh air!

Yes. I gave up microsleeps years ago. It seems to me that if the system can monitor outside air for impurity, it should be able to do the same for air inside the car and let in outside air when necessary.

Stealthy

17-11-2009, 08:58 PM

Thanks guys, that really helps.
I honestly thought "auto" would do it all for me. I guess the car can do only almost everything.
I have always used the recycle air function on other cars, so I will have to stop being lazy and do it too with my Golf.

sillygogo

21-11-2009, 02:56 PM

Sorry correction from previous post:

Idle without A/c 0.6l/Hr , With A/c 0.9L/Hr,

Must be getting old, me memory a not as good as few days ago.

cktsi

23-11-2009, 02:28 PM

Fuel figures from Sunday in Sydney where it was 41c out west & I drove to the eastern suburbs where it was 39c…

The trip from west to the east usually uses anywhere from 6.5 L/100 – 7.4 L/100. Sunday it used 9.5 L/100km (largely suburban driving)

The return trip from East to West normally uses 5.9L/100km - 6.3L/100 L/100km but yesterday I used 7.7 L/100km. Goes to show that the A/c working full time makes an incredible difference (largely freeway)

I never drove my MkV on the exact same route during the time I owned it, but in hot weather the 2.0 FSI was using 12.5 L/100km as a comparison in heavy traffic only out west. Take it FWIW.

gregozedobe

23-11-2009, 09:18 PM

I think engines are less efficient when running on hot air (maybe because they have to pump more of it to get the same amount of oxygen as contained in cooler air ? ), so that will contribute to higher fuel consumption, and then there is the extra drag of running A/C.

I pay close attention to the fuel consumption of my Transporter 2.5 TDI (because I do a lot more Kms in it than my Octy), and my TDI gets best economy at around 22-25C. If it is hotter or colder it uses more fuel (even without A/C), and wet roads also use more. It gets lousy economy with a really cold engine (ie Canberra winter), and improves dramatically once the engine is properly warm.

Flighter

03-01-2010, 12:47 PM

Hi all,

Apologies if this is another dumb noob question, but is it possible to adjust the average fuel consumption readout in the MFD Plus display (for MY10)? Mine seems to do it just for the journey, which resets once I shut the engine down, and I'd like to be able to do it over (say) the entire contents of a tank of fuel etc. I couldn't find reference to changing it in the manual or elsewhere.

Thanks,

Flighter

blutopless2

03-01-2010, 12:54 PM

not sure if the mk6 is the same as mk5 but am assuming so...
in the mfd the average fuel consumption, ave speed etc all have 2 readouts.
One will reset after the engine has been off for about an hour and the other will not reset till you do it.
there should be a little "1" or "2" marker next to the data to tell you which one you are in.
Pressing the reset button - but not holding - will switch between each one.
hth

Flighter

03-01-2010, 01:19 PM

Oh yes, that did it. Thanks!

Maverick

03-01-2010, 02:54 PM

Oh yes, that did it. Thanks!

There's heaps more interesting reading and features like this in the book in your glovebox. It's well worth taking the time to read it a few times :banana:

Flighter

03-01-2010, 08:31 PM

There's heaps more interesting reading and features like this in the book in your glovebox. It's well worth taking the time to read it a few times :banana:

Yeah, I eventually found it tucked away in there somewhere.

Corey_R

04-01-2010, 08:09 AM

lol
Yeah +1 to reading your manual from cover to cover! Anyone that has purchased their first VW and HASN'T done that is just robbing themselves of at least a few cool features of their new VW. Bump that up to many cool features for the un-intuitive and unobservant peoples out there :)

RW1

04-01-2010, 05:31 PM

Wrong info posted.

C.

Lima

04-01-2010, 06:16 PM

I wish VW/Audi handbooks were available online in PDF format like they are for MINI. Back in the day I'd read my MINI's manual a couple of times over before my car even built, haha.

I had to borrow manuals from the dealers before our GTI and S3 arrived. :emo_baghead:

Oh, to the OP if you're an iPhone user I would recommend the AccuFuel app which is great for recording consumption (if you're into that sort of thing). If you're not an iPhone user I'm guessing there's something similar for your phone/PC/whatever.

MIRSAD

04-01-2010, 08:06 PM

For people not interesting in reading VW instructions
There is VW America website with videos explaining some of the topics ... select your car ... select topic - watch and listen

Link is:

http://www.ownerwelcome.com/

Axis

04-01-2010, 08:49 PM

lol - that site was great. Took a while to load some of the vids but sweet to watch for a future VW owner...

I'd love to get my hands on a MKV GTI owner's manual...

Corey_R

05-01-2010, 07:26 AM

I wish VW/Audi handbooks were available online in PDF format like they are for MINI. Back in the day I'd read my MINI's manual a couple of times over before my car even built, haha.

+1 to that!

Maybe we should start a campaign to all visit the VW Australia site and put in that feedback. Then we could all call our dealers and give them the feedback! lol

cme2c

07-01-2010, 12:59 PM

There's heaps more interesting reading and features like this in the book in your glovebox. It's well worth taking the time to read it a few times :banana:

You can also find out the things your car DOESN'T have :mad:. We spent 10 minutes looking for the storage trays under the seats.

Corey_R

07-01-2010, 01:07 PM

Well, as it says in the manual, not all cars will have all features, as some are options, and some are country specific.

Can't believe you took 10 minutes looking for storage trays though... a 1 second waving of the hand under the seat (even whilst your sitting in the seat driving) would tell you if you had them or not! If you can put your hand under the seat, then you don't have them! lol

JonoB

10-02-2010, 10:15 PM

I've had my 118TSI DSG for 2 weeks and it really is sucking downing the juice.

There is no way it is acheiving anything near the claimed 6.4L/100km.

When I bought it, it was a touch under half a tank. It only achieved 240km before the warning light came on. It said I had 50km range remaining, I drove another 20km or so, and then refilled it all the way.

I put in 50.8L of Shell V-Power, and now 480km later, the warning light came on again telling me I had 50km remaining.

I've been doing a fair bit of city driving and been stuck in crawling traffic for 20 minutes every day, but still... this kind of fuel consumption seems REALLY poor for a car that is supposed to get 30-40% more range on a full tank.

I've read the forum where German VW Golf owners claim they get over 800km on a tank. I'm thinking of telling my dealership about it and complaining.

POLARBEAR666

10-02-2010, 10:39 PM

Hang in there. Provided that you followed the Motoman run in procedure and thrashed it you should start to see improved economy as the motor "loosens" up a bit.

I used to get 550 in city traffic... then slowly I started seeing 600.. then 650.. now I get 700 easy. You will find that the car is hoarding about 5-6L of fuel even when it says it has 0 km range left. So that is another 80km range right there. So if you got to 600 and it said zero range.. you could probably drive another 60km easy and then fill up.

I have monitored my fuel using scan gauge 2 OBD2 reader and have gotten 750 from a tank once.

One tip is to drive faster off the mark so that you get the benefit of the charger to get you up to speed. If you slowly move off and then chug up to speed you chew the juice as the car loves to sit in higher gears with low revs and lots of boost which eats fuel. If you plant it, it uses revs more and your on boost for a shorter period to get to 60kph. Then you just cruise.

So try VROOOOOOM cruise cruise cruise crusie stop. VROOOOOM cruise stop. etc

Also, your throttle may be in SLEEPY stupid mode which causes you to have to constantly plant it to just get the car moving which causes high boost and load and eats fuel.
Reset your DSG throttle learning by turning key to ACC, hold foot on accel pedal (car still in park with handbrake on) for 10 seconds, then release and start car normally. This will reset the DSG and it will relearn. Drive hard and fast and your car will use less fuel as it will adopt an aggressive approach to get to 60 and then cruise.

Hail

11-02-2010, 05:19 AM

It could be the way your driving your car. I own amk6 gti and drive it to work on the slowest road (proven) in Australia, Victoria Rd. BP Fuel gives some handy tips to save fuel.. one being traffic prediction. This is cut down on the stop/start and slow your approach to banked up traffic/lights etc.

I have 120kms range and I've already done 510 on my current tank... If you're opening your car up (throttle), constantly stop/starting, sitting idle etc you tend to get less range.

Or I could be completely wrong, you do the above and just dont get good mileage. In that case buzz the dealer and have a chat with them.

GolfAtom

11-02-2010, 06:26 AM

If you are driving in city stop/start traffic with the A/C running you will never get those figures..they are for a mix of highway and city driving. The Urban fuel consumption is what you should be looking at, that is around 8 litres/100km. And as the other have pointed out, your car is still new.

You'll get nowhere complaining to your dealer about your fuel consumption since it is dependent on a number of factors.

cktsi

11-02-2010, 07:11 AM

Far out jonob your car is still brand spanking new and the engine hasnt run in yet. Let it run in first. My engine only freed up after 2000km when consumption started falling.

In short distance high temp and high humidity weather i can easily do 9l/100km.

Just remember the adr is a combination cycle and probably not done under hot summer conditions. Stop start traffic chews up fuel no matter what petrol powered car you drive.

Dave8878

11-02-2010, 08:18 AM

I thought bthe same thing when I first started driving the 118TSI but as you get used to it and the car wears in it should be no problem to get 700 to 800km per tank. Obviously as stated above it can vary greatly depending on how you drive. Volkswagen have a handy little brochure on fuel saving tips so if anyone wants a copy please email me at david.crofton@ccmg.com.au and i'll send one out to you.

Kind Regards

David Crofton

brad

11-02-2010, 10:59 AM

my 1.8TSI showed a definate consumption improvement after 5000km and again after the 15,000km service.

AC will add ~0.7L/100km to the consumption.
Wet weather will add ~1.0/100km.
City/suburbs stop start will add ~1.5 - ~3.0L/100km.
Hot, humid Sydney weather will add ~0.5L/100km

The most I ever got out of a tank was 830km & it was running on fumes & it was all highway driving, no AC, fine (but cold) weather. I also have a very light right foot.

alphabeatsco

02-06-2010, 12:44 PM

what are some of the figures people getting in a full tank...
city driving preferably.

Brandon89

02-06-2010, 12:46 PM

City is around 540 for me

nau

02-06-2010, 12:49 PM

it really depends how you drive it
and I mean it can pretty much double if you drive it hard... thn again why get gti if you drive like a sunday driver

Christopher

02-06-2010, 12:56 PM

City driving only was getting around 500-550km.
City + freeway is getting between 650-700km

ConR

02-06-2010, 12:57 PM

I assume it's much worse with low km's on it right? I've only got 700 km's, but I'm on my second tank already...haven't been pushing it hard at all

Christopher

02-06-2010, 01:08 PM

Yeah - that's what I found.. First tank which combined a bit of freeway but more city got me ~550km...
Second tank which was basically next to no freeway got me ~550km too.
Third tank which is pretty even is will get me ~700km

*realised that the increased freeway driving will increase range but even in day to day city driving - I've noticed that the fuel consumption and range are reflecting more efficient consumption.

alphabeatsco

02-06-2010, 01:49 PM

yeah i think im getting around 500-600km too.
but i heard somewhere in this forum, someone got like 700-850km every tank!????
is that just the TSI!?

Christopher

02-06-2010, 01:58 PM

800km ballpark sounds like a 118tsi. Any tsi guys able to confirm?
700km is doable in a GTI - probably more on the upper extreme though and involves a even split between freeway & city (if not more freeway than city).

STV4SYT

02-06-2010, 02:08 PM

alphabeatsco

02-06-2010, 02:27 PM

do u get more fuel when u accelerate hard or drive like a grandma...i got a feeling i need to push it harder.
im changing at 2.5rpm.
the car seems so slow

cameronp

02-06-2010, 02:36 PM

I do 400km a week onthe freeway to and from work and a few shoirt trips to the shops etc around home. most i got out of a tank of 98 was 520 and best i got from 95 was just short of 600.

Im not dring it har everywhere and the freeway bursts are generally with the cruise set on an indicated 111km/h which equates to around 104/105 actual

That is over the past 6000km and i have yet to see the magic 700 number so many talk about.

Maybe i just enjoy the car too much getting to and from the freeway ;)

Cruise at a lower speed and you'll use a lot less fuel. On my TSI (which according to VW's figures is 10-20% more fuel-efficient that a GTI), I get not much more than 6L/100km cruising with 80-90km/h on the speedo on suburban highways around Perth. That would give 800-900km per tank. But hardly any of my driving is at that speed. On mildly hilly country roads with 110km/h speed limits, cruising with 118 on the speedo (112 actual speed), I was seeing more like 7.8L/100km, which would give you 600-700km per tank. These numbers are from the trip computer, which is pretty much spot on with what I get from calculating odometer distance and litres filled at the servo.

With any turbo-petrol car, fuel consumption will vary massively with the weight of your right foot and the traffic conditions. If you're the kind of person who buys a GTI rather than a Prius, you're probably not the kind of person who gets the best possible fuel consumption in any car ;-)

In my experience, the ADR "extra-urban" cycle is completely irrelevant to any real-world driving situation, while the "urban" figures are about what you'd expect from driving like a grandpa in moderate traffic.

Corey_R

02-06-2010, 02:58 PM

do u get more fuel when u accelerate hard or drive like a grandma...i got a feeling i need to push it harder.
im changing at 2.5rpm.
the car seems so slow
I think that there is a balance to be had. If you accelerate too slowly then you're accelerating for a long period of time before you get to the 'speed limit' and start coasting. Coasting in the DSG and in a manual uses NO FUEL at all (as long as the revs are high enough). Conversely, put your foot flat to the floor and you'll use an excessive amount of fuel, but only for a short period of time. It's very hard to tell which one is better in a scientific manner when our "test environment" is driving 500km+ and refilling the tank - but I'm sure that there is a balance somewhere in the middle between slow and flat out, since the real trick is the coasting :)

STV4SYT

02-06-2010, 03:51 PM

Cruise at a lower speed and you'll use a lot less fuel.

Really?

why would i want to cruise in rush hour traffic at under the speed limit by 20km/h or more?

Thats just dangerous in melbourne

elisiX

02-06-2010, 03:57 PM

450 first
500 second

mix of bumper to bumper, highway and giving it stick.

mfl

02-06-2010, 08:15 PM

In the mainly heavy peak hour CBD traffic I get stuck in, the computer usually shows in the low 10l/100km and with lighter traffic drops to about 9.6l/100. The Subaru Liberty I previously owned used about 12.8 - 13.5l/100km in the same conditions (and went a lot slower), Compared to the 18-20l/100km of my old Commodore V8s

I recent trip to Nowra fuel consumption got down to around 6.5l/100km, the Subaru (2.5 heritage) would get about 8.8l/100kmon the same trip. I certainly don't drive for economy, so I am impressed with the consumption.

cameronp

02-06-2010, 08:32 PM

I think that there is a balance to be had. If you accelerate too slowly then you're accelerating for a long period of time before you get to the 'speed limit' and start coasting. Coasting in the DSG and in a manual uses NO FUEL at all (as long as the revs are high enough). Conversely, put your foot flat to the floor and you'll use an excessive amount of fuel, but only for a short period of time. It's very hard to tell which one is better in a scientific manner when our "test environment" is driving 500km+ and refilling the tank - but I'm sure that there is a balance somewhere in the middle between slow and flat out, since the real trick is the coasting :)

Unless you're going down a steep hill (or in physics experiment land where everything is frictionless and drag-less), you'll still need to have your foot on the accelerator slightly to maintain your "at the speed limit" speed (until you approach the next red light and have to slow down again) - so you'll still be using a little bit of fuel. You'll also be cruising at that maximum speed for a greater distance, resulting in more total air resistance and rolling resistance. But I think you're basically right, accelerating too slowly will be bad for economy just like accelerating too quickly will be. Actually calculating or measuring this gets pretty tricky fast, though it might be possible to get some idea using the telemetry you can get from VAG-COM.

I just had a quick look on the internet and found an article on wikipedia claiming that naturally aspirated engines are at their most efficient near their peak torque. This sounds counterintuitive to me, because it would mean that you're actually better off accelerating much faster than just about anyone does when driving normally. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious.

Really?

why would i want to cruise in rush hour traffic at under the speed limit by 20km/h or more?

Thats just dangerous in melbourne

Oh, I worded that badly. I wasn't actually suggesting that you travel slower, just pointing out that you use a lot more fuel when travelling at higher speeds, so long stints on the freeway won't necessarily result in amazing mileage.

Maverick

02-06-2010, 08:37 PM

Oh, I worded that badly. I wasn't actually suggesting that you travel slower, just pointing out that you use a lot more fuel when travelling at higher speeds, so long stints on the freeway won't necessarily result in amazing mileage.

Since when? That's when you get your best mileage. Unless you want to tell us that there is a 60kph long straight road with no traffic lights, cars pulling out and where you can maintain 60kph without any problems?

Maintaining a constant speed without starting and stopping is going to give you the best fuel economy (common sense alone tells you this) and whilst this may be most efficient at ~95kph who really cares if you can maintain a constant 110kph.

Maverick

02-06-2010, 08:43 PM

what are some of the figures people getting in a full tank...
city driving preferably.

If you're posting in this thread and you have a GTI you should hang your head in shame and return it to the dealer and swap it for a TDI (especially if you're getting more than 550km a tank)

(although I do keep a record of my fuel usage down to the km but I don't care if it's 10l/100 or 12l/100 as I enjoy driving the car how I want to drive it)

cameronp

02-06-2010, 08:44 PM

Since when? That's when you get your best mileage. Unless you want to tell us that there is a 60kph long straight road with no traffic lights, cars pulling out and where you can maintain 60kph without any problems?

You've just described most roads in Perth outside of peak hour ;) Long runs of green traffic lights for a few kilometres at a time, and not too many other cars around.

Maintaining a constant speed without starting and stopping is going to give you the best fuel economy (common sense alone tells you this) and whilst this may be most efficient at ~95kph who really cares if you can maintain a constant 110kph.

Yes, maintaining a constant speed will give you better fuel economy than stop-start traffic. But in light traffic and lowish speeds - which describes most of the driving I do - I get much better economy in my 118TSI than on country roads. I found much the same with the Nissan Pulsar I owned a while ago.

Pearso888

02-06-2010, 09:07 PM

My GTI has done about 2,800kms and in a normal tank i get about 550-570km around town. I've done a few experinments to on my trips home from work. My best has been 6.8l/100km. To achieve this a was esentially coasting the whole way home at the speed limited (mostly 80Kms), i flooked every light green and made it home in great time. my worst was about 9.6-10 which involved speeding up to the limit as quick as i could using S mode and then just coasted in D at the limit. On average i get about 7.8-8 which i think is fantastic compared to my old Forester. This seems to be in line with the discussions above about getting the best efficiencies in driving.

Most days i drive my GTI normally but i love the fact that if i'm in the mood for a fun drive i can put my foot down and the GTI will accomodiate me.

In a few weeks time i'm going to drive my GTI from Canberra to Adelaide (about 1200kms) and back again as my sister-in-law is having a baby and i feel like a drive. I'll see how many Kms i can get out of a tank and report back i would love it if i could get 700-750kms out of a tank, but ill let you all konw how i go.

entice

02-06-2010, 09:15 PM

mine hasnt even seen 500kms out of a tank....

but i dont care. Wife returns 6.4L/100kms in the larger heavier Outback Diesel.. and that's city driving... so she makes up for my carbon footprint.

hooba

02-06-2010, 10:20 PM

do u get more fuel when u accelerate hard or drive like a grandma...i got a feeling i need to push it harder.
im changing at 2.5rpm.
the car seems so slow

For heavens sake son, drive that car like what it was designed for! :eclipsee_steering:

Start taking it to the red line until you get a stupid grin on your face. :D

AdamD

02-06-2010, 11:33 PM

In a few weeks time i'm going to drive my GTI from Canberra to Adelaide (about 1200kms) and back again as my sister-in-law is having a baby and i feel like a drive. I'll see how many Kms i can get out of a tank and report back i would love it if i could get 700-750kms out of a tank, but ill let you all konw how i go.

Suggestion: use a tank and a half getting to Adelaide safely and responsibly. Then make up for your prudence by using another tank on a nice little drive through our fine Adelaide Hills. No need to spare the throttle. ;)

Seriously though (and slightly OT), if you're going to do a big freeway run, I'd recommend you vary your revs and engine loads every few minutes if you can - your motor is still in the run-in stage.

Maverick

03-06-2010, 12:41 AM

For heavens sake son, drive that car like what it was designed for! :eclipsee_steering:

Start taking it to the red line until you get a stupid grin on your face. :D

x 2

I'm almost ashamed that I haven't had a ticket since owning the GTI and she just had her second birthday!

Christopher

03-06-2010, 12:16 PM

x 2

I'm almost ashamed that I haven't had a ticket since owning the GTI and she just had her second birthday!

haha - happy to donate any of mine to you Mav.... Have a think about - let me know. :P

flappa

03-06-2010, 12:30 PM

My current vehicle gets approx 27/100 yes thats correct 27 litres per hundred K's. It happens to be LPG though.

I'm with Maverick on this one , who on earth buys a GTI and worries about Fuel Economy . . . . struth :confused:

hooba

03-06-2010, 08:49 PM

x 2

I'm almost ashamed that I haven't had a ticket since owning the GTI and she just had her second birthday!

Keep trying Mav! :P

http://www.edmunds.com/media/ownership/driving/seniors.intersections.danger.zone/elderly.man.driving.500.jpg

MkVIGTI

03-06-2010, 11:12 PM

I get between 550-650kms per tank so I guess that's not too bad consideing the amounts of fun I get behind the wheels! :D

elephino

04-06-2010, 11:41 AM

I haven't gotten even 500 out of a tank...then again, I'm still on the first tank :)

Super

04-06-2010, 12:56 PM

My best has been 6.8l/100km. my worst was about 9.6-10

This is whats great about the GTI - its versatility. If you want to do economy runs, the fuel consumption does go down quite a bit, but then you've got the option to drive it enthusiastically if you want. Sure you use a bit of extra fuel, but its still fairly low versus other cars.

When I drove my boss' V8 Clubsport for a while, driving it normally meant 20L/100km consumption.. and coasting/short shifting only dropped it to 18L/100kms. Im sure the GTI will be more fun to drive than that too.

MariusGT

05-06-2010, 12:04 AM

GT Sport TSI - city 550 - 650.

had a couple down at 500 - but 550-650 is close to regular figures

freeway up to 850

Hail

05-06-2010, 08:04 AM

My GTI - City driving including short trips I get 570-610 every week (owned the car for 7 months now).

My best was 670 which included approx 1/3 of hwy driving.

cameronp

15-07-2010, 01:13 AM

Not such a long time ago in a galaxy far away (the TSI engine failure thread) a couple of people posted their fuel consumption and I was surprised at how much better mileage some people were getting than me. I'm curious to hear from other owners in an attempt to find out whether my car is atypical or whether I'm lead-footed / driving in very different circumstances to them.

I did some experiments on mostly-flat sections of highway on a still day, air conditioner off, setting the cruise control, resetting the trip computer and seeing what the average consumption over 20-25km was:

Cruise at 100 km/h: 5.4 L/100km.
Cruise at 110 km/h: 5.6 L/100km.

This seems somewhat at odds with a recent long weekend roadtrip around Margaret River and Pemberton where I averaged 7.5 L/100km over 1300km in three days.

Driving around Perth and suburbs I'm usually seeing 8-10 L/100km depending on traffic and lead-footedness. On long mostly-freeway trips I can get that down to 7 L/100km or maybe high 6's. These are figures off the "trip computer 1" display that resets automatically after not driving for a while.

I've been using 98RON fuel almost exclusively. I'm on a tank of Caltex Vortex 95 at the moment and can't tell any difference in fuel consumption or performance compared to 98. Car has around 5000km on it at the moment.

Any other owners care to comment what kind of mileage they're getting, whether the above sounds abnormal or about as expected?

bmck

15-07-2010, 07:15 AM

I use the AccuFuel app on my iPhone to log every fill-up since the car was new. I have done 12,000 km since December and am currently sitting on an average of 7.2 l/100km since new.

Fuel consumption has been getting slightly better as expected.

I usually do a one-hour each way commute from one side of the city to the other three times per week - a mix of 80 km/h and stop/start. I also spend about 10% of my time in Sport mode.

As can be seen here, I occassionally venture into the low 6s on a long trip....

http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/forums/images/imported/2010/07/IMG_0112png-1.jpg

Corey_R

15-07-2010, 09:55 AM

I'm curious to hear from other owners in an attempt to find out whether my car is atypical or whether I'm lead-footed / driving in very different circumstances to them
I did a search on consumption and found two other threads on this exact same topic (even had 'consumption' in their title!). So I merged all three into one and gave it a good name. You'll find more responses to your question by reading back through these pages.

clubbie

15-07-2010, 06:03 PM

Just filled up today 43 litres driven 493kms. So that equates to 8.7l/100kms all city driving. Not bad comprared to the Mazda SP23 which used 11+l/100km. Reckon I squeezed about a litre more in this fill. I keep records so short fills and overfills will sort itself out over time.

I know someone will say RTFM (but I am lazy) but how can you pull up litres used on the MFD so I can compare to actual litres put into the tank.

Cheers

prise

15-07-2010, 08:50 PM

118TSI with DSG, mixture of freeway and bumper to bumper traffic, 413litres and 6453 km. Works out to around a 6.4 l/100km average with it ranging from a best of 5.8 and a worst of 7.6. The consumption has been coming down so I now get in the low 6's most of the time. Rapid acceleration doesn't seem to hurt the economy much unless you start using full throttle. It uses fuel cut down to fairly low revs so minimising use of the brakes and lifting off throttle early coming up to lights gives a real improvement. I probably carry more corner speed than most which is good for economy/fun (bad on tyres though).

cameronp

15-07-2010, 10:01 PM

clubbie, that sounds similar to what I've been getting. I notice you've got the sports pack too. I wonder if the different wheels and suspension makes much of a difference. Or if it's indicative of driving style ;)

118TSI with DSG, mixture of freeway and bumper to bumper traffic, 413litres and 6453 km. Works out to around a 6.4 l/100km average with it ranging from a best of 5.8 and a worst of 7.6. The consumption has been coming down so I now get in the low 6's most of the time. Rapid acceleration doesn't seem to hurt the economy much unless you start using full throttle. It uses fuel cut down to fairly low revs so minimising use of the brakes and lifting off throttle early coming up to lights gives a real improvement. I probably carry more corner speed than most which is good for economy/fun (bad on tyres though).

That's impressively better than what I've seen. Have you had the 'recall' software update applied to your car? Did it make any difference to fuel usage at all? Also, I presume you're doing mostly long trips? (My drive to work is a bit under 5km, and usually the temperature gauge is only just nudging warm by the time I get there. Always get terrible mileage as a result.)

Just calculated my overall average, 399L for 5061km gives 7.9L/100km. Probably 90% of that would be non-commuting, i.e. light traffic suburban or highway driving.

clubbie

16-07-2010, 12:24 AM

Cam

Yeah the economy is not sensational as the car just begs to be driven "enthusiastically". LOL

Funny part is the first fill after delivery was nearly 10l/100km. Made sense with handover and car idling lots. So getting better with each tank.

Looking forward to Saturday when I am doing a trip to the Riverland and back - about 500k almost all highway. Just filled up tonight so I will fill up when I get back. I am expecting low 6's.

prise

16-07-2010, 11:54 AM

Have you had the 'recall' software update applied to your car? Did it make any difference to fuel usage at all? Also, I presume you're doing mostly long trips?

Yes I've had the recall SW for a couple of months now and its made no difference. I car pool so the car alternates between doing nothing or doing a 42km trip each way plus a few short local trips. The average speed is around 40km/h.

The following link will give you an idea as to what other owners (mostly in Europe) are getting from a 118 TSI with DSG.

http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/452-Golf.html?esearch=1&fueltype=2&vehicletype=1&power_s=118&power_e=118&gearing=4

prise

16-07-2010, 04:42 PM

I did a search to see what 118TSI DSG overseas owners are averaging (see the following link) and its about 7.7 l/100km.

Overview: Volkswagen - Golf (http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/452-Golf.html?esearch=1&fueltype=2&vehicletype=1&power_s=118&power_e=118&gearing=4)

Diesel_vert

17-07-2010, 04:48 AM

Interesting site. Using the search function, I compared Superbenzin (95) and Super Plus ( 98 ) between various Mk5 and Mk6 engines, but there doesn't seem to be much difference in consumption rates. The highest average difference I saw was less than 0.25 l/100km.

And as noted in the 118TSI engine failure thread, if lean-burn has indeed been disabled or deleted for the Australian market, then our consumption rates will be higher than what the Europeans can achieve, given that our petrol is still only Euro 4 (50 ppm sulphur).

Also, I hope people aren't forgetting to check their tyre pressures, and to add 0.3 bar (4-5 psi) if the car's been driven for more than 2 km.

prise

17-07-2010, 08:08 AM

VW's self study material for the dual charger engine mentions homogeneous mode (lambda 1) as a feature of the engine, describes the lambda probe as being the 'step type' and the catalyst as being the normal '3 way type' with no mention of NOx storage. Therefore I don't believe the engine has been designed to run lean burn. If it was running lean burn in other markets then a wide-band lambda probe would be required along with a NOx storage catalyst and there is no evidence of their fitment in other markets.

Diesel_vert

17-07-2010, 04:50 PM

Hmm, I see. That might explain why they changed to the meaning of the acronym TSI from "Twincharged/Turbocharged Stratified Injection" to "Turbo Straight Injection".

prise

18-07-2010, 07:01 PM

I checked the data on the OBDII connector for my 118 TSI yesterday and it looks as though the lamda probe has been changed to a wideband type for the current model however there was no evidence of lean burn occurring and in fact on wide open throttle and high revs I saw the lambda drop as far as 0.8. According to a friend who calibrates ECU's for a major manufacturer, the wideband probes only cost the manufacturer 30 dollars or so more than the older step type and enable better control so they are now becoming common fitments.

The other interesting comment he made was that with a small capacity forced induction engine, the effiiciency benefits from running lean burn are minimal compared to a large capacity naturally aspirated engine and the cost of the expensive NOx storage catalyst can be more easily absorbed in the cost of more upmarket vehicles. This would explain why BMW have gone down the path of lean burn for some of their models although not for the Australian market as our sulphur levels mean that the NOx storage catalyst wouldn't last the distance. I have heard of a grey import 5 series with lean burn running on BP ultimate but until the 5ppm level is mandated (which won't be happening anytime soon) we won't be seeing lean-burn engines downunder.

clubbie

18-07-2010, 10:38 PM

Well just got back and filled up 36l and travelled 503kms at an Average of speed of 89km/h. Dash said 7.2l/100 and actual was just a bit less.

Not fantastic but the cruise was set to 116km/h which was 110km/h by the GPS. Car has less than 2k on the odo.

Now 450k's of the kays were highway and the rest city/town (estimated). Was expecting the avg to be in the sixes. BTW I was not driving for economy.

As per my earlier question is there a way of pulling up litres used on the dash. Cheers.

brad

19-07-2010, 08:20 AM

Well just got back and filled up 36l and travelled 503kms at an Average of speed of 89km/h. Dash said 7.2l/100 and actual was just a bit less.

Not fantastic but the cruise was set to 116km/h which was 110km/h by the GPS. Car has less than 2k on the odo.
Neither the engine or the oil is run in yet. You'll notice a slight improvement after ~7000km & a noticeable improvement after 15,000km.

Corey_R

19-07-2010, 11:08 AM

As per my earlier question is there a way of pulling up litres used on the dash.

Not to my knowledge. I haven't actually seen this function on a car's display before...

clubbie

19-07-2010, 06:14 PM

Not to my knowledge. I haven't actually seen this function on a car's display before...

Thanks corey,

Just wondering out loud why it's not available when the data is used to calculate fuel consumption. Would be nice to have litres used/remaining read out.

DracZ

20-07-2010, 02:08 AM

Consumption can very quite a bit depending on the situation - I live near the city and most of my trips average <20 minutes, and are mostly of the start/stop variant. In those situations my car averages anywhere from 11-12l/100km. Recently drove to a friend's place in Cranbourne from the city which is about 50kms, reset the consumption meter and the car was averaging around 6~l/100km, non-stop cruising the whole way.

For reference the car has done roughly 3500kms, runs on BP ultimate and has had the ECU fix applied.

MariusGT

20-07-2010, 08:37 PM

ok so i'm gonna chip in with my MKV TSI (125) -- close enough!

just returned from trip to Thredbo from Sydney (via Yass for an overnight at friends farm).

fuel cons litres used per kms (own calculation) was 6.849L per 100. MFD was pretty close at 6.5

last tank (Cooma to sydney) used smack on 450kms and it hasn't quite used half. suggesting i'll get 900kms from tank if i get back on a freeway!!

GO THE TWINCHARGER! :banana::banana:

guliver_twist

25-07-2010, 10:54 AM

performance to fuel consumption this car is awesome! :) i average 5-8L most of the time..

coastie

25-07-2010, 11:23 AM

Average consumption from 20000km to 33000km has been 6.3l/100km some longer highway trips its below 6l/100km round town its up to 7.5l/100km.

clubbie

11-08-2010, 09:40 PM

OK my driving style either sucks or you guys have vastly different "interpretations" of city driving.

My average speed (using another cars readout) is about 28km/h as I live close to the CDB with short trips and no freeway travel.

Last fill tonight was 42.6l for 489km so about 8.7l/100kms. Good not great.

Corey_R

11-08-2010, 09:45 PM

Define "short trips".
Short trips significantly increase fuel consumption due to the fact that cars use significantly more fuel whilst coming up to operating temperature - which can take ~20 mins (water, oil, gearbox oil etc). There is more info in the VW brochure on fuel consumption in relation to the affect of "short trips".

clubbie

12-08-2010, 01:10 AM

Coaster

12-08-2010, 08:19 AM

I got my 118TSI (manual) at the height of the Perth summer. So the fact it was both new and operating in a ~40º environment meant that during the first 2 fills it averaged 6.85l/100km and 7.28l/100km.
Since then I have had averages more towards the 6.1's, a long trip averaging 5.95. Last fill averaged 6.53l/100km, which I put down to the very cold weather we've had, so it has taken an extraordinarily long time to reach operating temp.

Total average after 5,500km: 6.38l/100km

Corey_R

12-08-2010, 08:30 AM

Yep 3 out of 4 trips would be less than 10mins in duration. Interestingly I have the MFD on the oil temp and have not seen it go above about 65 degrees on the "short" trips. The longer trips get the oil up to the "normal" high 80's.

80's are normal on the 118TSI ;)

But yeah - your fuel consumption is pretty damn good considering most of the time your car isn't even on for 10 minutes!

ozgti

12-08-2010, 09:06 PM

Thanks corey,

Just wondering out loud why it's not available when the data is used to calculate fuel consumption. Would be nice to have litres used/remaining read out.

You could always buy a ScangaugeII ;)

Mine sits in the ashtray section, and have the cable coming up from underneath and into the back of the unit. I'll try to grab a pic later, but you can get accurate fuel figures as long as you know how much you filled up with and you can even calculate the costs per litre/km etc.

Last tank was 50l for 578kms. That's pretty average for me, combined semi city/peak hour and busy A roads.

Syd118TSI

13-08-2010, 09:13 AM

1st largely 'city' / suburbs driving was around 8.0 according to the readout. So far on the second tank it's under 8.

Syd118TSI

14-08-2010, 10:25 AM

At 6.0 290km into the second tank. :)

Edit - that 6.0 seems to have only been for that particular drive. I need to refer to the manual to see what each readout specifically means. I was thinking that '1' was an overall reading and '2' was for the current 'trip'. It seemed though, that the '2' has reset itself for a trip without the trip meter being reset - as on the last drive it started in the 16-17 range (when I flicked over to it on the MFD) and ended the drive at 6.5.

ctan

16-08-2010, 01:19 PM

I do about 100k return each day peak hour on the Sydney M5 motorway. The last 2 tanks have averaged 6.5l/100 km. I use BP ultimate.

cameronp

20-08-2010, 12:41 AM

MariusGT

20-08-2010, 10:12 PM

So I've just observed first hand the difference that altitude makes: went to dinner in the Perth hills tonight. Got 7.1 L/100km on the way up, and 5.1 L/100km on the way down (!). Even the up-hill figure is way better than I get around town.

Really?

i did notice great economy when i drove to thredbo recently. that is a steady incline though..

when i visit my sister down near Bega i drive the monaro/snowy mountains highway.. great economy on way down (using manual to hold speed rather than brake the entire way down hill). On trip back to Sydney though i SMASH through the fuel on way up --> very steep.

blanch0b

01-09-2010, 12:39 PM

Thought id start this thread - there are other threads on fuel consumption (per100km) but nothing that i can find on the least amount of kms youve acheived.... :confused:

Interested to hear peoples least, most and average kms they get out of a full tank of premium petrol for both the 118 and GTI.... particularly for the GTI

I have a gti and about to fill up for the first time, ive done around 490km for my first tank and i havent exactly been babying the car so im pretty happy with the economy thus far.... :banana:

pologti18t

01-09-2010, 12:55 PM

Stop using "kms per tank".... it's confusing and means nothing as we dont know what people mean by "a tank of petrol"

l/100km is the way to go.

blanch0b

01-09-2010, 01:08 PM

my l/100km varies so much for each drive, i dont know how to set it so that it gives me an average for a full tank? sometimes its says 18l/100km, other times 10l/100km....

also not sure what u mean when u say 'a full tank of petrol' is confusing - at the end of the day a full tank of petrol will get you X far... i know theres many variables involved

ozgti

01-09-2010, 01:27 PM

First full tank to the ding was 620.
My current reading/estimate is 720km Combined.
95 Ron tends to give me 50kms more per tank. Go figure!

Corey_R

01-09-2010, 01:37 PM

also not sure what u mean when u say 'a full tank of petrol' is confusing - at the end of the day a full tank of petrol will get you X far... i know theres many variables involved

What IS a full tank though?
Is a "full tank" when the car puts its 'low fuel warning' message up? Or when the car says that it's "empty"? Or 50 to 100km after the car says its "empty" and stalls because it's actually empty?

Even after you define that, the next hurdle is "How large is your tank"? Even in the Golf series there are two tank sizes - 55L and 60L. These are also not comparable to any other car with other sized tanks, again making the "full tank of petrol" a very vague and pointless exercise.

Hence why, as pologti18t stated, the question should really be, what's the highest and lowest and average L/100km you've received. Only then do you have useful information...

my l/100km varies so much for each drive, i dont know how to set it so that it gives me an average for a full tank? sometimes its says 18l/100km, other times 10l/100km...

All modern VW's have TWO trip meters. They have the '1' trip meter which gives the figures for just that trip (or subsequent trips within 2 hours of the car being turned off). You then have the '2' trip meter which gives you the total for all trips until you reset it (there are some limits, but they're more than you'd need to worry about). So all you do is reset the '2' trip meter when you fill up, and it gives you the "L/100km" and distance travelled and all that for "each tank".

This is detailed in your owners manual :)

ConR

01-09-2010, 02:00 PM

Sitting at 7.8 for me right now!! Was 10.1 for the first month of ownership. Getting better. 6500km on the clock.

Maltopia

01-09-2010, 03:16 PM

I accidently reset my memory 2 after 400 Km :emo_baghead:

I look to be getting 600 Km till empty on the first tank assuming the dealer filled it to the brim with BP Ultimate, though it came with 23 Km on the clock and some of that would have been before the dealer filled her up.

Flighter

01-09-2010, 05:55 PM

All modern VW's have TWO trip meters. They have the '1' trip meter which gives the figures for just that trip (or subsequent trips within 2 hours of the car being turned off). You then have the '2' trip meter which gives you the total for all trips until you reset it (there are some limits, but they're more than you'd need to worry about).

Although I understood that my No. 2 trip meter would reset itself at the 10,000 km mark, I found it would do so more often, and at seemingly random times (not that I'm saying it matters much).

Guy_H

01-09-2010, 06:04 PM

101.2kms from a tank. 42 laps of Lakeside raceway (MK6 GTI) - the reserve light doesn't stay on long at that consumption.

That was also 3.5 litres of oil I should mention too (Damn TSI's :mad: )

Corey_R

01-09-2010, 06:16 PM

101.2kms from a tank. 42 laps of Lakeside raceway (MK6 GTI) - the reserve light doesn't stay on long at that consumption.

That was also 3.5 litres of oil I should mention too (Damn TSI's :mad: )

Lol.... since no one is likely to have lesser KM per tank than that, and any TDI is going to beat a GTI for more, I think this thread can now be closed (or changed to something which makes sense, i.e. L/100km, and then merged with the existing threads!)

Brian

01-09-2010, 06:18 PM

Good one Guy, hope you filled the sump halfway else you would have been close to a "dry sump" car otherwise. :eek:

Tux

01-09-2010, 06:31 PM

It totally makes sense to me as to lowest and highest distance from a tank... :confused: If I was doing a trip to Queensland from Sydney I wouldn't sit down and work out that I would get 7.8Km/100l which would then enable me to travel X amount of km before filling up??? I would expect on that type of trip that I would be able to get over 600 Km from a tank before I need to fill. The other side of the coin is that most of my driving is in Sydney traffic so I only expect to get between 350 and 400 Km.. I'd expect even less if I spent a day at the track.

pologti18t

01-09-2010, 06:41 PM

Tux.... I just read the distance to empty readout then. It is constantly recalculated during the drive. Even then, when it reads 0km there is still a significant distance to go before its empty at cruising speed.

Tux

01-09-2010, 06:52 PM

I don't get your point pologti18t.. I think the purpose of the thread was just some light hearted anecdotal feedback not a definitive reference point... If someone gets 800Km from a tank then it's possible for me to get the same...not probable though considering how I drive.. ;)

booya

01-09-2010, 06:58 PM

my max was 650k and lowest was 400k (i have a scenic windy route to work when i feel like it). I tend to fill the tank till the till clicks and drive till there's 20k worth of petrol left. I know its not exact but the OP is just after patterns.

prise

01-09-2010, 07:17 PM

I regularly get over 800 km from a tank (average of 6.3 l/100km measured across 9000 km) (a mixture of city and freeway at an average speed of 42 km/hr) with a worst of 7.6 and a best of 5.8 l/100km. I haven't had it on a long interstate run yet.
118TSI + DSG

blanch0b

01-09-2010, 07:18 PM

this is exactly what i was looking for! i know theres too many variables to give exact numbers and the purpose of the thread is exactly what Tux stated - anecdotal feedback of ranges drivers typically experience.... this thread gives me (and prob others) an indication of the ranges they can expect to drive in their cars... thats all i asked for, and thats what some people want....

now we all know from raceday consumption to highway consumption - everything will be in between these two numbers depending on ur drive, i think some threads need not be too technical? :P

prise

01-09-2010, 07:32 PM

If you want to get a large sample size, check out the following - it's mostly european owners, but you can compare models, manuals vs autos, etc.

Overview: Volkswagen - Golf - Spritmonitor.de (http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/452-Golf.html?fueltype=2&vehicletype=1&power_s=118&power_e=118)

Tux

01-09-2010, 07:35 PM

i think some threads need not be too technical? :P

But it's a chance for us to show off how clever we are!:P

aaaaah

01-09-2010, 08:27 PM

For my MKV GTI it's:

Most is about 600km from 50L (or roughly 8L/100km)

Worst is 140km from 35L (so about 25L/100km) after a visit to Wakefield.

cameronp

01-09-2010, 08:48 PM

101.2kms from a tank. 42 laps of Lakeside raceway (MK6 GTI) - the reserve light doesn't stay on long at that consumption.

Impressive! What was the average-fuel-o-meter saying after that? Does it top out at 49.9 L/100km the same way as the instantaneous gauge does?

Sqeaky

01-09-2010, 09:04 PM

729kms (MkV GTI) from eastern suburbs in Melbourne to Goulburn.

I wouldn't recommend it, wife went nuts when the distance to empty hit zero and we were still 10km from the petrol station!

solistics

01-09-2010, 09:23 PM

My MKVI GTi with just over 5000kms on the clock averages 6.2l/100 on my morning commute (6am, light traffic) over 38kms of freeway, 12kms of dual-carriageway and 14kms of twisty mountain roads. The return leg (6:30pm, medium/heavy traffic) nets 7.3l/100. I average between 620-650kms a tank (filling with approx. 20km showing on the MFD and filling with Shell V-Power until the first click.

I haven't reset my no.2 average l/100 since I picked up the car and it's currently at 6.8l/100. Given my 335 averaged 9.6 over it's 3 year life I'm pretty impressed...with both actually!

On a particularly spirited drive between Healesville and Kinglake (Chum Creek Rd, 33.5kms of awesome fun...highly recommended) the other weekend, I averaged 16.3l/100.

sameatworld

01-09-2010, 10:01 PM

I think on my MKV GTI APR stg1, got just over 700km on the way down to Sydney from Gold Coast. Worst was probably around low 400.

On the R, have just got the lowest ever so far 418km and it took 50L to fill up. 5000km on the clock. Most I got so far is around 600km. Mind you, most of my driving is stop start. Fanging it for 5kms then engine off then engine on for another 5km ect. Stupid work.

Must say that I'm very impressed with the kms the MKVI GTI are seemingly able to do without much nannying! That new engine is a beaut.

MariusGT

02-09-2010, 06:11 PM

lets throw a MKV GT Sport in for good measure:

worst (entire tank sydney traffic driving) was a tick under 500kms -- almost empty.
best (95% highway) was 860kms with MFD reading 30kms until empty -- so approx 900.

hooba

02-09-2010, 06:14 PM

rs73

02-09-2010, 10:33 PM

there's so much variety in traffic condition and type of road travelled to justify how many kms you get per tank, as well as at what point you fill up that you consider 'a tank', my wife normally went nuts as soon as the orange warning light comes up on her car, that's her definition of 'a tank', while on mine I will drive around till it hits almost 'E' (about 52ltr refill)

last refill I probably do about 510km with 52ltr 'a tank' prior to that was about 400-ish. usually travelled on morning traffic jam around 7:40am over 17km of non-highway road network with traffic lights, and going home around 5:30-6pm which is a lot worse usually.

if you guys are interested, google 'hypermiling' and read some of the techniques they suggest there... it could get into a challenge and obsession indeed!

Pepe

02-09-2010, 10:39 PM

Wasn't a full tank, but did 4 laps of the Nurburgring 2 years ago in a Mk5 GTI DSG and that was over 30L of fuel...

stealthfalcon

03-09-2010, 08:37 AM

5 days of urban driving, 2 days of countryside cruising, about 550 km to 620 km per tank ... or about 8.5l/100km. I think it is not bad for my car, considering that the urban driving route is full of red lights.

Recently, I was stuck in a jam on a 9km stretch along M5, and I got 9.1l/100km. Couldn't believe it, but of course, with MT, there's certain stretch where you do not need to press on the accelerator. :)

Corey_R

03-09-2010, 09:01 AM

The other night from Goulburn St in Sydney, out to the Ettamogah pub at Rouse Hill, I got 5.5L/100km in my Polo GTI !!
Not bad for a car with a combined rating of 7.9L/100km. Oh, and I've got the APR Stage I running on it too.

Of course, I still probably average 8.2L/100km for a complete tank... I just can't resist mashing the pedal from time to time :D

alebonau

03-09-2010, 09:36 AM

spend too much time in trafic for relevance !

a few questions, what have people found to be a tank ? ie whats the most petrol you got into a gti. last fill I got 52L in and most I have is 55L ! hehe I sort of forgot after the ding went to fill up. lucky didnt run out !

I am little confused re resetting the '2' L/100 trip meter. the 1 trip I find pretty useless as a lot of my trips can be pretty short. I'd rather know my L/100 from a tank so being able to reset '2' would be handy. any one can let me know how would be appreciated. and no I havent RTFM. Its in the car and usually when get in the car want to go for a ride hehe

elisiX

03-09-2010, 10:00 AM

My daily commute is 20KM to work in Ultimo from Rhodes via Wynard (to drop the girl off), and 15KM from Ultimo to Rhodes.

Including the weekend driving I am doing about 350KM a week and I tend to fill up every Saturday with 1/4 or so left in the tank.

This week I did a trip to Terrigal with the normal weekly commute and got to 520KM with the MFD giving me 20KM warning to empty.

I tend to do a fair bit of driving in S so I don't think it's all that bad really. Always running highest rated 98ron.

elephino

03-09-2010, 01:40 PM

I get between 7.1L/100 and 7.7L/100 on my 25km drive to work, and a slightly worse by up to 0.5L/100 return journey. Both are an improvement of around 0.5 over the old MkV GTI.

brad

03-09-2010, 02:07 PM

ozgti

03-09-2010, 02:15 PM

best consumption was 6.1l/100. Have done that 4 times: 495km, 531, 568, 667.
worst 7.9l/100 (3 times).
average to date 6.8L/100 but that would be better without the remap & the wide tyres.
I regularly clock more than 700km between fills (and the fuel warning doesn't come on). Most was a few km over 800 for 51L.

edit: the most I ever filled was 56L:emo_baghead:

Petrol or diesel? I'm struggling to break 610, (Although I probably will this tank). City - hornsby at 8am, not the most free flowing of traffic out there!

brad

03-09-2010, 02:26 PM

Petrol or diesel? I'm struggling to break 610, (Although I probably will this tank). City - hornsby at 8am, not the most free flowing of traffic out there!
Petrol. Running 98RON helps. My regular run is Blakehurst to Campbelltown against the traffic so I'm in 6 and cruising. The remap hasn't totally killed it - drove home the other day and traffic was heavy but flowing so I was sitting on 80kph So after 40km at the M5/KGR junction was sitting on 5.3L/100 - 5km later at home it was 5.8L/100.

This is in a 1.8TSI Skoda - so same family of engine as GTI but MkV chassis - probably heavier than a Golf too. It's also fully run in - 54,000km. I'm not sure why Guy H had a bitch about oil consumption - mine uses maybe 200ml every 15,000km. Never had to top up.

This probably sounds stupid but I get the best economy if the ambient temp is around 22-28 degrees. I have no idea why.

Coaster

04-09-2010, 01:08 PM

This probably sounds stupid but I get the best economy if the ambient temp is around 22-28 degrees. I have no idea why.

Not stupid at all. My 118TSI has had the best fuel consumption during the month of May, when the mean air temp was 21.7ºC.

My highest consumption was unsurprisingly in end of Feb/start of March, when the temp was around 40ºC. I averaged 7.27l/100km for that tank, but I only just got the car then.

My lowest consumption is 5.95l/100km over a combined 1106km trip. So if you equate that to a 50l tank refill, that is 840km :banana:

hooba

04-09-2010, 01:12 PM

This thread should be renamed to "Spot the accountant!". :D

brad

04-09-2010, 01:46 PM

This thread should be renamed to "Spot the accountant!". :D

I'm an engineer & work with spreadsheets all day. Seemed kind of natural to graph my consumption to the Nth degree:emo_baghead: You aren't implying I'm a bit anal retentive are you? :-)

Corey_R

04-09-2010, 03:10 PM

You aren't implying I'm a bit anal retentive are you? :-)
Nothing wrong with being anally retentive... I mean, who wants to be the opposite and wear nappies ?! ;)

hooba

04-09-2010, 05:10 PM

I'm an engineer & work with spreadsheets all day. Seemed kind of natural to graph my consumption to the Nth degree:emo_baghead: You aren't implying I'm a bit anal retentive are you? :-)

No, just observing that there appears to be plenty of spreadsheet action going on. :)

I am however a bit disturbed by Coreying offering you some encouragement when it comes to anal! ;) :D

alebonau

04-09-2010, 09:09 PM

flappa

07-09-2010, 12:06 PM

Started out approx 7.4/100 equates to about 700k's per tank.

recent trip from Canberra to Sunshine Coast averaged about 7.7/100.

Trips around Canberra day to day , averaging about 9.3/100

blanch0b

07-09-2010, 12:59 PM

this is great stuff guys, really useful.. this can be an obsession if u start to take it analy, i mean, well, you know what i mean :)

im struggling to get 500km out of a tank (with about 5l to go) but it is a brand newie (only filled up twice now) so havnet even hit the 1k mark.... i take it fuel economy gets about 10-1%ish+ better after the first few thousand kms?

flappa

07-09-2010, 01:49 PM

I've found very little difference , from new to now (8000k's), whether Its me or my wife driving , using auto or manual changes (DSG).

I certainly haven't babied the GTI since getting it, but I haven't just coasted around either.

The difference between say 80kph and say 115kph in fuel , I found to be marginal , maybe 0.2 - 0.4/100k's. Its about the same if my wife is driving against my driving , and whether I use straight auto or use the manual function.

Around Canberra I average about 9.5/100 , my wife averages about 9.3/100. I believe the Book says city average is about 10/100 so I'm OK with that.

I didn't buy the GTI with fuel economy in mind, but I'm also not in the habit of just chucking money away.

Nath

07-09-2010, 09:29 PM

great little app for the iphone (and related apple stuff) called AccuFuel has been a help to me, best so far is in the high 8.xl/100km around Sydney commuting so pretty happy.

hooba

07-09-2010, 09:49 PM

In my GTI the best I've seen on the MFD is 5.8L/100km (!), and tonight I did around 65kms of mainly freeway driving and got 6.7L/100km despite not driving for economy.

MurphyTheElf

08-09-2010, 12:32 AM

After almost 15,000kms (will be booking my service tomorrow), my long-term average is 8.3l/100kms. I do mainly short trips, but with quite a bit of freeway driving as well. Around town I have a fairly heavy foot, but I don't exactly test the ESP at every green light. I primarily use manual-mode, down-shifting when slowing and up-shifting well past where the DSG would in standard auto mode.

A couple of long rural trips have been thrown in for good measure, usually averaging around 6.5 - 7.0 over the course of a 700km round trip. I still get that economy despite the fact that I overtake fairly often, and when I do, it's foot to the floor to reduce the time I'm on the wrong side of the road.

prise

10-09-2010, 11:38 PM

This probably sounds stupid but I get the best economy if the ambient temp is around 22-28 degrees. I have no idea why.

I have a theory that there is an optimum temperature for fuel economy which changes depending on the speed.

- If the temperature is high then the air-con will start to hurt the fuel consumption.
- If the temperature is low then the car takes longer to warm up, colder bearings, tyres, etc give more rolling resistance and the denser air creates more aerodynamic drag.

So the optimum temperature will depend on your trip length and the type of driving.

MSR

23-11-2010, 02:25 PM

I always like to know just what I can get away with if I really have to so ran the first tank out of the GTI till the trip meter was saying 5 km to go and got nearly 52 litres in till the first cut off on fast fill. Managed to get 54 in it on half flow without overflowing it. Yes I know I'm not supposed to go past the fast fill cut off.

Would I be correct in assuming when VW says its a 55 litre tank I can actually use 55 litres? The STi claimed 60 litres but by 54 you were walking.

Once I hit 0 km and the bottom of the gauge is it pretty much game over or is there a 20km or so idiots margin???

Not planing on a regular thing but its nice to know exactly what you can do if you get caught out in the country.

Transporter

23-11-2010, 04:24 PM

Once I hit 0 km and the bottom of the gauge is it pretty much game over or is there a 20km or so idiots margin???

Not planing on a regular thing but its nice to know exactly what you can do if you get caught out in the country.

Most likely it's not going to be the same amount that will be remaining in your tank at every time when the needle hits "0" and you could be stranded without the fuel.

I always fill up when I have a 1/4 of the tank remaining and I monitor the km's I do before the needle hits 1/2 and 1/4 and it is always within 50-70km :)

hooba

23-11-2010, 07:23 PM

I got a new record out of the MFD on the weekend, 4.8L/100km. :D

rageR

23-11-2010, 08:13 PM

Corey_R

23-11-2010, 08:30 PM

Im always doing short trips.
City driving.

Answered your own questions right there :)

hooba

23-11-2010, 09:04 PM

Wow seriously.
Don't know how all of use are getting so much out of full tank.
Something must be really wrong with my car.
I've got a 6 speed manual mk6 gti.
Just ticked 3000ks.
Always fill up with 98 bp ultimate.
Never seem to get over 400ks out of full tank.
Mfd is always reading 12-14L/100km.
Im always doing short trips.
City driving.
Always keep revs low.
Now and then I let it breathe a bit.
Use 6th gear more as I hear some Guys say that may improve fuel economy but nothing is working.
Have it booked it at vw this Friday.
Need to get this checked up.
Sick of filling up twice a week.
Any ideas anyone?
Should I be changing fuel?
What fuel are most of use finding you get more kms out of.

The majority of my trips are less than 5 minutes, heavy traffic, inner city work and I get similar consumption to you. I've found that the economy drops quite a lot on longer runs, and come the conclusion that it runs very rich when cold in order to quickly get things up to operating temp as none of my previous cars have had such big difference between short / long trips.

That said, I'm still blown away at how efficient this engine is once warmed up.

Transporter

23-11-2010, 09:05 PM

I got a new record out of the MFD on the weekend, 4.8L/100km. :D

Sorry mate, that doesn't count! :duh:

:)

Converted

23-11-2010, 09:25 PM

Just ticked 3000ks.
Never seem to get over 400ks out of full tank.
City driving.
Always keep revs low.
Now and then I let it breathe a bit.

I'm with you here but with DSG, city driving most of the time, between 400-450kms per tank on premium unleaded (95).
Once, I managed 550-600kms driving long distance (freeway).
I used to think 98 octane is more efficient (cost wise) but on both my previous Integra Type-R and this GTI, this doesn't seem to be the case. I personally feel that the 98 burns a lot easier thus quicker (no surprises there actually) than the 95. And I know the 98 is meant to be cleaner so better for your engine. Between the two, the 98 makes the engine more responsive and parts running inside it 'feels' lighter, whereas the 95 makes the engine feel more solid like heavier/more mass.
Not sure if I'm making sense here in layman's terms.

rageR

23-11-2010, 10:01 PM

Between the two, the 98 makes the engine more responsive and parts running inside it 'feels' lighter, whereas the 95 makes the engine feel more solid like heavier/more mass.
Not sure if I'm making sense here in layman's terms.

So your saying the 95Ron is better for our car?
Feels better?

Corey_R

23-11-2010, 10:21 PM

Sounds to me like he is saying 98 is better, but 95 has given more fuel economy.
Do a search on the forum and you'll find lots of 95 vs 98 information.

Converted

23-11-2010, 10:24 PM

So your saying the 95Ron is better for our car?
Feels better?[/QUOTE]

Sorry I wasn't clear, in conclusion...
The 95 is definately more economical/fuel efficient and feels more 'solid' between the two.
The 98 has more ummmphhh to it at startup, pick-up and when revving.
So for daily driving, I've opted to stick with 95. On occasions when I feel like some spirited driving, I put some 98 in. :rolleyes:

Ahhh Corey_R actually understood me.

mfl

24-11-2010, 11:15 AM

Wow seriously.
Don't know how all of use are getting so much out of full tank.
Something must be really wrong with my car.
I've got a 6 speed manual mk6 gti.
Just ticked 3000ks.
Always fill up with 98 bp ultimate.
Never seem to get over 400ks out of full tank.
Mfd is always reading 12-14L/100km.
Im always doing short trips.
City driving.
Always keep revs low.
Now and then I let it breathe a bit.
Use 6th gear more as I hear some Guys say that may improve fuel economy but nothing is working.
Have it booked it at vw this Friday.
Need to get this checked up.
Sick of filling up twice a week.
Any ideas anyone?
Should I be changing fuel?
What fuel are most of use finding you get more kms out of.

My GTI now has almost 20,000kms and driven in similar conditions get around 420 - 440km per tank. The fuel economy has improved slightly as the car has covered more kilometres and country driving sees the consumption drop to around 7.0 l/100kn. The inner city driving starts off at about 18.0l/100km and ends at about 11.0l/100km by the time I am home.

I use 98oct BP and rarely use 6th gear and might occasionally use 5th gear above 60km/h. I don't short shift or drive it for economy.

The GTI give around 10-15% better economy than I used to get from my 2.5l Liberty in the same driving conditions, with about twice the performance.

elephino

24-11-2010, 12:03 PM

I drive 25km each way from home to work with speed limits of 50, 60, 70 and 90km/h. I get between 6.7 and 7.7L/100km most days in one direction and 7.0-8.3L/100km the other direction (there are differences in traffic mostly). Both sets are about 0.5L/100km better than my MkV.

On the trips there are many things that affect the fuel economy, mostly due to traffic lights and slow traffic (mainly on hills) and also 2 school zones (where 3rd gear isn't great for economy but 4th gear feels too sluggish).

Mostly I'm waiting for Christmas with a really long drive of around 1200km each way to really see what the highway economy is. I have a petrol station in mind which used to be at the end of the tank and I expect to have a reasonable amount to spare this time.

Ryan_R

24-11-2010, 08:38 PM

On Melbourne Cup day - I did this journey on one tank of fuel (was a spirited drive as well on the way up):

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Lyall+Rd&daddr=-37.9768711,145.3586042+to:-37.88028,145.53128+to:-37.52573,145.67023+to:-36.888634,146.3095638+to:-36.34137,146.33866+to:Hume+Freeway+to:Princes+Hwy&hl=en&geocode=FQyzu_0d1sepCA%3BFdmEvP0dDP-pCClnDyIRYhjWajFA2wPtdFYEEw%3BFSj-vf0dkKGsCCl5SqrzLdgpazGxcybsdFYEEw%3BFR5nw_0dVsCuC CmzMomOsjwoazHR5n4OpHkFEw%3BFcYfzf0du4G4CCnjv3mPlF EmazHB15kOpHkFEw%3BFYZ51f0dZPO4CCmHDCVi-NomazHRA6AOpHkFEw%3BFW-I2f0djfDBCA%3BFV66u_0dFYCpCA&mra=dpe&mrcr=0&mrsp=5&sz=12&via=1,2,3,4,5&sll=-36.387847,146.36879&sspn=0.235754,0.527&ie=UTF8&ll=-36.888408,146.162109&spn=3.747442,8.432007&z=8)

The drive up was actually abit quicker than the drive back too :D

prise

26-11-2010, 08:01 PM

My 118 TSI with DSG has averaged 6.3 l/100km over 13,000 km since new so I normally get over 800km on each tank.

Driving on wet roads seems to add up to 0.3 l/100km - anyone else notice this? I suppose it makes sense given the amount of water the tyres have to clear at highway speeds.

breezerboy

31-12-2010, 10:05 AM

I recently drove 960km from Mt. Waverley in Melbourne's south-east to Bilgola Plateau on Sydney's northern beaches in a 2009 MK6 118TSI (DSG) Golf with 2 adults, 2 kids and luggage and not only did I do it with one tank of (98) fuel, the trip computer said I had another 170km left to go! I averaged 5.5 litres per 100 km, travelling at the 100 / 110km/h speed limits along the Hume. Not bad I reckon - I did fill it up a lot (maybe too much?) prior, but still, I've done that drive many times in other cars and have never been close to making it in one fill. I thought I would need the TDI for that!

Gonad

31-12-2010, 06:17 PM

Just done over 3700 kms in my new Golf R and the fuel consumption is reading 9.5 l/100km. This is off the back of a trip from Canberra to Gold Coast and back and the consumption was reading around the 11.5 mark prior to the trip.

In terms of km per tank, around Canberra with around 1000km on the clock I was struggling to get to 500km before refuelling, however during the road trip, I got 603 kms for the last stretch (Taree to Canberra) and filled the tank up with 55 L of BP 98 RON at the end.

FWIW - I've done this same trip in my old car (98 VT Yobbodore 3.6l V6 running 91 RON - 70 litre tank) many times, and although I stopped at the same servo in both cars, the Commodore would avg 550 kms per tank in town, but approx 800 km per tank when on this trip.

Idle

31-12-2010, 07:55 PM

My 09 DSG TDI is starting to loosen up a bit now.

Last fill was 51.12 litres for exactly 930K of which about 300K was highway/twisty country road, rest give-and-take suburban.

I neither baby it (bad for diesels) nor thrash it (bad for any machine — although the rest of the traffic usually seems to drop back a long way when I'm first off from lights...) and rarely turn the AC off.

I fill to as much as the tank will take (not just to cutoff) — trickle the last few litres in to settle the foam and always at the same pump unless too far away (so far that has meant always at the same pump — fuel has been Caltex Vortex after the first tank.)

60+ years ago I couldn't get that out of 1920's Austin Chummies, of which I had several — nor a Triumph TR2.

However, I expect the other overheads will cancel out most savings on fuel (that wasn't why I bought a diesel — just wanted to see what they could do before I become too old to drive, which won't be long now (some less charitable rellies say it's already past time...))

markwid

31-12-2010, 09:09 PM

I fill to as much as the tank will take (not just to cutoff) ; trickle the last few litres in

Hmnnn, I thought overfill is not a good thing?

Smart Car User : Don't Overfill your car Fuel Tank (http://overfillfueltank.blogspot.com/)

prise

01-01-2011, 09:36 AM

Hmnnn, I thought overfill is not a good thing?

Smart Car User : Don't Overfill your car Fuel Tank (http://overfillfueltank.blogspot.com/)

I don't think this article is as relevant to diesel fuel as it doesn't have the same problem with expansion of vapour that petrol does. Diesel tanks can be brimmed provided there is enough space to allow for expansion of the fuel as it heats up. Assuming diesel comes out of the underground tanks at 15 deg and heats up to 45 deg in the vehicle fuel tank, the expansion of the fuel will be around 2.5% or just over a liter for a typical fill so it's not really a problem, expecially if the car is driven immediately afterwards.

Point 1) in the article doesn't apply in Australia as our servos don't use vapour recovery systems like are required in the US and many other countries (IMO they should in built up areas) so the excess will end up on your shoes :-)

Ryan_R

01-01-2011, 09:53 AM

Hehe - I know of one pump in particular at a Shell servo that didn't auto-stop when the tank was full - would always spill out :(

Zoza

01-03-2011, 09:31 AM

So I picked up the car exactly 1 week ago. I've done ~500km both urban and freeway driving (M4/M5).

My fuel consumption is 15L/100km. I've noticed that if I leave it in D, this will go down to around 11-12L, however in S I'm looking at 15L.

Coming from a 6L V8, 15L/100km is quite efficient :P, however just wanted to know what everyone else is getting.

DreamensioN

01-03-2011, 10:39 AM

Your car should also use less fuel as the engine loosen's up. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mr_Bob

01-03-2011, 10:51 AM

Yep, my fuel consumption was close to yours, but has dropped to 9-10L/100kms.

I did have a tank at 12L/100, but there was a fair bit of spirited driving that time... :)

DDTW

01-03-2011, 11:36 AM

My full tank only takes me 330kms. That's a ridiculous 17l/100kms! I only do city driving and have only done 900kms since picking it up on 8/1/2011. Drinks fuel like mad!!

pologti18t

01-03-2011, 11:56 AM

My full tank only takes me 330kms. That's a ridiculous 17l/100kms! I only do city driving and have only done 900kms since picking it up on 8/1/2011. Drinks fuel like mad!!

So you actually filled up 56L for that 330km you did?

Pepe

01-03-2011, 12:29 PM

This will become a silly thread quickly, as everyone's driving style is different... my average over 8000km of 90% city (Sydney traffic) driving is around 11-11.5. That's not nana driving either. It does get better over time.

DDTW

01-03-2011, 03:03 PM

So you actually filled up 56L for that 330km you did?

The last time i filled up till the tank was full, the MFD showed that I can only travel up to 330km. Yes I know this will go up and down depending on how/where you drive, but my driving style is pretty much the same as I do city driving 90% of the time. It's a car I use to grab meals/coffee & groceries. Work's only 10mins walk from home so it's basically a "toy" car :)

I don't mind the mileage as I only pump once every two to three weeks!

aVex

28-03-2011, 09:41 AM

I just received my GTI over the weekend, to date I've clocked 300KM. It's a thirsty camel, I need to get use to this, city driving it's consuming 14L/100km on average. I literally can see the fuel indicator moving!

Previously I drove a Honda Jazz, tiny machine compared to this.

Corey_R

28-03-2011, 10:07 AM

You will calm down in time :P

The GTI is quite efficient, but your driving most definitely won't be when you first get it. Also having the manual, and having come from a Jazz, you'll need to re-learn where to shift to be efficient.
The engine also uses a bit more fuel to start with... after about 5000km it should be practically to what will then be "normal". There are lots of guys hitting the stated figures for consumption though.

skeep

28-03-2011, 10:35 AM

Had the GTI for 1YR, I average now 7.6L per 100km. Started off in the 12s when I first got it. It will go through fuel in the first 2000km for sure, since you're breaking it in. ;)

brad

28-03-2011, 10:40 AM

Ideo

28-03-2011, 11:38 AM

Jeeze, if it only gets better than I am going to be in minus figures once it is run in.

8.4l/100km currently.

Corey_R

28-03-2011, 01:02 PM

lol... averaging 8.4L/100km on a R is impressive. Too impressive. I'd go as far as to say that you're not driving it "properly" :P
Try harder! hehe

I'm averaging ~11.2L/100km on my R, and several of the R boys are averaging more. But then, it's a hundred odd kg more than the GTI, has AWD, and has an engine which is not "optimised" for fuel efficiency combined with a turbo which doesn't get "on boost" until 3,000rpm odd which is DEFINITELY out of the "fuel efficient realms" !

Ideo

28-03-2011, 02:42 PM

Most of that was on running it in, keeping the revs relatively low, no hard acceleration. I’m expecting it to go down a bit, but it will be interesting to see what I get. Most of my driving is on pretty open and flowing roads rather than stop start traffic. When I was driving my S3 in the city a lot and engaging in semi-frequent traffic light grand prix I was averaging around 14.5l/100 km. I’m thinking about the 10.5-11 for this one.

But it’s not something that worries me that much to be honest.

markwid

28-03-2011, 03:06 PM

...consuming 14L/100km on average. I literally can see the fuel indicator moving!
Stop worrying and just enjoy mate.

I am having lots of fun and can't be bothered about the FC now. I am loving 3rd and 4th gear. Mainly use it manual, shift it across to D when in lots of traffic. Will be taking a drive out of city on the weekend, woohoo!

DDTW

28-03-2011, 05:09 PM

My 1,100kms R managed a highly respectable 9.0L/100km (averaged) read out from the MFD recently....never thought i'd see that!!!! It's always been bouncing between 12 and 15L/100km!

I've also managed to run my R on 1 tank of fuel for 5 weeks compared to burning 1 tank in 2 weeks when I first got it =)

aVex

28-03-2011, 05:30 PM

My driving style now has eliminated the need to use 2nd and 4th gear.

From standstill I switch from 1st to 3rd to 5th and 6th. 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.

Corey_R

28-03-2011, 05:48 PM

I used to do that on the Polo GTI all the time... 1st, 3rd, 5th (there was no 6th). You don't need to redline it though... changing at 3,500 would bring it into ~1500rpm (from memory) which is already on boost in a Stage 1 Polo GTI!

In fact, Volkswagen actually recommend skipping gears if traffic and road conditions allow (I can't remember whether it's in the owners manual, or the "driving economically" hand out).

elephino

29-03-2011, 11:59 AM

6.7L/100 from Melbourne to Sydney along the Hume, including a good half hour or more of slowish to stopping traffic on the Western Ring Road in Melbourne due to road works - not to mention all those pesky other drivers getting in the way. Cruise control all the way (when possible).

That's 0.2L/100 better then my MkV on the same drive last year (40,000+km difference in total car travel) but road works weren't a problem and there were fewer other delays. So good run vs bad run and still better.

prise

30-03-2011, 06:44 PM

Better than 6.3 L/100km average since new with a mix of city and highway running. Best on a single tank has been 5.7L/100km. The trip computer seems to be pretty accurate. I've compared the trip computer value vs the value calculated from fuel purchased & distance travelled, and the two were within 1.5% of each other averaged over 15,000 km of driving.

Details: Volkswagen - Golf - 118 TSI - Spritmonitor.de (http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/390467.html)

Brian

30-03-2011, 11:34 PM

Since new I have averaged around 6.2 to 6.3l/100. Having fitted the Superchips ECU and 19 inch wheels at the same time, the figure went to around 7 to 7.5l/100. I immediately blamed the ECU upgrade for the increase, so returned the tune back to stock. Have run 3 tanks since with the same fuel and similar conditions. Guess what? No difference! The rolling resistance of the bigger wheels seems to have increased fuel consumption in the order of .5 or more l/100. Have just reinstalled the ECU tune so will confirm after a few tankfuls. Food for thought for those wishing to fit bigger wheels. BTW, the next test will be to refit the old 16inch rims with the ECU upgrade. Takes time as I only do a few hundred ks a week.

Corey_R

31-03-2011, 07:57 AM

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.

furiousgibbon

31-03-2011, 08:35 PM

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.

shakespeare

31-03-2011, 10:22 PM

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!

Brian916

01-04-2011, 03:46 PM

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'

Prodigy

01-04-2011, 05:44 PM

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.

GTI Go Karter

02-04-2011, 08:32 PM

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 .

Brendan_A

02-04-2011, 08:56 PM

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

brad

03-04-2011, 09:59 AM

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?

Ideo

03-04-2011, 08:01 PM

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.

jrgti

07-04-2011, 11:52 PM

masev

08-04-2011, 06:54 PM

Apparently it does....

hooba

08-04-2011, 08:34 PM

Apparently it does....

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

brad

08-04-2011, 08:46 PM

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

SilvrFoxX

09-04-2011, 05:33 AM

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

Brian916

09-04-2011, 07:18 AM

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.

Corey_R

09-04-2011, 09:07 AM

In both my previous cars, the MKV Golf GTI and the 9N3 Polo GTI there were fuel savings with Stage 1. Significant savings with the Polo. Cause it has a K03 and has so much "driveability" down load with the tune, you never needed to put your foot down to get moving. (So SilvrFoxX, no a sprint booster instead of a stage 1 won't help, as effectively you'd always be putting your foot down, but getting less power and using more fuel).

There are so many guys with the Polo GTI and Stage 1 who have seen fuel savings within a few weeks of having it (not in the first weeks cause you're having too much fun). Best of all, you could switch back and forth between Stage 1 and Stock on that car and compare. With the Stage 1 I would constantly beat the VW fuel consumption rating, whilst still having my fun.

What about the Golf R?
I don't know... I didn't have the Stage 1 for long enough, and it's not switchable. I also had the Stage 1 at about 1500km, at which point the engine is still bedding in and fuel consumption is dropping anyway. So I never really got the opportunity to do any economy runs/tests etc.

AdamD

09-04-2011, 10:19 AM

Where the equation WILL come back in favour of the remap is where the standard map is set very lean for the pollution factor.

Conversely, a stock tune may in fact run richer under certain circumstances. Many Japanese cars run notoriously rich under power (and can blow smoke from the unburnt fuel) in order to play it safe: a richer mixture with excess fuel will cool the engine internals; a car that runs too lean can generate too much heat and damage the internals.

prise

09-04-2011, 11:25 AM

You would not run an engine lean to reduce pollution as it would produce increased levels of NOX. The best mixture for pollution reduction is stoichiometric (lambda of 1). Either richer or leaner than that and the catalytic converter effectiveness drops dramatically. Best power is normally made a bit richer than stoichiometric (lambda of 0.9) and best economy a bit leaner (lambda > 1). The only reason to run lean is to improve fuel economy.

Unfortunately, the only practical way to run lean AND meet the pollution regs is to use a special catalytic converter that can store the NOX produced when running lean and covert it later when conditions are more favourable. These special catalysts are poisoned by sulphur in the fuel so until Australia drops fuel sulphur below 5ppm we wont see this technology here. Current VW TSI engines sold in Aus DO NO run lean burn - they run a stoichiometric mixture over most of the operating range with a richer mixture at high power conditions to increase power and keep temperatures down.

I'm also very skeptical about reflashes improving economy under normal driving conditions for the folloiwing reasons:

a) The manufacturer invests millions on calibration and validation to ensure they get the best economy they can compatible withe meeting emissions regs and durability targets. Getting a lower number on that fuel economy sticker is important to them.

b) Economy in normal driving is all about efficiency at part load, and low to mid rpm. At these conditions the stock tune has to run stoichiometric to meet emissions. If an aftermarket tune was leaning it out at these conditions it would be at the expense of increased NOX emissions.

You could get better efficiency at high power conditions as these are not tested as part of the ADR test cycle, but only by leaning it out which will reduce component life (cat, turbo, valves, etc)