1.4 tsi manual - real world mpg

[ozoccy]

Second tank on my 1.4 DSG with mixed city driving is runnning at 7.1l/100km (40mpg), first tank was 8l/100km (34mpg). I assume that the manual should be pretty close to that.

[PekoSI]

Second tank on my 1.4 DSG with mixed city driving is runnning at 7.1l/100km (40mpg), first tank was 8l/100km (34mpg). I assume that the manual should be pretty close to that.

 

I think your conversion between imperial and metrical units is not correct. 

 

7.1l/100km = ~ 33 MPG

8l/100km = ~ 29.4 MPG

[ozoccy]

I think your conversion between imperial and metrical units is not correct.

7.1l/100km = ~ 33 MPG

8l/100km = ~ 29.4 MPG

I was using metric units and I thought this forum was in the UK or are you pretending to be in the USA after that tragic cricket result?

Edited 6 January, 2014 by ozoccy

[jonnybgood]

I was using metric units and I thought you guys were in the UK or are you pretending to be in the USA after that tragic cricket result?

Nope, definitely the UK, centre of the world, not some old colonial outpost!!

[PekoSI]

Stupid me! Thank you ozoccy -  I was converting it using US gallons all this time! 

 

Now everything makes a lot more sense finally 

 

I got ~36 MPG with my first and ~40 MPG with my second fuel-up which is exactly 75% of the stated MPG for the combined cycle. Things are looking up 

[pipsyp]

What people dont seem to consider though is that it takes a good while for the CR diesel engines to bed in and open up. When i first got my MK6 Golf GT 140 CR I was v disappointed with its fuel economy, was lucky to get high 30's early 40's on a short run....however with a few K on the clock it was returning low 50's with ease and on a run 55-60mpg was quite plausible, given its combined MPG was 53 it bettered its factory figures more often than not.....also even ringing its neck high 40's to low 50's was still achievable.

That leads me to believe that a 2.0 with a good few miles under its belt ought to 60+ mpg most of the time which will whatever anyone says will make it more economical than the TSI.

Also by the time you spec DSG on the TSi to make the most of the efficiency gains you have a car costing practically the same as a TDI manual and DSG is a biy like marmite, you either love it or hate it. Fair to say DPF issues are far from commonplace on the later gen CR VAG cars, ive had 3 VAG vehicles equipped with DPF and have had no issues with any of them.

Sure the diesel is a more expensive car spec for spec, perhaps in a way not quite as fun (but definitely as quick real world) but for anyone counting the running cost pennies it is IMHO the best option of the two cars.

[jonnybgood]

What people dont seem to consider though is that it takes a good while for the CR diesel engines to bed in and open up. When i first got my MK6 Golf GT 140 CR I was v disappointed with its fuel economy, was lucky to get high 30's early 40's on a short run....however with a few K on the clock it was returning low 50's with ease and on a run 55-60mpg was quite plausible, given its combined MPG was 53 it bettered its factory figures more often than not.....also even ringing its neck high 40's to low 50's was still achievable.

That leads me to believe that a 2.0 with a good few miles under its belt ought to 60+ mpg most of the time which will whatever anyone says will make it more economical than the TSI.

Also by the time you spec DSG on the TSi to make the most of the efficiency gains you have a car costing practically the same as a TDI manual and DSG is a biy like marmite, you either love it or hate it. Fair to say DPF issues are far from commonplace on the later gen CR VAG cars, ive had 3 VAG vehicles equipped with DPF and have had no issues with any of them.

Sure the diesel is a more expensive car spec for spec, perhaps in a way not quite as fun (but definitely as quick real world) but for anyone counting the running cost pennies it is IMHO the best option of the two cars.

I would add to that if you are on the PCP the better residual value of the diesel make the monthly cost even more comparable.

[pipsyp]

I would add to that if you are on the PCP the better residual value of the diesel make the monthly cost even more comparable.

Absolutely the point I normally make and forgot!

I think the TSi engine is a belter and if you're not particularly bothered with having a car that isnt particularly efficient when you put the hammer down completely understand why those people choose it.

I'd still however say that anyone buying a TSi on the grounds that it will achieve similar real world MPG to the diesel over a 3/3.5 year lease is frankly kidding themselves, particularly if they like to use the loud peddle.

Id actually put money on it that if you got a 1.4 and a 2.0 TSi together, gave them a good ragging that the 1.4 wouldnt be light years more efficient than the 2.0, the 1.4 probably averaging low 30's to the 2.0's mid 20's. Difference between a relatively stressed 1.4 and a fairly low stress 2.0.

[metis]

What people dont seem to consider though is that it takes a good while for the CR diesel engines to bed in and open up. When i first got my MK6 Golf GT 140 CR I was v disappointed with its fuel economy, was lucky to get high 30's early 40's on a short run....however with a few K on the clock it was returning low 50's with ease and on a run 55-60mpg was quite plausible, given its combined MPG was 53 it bettered its factory figures more often than not.....also even ringing its neck high 40's to low 50's was still achievable.

That leads me to believe that a 2.0 with a good few miles under its belt ought to 60+ mpg most of the time which will whatever anyone says will make it more economical than the TSI.

Also by the time you spec DSG on the TSi to make the most of the efficiency gains you have a car costing practically the same as a TDI manual and DSG is a biy like marmite, you either love it or hate it. Fair to say DPF issues are far from commonplace on the later gen CR VAG cars, ive had 3 VAG vehicles equipped with DPF and have had no issues with any of them.

Sure the diesel is a more expensive car spec for spec, perhaps in a way not quite as fun (but definitely as quick real world) but for anyone counting the running cost pennies it is IMHO the best option of the two cars.

Its not just the mpg with the diesel, higher purchase price (I'll go for the manual) higher servicing costs, more frequent servicing, DPF, EGR, DMF, Injectors as potential failures in a long term car and higher diesel cost all push me to go petrol route. I previously ran an Accord 2.4 petrol and a 2.2 diesel, the petrol ran for 4 years with no problem, diesel had DPF failure after 70k and clutch/dmf was starting to grumble. Diesel is fine I think if you buy new and sell after 4 years, any longer and you risk big bills wiping out any fuel savings made, or I at least want the peace of mind these failures are not looming.

[themanwithnoaim]

Petrol is the way forward, no major OEM is currently R&D diesels engines any further, all future R&D is going into petrol engines, with turbos, superchargers and petrol driven hybrids, these facts together with the smoother ride made my mind up.  It'll take time to affect residuals but, as some guy called Bob said some years ago "The times they are a changing"

 

Regards

T

[ozoccy]

Petrol is the way forward, no major OEM is currently R&D diesels engines any further, all future R&D is going into petrol engines, with turbos, superchargers and petrol driven hybrids, these facts together with the smoother ride made my mind up. It'll take time to affect residuals but, as some guy called Bob said some years ago "The times they are a changing"

Regards

T

Noy sure where you got that information.

I have a petrol Skoda but my other car is a diesel. I do a lot of towing with the diesel, a petrol engine can't come close to the economy of the diesel when working hard.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Sheldon.Cooper]

Petrol is the way forward, no major OEM is currently R&D diesels engines any further, all future R&D is going into petrol engines, with turbos, superchargers and petrol driven hybrids, these facts together with the smoother ride made my mind up.  It'll take time to affect residuals but, as some guy called Bob said some years ago "The times they are a changing"

 

Regards

T

Because the government is screwing every penny out of the motorist....  the co2 emission bands are shooting up every year from now on.  BIK rates are going nuts.

 

You buy a 1.4 today and it's probably a 18% BIK rate... same engine, same emissions in 3 years time and it's 21%

 

Manufacturers have to develop these engines as they are also getting screwed on emissions across their entire range (they need a certain average co2 or they are penalised).

 

The only way to do this is ever smaller engines, lighter chassis and turbo charging.

 

Next big thing for diesels is Euro 6 compliance....the government will screw you on Nox emissions as they are currently not taxed (only Co2)

 

All manufacturers are working on petrol & diesel R&D except that petrol now has a higher percentage of time and money thrown at it (for last 10 years diesel had the higher development time/costs/effort).

[pipsyp]

Its not just the mpg with the diesel, higher purchase price (I'll go for the manual) higher servicing costs, more frequent servicing, DPF, EGR, DMF, Injectors as potential failures in a long term car and higher diesel cost all push me to go petrol route. I previously ran an Accord 2.4 petrol and a 2.2 diesel, the petrol ran for 4 years with no problem, diesel had DPF failure after 70k and clutch/dmf was starting to grumble. Diesel is fine I think if you buy new and sell after 4 years, any longer and you risk big bills wiping out any fuel savings made, or I at least want the peace of mind these failures are not looming.

Not quite sure this is all correct.

Higher servicing costs and more frequent servicing....doubt there is much if anything between the two and both operate 2 year or 20k mile intervals.

DPF's and injectors hardly ever go wrong on modern CR engines (VAG at least) and DMF failures.....well thats luck of the draw stuff and doesnt typically happen until a clutch is ready to go which in a well driven and looked after car should give a v long length of service. A clutch kit and replacement on a 1.4 TSi is hardly going to be cheap anyway.

In any case petrol engines can suffer their fair share of woes...we have had three TSi/TFSi cars in our family (one Skoda Fabia vRS, an A3 1.4 TFSi and an A5 Sportback 2.0 TFSi) that have suffered oil consumption problems. Coil packs can go, injectors can fail just as they can in a diesel, misfires, turbos can go (and are probably under more stress in order to extract 140hp and 184lb ft torque from what would probably be an 80ish hp engine otherwise)........not that the new 1.4 can be compared but the 1.4 TSi 125 and twincharger engines but they were certainly far from faultless.....also dare I say it.....random cam chain follower failures on 1.8/2.0 TSi engines arent unheard of either.

Ive had several VAG diesels three with DPFs and theyve all been peaches and not one giving me any mechanical issues, my first did develop clutch judder very early in life but was a known fault and replaced under warranty and was fine afterwards....the one TSi car I owned drank 1 litre of oil every 4k at its best, was terrible on fuel, had a misfire issues early on and in the end I got so concerned it'd end up going pop longer term I sold it.

I may have had a poor experience and its just my opinion but the argument that there is less to go wrong with a 1.4 TSi is completely invalid, just different motors with likelihood of different faults occuring.

Apologies for digressing but feel it needed to be said.

Edited 6 January, 2014 by pipsyp

[GordoGT]

On 06/01/2014 at 20:52, Sheldon.Cooper said:

Because the government is screwing every penny out of the motorist....  the co2 emission bands are shooting up every year from now on.  BIK rates are going nuts.

 

You buy a 1.4 today and it's probably a 18% BIK rate... same engine, same emissions in 3 years time and it's 21%

 

Manufacturers have to develop these engines as they are also getting screwed on emissions across their entire range (they need a certain average co2 or they are penalised).

 

The only way to do this is ever smaller engines, lighter chassis and turbo charging.

 

Next big thing for diesels is Euro 6 compliance....the government will screw you on Nox emissions as they are currently not taxed (only Co2)

 

All manufacturers are working on petrol & diesel R&D except that petrol now has a higher percentage of time and money thrown at it (for last 10 years diesel had the higher development time/costs/effort).

6 Years down the line and this post is absolutely spot on!