Official Fuel Economy Thread (formerly Highway economy).

[WannaTig]

I just love my Tig more and more!

Picked her up 2 months ago yesterday, and have put 2070k on the clock. I've only just had to fill her up for the second time this morning (had a full tank when picked up).

Pretty impressed, over 2000km on two tanks. :banana:

[Transporter]

That's great; can you give us more details?
Do you do a lot of hwy driving?
And what is it in L/100km? If you keep record, of course. :)

[NZTiguan]

That's great, the best I've got out of my Tig on a run is 6.6l/100k or 43 mpg (imp) but that won't get you quite 1000 km a tank (tank is 64 litres so you'd have to average 6.4l/100k (over 44 mpg (imp)). Mind you mine was on some pretty windy and hilly roads including crossing the "backbone" of the South Island twice so I guess on flat going it would be readily achievable. Great work though, would be interested to know what your driving conditions were.

Cheers

[Sanman]

I assume that's diesel figures you're all quoting.
My 103 TDI does about 7.5l/100km on the run to work in medium traffic but 6.5l/100km on the run home, Consistently. I can't explain the difference, the traffic conditions are a little worse if anything on the return run. It maybe that it uses a lot more fuel when its cold in the morning. Summer's coming, I can check the theory then!

[NZTiguan]

There's no doubt that "accessories" suck up fuel. I saw an interesting doco on sky a while back using a BMW 5 series and comparing fuel usage vs air-con, wipers, heater, headlights, air temp etc etc and when they were running at night in the cold and wet with everything operating it used something like 15% more fuel, the figures were quite a shock. I don't go out of my way to drive economically and so the figures I've got out of the Tiguan have really impressed me.

Cheers

[Torn]

Did a 450km round trip on the weekend 2 days after i picked it up almost half highwway and half city driving and averaged 8.3l/100km

thats in a TSI147

few more tanks and will have a better idea

[WannaTig]

Yep, in a diesel.
Has done a bit of highway driving, trips to the border and back. Also some short runs around the burbs. I'm kind of a nanna driver so maybe that helps go through less juice.
Now I've done the sums: over 2000kms on about 120L of fuel means less than 6L/100km which seems extremely conservative. When I've kept an eye on the consumption bizzo in the MDI it's usually around 6.5-6.8.
Not that I'm complaining!!!

[Sanman]

There are two average fuel meters -
ø1 which records the fuel consumption on that run ( reset if the vehicle stops more than 2 hours) and
ø2 which records the fuel consumption since last reset (or self resets over 9999 hours).
Its not clear in the manual, but ø2 can be reset by holding down the OK button for a few seconds. This means you can use it to record the average over a tank of fuel, or reset it after you've run in the car to get a better idea of the long term economy average (I tend to reset it when I go on longer trips)

[Arctra]

I have an admittedly very heavy foot and at the time of this post am averaging 8.5L/100km's over 10,311km's of driving. God only know's how it'd be with the more powerful petrol... I know the theory goes that because it has more power I might actually be more efficient, but I am honest enough to say that if you give me more power I'll use it anyway, and so am unlikely to be any more efficient.

[coastie]

There are two average fuel meters -
ø1 which records the fuel consumption on that run ( reset if the vehicle stops more than 2 hours) and
ø2 which records the fuel consumption since last reset (or self resets over 9999 hours).

On both our VW it resets after 99 driving hours, would be great if you could get over a year of driving hours logged.

[Transporter]

Must have program for these who record and keep eye on car’s fuel economy and other car expenses. It’s free and it is good, it could also be used as the logbook.You can also use it for more than one car.

Car Organizer Software from LiquiMoly Oil Company

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/web.nsf/id/pa_car_organizer.html
Program is over 20Mb file and it is slow download too.
Make sure you download English version. After you install it, use currency converter in it first and set it up to work in AUD.

[mardpea]

We have done just under 1800km and should get at least another 100 - 150km out of this tank. We are averaging 7L/100km. Its mainly highway driving with a little bit of city thrown in. So far I am extremely happy with the consupmtion and only hope that it improves as the motor is run in.

[clip]

We have done just under 1800km and should get at least another 100 - 150km out of this tank.
I know the TDi's are good, but 1900k's out of a tank? :jawdropper:

[T&M]

Ours is the TDI103, I reset both of the consumption readings yesterday as I was driving the car through city traffic, then non-peak traffic, then the run out to our place a few times, picking up the kids, going to my Wed night sport etc... the best I got the whole day (option2) was 6.4L/100 which includes a bit of hill terrain as well. The best I got out of any one single trip was 5.2L/100 where I was on 80kph roads just cruising along quietly for about 30mins each way. Sink the boot in and keep the turbo on boost for a few minutes and it changes pretty quickly though. :cool:

Considering the car has only done 1500km, can't wait to see how it goes fuel economy wise when it has run in.

[donweather]

I must have the V10 version then as I'm down to a qtr of a tank and only done just under 400km. Then again I didn't buy the petrol model for the fuel efficiency.

I'm guessing all you guys quoting the amazing figures have the diesel models.

Although I'm questioning the 1900kms out of one tank....that's down to 3L/100km....can't say I've ever heard of the Tigs (even the diesels) doing those numbers?

[Sharkie]

Even a diesel has poor consumption of you use the turbo excessively. When the turbo makes significant boost the ECU dumps more fuel in ..... and out the window goes fuel savings. I have a friend with a GT TDI Golf and he drives it like he stole it. He gets worse fuel consumption than a female friend who baby's her GTI Golf .....

I once had a 103TDI Golf as a loaner for a day and my average consumption over 90kms was 11.1l/100km ...... :eek:

[Arctra]

I'm finding some of the figures a little confusing too. I have a heavy foot, I admit, and so far am averaging 8.55L/100km's. The best I've seen the Tig do was my girlfriends very sedate driving to Caberra and back which averaged just 6.7L/100km (worked out from the refuel and trip meter, not the onboard computer).

[Tedhaggie]

FWIW ,
my best is 6.85l/100k on my returmn trip fromm the gold Coast
average since new 7.38

figure in classic manner using odometer reading and tank fillup anounts total 9779 kms

[Transporter]

I once had a 103TDI Golf as a loaner for a day and my average consumption over 90kms was 11.1l/100km ...... :eek:

You must have'd good fun then. :)

[gldgti]

Even a diesel has poor consumption of you use the turbo excessively. When the turbo makes significant boost the ECU dumps more fuel in ..... and out the window goes fuel savings. I have a friend with a GT TDI Golf and he drives it like he stole it. He gets worse fuel consumption than a female friend who baby's her GTI Golf .....

I once had a 103TDI Golf as a loaner for a day and my average consumption over 90kms was 11.1l/100km ...... :eek:

BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC BSFC

I know you know what it stands for.

go find hte youtube vid of the topgear back to back tests between the 5-series petrol and 5 series diesel.

[team_v]

Couldn't dfind the topgear review on youtube but i found a 5th gear petrol vs diesel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plST-A7Fzxo&NR=1&feature=fvwp


This is why i am going the petrol way.
Also the chip increase :D

[Arctra]

BSFC ... BSFC

go find hte youtube vid of the topgear back to back tests between the 5-series petrol and 5 series diesel.

By BSFC you mean Brake Specific Fuel Consumption? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

And are you referring to this video?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1431115/bmw_5_series_diesel_vs_petrol_in_top_gear/

[Sharkie]

By BSFC you mean Brake Specific Fuel Consumption? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

And are you referring to this video?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1431115/bmw_5_series_diesel_vs_petrol_in_top_gear/


I take it as the time honoured saying ...... boost scr3ws fuel consumption .... it applies no matter what car it is .... diesel/petrol .... all of them use more under boost .....

EDIT ... that 535d used 19l/100km ..... LOL

[clip]

And are you referring to this video?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1431115/bmw_5_series_diesel_vs_petrol_in_top_gear/
as Jeremy would say "what a load of bollocks". More Top Gear rubbish. Put those same two beemers head to head on a dry track and the petrol would have been even further ahead - much further ahead.

[Sharkie]

as Jeremy would say "what a load of bollocks". More Top Gear rubbish. Put those same two beemers head to head on a dry track and the petrol would have been even further ahead - much further ahead.

Yes, TopGear have a bad history of manipulating results of their comparisons ..... Veyron & Maclaren F1 recently prime example ......

[clip]

Yes, TopGear have a bad history of manipulating results of their comparisons ..... Veyron & Maclaren F1 recently prime example ......
damn right - what a load of :bsflag: that was.

[Dilusi]

I take it as the time honoured saying ...... boost scr3ws fuel consumption .... it applies no matter what car it is .... diesel/petrol .... all of them use more under boost .....

EDIT ... that 535d used 19l/100km ..... LOL

This makes sense to me. Most of my driving is inner city and if I drive my 147 the way I like to drive it, my fuel usage, fill up to fill up, is consistently in the 15s l/100kms.

[Sharkie]

This makes sense to me. Most of my driving is inner city and if I drive my 147 the way I like to drive it, my fuel usage, fill up to fill up, is consistently in the 15s l/100kms.

Must be that auto messing with consumption. My 190kw Tiguan driven VERY enthusiastically in the city is about 13l/100km at the moment.

Open road stretches has returned in the 7l/100kms ....

[Pullstarter]

With the chip I also get about the same around town Johan, certainly not driven easily either :banana:

P.S. Nulon Pro Strength Octane Booster is gooooooooooooooooooooooood! :D

[donweather]

This makes sense to me. Most of my driving is inner city and if I drive my 147 the way I like to drive it, my fuel usage, fill up to fill up, is consistently in the 15s l/100kms.Sounds as though you drive similar to me. I just filled up my after first tank. Average consumption (based on computer output not fuel input) was around 12-13 L/100km

[clip]

P.S. Nulon Pro Strength Octane Booster is gooooooooooooooooooooooood! :D
does that stuff still turn your exhaust tip red and make your exhaust fumes smell purdy? I used to use it in the bikes, but the Aprilia didn't like it. Never tried it in a car. Talking to one of the bike mechanics that pulled the head of one of the bikes, he wanted to know what I was using as the valves and plugs had a similar red coating. He did also say that whatever it was it had kept everything very very clean.

[Pullstarter]

Only done about 60kms on it so far, definitely a noticable difference. Not so much in the power department but in responsiveness, seems to pull from lower revs better.

I have a very slight rattle under load which I've had since about the 2000km mark (pre chip) and I wanted to totally discount pinging from the equation. It is still rattling so theres no way it could be pinging running on that stuff. Oh well the search continues :mad: Nothing really that bad, just annoying, oh and i'm a fussy barstood :banana:

[clip]

I have a very slight rattle under load which I've had since about the 2000km mark (pre chip) and I wanted to totally discount pinging from the equation. It is still rattling so theres no way it could be pinging running on that stuff. Oh well the search continues :mad: Nothing really that bad, just annoying, oh and i'm a fussy barstood :banana:
maybe give Guy a call?

[Pullstarter]

It's definitely nothing to do with the remap as it was doing it pre APR. I have a feeling its a heat shield just a matter of finding it.

[clip]

It's definitely nothing to do with the remap as it was doing it pre APR. I have a feeling its a heat shield just a matter of finding it.
That's OK then. I had a vibration rattle seemingly coming front passenger door. used to drive me crazy. Turns out it was the bloody iPod cable inside the glove box! (just another reason to remove everything in my life that has that little "i" at the start of it's name :blowtorch:).

[jimbomort]

Fuel economy for 125TSI is also proving very good.

Have got as low as 6.2 l/100km in ours and in the mid to high 6's is regular now on hwy trips. Got 6.5 on a longer trip not long back and more recently 6.9 loaded to the hilt, with a roof box and bike rack and air con on for half the way. Pretty good for a petrol SUV that weighs almost as much as a falcon.

With that said:
- those figs are driving very economically, my wife regularly consumes 0.5 to 1.0 more per 100 than me on the same trips.
- manual is the go for better go and fuel economy

How are other 125 owners going with fuel economy?

[jimbomort]

arctra its the auto's in part, they don't help, we regularly do as good as 6.7 in our petrol manual on hwy trips. friends have both an auto and manual tdi tig and they say the manual tig is quite a bit better on go and fuel. Of course nothing wrong with having an auto, just seem to lose a fair bit in fuel efficiency and go in the tigs. As another eg the 125 manual tsi has the same 0-100 fig as the more powerful 147 tsi, as it comes auto only. cheers - Jimbo

[Transporter]

arctra its the auto's in part, they don't help, we regularly do as good as 6.7 in our petrol manual on hwy trips. friends have both an auto and manual tdi tig and they say the manual tig is quite a bit better on go and fuel. Of course nothing wrong with having an auto, just seem to lose a fair bit in fuel efficiency and go in the tigs. As another eg the 125 manual tsi has the same 0-100 fig as the more powerful 147 tsi, as it comes auto only. cheers - Jimbo

It is the city driving what kills the fuel economy. You also can't take seriously fuel economy on hwy, since even V6 and V8 engines will do really well on hwy. The driver affects fuel economy a lot, I would say more than 70%. I get 9.8L/100km in our Touareg and my daughter 11L/100km under the same conditions (and she drives the beast 99% of the time).

The diesel engine will always be more economical in morning city traffic than petrol, regardless how good the driver is.

[Sharkie]

The Tig autos are all heavier on fuel than their manual counterparts.

Diesel Tigs (in manuals) will be best for inner city driving (fuel consumption wise) so long as you stay off the boost :cool:. This is offset by the increased comfort of the autos in heavy traffic though ......

In morning traffic ie low speeds and lots of standing still there is no chance of generating and using boost anyway .... :rolleyes:

For long distance driving the difference between the TSIs and the TDIs should be less than 1l/100kms ..... the TSIs are very efficient petrol engines under conditions of low load.

[donweather]

Just wondering how many of you have the aircon on full bore most of the time? I live in Brisbane and I can tell you I have it on all the time and most of the time set down to 17-18 deg just to combat the heat coming in from the windscreen/dash area (even with tinted windows). I've only done city driving at the moment (still running the car in) and so I wasn't expecting to get down to some of the figures quoted above for the 125 TSI, but still, I'm yet to get anything under 11-12L/100km (only on my 2nd tank though).

So my question is, does the aircon really suck the power from the engine and hence require more fuel for powering the car? Was watching the real time consumption figures driving into work this morning and I was getting up to 20-30L/100km when up around the 4000k rev range and that wasn't even pushing the car hard at all (ie no real boost).

[Arctra]

Yeah, it definitely sucks some power from the engine. Sitting idling at traffic lights with Tig in neutral and no aircon it reads 0.6L/Hr, in drive with no aircon or in neutral with aircon it reads 0.8-0.9L/Hr, and in gear with aircon it reads 1.1-1.2L/Hr. So it seems to sip about 0.2 to 0.3 L/Hr more with the aircon on when in idle.

[jimbomort]

11-12 really isn't that bad in heavy stop/start traffic. Aircon defintely makes a diff, especially where idling a lot in traffic, but generally no where near as much as your driving style etc. You probably already know this, but just in case some thoughts if they help. We are in a country town, so not a lot of lights and more scope to maintain momentum with some anticipation, but I regularly get down into the 8's in short trips into town and back. Have got into the 7's going across town

If you really put the foot down, you will see the current fuel consumption climb up to 50l/100klm! 20-30 is almost par for the course with any kind of acceleration in 2nd. Of course these are for short periods but in stop/start can have a big impact. I get into third and fourth pretty quickly where I dont need to accelerate much (from 30klm/hr or even less in 3rd and from 45-50 in 4th which is quite OK for the car and gearbox as long as you dont ask much from it at low revs). Of course this can be harder in traffic.

stop start driving, especially if using the accelerator and brakes a lot, will kill fuel economy. For fuel economy momentum is your friend and so is full engine braking (ie coasting with your foot off the accelerator). Under those conditions you will notice that the consumption is actually zero, which is not just a trick, it actually is because most modern fuel injected motors cut off the fuel supply altogether in such conditions. And in a high gear you will also coast longer or even accelerate going down a hill while using no fuel at all.

So more you can do to anticipate traffic to reduce avoidable acceleration and braking and maintain your momentum the better.

There are plenty of good sites on economical driving if you are interested, Greenfleet have some good tips or just search on google.

[marcsamus]

Picked our 125 up from Melbourne on the weekend and drove back to Brisbane. Got an average of 8.6L/100KM. Pretty happy with that when you figure in a couple of foot flat to the floor overtaking 2 trucks in a row manuvers

[Arctra]

That's not bad, but I can better it ;-)

We just did out trip from Port Macquarrie to Gold Coast today and managed to average 6.3L/100km's. Was very impressed with that given there was some spirited foot-flat accelerations to overtake slow vehicles. I thought they'd spoil the economy a bit, but wasn't bad.

BTW, Anyone travelling around the Port Macq area beware. We spotted about 8 cop cars and 6 cop bikes pulling people over within the first 100km's of our trip.

[jimbomort]

Picked our 125 up from Melbourne on the weekend and drove back to Brisbane. Got an average of 8.6L/100KM. Pretty happy with that when you figure in a couple of foot flat to the floor overtaking 2 trucks in a row manuvers

congrats on your 125, no doubt you have seen the perfor/tuning thread re potential to increase the power and fuel efficiency of the 125 even further :cool:.

I have been very impressed with the fuel efficiency of the 125. As the engine beds in with an economical driving style, you will find that the fuel economy of the 125 will just get better and better (see below, ours has done 8500km now).

On a recent trip in our 125 up to Brissy I averaged an incredible 5.8 l/100km. Mostly hwy, but some suburbia. Amazing fuel economy for a petrol - almost too good, perhaps an MFD glitch, we'll see if repeats. There was a southerly blowing so a tail wind on the way up, but hell it wasn't exactly a gale and amazing either way. This was stock (my car now has APR stage 1). These figs were with steady cruising at 100km/hr, mostly using cruise control.

On the trip back (remapped to APR stage 1) not as good, albeit still only 6.5 l per 100 and that with a head wind and probably more aircon. I've done 6.5 a few times now, so have confidence in that, will see if those high 5 figs repeat. Regularly in the 6's per 100km is possible on longer trips in the 125 and with the remap you have the capacity for low 6's for 0-100 acceleration as well!!. Gotta love the Tig. On yeh baby :banana:

[BLWNHR]

Got an average of 8.6L/100KM.


...managed to average 6.3L/100km's.

Is this working it out properly (km travelled and litres at the pump), or using the in-dash display?

[Transporter]

Is this working it out properly (km travelled and litres at the pump), or using the in-dash display?

In dash display is somehow optimistic.
I found this as more acxurate:
Fill up the tank, reset trip meter, refill tank when it is down to 1/4 tank or less, (L used / km from trip meter) x 100 = L/100km

Here is nice software that will do it for you (Car organizer)
http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/web.nsf/id/pa_eng_home.html

[jimbomort]

In dash display is somehow optimistic.
I found this as more acxurate:
Fill up the tank, reset trip meter, refill tank when it is down to 1/4 tank or less, (L used / km from trip meter) x 100 = L/100km

dont necessarily disagree MFD may be wrong (especially noting my 5.8 in the petrol above), but I'd question whether the alternative proposed is necessarily more accurate. It is how much fuel you used, but with its own and potentially significant error margin. Unless you fill the tank to the exactly the same level each time you could easily be roughly 2 litres up or down either way (ie for 2 litres over - 1 litre 'under' at last refill, 1 litre 'over' when refilling to get litres used or vice versa)

You could stop when the pump stops each time, but doubt that is very consistent especially b/w different fuel suppliers and stations.

Does anyone know a reliable means of filling the fuel tank to the same level other than at the same pump at the same filling station to the same 'point', if indeed that works?

[Transporter]

dont necessarily disagree MFD may be wrong (especially noting my 5.8 in the petrol above), but I'd question whether the alternative proposed is necessarily more accurate. It is how much fuel you used, but with its own and potentially significant error margin. Unless you fill the tank to the exactly the same level each time you could easily be roughly 2 litres up or down either way (ie for 2 litres over - 1 litre 'under' at last refill, 1 litre 'over' when refilling to get litres used or vice versa)

You could stop when the pump stops each time, but doubt that is very consistent especially b/w different fuel suppliers and stations.

Does anyone know a reliable means of filling the fuel tank to the same level other than at the same pump at the same filling station to the same 'point', if indeed that works?

Hmm....then, more accurate way would be the long term fuel economy. Unless you want to drain the tank dry and measure the fuel you put in, drive as long as you have the minimum fuel in tank then drain it again to measure the remaining fuel. That will give you very accurate number. I like the long term fuel economy better. :)

[jimbomort]

Hmm....then, more accurate way would be the long term fuel economy. Unless you want to drain the tank dry and measure the fuel you put in, drive as long as you have the minimum fuel in tank then drain it again to measure the remaining fuel. That will give you very accurate number. I like the long term fuel economy better. :)

agree, and a good test would be too compare the longer term value on the MFD over 4-5 tanks. Problem for me is I always drive more economically than my wife (well almost always:biggrin:) and she drives the car a lot during the week, so wont help me with getting a sense of whether the really good economy figures I have managed are accurate. No matter down to Sydney and back next week, so a good chance to check out the accuracy of the MFD then, hoping to make it to Sydney(about a 770km trip) on one tank with plenty to spare, which if we average in the mid 6's will do.

Is anyone else doing mid 6's on longer trips in their 125's?

[WannaTig]

Just did a trip up to NE Vic and back, got (according to MFD) 5.1L/km on the way up, and 5.9 on the way back. Loving it. :banana:

But is TDI, not TSI.

[Toner]

Our 103 TDI Tig has just about logged up 40,000 k of a mix of country freeway and town driving and the average varies between 6.9 and 7.1 l/100k. I thought it might drop even more once it got over 30,000k's but it doesn't seem to have altered

[jimbomort]

In dash display is somehow optimistic.
I found this as more acxurate:
Fill up the tank, reset trip meter, refill tank when it is down to 1/4 tank or less, (L used / km from trip meter) x 100 = L/100km

Well tested accuracy of the MFD on a recent trip to Sydney from northern nsw (755 klm). Did on less than one tank averaging 7.1 according to the MFD. That in itself was a bit higher than I expected from our TSI versus other trips we have done, but was concerned at start of that trip that the batch of fuel wasn't so good and more to the point this included 2.5 hrs of stop start driving :((ie yeah really bad traffic at four points, meaning we covered about 50klm in that 2.5 hrs) plus driving in Sydney itself. Would have been in the high 6's at least without that.

Anyway MFD showed 7.1, 'actual' based on klms travelled and fuel refilled was 7.3. Noting of course that I have no way of knowing whether we filled up to same level, could have been up or down a bit either way. Tested MFD versus 'actual' on previous tank too and again same result, MFD was quite close just a bit on the low side - about 0.1 to 0.2 l/100klm lower. Will test again on way home, and over the next few tanks, to get the long term picture.

[jimbomort]

In dash display is somehow optimistic.

Further testing of our TSI is confirming that the MFD is optimistic by about 0.2 l/100klm - pretty close, but yes slightly optimistic.

Over 1439 klm, MFD is showing av of 7.4 and actual calculated av for the two tanks filled was 7.6. Will check over a few more tanks to confirm but at every comparison so far has been consistent - 0.2 under actual.

On recent return from Sydney (to Port Macquarie) averaged 6.6 according to MFD, so estimate actual was 6.8. This over 365klm, with about 50klm of urban driving in that, air con on and driving at steady 100klm hr on hwy.

Actual av for a combo of Sydney city driving and hwy driving for a total trip of 640 klm was 7.9l'100klm. That was 50:50 urban and hwy, with a fair bit of flooring it in the city as was showing brother and friends what the Tig can now do with APR stage 1 upgrade (they were very impressed :cool: despite high expectations). 7.9 is pretty good, and way below the 9.1 combined fig quoted for a mix of both (though I dont know based on what city conditions or the proportion of each). It also confirms for me that an actual of 6.8 is about right, as @ 50:50, average in city driving couldn't be more than about 9.0l/100klm for an actual average of 7.9 over the total distance.

According to MFD last leg - Port to Far northern NSW was av of 7.5, quite a bit higher than day before, but I cranked the cruise up to 110 (100 the first day), we stopped more and I did a lot more overtaking with the higher av speed and a stronger cross wind.

The Air con makes quite a difference, at least 0.5 litres per 100 from what I can see.

[donweather]

The Air con makes quite a difference, at least 0.5 litres per 100 from what I can see.This may explain why I can't get anywhere near your figures, even on the highway. I have the aircon cranked to "LO" ALL the time. The best I can get out on the highway at 110 (although perhaps this isn't 110 based on the other thread) is about 8-9l/100km based on the MFD display.

[jimbomort]

This may explain why I can't get anywhere near your figures, even on the highway.....The best I can get out on the highway at 110 ..... is about 8-9l/100km based on the MFD display.

Don yeh having air con on all the time would certainly make a difference, but so will approach to driving - I am enjoying driving economically, its more relaxing and feeling I am doing my bit, but its not for everyone nor even for me all of the time - I like to use the performance I now have with the APR stage 1 upgrade.

It's worth mentioning that my wife's consumption in the same car is generally significantly higher than mine (at least 1.0 l per 100). In getting in the 6's, I am:
- cruising steady at 100
- not using air con or managing the air con (ie using air con on descents and flats, but turning off during significant ascents or acceleration)
- turning engine off at traffic lights/where I stop and dont expect to be moving again for at least 30-60 secs (less important for hwy trips but does make a significant diff in city driving or in my case above where I was stuck in a lot of stop/start traffic on way down to Syd)
- using 5th gear in 60 zones (which car copes with quite well - I often find my fuel consumption improves when I go thru towns !!!)
- anticipating traffic flow, so reducing amount I am braking and accelerating (wasting energy) and so if coming to a stop/slowing down using engine compression to do most of the slowing rather than the brakes where I can
- accelerating more gently (in 2nd as soon as car is moving, in 3rd @ 30, in 4th @ 45-50, in 5th @ 60-65, in 6th @ 80-85), the turbo kicks in around 2500rpm so changing up then or before helps and from 1500 rpm the car has plenty enough torque as long as you dont expect brisk acceleration

Done consistently these things make a big difference. What I have also found is that now, applying these practices when I dont need/want to use the power, means that even when I do use it during the trip, my overall average is still reasonable (such as the 7.5 above) and shot into town to pick up a pizza last night - a return trip of just 5 klm, in which I floored it twice in second from 20 right up to 80 (:banana: its just so much fun and there's a short 80 zone on way in) and I still got an indicated 8.0l/100 on that trip, noting this wasn't from a cold start, engine was already warm from a recent trip.

Anyway hope this helps, driven economically the petrols are not that far behind the diesels:cool: on economy.

[Sharkie]

I never drive with fuel economy in mind .... :eek: .... in fact I'm enjoying the 200odd kw I have at my disposal so much that for the last 3 tanks I've been getting about 400-450kms per tank ...... :cool:

Expect to do a nice longish trip this coming weekend to see what I can coax out of it if I stay off the accelerator .... :rolleyes:

[jimbomort]

I never drive with fuel economy in mind .... :eek: .... in fact I'm enjoying the 200odd kw I have at my disposal so much that for the last 3 tanks I've been getting about 400-450kms per tank ...... :cool:

As long as you are enjoying it Sharkie, thats about half of what we are getting out of a tank:eek:.

However I suspect even for those who do enjoy a bit of spirited driving, or bucket loads of acceleration from time to time (:banana: yeh baby) that in everyday driving there are a few who might like to do better. This thread is more about that - be interested to here how you go on a longer trip.

[Sharkie]

As long as you are enjoying it Sharkie, thats about half of what we are getting out of a tank:eek:.

However I suspect even for those who do enjoy a bit of spirited driving, or bucket loads of acceleration from time to time (:banana: yeh baby) that in everyday driving there are a few who might like to do better. This thread is more about that - be interested to here how you go on a longer trip.

My consumption is about as bad as you are going to get in a Tiguan, considering I drive it as hard as is legally possible..... all the time. Average since taking delivery is 12.3l/100km (MFD) and over 3100km (yes that is all and its 6 months old) its been in the city except for 400km ......

Considering the way its been driven and the power it makes, I am more than happy with that ..... :cool:

Thought it would be good to get the opposite extreme out there .....

[clip]

My consumption is about as bad as you are going to get in a Tiguan, considering I drive it as hard as is legally possible..... all the time. Average since taking delivery is 12.3l/100km (MFD) and over 3100km (yes that is all and its 6 months old) its been in the city except for 400km ......

Thought it would be good to get the opposite extreme out there .....
...and I thought I had a heavy foot :1orglaugh: 9.8 is worse I've been able to get in 30,000k's (it's 11 months old now!).

[jimbomort]

My consumption is about as bad as you are going to get in a Tiguan, considering I drive it as hard as is legally possible..... all the time. Average since taking delivery is 12.3l/100km (MFD) Thought it would be good to get the opposite extreme out there .....

thanks Sharkie, based on Clips comments that looks to be about the opposite end. Think I got only 10.5 once, and that was when I first took the APR staged 1 Tig and sole purpose of that trip being go hard:cool:. Other than that I was around 8-9 in Sydney driving recently, even with putting the boot in a bit, noting there wasn't a lot of traffic and I was driving reasonably economically when I wasn't putting the boot in.

Be interested to here what other Tig owners are getting in city driving?????
Since most of this economy thread to date has been on hwy economy.

[Dilusi]

thanks Sharkie, based on Clips comments that looks to be about the opposite end. Think I got only 10.5 once, and that was when I first took the APR staged 1 Tig and sole purpose of that trip being go hard:cool:. Other than that I was around 8-9 in Sydney driving recently, even with putting the boot in a bit, noting there wasn't a lot of traffic and I was driving reasonably economically when I wasn't putting the boot in.

Be interested to here what other Tig owners are getting in city driving?????
Since most of this economy thread to date has been on hwy economy.

My averages would be similar to Sharkie's. As I mentioned in earlier post, most of my driving is inner city (within 5kms of the CBD, lots of lights and stop start, and waiting multiple light changes before crossing). 147TSI Auto, always running AC and driven vigorously within the speed limits. In this type of running I have been averaging in the 15s, most other suburban I get in the 11s and once I hit the the highway, average around 8s. Love driving it! :banana:

[Arctra]

Here are some TDI figures for you (stick TDI Auto) where I use aircon about 40% of the time:

City driving (fairly hilly drive to work and reasonable traffic. I am not shy about drag racing away from the traffic lights):

Best figures - 8.75 l/100km
Worst figures - 10.24 l/100km


Open road driving:

Best figures - 6.68 l/100km
Worst figures - 9.58 l/100km


In the 18500km odd I've done in the Tig so far, I'm averaging 8.48 l/100km overall.

All of those figures are calculated based on quantity measured at the pump divided by odometer reading since last refill. I have not done a proper comparison of the actual compared with what the MFD says, but my gut feel is that the MFD is a little optimistic in it's readings.

[Ricardo]

Thats interesting. Does anyone know how accurate the MFD is?

So far I am averaging 6.7 l/100kms since new and I have done 1500km. There is only one set of lights in town so there is not much stop starting and as I have been running the engine in I have been accelerating gently.

[DieselTig]

I am currently filling a log book for business use on the 103Tdi and I have to say after 6 fills with some open road driving the average is 9.5l/100km. :mad: better than my xtrail ~13-15 average.
I have to admit I am not gentle with it, I like the torque and the the little turbo starts winding and cant help pushing the throttle. The best I had on a tank was 8 and most of it was open road. See how we go!

[jimbomort]

Thats interesting. Does anyone know how accurate the MFD is?

see post 57 in this thread, but in short, I have found the MFD in our Tig (125 TSI with the APR stage 1 upgrade) about 0.2-0.3 under actual, so close, but a little optimistic. This based on fuel actually refilled over 3 tanks and 2200 klms, compared with the long term MFD fig reset at the start of the 3 tanks. Not sure if the diesel MFD's or those in unmodified TSI's are any different, though I suspect not greatly.

[147Tig]

Must have program for these who record and keep eye on car’s fuel economy and other car expenses. It’s free and it is good, it could also be used as the logbook.You can also use it for more than one car.

Car Organizer Software from LiquiMoly Oil Company

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/web.nsf/id/pa_car_organizer.html
Program is over 20Mb file and it is slow download too.
Make sure you download English version. After you install it, use currency converter in it first and set it up to work in AUD.

wow, that's handy. Thanks

[smipx013]

Hi,

I have a 2.0 TDi Auto

Here in the UK I do a round 30 mile trip to the office every day and on average i get between 36Mpg (UK) this equates to about 7.85l/100Km (mixed driving in traffic up to 80mph with a 3 mile secion of the motorway at 50mph and a bit of stop/start at either end. The best I ever got was 42Mpg (6.9l/100km) (this is when I drive at a fixed 50-55mph all the way and either stroke the accelerator or put crusie control on -the latter definately improves things).

On a longer drive on the motorway I can cruise at a constant 90mph for 50 miles on cruise control and only get 31mpg (9.11l/100km)!!!!! In my old petrol 2.6 v6 merc it was the other way around. When I crusied in this I got 31mpg all the way but in stop/start traffic and short runs I only got 22mpg.

The consumption is better in slow and stop start traffic than it is at 90mph when the consumption really suffers at anyting above 70mph).

Paul

[jimbomort]

Hi,

I have a 2.0 TDi Auto.......The consumption is better in slow and stop start traffic than it is at 90mph when the consumption really suffers at anyting above 70mph). Paul

it is true for almost all cars that at speeds well in excess of 60mph, fuel consumption can increase quite substantially, wind resistance plays a big part and penalises less slippery vehicles such as small 4wds more so than others.

The difference in fuel consumption b/w 90 and 110klm hr alone can easily be 20%, though the most efficient cruise speed for different cars does vary a fair bit.

I'd sugegst the releative diff b/w your old merc and the tig on hwy versus stop start, doesn't suggest any issues with high speed driving in the Tig. Your quoted consumption at 90mph is quite reasonable.

[DBBL]

Hi guys,

I've had my Tig now for a couple of months now and cannot tell you how much I love it. It's exceeded expectations and both my partner and I love driving it.

There's only one MAJOR problem. Fuel consumption.

Admittedly we've come from a very fuel efficient Mini Cooper but I'm getting between 375km to 420km per tank and each tank is costing me between $80 to $95 dollars (depending on when I fill it up and that's for 98 octane).

Before we looked at the Tig, we were interested in an XC60 but quickly crossed that off our list once we saw the fuel consumption (16.something for highways and about 13l/100km combined).

We were then sold on an Audi Q5 and placed an order for a 3.0D which as a combined fuel consumption around the 6's l/100km.

THEN... we discovered the Tig and although the wait was almost as long as the Q5 we just loved the quality and bang for buck. I didn't look at the fuel consumption on the 147TSI (my fault) before we purchased it. I made a number of assumptions which turned out to be wrong. I've now discovered that the 147TSI has a city consumption of 13.7l/100km!!!!!!! and a combined of 10.1.

I know I've brought this up before in this forum and people told me to give it a while average out, but we're now seriously considering selling the Tig for an X1. Plain and simple, we don't want to and we both really like the Tig better but the X1 has a combined fuel consumption of between 5.3 and 6.8 l/100km and is also pretty good value for money (not as good). I know they'll be a change over figure but when you consider the cost of petrol and the fact that we'd be saving almost half in fuel costs, it certainly makes out a convincing case.

So... my question is whether there anything we can do to improve fuel consumption? I mean, am I missing something or is the fuel consumption on the 147 a bit ridiculous when compared with the competition? Can anyone point anything else out that I'm missing?

Thanks all.

[Transporter]

Why didn't you buy diesel? :confused:

Before you buy BMW find out how much is it for scheduled servicing and some common servicing parts incl. brake pads and brake discs.

[PassatB6]

Hi guys,

I've had my Tig now for a couple of months now and cannot tell you how much I love it. It's exceeded expectations and both my partner and I love driving it.

There's only one MAJOR problem. Fuel consumption.

Admittedly we've come from a very fuel efficient Mini Cooper but I'm getting between 375km to 420km per tank and each tank is costing me between $80 to $95 dollars (depending on when I fill it up and that's for 98 octane).

Before we looked at the Tig, we were interested in an XC60 but quickly crossed that off our list once we saw the fuel consumption (16.something for highways and about 13l/100km combined).

We were then sold on an Audi Q5 and placed an order for a 3.0D which as a combined fuel consumption around the 6's l/100km.

THEN... we discovered the Tig and although the wait was almost as long as the Q5 we just loved the quality and bang for buck. I didn't look at the fuel consumption on the 147TSI (my fault) before we purchased it. I made a number of assumptions which turned out to be wrong. I've now discovered that the 147TSI has a city consumption of 13.7l/100km!!!!!!! and a combined of 10.1.

I know I've brought this up before in this forum and people told me to give it a while average out, but we're now seriously considering selling the Tig for an X1. Plain and simple, we don't want to and we both really like the Tig better but the X1 has a combined fuel consumption of between 5.3 and 6.8 l/100km and is also pretty good value for money (not as good). I know they'll be a change over figure but when you consider the cost of petrol and the fact that we'd be saving almost half in fuel costs, it certainly makes out a convincing case.

So... my question is whether there anything we can do to improve fuel consumption? I mean, am I missing something or is the fuel consumption on the 147 a bit ridiculous when compared with the competition? Can anyone point anything else out that I'm missing?

Thanks all.

I note that is the official figures but what are you actually getting? My Passat has the exact same engine and I got 6.7l/100km highway driving from Canberra to Sydney. This decreased with city driving but I'd be surprised if you couldn't manage 8 or better on the highway. I also found improved consumption over time. You might be able to swap for a diesel Tig for far less money than an X1?

[147Tig]

Hi guys,

I've had my Tig now for a couple of months now and cannot tell you how much I love it. It's exceeded expectations and both my partner and I love driving it.

There's only one MAJOR problem. Fuel consumption.

Admittedly we've come from a very fuel efficient Mini Cooper but I'm getting between 375km to 420km per tank and each tank is costing me between $80 to $95 dollars (depending on when I fill it up and that's for 98 octane).

Before we looked at the Tig, we were interested in an XC60 but quickly crossed that off our list once we saw the fuel consumption (16.something for highways and about 13l/100km combined).

We were then sold on an Audi Q5 and placed an order for a 3.0D which as a combined fuel consumption around the 6's l/100km.

THEN... we discovered the Tig and although the wait was almost as long as the Q5 we just loved the quality and bang for buck. I didn't look at the fuel consumption on the 147TSI (my fault) before we purchased it. I made a number of assumptions which turned out to be wrong. I've now discovered that the 147TSI has a city consumption of 13.7l/100km!!!!!!! and a combined of 10.1.

I know I've brought this up before in this forum and people told me to give it a while average out, but we're now seriously considering selling the Tig for an X1. Plain and simple, we don't want to and we both really like the Tig better but the X1 has a combined fuel consumption of between 5.3 and 6.8 l/100km and is also pretty good value for money (not as good). I know they'll be a change over figure but when you consider the cost of petrol and the fact that we'd be saving almost half in fuel costs, it certainly makes out a convincing case.

So... my question is whether there anything we can do to improve fuel consumption? I mean, am I missing something or is the fuel consumption on the 147 a bit ridiculous when compared with the competition? Can anyone point anything else out that I'm missing?

Thanks all.


DBBL, I'm not sure how you drive your Tig, but for me I managed to get around 520km-550km per tank, work out to be around 11.3L/100km to 11.6L/100km, ie aircond on 75% of the time. I'm only used Ron98 @ BP.

I'm only clock up 2400km on my Tig. Hope this help:cool:

[clip]

Can anyone point anything else out that I'm missing?
Thanks all.
Yes, you're comparing a petrol with a diesel. The equivalent in the X1 petrol comes in at a combined figure of 9.3ltr/100k's which I suspect in real terms is going to be the same as, or worse than your 147 Tig (and over $60K on the road for the X1).

So maybe sell the 147 and buy a TDI Tig, as Transporter suggested.

[Achtung Tiggy]

I've just started an excel sheet to track my fuel economy:


Distance (km) Fuel Used (litres) Consumption (L/100km) Route Day Price (c/L) Cost ($)
556.5 61.74 11.1 Highway Mon 143.9 86.37
253.5 34.61 13.7 City Wed 135.9 45.66

Apologies for the format... the copy n paste function doesn't work too well here.

[DBBL]

Thanks for your reply guys. Much appreciated.

I called VW this morning and the guy said there's definitely something wrong with the car and to bring it in. He said the least I should be getting is 500km to the tank (which I would be happy with if that was the LEAST I should be getting)

That said, I called Volkspower this morning re APR Stage 1 and asked about fuel consumption. He said that it actually improves it by between 10-15%.

Can all those with the APR upgrade please confirm or deny this statement???

[Sharkie]

It all really depends on your driving style ..... I can easily get more than 10l/100km combined out of a TDI Golf, and thats purely down to my driving style .... (when I was testdriving the 3.0TDI Q5, the computer was telling me I was averaging 14.7l/100km) .... if you are aggresive with the throttle your fuel consumption will be high regardless if you have a diesel or a petrol turbo.

When the turbo is on boost a lot (diesel & petrol) the ECU dumps more fuel in and you use a lot of it .....

Driven with some constraint, you should be getting an easy 500km out of the 147 .... if not, and if you do not drive it aggresively, then there is something wrong.

APR map, again if driven with moderation will deliver 10%+ lower fuel consumption. And again, if you use that extra power all the time, you will be lucky to get 450kms out of a tank. (Like me)

Bottom line is ... if you are aggressive with your throttle, you will use a lot of fuel regardless which car you drive .... :cool:

In my GTI I saw extremes depending on usage .... 5.7l/100km (out of a modified turbo petrol) cruising on the highway, and 29.6l/100km at the track .... :cool:

[Johnbu]

Why didn't you buy diesel? :confused:

Before you buy BMW find out how much is it for scheduled servicing and some common servicing parts incl. brake pads and brake discs.

scheduled servicing at the dealer is cheaper for a BMW than for an Audi.

15k service for a GTI at VW $450.
30k service $550700 incl wipers/brake fluid.
45k service $450

20-25k service for a BMW (variable distance/time service) $300, plus say $150 for wipers/brake fluid

40-50k is another minor service (inspection 2) say $400.

Up to say 45k on both cars, the BMW will be much cheaper as you've done only 2 cheaper services rather than 3 more expensive services.

I also find brakes, oil filters, wiper blades, pollen filters, etc slightly cheaper for BMW than VAG.

If you're not servicing at the dealer, the service + parts will be very similar, however for every 3 scheduled services for a VAG you only need to do 2 for a BMW.

Having said this, the financial cost of trading in your new VW will outweigh the savings of buying/running the X1.

(Prices quoted are real life experiences for VW and BMW, plus the fact that BMW seems to be more reliable than VAG. However this is a small sample population within our family of say 5 BMW/5 VAG)

[Tigger]

I have never been too worried about watching fuel consumption as this is just par for the course with purchasing and running a vehicle of this size and spec.

That said, I have been recently comparing the consumption and I average 8.4lt/100km at the moment.

My 125 TSI has done 24,000kms, and I am not by any means a restrained driver. I mean, I often take off briskly from the lights, and I dont always use the best gearing. etc...

I dont thrash my car, but I do not feel that it would be right to drive it like a granny either.

If you want to save fuel, or are worried about consumption, buy a bike or prius or fiesta diesel. An SUV like a Tiguan is never going to compete with those sort of things.

[sawters]

Hi All

I get low 7L per 100km in my TDI Auto Tig - around town
About low 6's on the open rd sitting at 110kmph with cruise


I love this car!

[yshsieh]

Feeling is the most important.

Good thoughts!

[brh1978]

My 147's done 15000km and is a year old, Thurs we drove 350k from Brisbane to Bundy, the MDI reported 8.1L/100km and that included driving home from work in peak hour and a couple of very brisk overtaking manoeuvres (smooth trip no heavy traffic). Best we've ever done is 7.9 on the same trip (2 adults, 1 dog, luggage). My lease report from last year states we've achieved a total average of 10.5L/100km km for the last 12mths, 90% city driving, 10% metro highway driving with the A/C on 100% of the time.

[yshsieh]

16L/100km --> 90%city driving in peak hour, average speed 15km/h
The fuel is very crazy...
I just got my Tiggy 1 week ago and done around 500km.
A quite young Tiggy.
Is it the reason why the fuel is crazy?

[Transporter]

The reason is that very, very low average speed 15km/h. You should be getting less than 10L/100km in the city but it will depend how heavy the traffic is. Yeah at 15km/h that is most likely what you get with every 4 cylinder engine car with the same weight as the Tiguan.

[clip]

Guys, just take the MFD witha grain of salt. It depends when you check it, how you have been driving and for how long on that trip. If you run down the shops and check it will probably read very high. The Tig system seems to reset itself after leaving it for a time (not sure how long - 1hour 2?). So, most times it's only giving you an average of what you have done on that trip - not an average since the last fill etc. (unless there is a setting I can't find, but this is how mine behaves).

So you really need to average it out using the old method of filling, then refilling and checking the OD. Of course if you're only gettin 400k's to a tank, then you have a problem - either that or you've been taking driving lessons from Sharkie! :smile::smile:

[Pullstarter]

Prettys sure it resets after 2 hrs John, there's also 2 trip meter modes. You'll see a small number 1 or 2 on the MFD, that tells you which mode you're in. One is your overall averages the other is your most recent trip (which wipes itself after 2hrs of sitting still).

[Transporter]

The closest you can get to the real fuel consumption number is to always fill the tank to the top, note the km traveled and do it several times, than calculate it manually. I collect all the fuel receipts where I write odometer and trip meter readings, so over the time I have the better idea what is the fuel consumption of my T5. Also it can be a good indicator if there is some thing wrong with the engine or engine management (after replacing tyres you could also see some change in the fuel consumption). :eek:

[Tensixty6]

The closest you can get to the real fuel consumption number is to always fill the tank to the top, note the km traveled and do it several times, than calculate it manually. I collect all the fuel receipts where I write odometer and trip meter readings, so over the time I have the better idea what is the fuel consumption of my T5. Also it can be a good indicator if there is some thing wrong with the engine or engine management (after replacing tyres you could also see some change in the fuel consumption). :eek:

Doing it manually is the only way. I generally go to the same servo and even to the same pump if l can. Fill it to the first click and reset the odometer straight away.

[clip]

Prettys sure it resets after 2 hrs John, there's also 2 trip meter modes. You'll see a small number 1 or 2 on the MFD, that tells you which mode you're in. One is your overall averages the other is your most recent trip (which wipes itself after 2hrs of sitting still).

Ahh, thanks Pullstarter. How do you swap between the two without me spending an hour scrolling through the MFD menus ans still not finding it?

[jimbomort]

Ahh, thanks Pullstarter. How do you swap between the two without me spending an hour scrolling through the MFD menus ans still not finding it?

Pressing the Ok button on the steering wheel while in the fuel use/100klm screen will switch it b/w the two modes. Holding the OK down in what ever mode you are in (1 or 2) will reset it for that mode (1 or 2). I have often done this at each tank so I get the average for the tank using the MFD. In my experience after comparing actual use against MFD over 4-5 tanks, the MFD was close, but consistently 0.2-0.3 l/100 under. ie if MFD average was 7.7, actual was 7.9 or 8.0. Not sure all are the same and ours is APR chipped, but a guide.

[clip]

thanks Jim, that saves me hours!

[number 2]

That's OK then. I had a vibration rattle seemingly coming front passenger door. used to drive me crazy. Turns out it was the bloody iPod cable inside the glove box! (just another reason to remove everything in my life that has that little "i" at the start of it's name :blowtorch:).

My golf has a heat sheild rattle to but i usualy cant hear it. Service tech couldnt find it i decided not to push them into poking and proding my car. I also had another rattle driving me insane. Turned out to be the little button on the hand brake :)

[number 2]

Doing it manually is the only way. I generally go to the same servo and even to the same pump if l can. Fill it to the first click and reset the odometer straight away.

I do that as well. I write down car mileage, tank milage, liters cost and date. The l/100km on the computer is never accurate. Although, i fill it till fuel starts coming out the tank. Garunteed level. at best i get 5.0L/100km in my golf.

One time i filled up in Cobar, and i got 4.0l/ 100km. I thought it was strange, i had fuel at the top of the tank. turned out the only hose at that servo, only one open at night, was a hi flow one for trucks. I got 10 liters of air through the fuel frofing. I thought id never have to go through that PITA again. until yesterday...

[147Tig]

Sydney - Brisbane, 2 adults + 3 kids and filly loaded at the back, it did 9.09L/100km.

Brisbane - Sydney, I floored ... 9.5L/100km


The Tig only travelled 5500km

[Achtung Tiggy]

Sydney - Brisbane, 2 adults + 3 kids and filly loaded at the back, it did 9.09L/100km.

Brisbane - Sydney, I floored ... 9.5L/100km


The Tig only travelled 5500km

Those figures look good for a 147. Did you calculate it manually or get the reading off the MFD?

[147Tig]

Those figures look good for a 147. Did you calculate it manually or get the reading off the MFD?

That reading was manually done not from MFD reading. I was quite happy with the results :frown:

[tiguan125tsi]

Sydney to Gold Coast via the pacific highway, 2 adults, back fully loaded, 125TSI manual, averaged 7.4L per 100km. Aircon was on only 1/4 of the time. This was at night driving. Temperature under 20 degrees.

Gold Coast to Sydney via the pacific, same load on the car, half day time driving, half night time, with air con on 100% time, averaged 7.6L per 100km.

Very happy with it.

[147Tig]

Sydney to Gold Coast via the pacific highway, 2 adults, back fully loaded, 125TSI manual, averaged 7.4L per 100km. Aircon was on only 1/4 of the time. This was at night driving. Temperature under 20 degrees.

Gold Coast to Sydney via the pacific, same load on the car, half day time driving, half night time, with air con on 100% time, averaged 7.6L per 100km.

Very happy with it.



Wow, I though I had a good one but not. But I'm still happy with it :banana:

[tiguan125tsi]

Wow, I though I had a good one but not. But I'm still happy with it :banana:

the tiguan is awesome on fuel. your consumption is still very impressive considering the fully loaded car, the more powerful engine and the auto transmission. Well done mate :cool:

[jimbomort]

on a recent trip to moreton island return (off brisbane) from northern NSW we averaged 9.5l/100 actual, but that was with an average speed of 44klm/hr! Reason for that was 28% of driving distance was 4wdriving on deep sand. Our HWY consumption was 6.8/100 on way up and 7.1/100 on way back, that fully loaded 4 people in car, roofbox and towball mounted box. Trip up included about 30min of slow to stop start driving. Reason for diff despite that is no air con on way up and a slight tail wind. This based on the MFD, but from previous experience know those figs above are only 0.2-0.3 l/100 below actual, so close to 7.0 neat.

This also meant that our consumption on Moreton was about 16L/100. Appears high but that's quite reasonable for that type of driving. Always need to plan for much higher consumption (and therefore make sure tank is full) for that kind of driving.

This with a manual tranny and the APR remap

[clip]

Not high for the Moreton trip Jim, I would expect at least that or worse. Buggered if I can get that sort of milage on the road though.

[jimbomort]

Not high for the Moreton trip Jim, I would expect at least that or worse. Buggered if I can get that sort of milage on the road though.

Hmmmm - try a road trip with the cruise set to 100 and no air con. If its 1.5 or more hours you should get down to high 6's or low 7's, unless its quite hilly or the like or you have gone hard when not cruisng.

We just averaged 7.1 (MFD, so conservatively 7.4 real) with Tig loaded to hilt with roof box etc, a small bit of 4wd work and with going through burbs and centre of Bris for 20-30 mins (to drop into fortitude valley). Would have been closer to 7.0 real, if we didn't do the city work.

[vncharan]

I got my new tiguan doing 6.9Ltrs after driving 3020KM. Is its good economy? But iam surely impressed at this achievement.

[jimbomort]

I got my new tiguan doing 6.9Ltrs after driving 3020KM. Is its good economy? But iam surely impressed at this achievement.

is that per MFD or actual? If real that's good as an average for an auto with low k's, if mostly hwy about what you'd expect. The TDIs are more economical, my figs above your post are for remapped TSI, which can be quite good too, especially on the open road, but not as good as the TDI. I've got down to 6.9 actual on some trips with the TSI (manual) but our average of all driving is more in the low 8's.

enjoy, the diesel tigs are very economical, you should be able to get into the high 5's on open road trips with the TDI auto once its bedded in, lower if you are really economical

[mojo]

Went for a drive up to Gladstone and back over the long weekend - just over 1000k's all up. Economy on the way up according to the MFD was 5.5l/100km, and 5.8 on the way back - stuck pretty much to the speed limit on the way up, and just a bit over on the way back. Pretty happy with those figures. :) We could have almost done the trip on one tank, but filled up just to be safe.

[team_v]

I can average 8l/100km on the highway but it hasn't been properly worn in yet.
Actual average of normal driving is around 10.5 at the moment as i keep testing out APR stage 1.

[clip]

Went for a drive up to Gladstone and back over the long weekend - just over 1000k's all up. Economy on the way up according to the MFD was 5.5l/100km, and 5.8 on the way back -
why on earth would anyone buy one of those horidly expensive and production poluting hybrid things when you can get that sort of economy from a diesel that has some performance!

[mojo]

Just worked out my economy based on the fuel pump litres and the trip meter, and it's 6.4l/100k. I would guess the MFD figure would be more accurate?

[jimbomort]

Mojo, no actual is what you get, MFD is an approximation. Of course actual requires filling to same point in tank, accuracy of pumps etc, so can be a bit out. Your calc looks a bit high relative to the MFD in my experience.

Ours is a manual TSI. Testing over 5-6 tanks, has shown that the MFD in ours is consistently about 0.2-0.3 l/100 under actual (ie so slightly optimistic). Your calc looked at least 0.6 more than your MFD (wasn't sure if 6.4 was av for whole trip or just the return leg).

You should be able to get into the mid 5's with a manual TDI on hwy trips. At the speed limit (100) without air con, I have often got into the high 6's (ie 6.7/.8) with our TSI per MFD and occassionally lower. Driven very economically I think even the TSIs could get into the high 5's and TDI's I would think into the high 4's. However by very economically I mean travelling at a steady 85-90, and no air con, not practical for hwy driving or long trips. Travelling at a steady 60klm/hr in 5th might get even lower, but that is nuts.

There is no doubt the TDIs are very economical and the TSIs are quite good too considering - enjoy

[Transporter]

Just a word of caution on TDI driving for the best fuel economy all the time, especially the manual ones!

Remember that the dual mass flywheel (DMF) (http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/f136/how-do-32769.html#post389855) doesn't like to be driven in low revs in highest gear.
VNT Turbocharger (http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/f136/how-do-32769.html#post372303) needs good 3/4 - full throttle once a day to keep variable vanes clean (they can seize-stop moving when driven seductively).

Any of the above will cost you a lot more than you saved on fuel. :)

[team_v]

Also driving off boost can produce excess soot buildup in the DPF which is quite costly to repalce if it clogs up.
Running on boost heats up the exhaust gasses enough to purge the soot from the exhaust.

[mojo]

My "actual" figures were for the whole trip. Even at 6.4 I'm pretty happy, and based on jimbomorts observations maybe it was actually a bit lower than that.

I'm sure I could have achieved better figures. We had the A/C on the entire trip, and I very rarely put it into 6th - I tried to keep it above 2000rpm most of the time.

[NZTiguan]

My "actual" figures were for the whole trip. Even at 6.4 I'm pretty happy, and based on jimbomorts observations maybe it was actually a bit lower than that.

I'm sure I could have achieved better figures. We had the A/C on the entire trip, and I very rarely put it into 6th - I tried to keep it above 2000rpm most of the time.

You would certainly get better economy in 6th and I understand the most economic revs for the diesel Tig is around 1750. I regularly get (actual not mfd BUT mfd on mine is usually within .1) 6.6l/100k on a Trip with the auto but that's on NZ hilly and windy roads, air con on, often 4 up and running at around 105 to 110 kph (last trip average speed shown on mfd at the end of the day was 93 kph).

Cheers

[tig_one]

I'm driving a 2010, manual TDI Tig and getting low 6's going to work and mid 5's on long trips.
The car is never allowed to "lug" (low speed / high gear) and the run to work has about 20km of motorway in it.
Very happy with the performance and the economy.
Cheers,

[jcubed]

Hi All,

Me again.

What one should bear in mind in doing economy comparisons between different countries, is that the national speed limit in Australia is 110 km/h if I recall correctly, 75 mph in the UK and a similar 120km/h here in South Africa.

Then also the accuracy of the VW speedometer - which is 5% optimistic at 120 km/h, and the 12% optimistic fuel consumption reading of the trip computer.

So I used to drive with a Garmin Nuvi 5000 on my dash on long trips, driving at a TRUE 124km/h. By this time the speedo indicates in excess of 130 km/h, and I still have a 6km/h leeway prior to being pulled over for speeding.

Over 48000 km, I have averaged 12 km/l AT THE PUMP, with the trip computer consistently indicating around 13.5 km/l.

So i.t.o. fuel consumption, SA should be the worst, followed by the UK - which is pretty flat and mostly at sea level, and then Down Under for the lower speed limit.

For those that have followed my other posts, the Freelander 2 was the correct choice. Can't talk fuel consumption here, as the 3.2l i6 delivers 12-13l/100km. But then, there is no substitute for cubic inches, and fuel remains a bargain at any price - as long as it's cheaper than whiskey...

[borbor1313]

My best ever on the inaccurate MFD was 5.1l/100km. Done with very gentle accelaration,timing traffic lights,coasting down hills.Never have been able to get it below the magic 5 so i ve given up . Now I can just thrash it and still get 7-7.5l/100km so very happy..... TDI of course

[jcubed]

Hi borbor1313,

I agree, the deliberate driving for economy - at times arching your back to see if the car would not coast up to the stop sign without touching the accelerator - takes all the fun out of driving.

Seeing your realtime consumption on the Tiguan MFD is actually a deterrent to driving with enthusiasm. So I recommend displaying something else there :).

[jimbomort]

Hi All,
What one should bear in mind in doing economy comparisons between different countries, is that the national speed limit in Australia is 110 km/h if I recall correctly, 75 mph in the UK and a similar 120km/h here in South Africa.

Then also the accuracy of the VW speedometer - which is 5% optimistic at 120 km/h, and the 12% optimistic fuel consumption reading of the trip computer.

.........the Freelander 2 was the correct choice. Can't talk fuel consumption here, as the 3.2l i6 delivers 12-13l/100km. But then, there is no substitute for cubic inches, and fuel remains a bargain at any price - as long as it's cheaper than whiskey...

Jcubed of course that assumes all drive at the speed limit, simply driving at 10 below speed limit instead of 10 above can make a big diff in any country. Your point I think is that its important to know the speed at which economy is at.

Maybe the TDIs are diff or SA models, but our TSI Tigs MFD fuel reading is within <5% of actual (that confirmed over at least 6-7 tanks). Optimistic sure, but no where near 12% in our case.

No substitute for Cubic inches? Give me the 2.0 TSI motor with the APR upgrade anyday. A fantastic motor and with plenty of grunt down low and over a wide rev range. The R32 golf and its demise shows more cubes is not always more.

Driving for economy no fun? A challenge as good as any other and makes for a relaxing drive and perhaps even better drivers, very much in the interest of the driver then to anticipate and maintain traffic flow as much as possible. Anyway each to his own, but as much as I enjoy a fang, I see no point to driving hard all the time (no doubt Sharkie would disagree), dont get anywhere any quicker, just more fuel, more emissions etc.

Anyway some different perspectives and experiences

[jcubed]

Hi Jimbomort,

Just to put matters straight - I am not supporting hammering a car as being an alternative to economical driving. I am quite a slow-couch myself, trying to maintain my speed but not rushing off from each traffic light to reach it.

It is nice however, knowing that the power is there when you need it in an emergency situation.

Regarding your point -
No substitute for Cubic inches? Give me the 2.0 TSI motor with the APR upgrade anyday. A fantastic motor and with plenty of grunt down low and over a wide rev range. The R32 golf and its demise shows more cubes is not always more.
I have included a link to the latest Toyota Auris advert being screened here. Guess who represents the normally aspirated vehicle :biggrin:.

YouTube - New Toyota Auris X Sport Advert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBL9LYEuyiU&feature=related)

JJJ

[Sharkie]

.... Can't talk fuel consumption here, as the 3.2l i6 delivers 12-13l/100km. But then, there is no substitute for cubic inches, and fuel remains a bargain at any price - as long as it's cheaper than whiskey....

As jimbomort said .... cubic inches mean nothing these days ..... you'd be much better off in a APR 2.0TSI Tiguan both from a power and a fuel economy perspective.

The 3.2 Freelander makes 171kw and 317NM of torque .... at highveld levels you'd lose 18% of that due to the altitude .....

An APR TSI Tiguan makes 189kw and 402NM of torque ..... more than 350NM of that is available from 1750rmin to 5000rmin ... imagine how that would go towing anything .... and at highveld altitude loses only 9% of power ....

So in your situation on the highveld you'd be looking at 140kw & 260NM from the Freelander and 178kw & 365NM from the Tiguan with that massive flat torque curve ....

Shouldn't take an engineer to figure out which 1 will far outperform & out tow the other in all but the roughest conditions ..... and as a bonus a TSI will return highway consumption in the 6-7l/100km bracket on the highway ....

Tiguan for the win ..... again ....

[jcubed]

Hi Sharkie.

I agree 100%. In all but the roughest conditions....

Now that I have fully co-operated with you, you may just concur that perhaps the word "all" is pushing it a wee bit :wink_2:?

JJJ

[jimbomort]

An APR TSI Tiguan makes 189kw and 402NM of torque ..... more than 350NM of that is available from 1750rmin to 5000rmin ... imagine how that would go towing anything .... and at highveld altitude loses only 9% of power ....

Sharkie, I'm all the way with you of course on the APR'd TSI, and only a minor point, but where do you get 350Nm from 1750? From a curve for your car from Dyno testing? The APR stage 1 torque curve doesn't go below 2000rpm, I estimated from the APR graph that it would still be around 340nm (close) @ 2000rpm provided curve slope didn't change much, but all the way to 1750 would seem to be pushing it.

Interested in your source, happy to be proved wrong

Else gather on the differences in power losses above, that you are saying the forced induction copes better at higher altitudes than a normally aspirated car?

[jcubed]

Hi jimbomort,

Yes, power is lost as altitude increases due to the ambient air pressure dropping.

Standard atmospheric pressure at sea level is 1013.2mbar at 16°C. The rule of thumb is that you loose 30mb/1000ft. Therefore, at 6000 ft ASL - the highveld levels sharkie (who sounds like a home-boy) refers to - the ambient air pressure would be less by 180mbar.

That as a percentage of the ISO pressure above, would be 18%, so your power loss would be the same.

The first 180mbar of boost from a turbo puts this power loss back, and the car performs as at sea level, except for the initial turbo lag. The rest of the boost, say to 0.6 bar or so, adds performance. This is what is usually adjusted - the max boost level - when tuning, so that the pressure goes to ambient plus, say 0.8 or even 1 bar.

[Sharkie]

Hi jimbomort,

Yes, power is lost as altitude increases due to the ambient air pressure dropping.

Standard atmospheric pressure at sea level is 1013.2mbar at 16°C. The rule of thumb is that you loose 30mb/1000ft. Therefore, at 6000 ft ASL - the highveld levels sharkie (who sounds like a home-boy) refers to - the ambient air pressure would be less by 180mbar.

That as a percentage of the ISO pressure above, would be 18%, so your power loss would be the same.

The first 180mbar of boost from a turbo puts this power loss back, and the car performs as at sea level, except for the initial turbo lag. The rest of the boost, say to 0.6 bar or so, adds performance. This is what is usually adjusted - the max boost level - when tuning, so that the pressure goes to ambient plus, say 0.8 or even 1 bar.

Durban born, spent 10+years in Jhb ..... those years taught me the differences between sea-level & Jhb altitudes as far as power goes .... :cool: .... eventually gave up chasing normally aspirated power in Jhb and went forced induction and thanks to the current technology around all over never had to go back .... :cool: .... turbos are amazing things .... :banana:

BTW, have a look at my signature link, its got lots of GP number plated cars in it ...:cool:

[TiguanJo]

I have done just under 70,000 kms and the overall average is 5.9l/100 Last weekend I managed to do a trip from Rutherglen to Wagga at 4.8l/100. Simply amazing. I keep the car varying with the necessary boosts etc and definitely no 'lugging' I have the 2ltr TDI. I love it very impressed.

[team_v]

Done 1700km so far and the MFD reads 7.8l/100km
That is with an APR assisted TSI.

[yshsieh]

Run 6000km APR tuned TSI, 8 l/100km --> highway speed 100km/h

[Tedhaggie]

24000km . overall 7.6l/100km best 6.3l/100k

[ChrisJ]

24000km . overall 7.6l/100km best 6.3l/100k

wow jealous of all you guys, I only manage around 9s in my tdi. mostly inner city driving though. drops massively when just going to suburbs and highway.

[Transporter]

Ok, first fill up, MF display says 7.6L/100km and calculated from docket it is 7.79L/100km. Very happy with that since 50% of that were 20km trips in "S" mode up the hills to help engine run in.

[Captain Bungers]

I'm hitting around the 8.4L/100km for my 39 drive from the country into Canberra and back (each way) in my 125 TSI Manual. Have just cracked the 3500 km mark. It is a hilly drive with two overtaking lanes, so it gets a bit of a boot every now and then...

[mojo]

Driving back from Tamborine Mountain to Brissie a couple of weekends ago, I managed to get fuel consumption down to 5.0L/100km for the trip (according to the MFD). This was a trip of around 70km, mostly on 80km/h windy country roads and 100km/h freeway. I made a conscious effort to keep the revs in the range 1800 - 2000 when I was cruising on open roads. I also turned the A/C off for most of the trip. It actually got down to 4.8 at one stage, but crept up again when I hit suburban traffic. I suspect if I had been driving without putting much thought into it, consumption would have been around the mid to high 5's, which is still pretty good.

[team_v]

Driving back from Tamborine Mountain to Brissie a couple of weekends ago, I managed to get fuel consumption down to 5.0L/100km for the trip (according to the MFD). This was a trip of around 70km, mostly on 80km/h windy country roads and 100km/h freeway. I made a conscious effort to keep the revs in the range 1800 - 2000 when I was cruising on open roads. I also turned the A/C off for most of the trip. It actually got down to 4.8 at one stage, but crept up again when I hit suburban traffic. I suspect if I had been driving without putting much thought into it, consumption would have been around the mid to high 5's, which is still pretty good.

That is pretty decent work!
Lowest i have mangaed to get my Tiguan TSI on a trip average was 6.8


Went down the coast on Sunday with the Tig loaded up (5 adults and an esky and bags)
Managed 8.5l/100km due to some city driving at the beginning and end of the trip each way.
That is with a Stage 2 Tig (fuel economy does seem to take a hit, the same trip in a stage 1 would be 7.5-8)

[MGV]

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9162/img1321w.jpg

Hi all, just did my 1st surf trip, Melbourne - Barwon Heads - Torquay & back. Did about 50 k's of city, 180 k's of freeway & about 70 or so country at 60-80kph. So around a 300k trip & averaged 7.8! Gotta be happy with that, with a board on the roof! Overall average after 3500 is 9.9, mainly city driving. It's a 125, BTW... Only other longish day trip was up to Mt Buller a month ago, averaged 7.8 on the way up, 7.7 on the way home (nothing on the roof). So it seems as though economy is hardly affected with something (smallish) on the roof.

Quick question: When you select 'Range' on the MFD, is the overall economy used to compute this value? I never seem to get what is displayed...
Another quick question: What would be a normal operational oil temp be? Cant find it in the book anywhere. I'm usually between 100 & 105.

[jimbomort]

averaged 7.8! Gotta be happy with that, with a board on the roof! ........averaged 7.8 on the way up, 7.7 on the way home (nothing on the roof). So it seems as though economy is hardly affected with something (smallish) on the roof.

great to hear you are enjoying it, as it runs fully in, if you drive economically you can get down to mid to high 6's on hwy trips. I'm surprised your economy wasn't better on the return though, as you would have had a net hill climb from Melb to Buller and a net descent on the way back, which alone can make quite a diff. Of course head winds etc also make a difference. The point I guess, is we cant always fairly compare the return trip with the outgoing.

I managed a 6.9 the other day and that was 'combined' driving. Was over 72klm, with a lot of errands in that trip, and banked stop/start traffic into town for a couple of kays. I also gave it the boot a couple of times, so could have been lower, but I was driving very much for economy the rest of the time. In fact I find in country towns my fuel economy often goes down. Cruising at 55-60klm in 5th gear, the spot fuel economy is often around 4.5-5.5 l/100. So you could even get down to 5.0l/100 in a TSI, albeit at 60klm/hr, which is completely unrealistic on long trips!!

Seems to me, dirven economically the TSI's, even those performance tuned such as Team V's and mine are quite good on fuel, but the TDI's driven the same, will always be at least 1.5l/100 better. So a tdi auto with air con on and a tsi manual without would be very close. Of course flip that the other way around and then the gap is then more like 2.5-3.0l/100.

[team_v]

Heavy footed driving netted me 9.8L/100km average for the last tank (hand calculated, not MFD)

Since then have been drviign sedately (except this mornig when i blew away a Forrester) and it's back in the 7's.
The problem is that it only takes 3-4 spririted sessions and you'r back to 10 lol.
Gues it isn't too big of a worry since that makes it like an extra $15 but you had fun and it's quite a cheap expense.

[MGV]

When the novelty of driving a car that actually accelerates quite well in stock form wears off, i may have a go at driving economically...:devilish: Or maybe i'll just do the stage1 thing. Having too much fun just yet, as i have just come from a '93 2WD hilux. I couldn't kill it, so got a thousand bucks for it as a trade-in on the Tig, with 455000k's on the odo!

[MGV]

Just curious, but does anyone choose to run 98 octane premium in their TSI's? If so, reasons?
thanks, Matt.

[blutopless2]

so far average is around 8L/100k's for its first few thousand k's... i expect it to improve slightly and then in a few months i will get APR ecu flash done so then it should improve further.

Matt... I run 98 in both my jetta and tiguan - habit really... i have found over the years with different cars (SS commodore, WRX, Forester etc...) that it improved the economy and seemed to make the engines run better and cleaner... less spark plug fouling etc...

[donweather]

Yep, I have to agree. Since using 98, my fuel economy is much better.

[MGV]

Hmmm, sounds like the reasons why i run only 98 in my air cooled Buell...
Just another quick observation: I went to Bendigo & back yesterday, a bit over 300 k's, sitting on the limit (115 on the MFD, 110 on the GPS) & average consumption for the trip was about 8.4 l/100k. So, about 0.6 or 0.7 greater than if cruising at 100. (from relatively few previous comparisons including ~50k's of city driving).

[Pinarelloman]

Well we have had the 103TDI with 7SPD DSG box for a week now and have just filled up.
463km for 31ltr = 14.93km/ltr or 6.7ltr/100km.
Car only has 650km on ODO at the moment.
Hopefully it will improve slightly as the engine loosens up.

[G-rig]

This isn't too bad for a 2L turbo (APR tuned MK6 GTI), Brisbane to sunshine coast (lowest it got to on mostly highway driving), cruise control set between 105-115km/h.

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5875/gtieconomy100510.jpg

[neil]

Central Coast - Forster - Sydney on Saturday speed limit all the way 4.6L/100km
Just ticked over 35000ks with overall consumption of 4.9L/100.
Total distance since new has been 95% freeway.

[neil]

Well we have had the 103TDI with 7SPD DSG box for a week now and have just filled up.
463km for 31ltr = 14.93km/ltr or 6.7ltr/100km.
Car only has 650km on ODO at the moment.
Hopefully it will improve slightly as the engine loosens up.

Should this be 77tdi with 7 spd DSG or 103 tdi with 6 spd DSG, I thought the 77 TDI only had the 7 speed.

[NZTiguan]

Should this be 77tdi with 7 spd DSG or 103 tdi with 6 spd DSG, I thought the 77 TDI only had the 7 speed.

Sorry Neil you thought WRONG, all new Tiguans with the DSG are 7 speed. The DSG box was developed specifically for higher torque engines such as the Tig diesel. By the way, what's a 77 TDi ? I've never heard of one, it's certainly not a Tiguan engine ??

Cheers

[neil]

Sorry Neil you thought WRONG, all new Tiguans with the DSG are 7 speed. The DSG box was developed specifically for higher torque engines such as the Tig diesel. By the way, what's a 77 TDi ? I've never heard of one, it's certainly not a Tiguan engine ??

Cheers

Thanks for that Derek.

The 77 kw TDI is the new 1.6 litre engine.
Offered in the Golf, Jetta and I think the pollo.

[Bulkyegg]

What would you consider the engine to be "run in" to show true fuel economy? We have the car for two weeks and done 650kms, the best was something like 11l/100km, the average since delivery is 14.3l./km. We have a 147 in DSG and mainly city driving.

[Jamanta]

Hi All,

Back from holidays. Car was parked for five weeks after only 2 weeks of driving since pick up.
1200Km on the clock of mostly city traffic and two trips to Tullamarine Airport (100K).
Current avg on MFD 7.9l/100Km.
Will top up on the weekend and do the pump average.

[neil]

I noticed a slight improvement after 20000 but not all that great.

[jimbomort]

We averaged 7.2 in our TSI yesterday, over about 400kays. I was very happy with this as included a fair bit of driving in Brisbane and some stop start on the freeway, plus air con about 1/3 of trip and 115-120 in 110 zones and 108-110 in 100 zones.

This was from the MFD, previous experience shows actual was probably more like 7.5.

[ChrisJ]

I got 4.8 coming down from the Blue Mountains from Mt Tomah Bells Line of Road, Richmond, M7, M4, to Lilyfield. And that was with roof racks on.

[team_v]

I got 4.8 coming down from the Blue Mountains from Mt Tomah Bells Line of Road, Richmond, M7, M4, to Lilyfield. And that was with roof racks on.

Now that is awesome!
Love the smooth downhill runs with limited traffic.

[Jamanta]

7.4 on the second tank (pump avg). 1st doesn't count as it was filled in by the dealer... ;)

But I can feel the car is running looser now. MFD avg has already dropped to 7.5.

[BLKBORA]

My 125TSI DSG gets about 8ltr/100kms on average, very impressed with that.:)

[team_v]

My 125TSI DSG gets about 8ltr/100kms on average, very impressed with that.:)

Is that babying it?

I gave mine the beans on the way home this morning and maxed at 9 but the average was 8.

[BLKBORA]

Just normal driving, definitely not granny driving though, I reckon the car can do 7.5 if i really drive like a granny...:P

[team_v]

Just normal driving, definitely not granny driving though, I reckon the car can do 7.5 if i really drive like a granny...:P

Granny driving should be able to net you low 7's
The best average i have seen in mine was 6.6 but that was highway driving in 6th gear.

[donweather]

Well I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Did 2 trips to the coast, and the remainder was city driving, and just calculated I did 626km with around 8 litres left in the tank (ie 56 litres of fuel used). So doing the numbers, that comes to around 8.9l/100km. So I'm still dumbfounded as to how some of you guys are achieving under 8l/100km in a TSI for city driving??

[team_v]

Babying it really helps.
If you have the cruise control on and make sure the needle hangs below the 2000RPM mark you can get great figures.

If you really want to get low figures pop it in neutral whenever you are going downhill (probably not safe or anything but the average fuel consumption then is 1.1L/100km lol.)

[jimbomort]

If you really want to get low figures pop it in neutral whenever you are going downhill (probably not safe or anything but the average fuel consumption then is 1.1L/100km lol.)

not only on hills and yes but only part true. On steeper hills you are actually better off leaving it in gear, as on 'full vacuum', the engine mgt system cuts fuel to the motor almost to zero, as is the case in almost all modern cars. So whenever you are free to coast your speed down or on moderate hills better to coast, but on steeper hills better left in gear. However if you could gain all the speed from the descent and coast back to crusijng speed on the flat, then better off in neutral in all cases.

I got 7.3 going into town and back today, including some hills and giving it the gas in third to waive goodbye to a holden ute behind me! This was only about a 9k trip and starting from cold. However I also cruise thru the residential area @ 45-50 in 4th and keep it in fourth down to 40 and I cruise at 55 in the 50 zone in 5th gear. I also roll a bit where it doesn't make a difference (ie going to slow down soon so I just start that a bit earlier and coast down where traffic allows. This driving suits me as makes no real difference to when I get there and most of the time I am constrained by traffic in single lanes anyway, so why rush. But not for everyone.

[MGV]

...So I'm still dumbfounded as to how some of you guys are achieving under 8l/100km in a TSI for city driving??

My local APR guy has quoted me a 10% increase in fuel efficiency if driving 'economically' using their map! I reckon if i sign up now, it will have paid for itself in no time! :bowdown: :evil:

I'm currently on an all-time average (city driving mainly) of 9.8, but i have got a 7.8 on a 15km freeway run into town on occasion. And thats not putting it into neutral down hills! :-D

[team_v]

My local APR guy has quoted me a 10% increase in fuel efficiency if driving 'economically' using their map! I reckon if i sign up now, it will have paid for itself in no time! :bowdown: :evil:

I'm currently on an all-time average (city driving mainly) of 9.8, but i have got a 7.8 on a 15km freeway run into town on occasion. And thats not putting it into neutral down hills! :-D

Post APR fuel consumption figures when driven for those conditions are generally better.
Normal driving (no babying but also no flooring it) will net me between 7.3-7.8 for city driving.
Babying it to the max can net me 5.5l/100km lol.
Flooring it will generally give back a 10l/100km result if i am on the gas all the time.

[jimbomort]

Normal driving (no babying but also no flooring it) will net me between 7.3-7.8 for city driving. Babying it to the max can net me 5.5l/100km lol.

Team V great to see our respective experiences are confirming each others figs. Good job on the city driving av, but assuming your city driving doesn't include much stop/start? I've got those kind of figs in 'city driving' but not with a lot of stop start - which just kills fuel economy.

on the 5.5l/100, can see how it can be done (spot fuel consumption with crusing in 5th @ 55 is in the low to mid 5's) but have you actually got that as an everage for a trip? I always find it ironic that in using the crusing at low speeds in 5th strategy thru country towns (which fits well with normal traffic flow) that my 'hwy economy' actually goes down!!

[Transporter]

Post APR fuel consumption figures when driven for those conditions are generally better.
Normal driving (no babying but also no flooring it) will net me between 7.3-7.8 for city driving.
Babying it to the max can net me 5.5l/100km lol.
Flooring it will generally give back a 10l/100km result if i am on the gas all the time.

I must admit, it's surely better than our diesel. :eek:

[ethosguy]

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

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

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

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

[donweather]

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

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

[team_v]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Transporter]

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


Perhaps the discrepancy in fill ups. :?

[donweather]

I am hopeful of getting a mini cam to record a trip as proof.
Just gotta find one that i can attach to the underside of the dash bulge and have it record for long enough.
GoPro Official Store: Wearable Digital Cameras for Sports (http://www.goprocamera.com/products/hd-hero-naked-camera.php)

[Transporter]

GoPro Official Store: Wearable Digital Cameras for Sports (http://www.goprocamera.com/products/hd-hero-naked-camera.php)

Are you a spamer now ? Or what ?




:biggrin:

[gldgti]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jimbomort]

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

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

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


If you can get better than 6l/100km out of a whole tank, I'll eat my straw hat that I use when mowing the lawn. :-)
I think its completely doable, especially if done out west in the cooler months as they do for the ecnomy challenge, but I'd be driving at about 55-70 on a highway. Not very practical and about 16-17 hours driving to exhaust the tank at that rate! I actually recorded a 5.8 over a 100klm trip on the MFD once (day I was going to get the APR upgrade). There was a strong tail wind so its possible, but I have no way of confirmign that one and it was a little suspicious. I have recorded 6.5 a number of times on longer trips, but plus the o.3 and that's more like 6.8.

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

[MGV]

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

[Transporter]

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

[jimbomort]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Transporter]

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

:)

[team_v]

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

:)

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

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

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


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

[Transporter]

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

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

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

:)

[team_v]

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

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

[jimbomort]

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

actually that run was not that flat, quite a few hills on the hwy up to southern QLD from norther nsw. I agree a very up and down route doesn't help, though again it depends a fair bit on we drive/approach it. What really kills it is a net ascent and likewise a net descent does wonders for it.

and yes of course our long term av is much higher, my post was to show it could be done, as an earlier poster didn't think it was possible. It was to also show that even the TSI's are quite economical when driven so.

If I was driving our TSI Tig I would say our long term av would be somewhere in the 7's, but Mrs drives it most of the time and its more around 8.0-8.5, which is still good considering it does a lot of short trips around town.

[MGV]

I tried to drive to work 'economically' this morning & as i consider myself a bit of a motoring enthusiast, i must say, it drove me crazy trying to change up through gears at 2000rpm.....
The ''fun-factor's'' gotta be worth more than $2.80/100km, IMO. Will happily sit on a long term av' of mid to high 9's. :-)

[team_v]

The ''fun-factor's'' gotta be worth more than $2.80/100km, IMO. Will happily sit on a long term av' of mid to high 9's. :-)

Cheap thrills!
It can be driven economically but giving it the beans with the 4Mo system and Stage 2 is too much fun to play the economy game all the time.

[ChrisJ]

Taking the Tig for its first big drive over easter. Heading to Melbourne from Sydney. Anyone reckon I will do the 860km on a single tank? Not keen on driving slow for economy.
It will require an average of 7l/100km - surely should be achievable in my Tdi auto...won't be heavily loaded, just me and the dog.
My old 93 camry did 8s on the highway so if I don't get 7l/100 from my diesel then I'll not be happy!

[team_v]

Taking the Tig for its first big drive over easter. Heading to Melbourne from Sydney. Anyone reckon I will do the 860km on a single tank? Not keen on driving slow for economy.
It will require an average of 7l/100km - surely should be achievable in my Tdi auto...won't be heavily loaded, just me and the dog.
My old 93 camry did 8s on the highway so if I don't get 7l/100 from my diesel then I'll not be happy!

860 for a tank would be right on the limit for a petrol if you are driving in a usual manner i would say.
For a diesel it should be easily doable.
Just note that the air con will kill fuel economy as does going over 100km/h.

Mine will return 6.8 at 90km/h on the highway

[MGV]

That's great, Team V, for the performance capabilities of yours!! Do you update or track your 'long' average, what's that on?
I'm still (13000k's) sitting on a long term av of 9.0 in my stock 125. Semi-spirited city driving.

[team_v]

That's great, Team V, for the performance capabilities of yours!! Do you update or track your 'long' average, what's that on?
I'm still (13000k's) sitting on a long term av of 9.0 in my stock 125. Semi-spirited city driving.

Long average is on 9.5 but i have been giving it the beans lately.
If i drive "sensibly" i can get the trip average to be in the 8's around town.

I try not to reset the total average (fuel economy 2) so i get a long term view of my use.

[ChrisJ]

Long average is on 9.5 but i have been giving it the beans lately.
If i drive "sensibly" i can get the trip average to be in the 8's around town.

I try not to reset the total average (fuel economy 2) so i get a long term view of my use.

Not sure if you've noticed this on yours, but my "2" records all reset when the driving time hit 100 hours. I am pretty sure I didn't reset it myself because one day I looked and it was on 99hrs.xxm and the next day I looked it was back to 2hrs.xxm my average fuel had gone from 8.5 to over 10...I only touch the reset when I refuel and I hadn't refuelled.

[jimbomort]

hmmm not sure about the reset but I will look at ours

our long term is on about 7.8, though in the first 12 months it would have been more like mid 8's, so long long term would be more like low 8's. We do lots of short trips etc, and some heavy traffic, but also lots of regional driving. My wife drives ours most of the time, if just on hers would be mid 8's, if just on mine would be low 7's. I enjoy giving it the stick occassionally, but I drive economically most of the time. We dont use air con much, ours is a manual and I generally keep it to a 100 on the hwy, so most of my trips, even through town are in the 6's and low 7's.

[ralp2dam]

I'm not sure if this is the right spot but rather then starting a new topic I thought it would be appropriate to ask in this thread.

When collecting a new VW specifically a 147 Tig from a dealer should it come with a full tank of petrol. Is it common practice for VW to fill it with 95 or 98 octane fuel?

Lastly, I know this is a topic of great debate but what are people's opinions about the best petrol for the Tig? I was thinking of using BP Ultimate.

[team_v]

I'm not sure if this is the right spot but rather then starting a new topic I thought it would be appropriate to ask in this thread.

When collecting a new VW specifically a 147 Tig from a dealer should it come with a full tank of petrol. Is it common practice for VW to fill it with 95 or 98 octane fuel?

Lastly, I know this is a topic of great debate but what are people's opinions about the best petrol for the Tig? I was thinking of using BP Ultimate.

Should have a full tank of fuel (mine did)
And should be filled with premium unleaded (either 95 or 98).
I believe mine had 95 as i got the tune done and it was a bit gurgly, but fixed itself after i put 98 in.


I only use BP Ultimate.
Not worth the "savings" to put lesser fuel in.

[ralp2dam]

Should have a full tank of fuel (mine did)
And should be filled with premium unleaded (either 95 or 98).
I believe mine had 95 as i got the tune done and it was a bit gurgly, but fixed itself after i put 98 in.


I only use BP Ultimate.
Not worth the "savings" to put lesser fuel in.

Thanks team_v. Surely if VW recommend 98 octane the dealer would be doing themselves a disservice if they put anything else in. However, how can the average customer tell?

Anyone else have any opinions for the best fuel for the Tig?

[johnw]

Just wondering if anyone know why the consumption value from the MFD is always lower than the actual consumption by about 0.7-1L/100km? is it to make the car seem more economical?

I do a calculation of the fuel put in (until the first click, which is quite accurate as usually no more fuel will go in after the first click) and the distance covered and over the last 5-7 tanks, it's consistently been over the MFD value. MFD is gives 10.2 when actually it's closer to 11 ish.

I don't trust the MFD remaining range value for this reason.

[jimbomort]

Just wondering if anyone know why the consumption value from the MFD is always lower than the actual consumption by about 0.7-1L/100km? is it to make the car seem more economical?

I do a calculation of the fuel put in (until the first click, which is quite accurate as usually no more fuel will go in after the first click) and the distance covered and over the last 5-7 tanks, it's consistently been over the MFD value. MFD is gives 10.2 when actually it's closer to 11 ish.

I don't trust the MFD remaining range value for this reason.

You drive a Tig? I ask as doesn't appear so from your sig?

I have found our Tig to be consistently 0.2 to 0.3 under, so still optimistic, but pretty close. I dont know why they are optimistic, may be to do with the way they calc/average versus real world. I dont remember seeing anything addressing your question but there is lots of stuff in this thread on economy and real versus mfd, so may be worth a trawl thru

[Transporter]

Just wondering if anyone know why the consumption value from the MFD is always lower than the actual consumption by about 0.7-1L/100km? is it to make the car seem more economical?

I do a calculation of the fuel put in (until the first click, which is quite accurate as usually no more fuel will go in after the first click) and the distance covered and over the last 5-7 tanks, it's consistently been over the MFD value. MFD is gives 10.2 when actually it's closer to 11 ish.

I don't trust the MFD remaining range value for this reason.

To be sure, what is the exact error of the MFD, you would have to measure the fuel you put in the tank, since the service station pum has also an error. The error of 50ml/L is 10.5L/100km instead of 10L/100km if there would be 0 error.

[johnw]

No I don't drive a tig but just thought VW would be using the same method for consumption across the range.

I should measure the amount going in I guess but its hard unless the tank is fully drained (side of the road no fuel).

Guess I can fill it to the "brim" as an indication of full instead of the first click :-P

Posted using Tapatalk

[Prodigy]

What sort of consumption should i be getting from our 147tsi?

At the moment we are averaging around 500kms to a full tank which seems really bad, car is used majority of the time in stop-start traffic but i still would of thought i'd be getting better figures than that.

[Transporter]

Depending from the traffic it could be anything between 10L - 12L/100 or even more, so it looks OK to me.
For normal city driving you should around 10L/100km.

[team_v]

What sort of consumption should i be getting from our 147tsi?

At the moment we are averaging around 500kms to a full tank which seems really bad, car is used majority of the time in stop-start traffic but i still would of thought i'd be getting better figures than that.

The 147 shouldn't be any worse than the 125 in reality, it is such a light tune.

I get around 10 if i am heavy footed, if i drive with fuel economy in mind i can net around the high 8's for city driving.

Usually i end up with 600-650k per tank.

[ralp2dam]

What sort of consumption should i be getting from our 147tsi?

At the moment we are averaging around 500kms to a full tank which seems really bad, car is used majority of the time in stop-start traffic but i still would of thought i'd be getting better figures than that.

I've got a 147 and have been monitoring over the first 1500k. I'm averaging 9.9L, however, I have had a country drive in there.

[team_v]

Did a highway trip from Northside of brissie to Dreamworld (65km or so each way, 50km each way highway)
Fuel consumption for the day was 7.4l/100km
Best i saw was 6.8l/100km in the 100km/h zone.


This was with 4 adults in the car + esky etc and about 25km of the trip each way in a 110 zone

[Transporter]

Hmmm.... long term average calculated from the fuel dockets is the only right indicator of the real life fuel economy.

[team_v]

Hmmm.... long term average calculated from the fuel dockets is the only right indicator of the real life fuel economy.

I understand that.
Just thought i would share the trip average to show that you can still get good figures even with some city driving nad modifications.

From my experience, the trip computer has only been between 0.3 and 0.5l/100km under reading over the life of the car.

[Transporter]

I understand that.
Just thought i would share the trip average to show that you can still get good figures even with some city driving nad modifications.

From my experience, the trip computer has only been between 0.3 and 0.5l/100km under reading over the life of the car.

I know that, but some people may think that they will get 7.4L/100km and don't realize how many short trips they do for one long one. Just watch the instantaneous fuel consumption while taking off and warming up. :)

I think that the trip computer is quite accurate in calculating the fuel economy and the error is there because of the discrepancy in the fuel quantity we put in the tank and what we pay for.

[team_v]

I know that, but some people may think that they will get 7.4L/100km and don't realize how many short trips they do for one long one. Just watch the instantaneous fuel consumption while taking off and warming up. :)


I hear you with that.
Instantaneous when you start her up and take off will be around the 20l/100km or so.
The interesting part is watching hte distance until empty reduce by up to 40km when you hit some sort of traffic.

[Sharkie]

Pretty sure I've posted this up before, but at present my long term average (17000km) is 11.4l/100km. I can easily get less than 7l/100km cruising on the highway, just like team_v .... but .... if you drive enthusiastically everywhere else you will get high consumption ..... I can not get less than 11l/100km on a 20km commute each way .... my wife however can get 9l/100km on pretty much the same commute .... :facepalm:

Same applies to a TDI ..... bottom line is .... if you use the turbo it uses more fuel .... :eek: My wife can get 10l/100km in the TDI MV where I get 13-14l/100km on the same 20km commute. I battle to get 500km out of 80l of pricey BP Ultimate Diesel.

In fact to get similar performance, I'd say a TSI is lighter on fuel than than a TDI :P

[clip]

As soon as I sit over 100k/h it starts going up. Sit on 100 (true hundred, not what the speedo reads, which in my case I need to be indicating about 107), I can get 7.8, as soon as I push it up to 110 (indicating 118k/h) it increases to 8.2 at best. That's crusing down the Bruce highway, so no hills or silly business. Can't get away from the aerodynamics of an SUV I guess.

[Transporter]

I hear you with that.
Instantaneous when you start her up and take off will be around the 20l/100km or so.
The interesting part is watching hte distance until empty reduce by up to 40km when you hit some sort of traffic.

Got the Touareg 99.9L/100km when just starting to drive up the hill. :grin:
The Tiguan is a bit less, but still scary when you watch it. :)

[MGV]

... nad modifications...



YOWCH!! :eek: Sounds painful! Sorry, couldn't help it... :D

Just thought i'd chime in with a pretty good rate: A recent run up the Hume & Pacific got me 7.9 over 1350km's in my TSI. 60% at 110 (118 on the cruise = 110 on the GPS), 40% at 80-100. Loaded up removalist style & with a surfboard on the racks! :thumb:

[MGV]

Also, as suspected by another member here, the long term average DOES (at least on my '10 model) reset itself every 100 hours driving time. 1st time it happened, i thought i had inadvertantly reset it, but i have noticed it happen twice since then. Mine usually makes it's way back to low - mid 9's eventually.

[roscoe1974]

I can sit on 110kmh (Speedo-indicated) up the Bruce Hwy and come back with 5.5l/100km on the Hwy run from Brissy to Noosa, but that's a TDi, and just cruising, not gunning it past anyone (too old for that!)

[donweather]

With my 125, and 95% city driving to and from work, I'm averaging pretty stock standard 10L/100km (30,000km). Can get down to around low to mid 8s on the highway but I generally do 120km/hr (speedo) in the 110 zones.

I'm still dumbfounded as to how team v averages such low fuel economy with such modifications. I'd be up around the sharki figures if my Tig was modded the same as team v's!!!

[team_v]

With my 125, and 95% city driving to and from work, I'm averaging pretty stock standard 10L/100km (30,000km). Can get down to around low to mid 8s on the highway but I generally do 120km/hr (speedo) in the 110 zones.

I'm still dumbfounded as to how team v averages such low fuel economy with such modifications. I'd be up around the sharki figures if my Tig was modded the same as team v's!!!

APR is great for power but i rearely get to utilise it for it's potential.
Because it doesn't get pushed very often the apr actually ends up giving a good fuel economy figure.

[jimbomort]

APR is great for power but i rearely get to utilise it for it's potential.
Because it doesn't get pushed very often the apr actually ends up giving a good fuel economy figure.

my experience as well, and the fuel economy is helped in part because torque below 2500rpm is also improved a lot with the APR mod. That makes it easier to drive at lower revs and lug around in higher gears, which everything else being equal will 'almost' always, improve fuel economy.

[Dargan]

Same setup as Roscoe, although a 2011 silver leaf TDI, I travel the Brisvegas corridor but from Buderim way. Trying to break 1000km with this car but always get tantalisingly close and miss it.Has anyone got over 1000km on a tank from a TDI? I have just done 12000km

[coastvw]

Hi all, With a 103TDI I typically have a mix of Freeway and city ( F3. Pacific Hwy for those who know sydney), and average 5.9-6.0 on that type of trip. Best I have seen is a trip 3 weeks ago Bathurst to C Coast, so through Bell Line of Road, Blacktown Rd, M7, M2 Pennent Hills Road and F3, it was middle of the day so light traffic and averaged 4.9, which is the first time I have averaged below 5. At this stage I suspect the MFD is reasonably close, as I have taken it down to empty and the trip meter was saying I had 30 kms left.

Dargan...............I have routinely got over the 1,000 km per tank, the trip above from from Bathurst was suggesting I would get ~1200, but I prefer to have some in the tank than run out on a Motorway. Good luck breaking the 1,000 k mark, mine has 10,000 km on the clock.

[whiskywallah]

I've not yet taken delivery of my 118 TSI manual so I read this with interest.
Many things are relative; trading down from a Turbo Territory and 19l/100ks I shall be ecstatic with anything sub 10!
One question I have is about fuel . I see little mention of grade or brand in this thread.
I see some discrepancies between the brochures, Wheels magazine and the dealers. Is 98 RON THE ONLY APPROVED fuel grade?
And what are the feelings on brands?
Any info gratefully received.

[z1000]

Is 98 RON THE ONLY APPROVED fuel grade?
And what are the feelings on brands?


With 95 RON, the car is slightly rougher and sluggish taking off. I can feel the difference but my wife cannot.

Of all the brands I have tried, BP ultimate offers a slight better milage than Vortex98 and VPower (Hwy: 7.8L vs 8.1L vs 8.3L/100km). Suppose you have a fuel docket for Shell/Caltex, the final cost difference between brands may be negligiable. Although BP probably cost me a bit more, but I hate queueing up for the other two.

Give every brand a try, your driving style may get you a different result.

[whiskywallah]

Thanks for the info. Really looking forward to delivery in 11 days. With 2 identical cars it will be interesting to compare fuels and drivers :)

[iamthestig]

z1000 - Is that on a 132 or 155 ?

[MGV]

Though i mainly use BP ultimate also, have not noted any real difference to the Shell VPower. Certainly not 0.5 l/100k's!
Interesting to note my long term average has just reset again (yet another 100 hours clocked up!) & my city driving average still around the 9.2 mark. Heaps better than 19, hey whisky?!! :D

[z1000]

z1000 - Is that on a 132 or 155 ?

132. All highway figures are obtained from regular Waterfall to Gong drives.

I do such test to prove that Shell is less economical in the daily city commute.

[Dargan]

Am now close to 27000km for an April 2011 TDI and am getting over 1000km per tank. Even an indicated 1150km at one stage. Very economical cruiser for highway running.

[CADman]

HI All

Recently picked up my 118 tsi and driven it about 1500km. Im a little concerned about fuel economy. Ive getting on average about
11.2lt/100km, which is a far cry from the state 6.9lt/100km. I do mainly suburban driving (NOT city grid lock driving), and am averaging about 550km per tank. Im a little dissapointed considering its a 1.4 litre and 2 whel drive and that I am a conservative type of driver. Is this going to improve with more driving?

[masev]

Considering the very low km you've travelled, it will DEFINITELY improve as the km's roll on. I was averaging about 300km on a tank from my Golf R in the first 3000km and am now averaging around 550km (now @ 16,000km).

[Transporter]

HI All

Recently picked up my 118 tsi and driven it about 1500km. Im a little concerned about fuel economy. Ive getting on average about
11.2lt/100km, which is a far cry from the state 6.9lt/100km. I do mainly suburban driving (NOT city grid lock driving), and am averaging about 550km per tank. Im a little dissapointed considering its a 1.4 litre and 2 whel drive and that I am a conservative type of driver. Is this going to improve with more driving?

It really depends from the traffic and how you drive. Remember almost every time when your foot is off the accelerator the engine doesn't use any fuel. The 1500km is too soon to get the best fuel economy for many; it can take 5,000km to 10,000km before you know the car enough to get the best out of it. By then engine will loosen up a bit as well. I'm sure you will get better fuel economy soon. In the mean time, enjoy it. :)

[CADman]

Thanks guys for your response, given me a little reassurance that better fuel economy is still to come. But despite that, an excellent car to drive. Ill be putting an OEM rear boot handle reverse camera in this Sunday (hopefully) so will try to take some picks of the process as Ive had a bit of a hard time finding info on exactly this type of install, plenty on the badge camera, and I know essentially its the same, but Im sure there are going to be some slight differences Ill have to figure out. Also managed to borrow a vagcom from brother in laws friend, so Im all setup for install.

[donweather]

Left my roof racks on this morning and drove down the coast, averaging 110km on the speedo. Noticed a considerably higher fuel consumption with the roof racks on....at least 1.5-2L/100km more. I was surprised it made such a significant difference.

[MGV]

What type of racks do you have, Don?
I notice a bit of an increase when my racks are loaded up, but negligible when unladen.
OEM looks less aerodynamic than my rhinoceros ones! :D

[donweather]

What type of racks do you have, Don?
Lockable Rolas just like these ones:

Rola Roof Racks - Volkswagen Tiguan Wagon 5dr (05/08 on) - iRacks - Roof Racks and Accessories (http://www.iracks.com.au/ebay-listed/rola-roof-racks-volkswagen-tiguan-wagon-5dr-05-08-on/)

Noticed a fair amount of additional noise driving with them on the highway also.....guess that's what makes the fuel consumption go up.

[whiskywallah]

Lockable Rolas just like these ones:

Rola Roof Racks - Volkswagen Tiguan Wagon 5dr (05/08 on) - iRacks - Roof Racks and Accessories (http://www.iracks.com.au/ebay-listed/rola-roof-racks-volkswagen-tiguan-wagon-5dr-05-08-on/)

Noticed a fair amount of additional noise driving with them on the highway also.....guess that's what makes the fuel consumption go up.

I've had ProRack Whisper bars (http://www.whispbar.eu/) fitted from day one so can't compare before and after but I don't notice any noise.
First half tank indicates 9.4l/100 which seems good to me

[MGV]

Headed down to Torquay this morning with the behemoth on the roof racks (recently taken up SUPaddling) & managed 7.3l/100k (on the way down)! About 100k's each way, maybe 70 of those doing 90-100kph.

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/3263/img1425h.jpg

Trip home wasn't quite as good as a northerly headwind had picked up through the day, but still managed 9.1 on the return leg. Sill good considering the additional drag!

Pretty happy with these figures, better than i have gotten before on fairly regular similar trips with a regular 7' surfboard on the roof... I'm wondering if the new hi-flow air filter i have just installed ie 'easier' breathing (& claimed torque gains), would result in slightly better economy?

[Jad]

Recently picked up my 118 tsi and driven it about 1500km. Im a little concerned about fuel economy.

Our 118TSI averages around 9.3L/100 around the suburbs with the leadfoot Mrs doing most of the driving during the week. Over the Easter break with mostly country driving and towing a trailer we got 7.6L/100. As the KMs are clocking up (6200 kms so far) I'm noticing a definite downward trend on the fuel consumption which is nice to see.

[whiskywallah]

Heading to Blueys Beach in 118TSI manual. Mixture of L plate 80kms and me doing 114.
Roof rack with big kayak, 3 people and boot overflowing.
7.0 l/100kms and dropping with only 800kms on clock.
Very impressed. Will cruise in 6th gear at 1800rpm.

[Pinarelloman]

Ours now has 24800km on it. I have checked the economy several times and it always is around 16-18km/ltr. Very good.

[ido09s]

I have 4000klms on my 132TSI DSG Tiguan

Overall i have achieved an average of 10.1 litres to the 100.

Most tanks though will see 600klms from about 60 litres which adds up obviously

Pretty happy with it though i am hoping it does become a little better

[team_v]

Took the Tig out west for a camping trip, fully loaded up managed an average of 8l/100km with stage 2 active, and a mixture of 100/110 zones with slow downs to 60 for small towns.
Also had the aircon on about 30% of the time as it ended up being around 32 degrees.

[Mullos]

I've only had my Tig for a few days and love it....

Just wondering if these fuel consumption figures are taken from your trip computers, or a more detailed analysis is being done - ie recording miles travelled and amount of fuel purchased?


For what it's worth, my first week on the road sees me getting 9.6l/100kms in city traffic according to the trip computer.

Cheers, Steve

[jimbomort]

earlier posts in this thread have covered, most are probably MFD figs, but Team V's and some others may not be. In my experience from testing over 5-6 tanks the MFD in ours (stage 1) is about 0.2-0.3 optimistic. So a 6.7 MFD is more like 6.9-7.0 l/100. Team V and I have both got into the high 6's and low 7's on hwy trips (MFD), but that's running at 100 or just under, 110 will push it up into the low 8's.

[gecko2k]

Okay after the first 3 fills of our 155TSI, the fuel consumption after 70% highway driving is as followed:

8.7 l/km
10.0 l/km :emo_baghead:
9.1 l/km

Those figures were archived with permanent S-Mode, Aircon and overtaking only with WOT.

[The sTiguan]

hi all
just digging up this thread again.. we've done about 1000kms on the tiguan... so far average is about 11.1 L / 100km... this was about 95% driving through suburbia .. tbh i was expecting alot better!!

[tigger73]

hi all
just digging up this thread again.. we've done about 1000kms on the tiguan... so far average is about 11.1 L / 100km... this was about 95% driving through suburbia .. tbh i was expecting alot better!!

I had similar experience with my wife's Mazda 3. It took around 5,000 km for everything to wear in/ loosen up and since then it's been better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alexc2005]

I'm still disappointed with my 132 TSI, best I can get is 8.4 ongoing average and that's with 90% highway km's and not thrashing it :(

Considering getting a tune just to make things more efficient!

Edit: I should add that 90% of the time it's just me in the car with no additional luggage or anything and running on BP Ultimate 98..

[tigger73]

Well I did a reasonable (500km) run on the highway yesterday in my 125TSI with stage 2 tune and returned 9.9l/100km. Though that was sitting at 110km/hr (SA) - economy is worse at higher speeds. Plus it was wet... but not sure how that effects things. I wasn't trying for economy figures - just reset the averages at the start of the trip. Also gave it the occasional spurt just because I can :P

I don't think your fuel economy is that bad. Remember you have a 1600kg car and AWD system to lug around so it's pretty reasonable... Plus aero disadvantage with a larger car.

[coastvw]

Hi Just an interesting one, have never seen my range this high before (Tig MY11, TDI DSG),

7883

Note I had already done 79 km since fill, I know this can be inaccurate but even so its a big number. Will qualify and say I had done some downhill driving (for those in NSW, Lithgow through to Richmond), but I held 4.7 l/100 average through to the Central Coast (through Castle Hill, Hornsby, not M2)

[The sTiguan]

Def thinking of stage 1 for other reasons :) if it helps the fuel is an added bonus for sure

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[tigger73]

Well on the return journey I achieved 9.3 l/100km. I did drive a little more "conservatively".

Having said that with a stage 2 tune and an exhaust where you get DSG farts on gear changes it is far more rewarding to give it a few more beans :P


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The sTiguan]

how the hell does it get combined 8.8l / 100km ??

no where near that..

[JGM21R]

Fuel economy is an interesting topic. The largest differences are due to driver input more than anything else.

I keep logs of all my cars as well as a mixture of work cars. You will find that city driving is a huge variable as well.

What are you describing? Bumper to bumper peak hour city traffic or after hours suburban driving. I have found huge variances for both.

TSi engines though tend to give a more stable figure than TDi's in the city.

The now permanently wife owned Tiguan 155 will average 12.5l/100km - 13.5l/100km on a short 20min drive to work and back where as in my hands (or rather feet) it will average 11.5 - 12.5, and by granny driving (no offence to any grannies) I can bring that down to 10.5

Taking this car on weekend escapes and on carefull applications, I have seen as low as 7.5l/100km over a 1000km distance and can easily go up to mid 9s for a slightly more aggresive driving.

The diesel Amarok though will match the Tig on drag racing style city driving (can't help it as if you give someone is Sydney half a chance they will race you to get in front of you) but will easily go below the Tig on country drives.

The diesel Caddy though can easily return mid 6's and sometimes even high 5's on easy city driving and mid 8's on bumper traffic.

Toyota Hiace diesel will give you quite a wide range of economy figures as well.

The only car that had metronomic economy figures was a 1996 Honda Civic, which for some reason whether driven sensibly or thrashed would still return an 8l/100km figure.

The key here is turbo and non turbo. Turbo cars (diesel and petrol) will have a large variance in economy depending on how you drive them and on traffic conditions. Remember take off and using only 10-15% throttle applications will make really good figures for economy but how long you can hold out on with other traffic pushing all the time is a different story.

Aircon use, usually, raises the economy figure by about 0.8-1l/100km roughly

All figures taken with fuel entered and km travelled and not MFD

[jimbomort]

agree re driver input, tyres will also make quite a difference. I have never bettered our orig tyres (Hankooks) even tho I have tried some 'low roll resistance' tyres since.

IN our stage 1 TSI (190kw) I used to be able to readily get into the mid to hi 6's on long drives at a steady 100 without air con (MFD which is optimistic by about 02.-0.3 l/100 in our car) but I struggle to do that now. Our long term mfd av is about 8.5, tho thats with the Mrs driving, it would be under 8 with just me, tho I give it a squirt, I dont use air con much, or go much over 100 on the freeway and I coast where I can, slow down gradually etc, all of which helps with fuel economy.

I was also disappointed with our initial economy but after the first 1000 it improved.

Speed also makes a huge difference, at around a steady 80 even in the tsi you can manage into hi 5's on the mfd (so hi 5's low 6's real), whereas at 120 (indicated) i'd struggle to get below 9.0, so there's over 50% difference just there. That fuel economy at 80 is great, but unsustainable on long trips esp single lane roads (as apart from our own impatience you'd spend a lot of time pu;;ling over to let others pass or worse.....you become one of those drivers who ignores everyone else and holds everybody up!)