MPG issues ON NEW GOLF MK7 2.0TDI

[dcdick]

Gents, back on topic please - the inner workings of the oil industry aren't helping the OP improve his MPG.

Censorship without explanation .......................... wonderful .

D

[Eshrules]

Censorship without explanation .......................... wonderful .

D

If you've got an issue with my actions, feel free to contact me via pm.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[pango1in]

I've had a run of active regens one after another... 1160 miles (Friday, after 3 days of short urban journeys, so fair enough?), 1210 miles (Monday evening) and a very strange one at 1250 miles (yesterday, one day after the 1210 regen). Just for the record, I am not driving like I stole the car.

The 1210 regen really annoyed me. It lasted 15 minutes and meant that I only achieved 42mpg on the way home (20 miles, mostly motorway). This was after I tried to clear the dpf manually by driving to work in 3rd gear that morning... The 1250 mile regen lasted for about 5 minutes (not 15) after I started the car on the way home, after the trip to work yielded 55mpg. I only got 47mpg on the way home that day with the strange regen.

Just out of interest, if you have a failed regen, where does the excess diesel go? Into the sump? Also, is there any other conceivable reason why the car would idle higher than 750-800rpm?

[STEVEP1041]

Hi Pango1n,

Had an interesting situation yesterday. I set off in 30 degree heat withe the dual zone climate set to 19 degrees. It was working at full speed and at every junction the idling speed was up at 1000 rpm. I took the car on a 15 minute run at 40 - 50 mph and even kept it in 4th gear. At my destination the car was of course fully warmed up and oil temp was 90 degrees.

I thought it couldnt still be doing a re gen so I turned off the air con and blipped the throttle. The idle speed immediately dropped to normal. I then turned the air con back on and the idle speed slowly went back up to 1000rpm.

Eventually, as the interior temp dropped and the air con fan speed came down, so did the idle speed. I am now thinking that the two are connected, with the engine assisting the air con and not necessarily re genning every time the engine revs rise.

Has anyone else noticed the same?

[maisbitt]

I've had a run of active regens one after another... 1160 miles (Friday, after 3 days of short urban journeys, so fair enough?), 1210 miles (Monday evening) and a very strange one at 1250 miles (yesterday, one day after the 1210 regen). Just for the record, I am not driving like I stole the car.

The 1210 regen really annoyed me. It lasted 15 minutes and meant that I only achieved 42mpg on the way home (20 miles, mostly motorway). This was after I tried to clear the dpf manually by driving to work in 3rd gear that morning... The 1250 mile regen lasted for about 5 minutes (not 15) after I started the car on the way home, after the trip to work yielded 55mpg. I only got 47mpg on the way home that day with the strange regen.

Just out of interest, if you have a failed regen, where does the excess diesel go? Into the sump? Also, is there any other conceivable reason why the car would idle higher than 750-800rpm?

Maybe not driving like you stole it is the problem!
The engine needs to get the exhaust system hot enough for passive regens. If you are gently accelerating to cruise speed and it doesn’t hit over 1800rpm (like cruising at 60-65mph) in 6th gear then not only does it take a long time for the exhaust to get to passive regen preferred temp, but it won’t be in the rev range to take advantage and maintain that higher temp.
I do think that babying the car may be the biggest problem in that driving a little harder and experiencing passive regens may overall be more economical than driving softly and getting forced regens (that undo all the good work done with gentle driving to get your mpg up). Maybe try pushing it a bit harder for a few tankfuls and see what you get in the way of mpg? I’m not saying drive like a nutter but when you’d normally accelerate slowly, try putting your foot down to get to the speed you want to be at that little bit quicker.
Obviously never race a cold engine, but driving a little harder on a 15 mile commute can mean that your car fully warms up within 5 miles, giving you 5 miles of thirst and 10 miles of sipping. Alternatively you drive the car like a nun and it has 10 miles to warm up (a little more economical than the first 5 miles of the pre-mentioned alternative) and only 5 miles of sipping.
I do drive my car moderately hard to get up to the cruising speed quickly and have not experienced a forced regen (nor on the last one – 140TDI CR Scirocco). The car is doing an indicated 50mpg tank to tank average (actual is more like 45.5mpg using the brim method) and has no bluemotion tech. I am achieving 94% of combined via indicated mpg and 86% of combined via actual mpg on my 12 mile commute, using lots of aircon right now. Have you tried using the recirculation button to make your aircon as efficient as possible rather than blowing freshly cooled air straight out of the back of your car?
Do the gear change prompts (assuming manual car here) in the MFD sometimes suggest that you are in a higher gear than it would like? I find this when my car is trying to initiate a passive regen. Normally slotting into 5th above 30mph is as per the car’s recommendations, but when it’s trying to regen, it’ll prefer you don’t go into 5th until 38mph.
I’m not sure what VAG TDIs do with the diesel used for a forced regen if the regen fails, but on some cars with DPF it is secreted into the sump oil, resulting in a rising oil level and diluted oil for cars that go through many failed regens. Some others don’t use fuel at all, but have a refillable canister of a liquid compound that promotes DPF regen, squirting a bit into the DPF at every regen. These need topping up at intervals like every 40k miles.


The car idles about 780-800rpm normally on the 2.0TDI unit (can’t attest to the 1.6 unit, but I assume it is the same). Idling speed approaches 1000rpm when regen is going on, I assume it’s a mechanism to ensure that the revs stay up to at least 1000rpm even when idling to promote higher exhaust gas temps. If your car is idling at 1000rpm then it is trying to regen.

[maisbitt]

Hi Pango1n,

Had an interesting situation yesterday. I set off in 30 degree heat withe the dual zone climate set to 19 degrees. It was working at full speed and at every junction the idling speed was up at 1000 rpm. I took the car on a 15 minute run at 40 - 50 mph and even kept it in 4th gear. At my destination the car was of course fully warmed up and oil temp was 90 degrees.

I thought it couldnt still be doing a re gen so I turned off the air con and blipped the throttle. The idle speed immediately dropped to normal. I then turned the air con back on and the idle speed slowly went back up to 1000rpm.

Eventually, as the interior temp dropped and the air con fan speed came down, so did the idle speed. I am now thinking that the two are connected, with the engine assisting the air con and not necessarily re genning every time the engine revs rise.

Has anyone else noticed the same?

Higher demands on the alternator from the aircon compression pump could cause the car to idle higher than it normally would if you’ve got the aircon system working hard. Recycling the air that the aircon cools reduces the demand on the system by quite a margin, it’s worth pressing that air recycle button.

[pango1in]

I did drive the car calmly for the first 1000 miles, reving to 3krpm max. as suggested by many people on many forums as a good way to help bedding in. Since then, I have been more spirited in acceleration. Whilst I’m not driving like I stole it, I’m not being a slouch either. I also like to briskly accelerate to cruise speed.

I did also speak to an independent mechanic at the weekend who said that dpfs were not great for the engines and that a large number of active dpfs should not happen, even when new, especially given my daily commute. He then offered the warning about the oil and suggested I hammer the car to try and clear the dpf.

Interestingly, VW say keep running in the car to 4k miles and that the mpg will rise (presumably it will also be harder for me to even think about rejecting the car at that stage too!). They offered no good solution as to why there were so many active dpf regens, other than if there is no warning light, then there is no problem. The car would detect if there is a faulty sensor, so it couldn’t be that either. No comment on whether my commute should be enough to passively regenerate the dpf…

Maisbitt – therein lies the paradox. Drive gently and change up early, as suggested by the MFD, and risk active regens that kill the mpg. Drive more spiritedly and risk lower overall fuel consumption anyway. I would be happy with the second, except I’ve been driving more spiritedly this since 900-1000 miles and it hasn’t helped. My mpg is still poor (70% of combined mpg or worse).

As I mentioned in the last post, I was disappointed with the 1210 mile active regen on the way home on Monday night, particularly as I had driven the car relatively hard to work that morning in an effort to try and clear the dpf (3rd or 4th on the motorway at 3k+ rpm for 20 or so minutes). I haven’t noticed that the gear change suggestions have changed, mostly as I ignore them anyway as I usually hold gear during acceleration for too long.

I already recirculate as much as possible to try and help the aircon out J, but good tip.

Steve – you may have a good point on that one. I did have the aircon on (as I expect everyone in the UK would at the moment). During the 1250 mile mini active regen, I also noticed that the oil temp got up to 95 degrees within 5 minutes of setting off, something that usually takes much longer. Presumably this was down to the higher revs, or the other processes associated with that. I will test again this evening to see if I can replicate.

Most of the time though, I expect that a raised idle rpm signifies an active regen.

[dickt]

Pango,

Who told you that the car would detect if there was a faulty sensor?

I am not sure that it is true.

Admittedly it was on an earlier version of the 2.0tdi dpf engine, but VW then did not have the foggiest idea whether or not my sensors were at fault when I had a dpf problem. They replaced the dpf unit, they replaced the sensors, and eventually replaced all the injectors. Only after the replacement of the injectors did the problem go away.

[dcdick]

Just read today's posts with a sense of despair as I see experienced drivers "making excuses" for the disgraceful fuel economy of this "new" generation of diesels & are forced into having to adapt their driving techniques to accommodate the failings of the 2013 model year diesel :(

We all agree that the cars are good to great............... apart from this DPF issue that is causing all the problems

My advice is to complain direct to VW.UK as they are responsible for the cars they import. The dealers are not really to blame as they buy the cars in "ready to drive" as it were.

When people are getting close to the published fuel figures with the TSI models & the "average" for the diesels seems to be around the 65/70% mark there is certainly something wrong here.

D

[maisbitt]

I did drive the car calmly for the first 1000 miles, reving to 3krpm max. as suggested by many people on many forums as a good way to help bedding in. Since then, I have been more spirited in acceleration. Whilst I’m not driving like I stole it, I’m not being a slouch either. I also like to briskly accelerate to cruise speed.

I did also speak to an independent mechanic at the weekend who said that dpfs were not great for the engines and that a large number of active dpfs should not happen, even when new, especially given my daily commute. He then offered the warning about the oil and suggested I hammer the car to try and clear the dpf.

Interestingly, VW say keep running in the car to 4k miles and that the mpg will rise (presumably it will also be harder for me to even think about rejecting the car at that stage too!). They offered no good solution as to why there were so many active dpf regens, other than if there is no warning light, then there is no problem. The car would detect if there is a faulty sensor, so it couldn’t be that either. No comment on whether my commute should be enough to passively regenerate the dpf…

Maisbitt – therein lies the paradox. Drive gently and change up early, as suggested by the MFD, and risk active regens that kill the mpg. Drive more spiritedly and risk lower overall fuel consumption anyway. I would be happy with the second, except I’ve been driving more spiritedly this since 900-1000 miles and it hasn’t helped. My mpg is still poor (70% of combined mpg or worse).

As I mentioned in the last post, I was disappointed with the 1210 mile active regen on the way home on Monday night, particularly as I had driven the car relatively hard to work that morning in an effort to try and clear the dpf (3rd or 4th on the motorway at 3k+ rpm for 20 or so minutes). I haven’t noticed that the gear change suggestions have changed, mostly as I ignore them anyway as I usually hold gear during acceleration for too long.

I already recirculate as much as possible to try and help the aircon out J, but good tip.

Steve – you may have a good point on that one. I did have the aircon on (as I expect everyone in the UK would at the moment). During the 1250 mile mini active regen, I also noticed that the oil temp got up to 95 degrees within 5 minutes of setting off, something that usually takes much longer. Presumably this was down to the higher revs, or the other processes associated with that. I will test again this evening to see if I can replicate.

Most of the time though, I expect that a raised idle rpm signifies an active regen.

You have to drive it a bit harder routinely (just when you would be accelerating up to a cruising speed anyway) to prevent active regens, not just drive harder when you're in one (not saying you don't). Your car might not appreciate the difference in your driving style prior to your change at 1000 miles for a good few hundred miles after, maybe even a tankful, so it might be early days yet to see any differences you might make to the mpg and frequency of regen. Either way, if you see no improvement in mpg due to driving it a bit harder, but experience fewer DPF regens, then it's better for your car and you'll have more fun behind the wheel.

If you are considering the possibility of car rejection at a later date, I would be keeping all my fuel receipts and cross referencing them to a log of mileage vs mpg for every fill up. A short description of your commute (if that accounts for more than 1/2 of your miles wouldn't go amiss either). I suspect it will be harder to make a serious complaint stick which may lead to rejection as the miles go on, but at 4k miles you shouldn't have missed out on the right to pursue it if you've visited the dealer early on in the car's life to register your disappointment at an early stage (and allowing them the opportunity to perform test drives that would prove or disprove your driving style as the cause of low mpg - they will usually try and blame you until you can demonstrate they cannot better your efforts) rather than just hitting them with the news you wish to reject later. At 4k miles I suspect you won't see any appreciable gains attributed to running in (more likely to a changed driving style in putting your foot down a little harder on acceleration). The official tests done by EU directives for fuel consumption allow for an engine with 3k miles running in and a minimum 20C ambient temperature. If the summer holds up by the time you hit 3k miles then you should be able to make a test run, in conditions closely replicating minimum run-in and temperature considerations for the tests.

VW UK are very poor at addressing complaints for mpg - they will always blame the driver and if proven wrong they will then hang the burden of reparations on the supplying dealership rather than VWs own engineering and marketing tall tales. Occasionally there is something actually wrong with the car such as a leaky injector or a poor ECU map that they'll improve upon if enough people complain (and sneakily apply the remap next time you're in for warranty work or service without you knowing).

Do you have the aircon on at all speeds when it is hot? If you're pottering around on 30 roads you'll be better off with your windows open up to 40mph. Above 40 the wind resistance of having the windows open starts to be as big a fuel penalty as having your aircon on, and more so as your speed increases. Also, at low speeds, aircon is very inefficient - it needs a good rush of air passing over the aircon radiator to effectively exchange heat. At 70mph the energy needs of the aircon are relatively low.

If you consider your mpg to be massively low to the point of unacceptability then you might ask your dealer to check with VW Germany that there are no service remaps available - I got one of these for my MK5 Golf 170TDI GT Sport (this was the first time a DPF had been seen on a TDI engine). It was a last resort after the dealership had replaced the cylinder head and injectors when my DPF kept clogging up, to no avail (£3k of un-necessary warranty work there!).

It would be good to know if the Germans have been complaining about MK7 Golf fuel economy and what VW Germany did about it (or if they are working on a solution).

Just for clarity, is your "70% of combined mpg or worse" based on the computer indicated mpg or actual mpg calculated by brim filling method? The computer is about 9% optimistic vs reality for my last 4 new TDIs, so your issue could actually be worse than you think if you are relying on what mpg the computer says.

[maisbitt]

Just read today's posts with a sense of despair as I see experienced drivers "making excuses" for the disgraceful fuel economy of this "new" generation of diesels & are forced into having to adapt their driving techniques to accommodate the failings of the 2013 model year diesel :(

We all agree that the cars are good to great............... apart from this DPF issue that is causing all the problems

My advice is to complain direct to VW.UK as they are responsible for the cars they import. The dealers are not really to blame as they buy the cars in "ready to drive" as it were.

When people are getting close to the published fuel figures with the TSI models & the "average" for the diesels seems to be around the 65/70% mark there is certainly something wrong here.

D

TDIs with DPF have always responded better with brisk acceleration than gentle acceleration in my experience (i'm on my 3rd DPF equipped VW right now). The main issue I have seen is that MK7 TDI fuel economy seems to be very similar to MK5/6/Scirocco fuel economy. These touted 20% gains for the MK7 just don’t seem to be genuine at all. When you look at the individual energy saving systems they don’t seem to get anywhere near 20%.



The brake regen tech is good for “up to” 3% saving




Real weight savings on anything over 120PS output is 40Kg at best (biggest savings are due to dropping the multilink rear suspension on the lower models with 120PS or less) – so the car is pulling 3% less weight, lets say that gives a direct 3% saving.




Stop-start tech will have a small impact if you are in urban traffic most of the time (which will also cause DPF woes) or be negligible for the motorway miler – another 2% maybe for the average driver?




12% left to find via the “frictional” gains on the running gear. If that engine and gearbox is so friction free then I would assume that running in improvements have largely been negated.


I suspect VW may have had a more “real world” testing regimen in the past and have since gone to EU standard testing that makes their economy/emissions figures far more appealing, resulting in very low reported CO2 levels and correspondingly low official fuel consumption which will boost their desirability to company car drivers significantly.

[Gerryf]

Allow me to quote realistic mpg figures for a 1.4 Tsi DSG mk6 :


Motorway trips @ regular Motorway speeds = 43/49

Congested Town driving = 28/34

I managed 54.6 mpg but I had to cheat slightly to get that figure on a 600 mile journey.

The Tsi is never going to equal the diesel but it's not going to give bother if you're extra gentle etc.

The reverse side of the coin is......if you hammer it .....it returns dire mpg's.....whereas you can hammer a diesel without too much penalty.

[pango1in]

Maisbitt, you'll notice my Fuelly sig, all mpgs are recorded brim to brim. I have compared these to the computer and seems to be 5% out. I'm also very sparing with the AC, I use it as little as possible - generally on motorways and not in traffic.

I guess the point of this thread is to see whether what I would consider unacceptable is in line with other's opinions. But to me, 47mpg per fuelly is not acceptable.

European roads are much smoother than UK roads and the tarmac seems to have less rolling resistance. I would expect a significant bump in MPG whilst driving on the continent (e.g. Germany).

Rejection of the car isn't a serious consideration at the moment, I mentioned it in jest. I am just disappointed in VWs response, that's all. Anyway, grumble over for today...

[dcdick]

Allow me to quote realistic mpg figures for a 1.4 Tsi DSG mk6 :


Motorway trips @ regular Motorway speeds = 43/49

Congested Town driving = 28/34

I managed 54.6 mpg but I had to cheat slightly to get that figure on a 600 mile journey.

The Tsi is never going to equal the diesel but it's not going to give bother if you're extra gentle etc.

The reverse side of the coin is......if you hammer it .....it returns dire mpg's.....whereas you can hammer a diesel without too much penalty.

I used to get better mpg figures than you describe with my Mk vi TSI (SE) & even when driven hard my mpg never went much (if any) below 40mpg. Total mpg from new was around 46.5 if I remember correctly.
(My best journey mpg figure was around 61mpg over 100 miles or so)

The big issue with the current diesels is that if you drive them anywhere near "hard" the mpg goes way down, couple that with the current way the DPF is set up & you get mpg way below published figures.

D

[dcdick]

Maisbitt, you'll notice my Fuelly sig, all mpgs are recorded brim to brim. I have compared these to the computer and seems to be 5% out. I'm also very sparing with the AC, I use it as little as possible - generally on motorways and not in traffic.

I guess the point of this thread is to see whether what I would consider unacceptable is in line with other's opinions. But to me, 47mpg per fuelly is not acceptable.

European roads are much smoother than UK roads and the tarmac seems to have less rolling resistance. I would expect a significant bump in MPG whilst driving on the continent (e.g. Germany).

Rejection of the car isn't a serious consideration at the moment, I mentioned it in jest. I am just disappointed in VWs response, that's all. Anyway, grumble over for today...

If people don't complain to VW. in numbers, nothing will ever get done about the fuel consumption issue

D

[algarve]

I notice the aircon on the mk7 automatically sets the recirculation mode to on with lower temp settings to achieve the required levels and then switches off recirc.

i don't recall this happening on previous TDIs aircon unless I'm more aware because of the lit switch.

[mickpoil]

I have got a 2013 MK7 2.0 150 manual with only 1,500 miles on the clock on loan until tomorrow. I have just driven to work in Eco mode with no a/c and got just over 66 mpg. Two days ago in my 2012 Focus 1.6 TDCI Econetic with 29K miles I got 68 mpg on the same run driving in much the same way. Ideal conditions at the moment for both cars as I don't normally get 68 mpg with the Focus, more like 60 to 64. The road I use (A272) is generally flat with minimal holdups and lights to negotiate, and the trip each way is 62 miles.

I found that I had to use one gear higher than the Focus in order to get the best consumption. I hardly use 6th gear in the Focus as it almost always gives poorer economy.

The Golf engine is so much nicer than the Ford 1.6. I tried the Mondeo 2.0 163BHP, which was very quick and returned 57 mpg on the same run, but the car feels very old and the seats are very hard.

Might look at the Octavia next.

[maisbitt]

Mickpoil:

That is a great result as far as mpg goes - did you have to drive like a nun to achieve it (I see it was in eco mode, but you can drive relatively hard in eco mode if you want to ).

The 1.6TDI does seem to be less good at economy than the 2.0TDI unit (especially in DSG guise). I assume that it's the preferred choice of low milers too (as most smaller engined cars are - not necessarily a reflection of the users here, but an overall assumption), which will compound the DPF issues. That 7 speed DSG box should offer real mpg advantage, but reality it doesn't seem to be the case - maybe the car is geared too high to allow for passive DPF regens at cruising speed.

With driving conditions described and the length of the journey, it is unlikely you'd top that appreciably with a really long journey (200+ miles), all conditions seem ideal for economy. Even so, it's 10% better than my best efforts with the 2.0TDI 140 and about 12% better than the 2.0TDI 170 on my current Scirocco (achieved on a 350 mile journey I do twice a year). With only 1500 miles on the clock it seems to support the idea that running in gains are a very small consideration - that's doing pretty much as expected with a very small number of miles already on the clock.

With all that in mind I'm a little more optimistic about what my forthcoming GTD (Manual) will achieve if I don't hammer it.

Ford Diesels seem to be lacking in torque compared to VAG units - I have experienced that useless 6th gear feeling on hire car Fords, geared too high for the torque to handle without working the car harder than it would've been working in 5th at the same speed.

The economy of my 2.0TDI 170 Scirocco has fallen right off recently, with the accuracy of the MFD for fuel economy calculations hitting an all-time low on my last fill-up yesterday. I did an indicated 49.8mpg (which is ok and expected) but 42.5mpg actual - a 15% disparity. How can VW justify that level of inaccuracy? If VW aren't at fault then I would have to assume that the forecourt's pumps are 6% optimistic and that I've been short-changed to the tune of 3 litres of fuel to get my usual 9% disparity. The car did take an atypically high amount of fuel - indicating 10 miles left to empty, yet took 54.3 litres on a 55 litre tank (it would usually only take that volume if I'd gone 20 miles beyond "0 miles left" and it was pretty much bone-dry).

[dickt]

Mickpoil,

that mpg - 66 - is stunning. The best trip for me, ever, in my GT 2.0tdi 150 dsg was a puter indicated 55mpg, in a warmed up car on a very warm day and on free-flowing roads with eco on all the way, and with me deliberately driving to maximise mpg, with a max speed of 50 mph.
There is clearly a great deal of individual variation between cars. DSG takes it down a bit, but not that much.
(In this car the VW dealer's engineer only got 38 mpg!!)

[maisbitt]

Mickpoil:

What was your target cruise speed for that exceptionally good 66mpg trip economy? Did you maintain speed manually or rely on the ADC/CC system to do it for you?

I'd say at least 1/2 the difference between Mickpoil and dickt's best efforts is down to DSG. Looking purely at the CO2 output, a GT 5 door Golf 150TDI pumps out 11% more CO2 with DSG than without. That's quite a fuel penalty, considering some auto cars from other marques (and even the dry 7 speed DSG) claim to be more economical than their manual counterpart and yet VAG sit back with the 6 speed rather than developing a higher torque handling 7 or 8 speed unit (they have one for the RS5/6 and some other ultra-high output Audis, but not for lower-mid range cars).

20% between dickt's best and Mickpoil's best, taking half of that out of the equation for DSG differences and you're left with 10% between car variation (perhaps running in style of the car) and driver variation. Could a 2.0TDI Golf be more economical maintaining 60mph rather than 50mph? Output efficiency gains of the car sitting around the bottom end of its favoured torque band at 60mph (important for hills) may more than negate extra wind resistance vs 50mph. At 70mph my car is doing 2000rpm, 60mph/1720rpm, 50mph/1430rpm. 6th gear at 50mph may see the car labouring a little when going up a hill (even if the suggested gear display doesn't prompt you to change down).

50mph cruise in 6th gear won't be anywhere near the requirements for a passive regen on the DPF either, so there's payback later on the economy front when regen finally happens.

Could be a good excuse for speeding - "sorry officer, I needed to go at that speed to regenerate my DPF".

[mickpoil]

The A272 is a "country" 2-lane A road. It takes about 95-100 minutes to travel 62 miles (Horsham to Hursley near Winchester), about 38 mph average. There are a number of villages at 30 mph, a few 40 mph limits and almost all of the rest at a theoretical 60 mph, but you can't do that everywhere due to bends etc. There aren't that many cars on it and I don't tailgate, so ADC is not relevant (I think it was not on), and I didn't use cruise control. I have done this run for nearly 7 years and average about 22K miles per year in total, so I am reasonably good at driving for economy e.g. change down for hills. Comes from having had 4 kids, a mortgage and limited income ;-)

[maisbitt]

mickpoil: That variety in speeds and terrain, with the braking and acceleration that it entails makes your 66mpg all the more impressive. A drive like that looks great for optimum run in too (lots of variety in engine speeds over the journey). I'm sure that ADC/CC system has a not insignificant fuel penalty too for those that are using it on busier roads.
Regards,

[Leeconvery]

Hi all, This is my first post but I have been tracking this thread from the start and I thought I would share my MPG with you all. I have a 40 mile commute each day, around 10 miles on A-roads, 25 miles on the M1 and around 5 miles in city traffic. I have found that in sports mode I generally obtain around 52-54 mpg, in eco today in slower traffic on the motorway I managed 60 mpg for the entire run. As its hot the air con is on most of the time. I have reached 77mpg on a lovely a road that i sometimes need to travel on, its about a 15 min run, probably more downhills than uphills. My mpg since start is currently sat around 53 mpg, I am now at 3200 miles and have noticed a slight increase in possible mpg since day one, but its negligible and I wouldnt want any body with a brand new one thinking that 3000 miles under the engine would make a massive difference, more may come with time. I tend to drive in a rather heavy footed way and mostly don't tend to spend too much time driving carefully to get the mpg up (although sometimes I do like to play the game and see how high I can get it!). I genuinely have no idea if I have ever had a regen, I haven't noticed any of the obvious signs but could be wrong. I have the 2.0 SE, no DSG, I have only used Shell V Power filling it up, occasionally I have had to use some Esso standard. I have spent a fair bit of time playing with the ACC and have found, like a lot of others, that it works far better and more economically in traffic if its in sports mode, in eco it spends longer accelerating and is usually so slow to do so, that somebody has nipped into the space in front of me. I have shared these bits of my data with you all because whilst its clear that there is a problem with a lot of the MK7's, it seems that this issue is probably more specific and not a general one affecting all cars. At 53 mpg since start, I am clearly a long way away from the magical figures VW have sold us all on, however, I know I can drive in a more economical fashion and obtain better numbers, I just choose not to as driving it the other way is just too much fun!

[dcdick]

Hi all, This is my first post but I have been tracking this thread from the start and I thought I would share my MPG with you all. I have a 40 mile commute each day, around 10 miles on A-roads, 25 miles on the M1 and around 5 miles in city traffic. I have found that in sports mode I generally obtain around 52-54 mpg, in eco today in slower traffic on the motorway I managed 60 mpg for the entire run. As its hot the air con is on most of the time. I have reached 77mpg on a lovely a road that i sometimes need to travel on, its about a 15 min run, probably more downhills than uphills. My mpg since start is currently sat around 53 mpg, I am now at 3200 miles and have noticed a slight increase in possible mpg since day one, but its negligible and I wouldnt want any body with a brand new one thinking that 3000 miles under the engine would make a massive difference, more may come with time. I tend to drive in a rather heavy footed way and mostly don't tend to spend too much time driving carefully to get the mpg up (although sometimes I do like to play the game and see how high I can get it!). I genuinely have no idea if I have ever had a regen, I haven't noticed any of the obvious signs but could be wrong. I have the 2.0 SE, no DSG, I have only used Shell V Power filling it up, occasionally I have had to use some Esso standard. I have spent a fair bit of time playing with the ACC and have found, like a lot of others, that it works far better and more economically in traffic if its in sports mode, in eco it spends longer accelerating and is usually so slow to do so, that somebody has nipped into the space in front of me. I have shared these bits of my data with you all because whilst its clear that there is a problem with a lot of the MK7's, it seems that this issue is probably more specific and not a general one affecting all cars. At 53 mpg since start, I am clearly a long way away from the magical figures VW have sold us all on, however, I know I can drive in a more economical fashion and obtain better numbers, I just choose not to as driving it the other way is just too much fun!

Two clues here for me........................ no DSG & almost exclusive use of Shell V Power......................... add to this that 2.0 "standard tune" diesel does seem to have better economy than the "flagship" 1.6TDI models :confused:

All very strange

D

[Pommyboi]

Hi all, This is my first post but I have been tracking this thread from the start and I thought I would share my MPG with you all. I have a 40 mile commute each day, around 10 miles on A-roads, 25 miles on the M1 and around 5 miles in city traffic. I have found that in sports mode I generally obtain around 52-54 mpg, in eco today in slower traffic on the motorway I managed 60 mpg for the entire run. As its hot the air con is on most of the time. I have reached 77mpg on a lovely a road that i sometimes need to travel on, its about a 15 min run, probably more downhills than uphills. My mpg since start is currently sat around 53 mpg,

That is amazing to get over 70, I've had long runs on the motorway where there has been average speed cameras for the first 30 odd miles keeping the traffic steady and the speed low and only got to 68 mpg. It's all ruined when the 2nd half of the tank is used up around town and the average drops back to about 54 on the whole tank.

[pango1in]

Hi all, This is my first post but I have been tracking this thread from the start and I thought I would share my MPG with you all. I have a 40 mile commute each day, around 10 miles on A-roads, 25 miles on the M1 and around 5 miles in city traffic. I have found that in sports mode I generally obtain around 52-54 mpg, in eco today in slower traffic on the motorway I managed 60 mpg for the entire run. As its hot the air con is on most of the time. I have reached 77mpg on a lovely a road that i sometimes need to travel on, its about a 15 min run, probably more downhills than uphills. My mpg since start is currently sat around 53 mpg, I am now at 3200 miles and have noticed a slight increase in possible mpg since day one, but its negligible and I wouldnt want any body with a brand new one thinking that 3000 miles under the engine would make a massive difference, more may come with time. I tend to drive in a rather heavy footed way and mostly don't tend to spend too much time driving carefully to get the mpg up (although sometimes I do like to play the game and see how high I can get it!). I genuinely have no idea if I have ever had a regen, I haven't noticed any of the obvious signs but could be wrong. I have the 2.0 SE, no DSG, I have only used Shell V Power filling it up, occasionally I have had to use some Esso standard. I have spent a fair bit of time playing with the ACC and have found, like a lot of others, that it works far better and more economically in traffic if its in sports mode, in eco it spends longer accelerating and is usually so slow to do so, that somebody has nipped into the space in front of me. I have shared these bits of my data with you all because whilst its clear that there is a problem with a lot of the MK7's, it seems that this issue is probably more specific and not a general one affecting all cars. At 53 mpg since start, I am clearly a long way away from the magical figures VW have sold us all on, however, I know I can drive in a more economical fashion and obtain better numbers, I just choose not to as driving it the other way is just too much fun!

Bah! Don't rub it in...

[Leeconvery]

It's is the perfect road, I guess it must be the road that VW used to calculate their numbers!

[pango1in]

I've spent the last couple of days playing around with the air conditioning system in the Golf. I've only been able to test it in this way due to the very hot weather we've had this week, otherwise I have not seen these effects before. This is what I've found:



The air conditioning system seems to be variable, i.e. not just either on or off. It works as hard as it needs to in order to meet the temperature that you require.
When the air conditioning is working its hardest, the engine idles at just under 1000 rpm (the same as when an active dpf regen is happening).
The fuel consumption when the aircon is working its hardest is appalling (I'm talking high 20s mpg round town, driving carefully).
When the aircon is working hard and the engine is idling higher than normal, the engine heats up VERY quickly. Oil temperature gets up to 100C in about 5 minutes, compared to 10-15 mins without any higher revs. I'm talking about oil, not water temperature. Obviously, water temperature was at 90C even quicker than 5 minutes!
Auto start stop does not work when the aircon is working its hardest.
During a journey, as the internal car temperature stabilises, the aircon will work less hard and the idling revs will eventually drop. Auto start stop will resume before the idling revs drop to normal.
On a moderate day, with aircon on, the idling revs will be 750rpm and auto start-stop will function as normal. The drop in fuel economy is not too great.
Recirculating air with the aircon on is the quickest way of getting you cool ;-)


Presumably, given my observations, the same engine process kicks in when the aircon works its hardest and when an active regen is going on. The same engine process gives the desired outcomes in both cases, i.e. the car has enough power to drive the aircon hard and this also heats up the engine (and exhaust, and dpf filter) quickly too.

I was very surprised how much the process heated up the engine, even if in this case it was just to make sure the aircon worked effectively. This may explain a couple of the more recent phantom active DPF regens I have been experiencing (but not all of them!).

[Bob_S]

50mph cruise in 6th gear won't be anywhere near the requirements for a passive regen on the DPF either, so there's payback later on the economy front when regen finally happens

Are you saying that at 50mph in 6th gear the exhaust temperature will never get hot enough to prevent a regen?

[maisbitt]

Are you saying that at 50mph in 6th gear the exhaust temperature will never get hot enough to prevent a regen?

Not quite. I'm saying that sitting at 50mph in 6th gear, the car will be doing 1450rpm. It needs to be in the 1850-2500rpm range for a sustained period (minimum 10 miles) to get the exhaust temp up high enough for passive regen.

If the DPF starts to fill up because it hasn't had the conditions required for a passive regen then it'll go the thirsty route - forced regen, where it will be adding fuel to the exhaust system to force a lower temp combustion of the DPF contents. Your mpg will drop right off when it is doing this.

To avoid forced regens you want to be on a short motorway/dual carriageway speed journey a few times a week to give the car a chance to passively regen the DPF (doing 70mph/2000rpm in 6th).

[pango1in]

What maisbitt said makes sense. My practical experience is somewhat difference.

At the weekend, I drove for over 2 hours on the motorway. The first hour was quite sedate, the second was more spirited. Enough, you would have thought, to unblock any dpf (getting 45mpg in the process....). However, this hasn't prevented my 6th (possibly 8th) active regen on Wednesday morning (1,650 miles on the clock). I've only driven my regular commute (60% motorway/dual carriageway) since the weekend.

I'm amazed that two and a half day's driving can cause enough of a blockage in the dpf to force an active regen.

[Bob_S]

Not quite. I'm saying that sitting at 50mph in 6th gear, the car will be doing 1450rpm. It needs to be in the 1850-2500rpm range for a sustained period (minimum 10 miles) to get the exhaust temp up high enough for passive regen.

If the DPF starts to fill up because it hasn't had the conditions required for a passive regen then it'll go the thirsty route - forced regen, where it will be adding fuel to the exhaust system to force a lower temp combustion of the DPF contents. Your mpg will drop right off when it is doing this.

To avoid forced regens you want to be on a short motorway/dual carriageway speed journey a few times a week to give the car a chance to passively regen the DPF (doing 70mph/2000rpm in 6th). You appear to be describing the process needed should the DPF warning light come on. Are you saying that under normal driving conditions that the exhaust temperature will never get hot enough to keep the DPF clean if only driven at 50mph in 6th gear? Surely if the vehicle is driven on a long enough journey to the point where the exhaust temperature gets hot enough then the speed of the vehicle won't be a factor?

[pango1in]

I think what he's saying is, if you don't get the exhaust temperature high enough, then the dpf will block.

In order to get the dpf high enough to catalyse the soot without active engine management, rpm should be in the 2k range, or over, for a sustained period. If you don't manage it for a sustained period (say 10-15 minutes), then the exhaust temperature will fall, catalysing will slow down and you will have to start over again (as the dpf will start to re-fill). This is the problem with short journeys, the dpf fills without getting hot enough to catalyse the soot.

If the soot level in the dpf reaches a certain level, the engine intervenes. This process takes about 15 minutes, heats the exhaust up artificially and must not be interrupted.

The time scales that you need to drive around for are about the same, as both require a sustained heat level in the exhaust to work. The active regen doesn’t care if you are driving at 100 or stationary. The passive does.

[MJSBHP]

Shame about that my """old"" 2004 mk 5 returns 56 mpg at 80 on m25 and m11 all day.

[DSG4ME]

If anyone is getting lots of re-gens it could be the fuel quality *supermarket* try running on Shell or BP and see if that makes a difference.

[pango1in]

If anyone is getting lots of re-gens it could be the fuel quality *supermarket* try running on Shell or BP and see if that makes a difference.

Based on my experience, there doesn't seem to be an impact. I have used BP Ultimate Diesel from day 1.

[MJSBHP]

It all depends on how one drives i have a 6 speed dsg.
Being fantastic i drive very smoothly and fast.
Get 48 mpg town.
56 to 60 motorway all day at 80 mph.xx

[maisbitt]

I think what he's saying is, if you don't get the exhaust temperature high enough, then the dpf will block.

In order to get the dpf high enough to catalyse the soot without active engine management, rpm should be in the 2k range, or over, for a sustained period. If you don't manage it for a sustained period (say 10-15 minutes), then the exhaust temperature will fall, catalysing will slow down and you will have to start over again (as the dpf will start to re-fill). This is the problem with short journeys, the dpf fills without getting hot enough to catalyse the soot.

If the soot level in the dpf reaches a certain level, the engine intervenes. This process takes about 15 minutes, heats the exhaust up artificially and must not be interrupted.

The time scales that you need to drive around for are about the same, as both require a sustained heat level in the exhaust to work. The active regen doesn’t care if you are driving at 100 or stationary. The passive does.

^ That is exactly what I am saying.
Passive regen is preferable to avoid fuel penalties you will face with active regens. Engine loading is a factor as well as RPM. If you baby a car with very gentle acceleration to get it up to range it’ll take a bit longer to get up to required exhaust temp, so it’ll regen later on in your journey.

The DPF will only block (leading to the yellow warning lights) if the exhaust cannot get hot enough for long enough to even accommodate an active regen. That’s usually as a result of really short journeys or something very wrong with the fuelling system/ECU mapping.

[dcdick]

^ That is exactly what I am saying.
Passive regen is preferable to avoid fuel penalties you will face with active regens. Engine loading is a factor as well as RPM. If you baby a car with very gentle acceleration to get it up to range it’ll take a bit longer to get up to required exhaust temp, so it’ll regen later on in your journey.

The DPF will only block (leading to the yellow warning lights) if the exhaust cannot get hot enough for long enough to even accommodate an active regen. That’s usually as a result of really short journeys or something very wrong with the fuelling system/ECU mapping.

Am I the only one on this forum who thinks that all these DPF issues & methods being explored to combat them is a direct result of poor design & implementation of the emission systems by VAG & the subsequent misleading mpg/emission figures published to save a few £'s in the tax "bandings" that seem to rule our motoring lives these days.

In the recent hot weather it seems the DPF/air con can not co-exist without this regen nonsense

Diesels used to have better economy in "stop start" motoring as well as long distance motoring than petrol engines................now the "city" & "low mileage" motorist is being forced away from the diesel engine

What next ????

D

[Dolmen]

We've been hitting 64mpg showing, but on a fill to fill we're getting 53.5mpg, which isn't too bad, but not close enough to claimed figures.... Perhaps rather than complaining as individuals, we should voice our concerns as one!

[maisbitt]

Am I the only one on this forum who thinks that all these DPF issues & methods being explored to combat them is a direct result of poor design & implementation of the emission systems by VAG & the subsequent misleading mpg/emission figures published to save a few £'s in the tax "bandings" that seem to rule our motoring lives these days.

In the recent hot weather it seems the DPF/air con can not co-exist without this regen nonsense

Diesels used to have better economy in "stop start" motoring as well as long distance motoring than petrol engines................now the "city" & "low mileage" motorist is being forced away from the diesel engine

What next ????

D

The newest generation of TDIs does seem to be at the mercy of the DPF in relation to quoted mpg. A diesel with an obligatory DPF is no city car now, makes me wonder then why VW are well invested in the smaller TDI engines that encourage purchase as a city car.

Perhaps the way to go is the use of Shell V-power Nitro +. It has a lower energy content than the Shell "fuelsave" diesel, and a slightly lower cetane value, mainly due to it's synthetic GTL diesel content making it less dense. Because of this though it produces less soot on combustion which will surely help keep the regens down and the fuel efficiency up. Less energy but cleaner burn = fewer regens and ultimately better mpg?

I do wonder if VW will ever put out an official service remap. My MK5 GT Sport TDI Golf had one in it's early days when the DPF kept filling up.

I'm definitely going to give V-power a go shortly.

[Bob_S]

^ That is exactly what I am saying.
Passive regen is preferable to avoid fuel penalties you will face with active regens. Engine loading is a factor as well as RPM. If you baby a car with very gentle acceleration to get it up to range it’ll take a bit longer to get up to required exhaust temp, so it’ll regen later on in your journey.

The DPF will only block (leading to the yellow warning lights) if the exhaust cannot get hot enough for long enough to even accommodate an active regen. That’s usually as a result of really short journeys or something very wrong with the fuelling system/ECU mapping.

So someone who drives for an hour at 50mph is not going to get the exhaust up to temperature? What about the poster in this thread who is a driving instructor? He appears to be doing short journeys but as the car is being used all day the exhaust is getting up to temeperature, even though it is fairly likely that a lot of his work will be town work and therefore very varied running.

[dcdick]

The newest generation of TDIs does seem to be at the mercy of the DPF in relation to quoted mpg. A diesel with an obligatory DPF is no city car now, makes me wonder then why VW are well invested in the smaller TDI engines that encourage purchase as a city car.

Perhaps the way to go is the use of Shell V-power Nitro +. It has a lower energy content than the Shell "fuelsave" diesel, and a slightly lower cetane value, mainly due to it's synthetic GTL diesel content making it less dense. Because of this though it produces less soot on combustion which will surely help keep the regens down and the fuel efficiency up. Less energy but cleaner burn = fewer regens and ultimately better mpg?

I do wonder if VW will ever put out an official service remap. My MK5 GT Sport TDI Golf had one in it's early days when the DPF kept filling up.

I'm definitely going to give V-power a go shortly.

Shell V Power does work for me in keeping the "regens" in passive mode, the extra cost is compensated by an extra 3 mpg & the lack of "active" regens is also worth another couple of mpg I think.

A "service remap" must surely appear, but will almost certainly be too late for me as I dither on about the replacement for this Golf................... Going for a drive in a Nissan Juke tomorrow.......;)

D

[maisbitt]

So someone who drives for an hour at 50mph is not going to get the exhaust up to temperature? What about the poster in this thread who is a driving instructor? He appears to be doing short journeys but as the car is being used all day the exhaust is getting up to temeperature, even though it is fairly likely that a lot of his work will be town work and therefore very varied running.

Someone who sits in 6th at 50mph for almost all of their time is going to find it difficult to get the exhaust up to the required temp for a passive regen. Varied running and making the engine work a little through the gears is how the driving instructor's exhaust will manage to reach the required temp for passive regen or at minimum reach the lower temp required for active regen for sustained periods. Having a car running most of the day will ensure that the vast majority of that car's running time will be spent with a warm engine and so it's potential for soot generation via cold engine running (when soot generation will be at its worst) is minimised.

[maisbitt]

Shell V Power does work for me in keeping the "regens" in passive mode, the extra cost is compensated by an extra 3 mpg & the lack of "active" regens is also worth another couple of mpg I think.

A "service remap" must surely appear, but will almost certainly be too late for me as I dither on about the replacement for this Golf................... Going for a drive in a Nissan Juke tomorrow.......;)

D

Nissan Juke? That's quite a change in the styling. I assume you'll be steering clear of diesel power in the Nissan too (Renault DCI engines) to avoid DPF issues?

[Gerryf]

Turbo failure isn't unheard of when DCI engines develop DPF woes.

[dcdick]

Nissan Juke? That's quite a change in the styling. I assume you'll be steering clear of diesel power in the Nissan too (Renault DCI engines) to avoid DPF issues?

Funnily enough I came out of a Nissan DCI diesel (QQ) into the Mk 7 DTI (previous car to the QQ was a Mk 6 TSI) that was doing the same journeys as I do now without any hint of DPF................(yes I would go back to the DCI engines without any worries of issues with DPF, but not a QQ)

I can recommend having a test drive in a Juke Nismo ................... 190 bhp 1.6 petrol turbo ................. very interesting, to say the least :biglaugh:

D

[mcmaddy]

Friend of mine has a juke and reckons is the worst car he has ever owned.

[pango1in]

The newest generation of TDIs does seem to be at the mercy of the DPF in relation to quoted mpg. A diesel with an obligatory DPF is no city car now, makes me wonder then why VW are well invested in the smaller TDI engines that encourage purchase as a city car.

Perhaps the way to go is the use of Shell V-power Nitro +. It has a lower energy content than the Shell "fuelsave" diesel, and a slightly lower cetane value, mainly due to it's synthetic GTL diesel content making it less dense. Because of this though it produces less soot on combustion which will surely help keep the regens down and the fuel efficiency up. Less energy but cleaner burn = fewer regens and ultimately better mpg?

I do wonder if VW will ever put out an official service remap. My MK5 GT Sport TDI Golf had one in it's early days when the DPF kept filling up.

I'm definitely going to give V-power a go shortly.

Do you mean higher centane value (which offsets the lower energy content per volume)? Having a higher cetane value means more efficient and complete combustion. The results are less smoke (on a car without a dpf) and less engine knocking on cold startups. It's this lack of smoke that means the DPF shouldn't get blocked.

Either way, I'm not convinced that it's working. I've used BP Ultimate from day 1 and still get a fair amount of regens. Perhaps the use of BP Ultimate is just stopping it from being worse than it would otherwise be!

Going to have a play at the father-in-law's place next weekend with his VAG diagnostic unit. Should be revealing.

[maisbitt]

Do you mean higher centane value (which offsets the lower energy content per volume)? Having a higher cetane value means more efficient and complete combustion. The results are less smoke (on a car without a dpf) and less engine knocking on cold startups. It's this lack of smoke that means the DPF shouldn't get blocked.

Either way, I'm not convinced that it's working. I've used BP Ultimate from day 1 and still get a fair amount of regens. Perhaps the use of BP Ultimate is just stopping it from being worse than it would otherwise be!

Going to have a play at the father-in-law's place next weekend with his VAG diagnostic unit. Should be revealing.

Although Shell V power has a lower Cetane value and energy content than Shell fuelsave, it's uniformity/purity will probably allow for a cleaner burn. Old V power used to be pretty much GTL + additives, it seems that the newer stuff has some distilled Diesel in it. Even so, normal Diesel has a narrow range of hydrocarbons contributing, with components wanting to combust at slightly different points in the compression/combustion cycle. A purer diesel with the narrowest range of hydrocarbons should make for a cleaner and more consistent burn with less soot as a result. Shell V-power is on ave 54 Cetane number and fuel save is 56 (higher than Esso at 53 average). I can see that on paper Shell fuelsave should make for a cleaner burn than Esso, as the higher Cetane value extends the interval in the combustion/compression stroke that combustion takes place over (hence the cleaner burn). Apart from that though, tidier range of hydrocarbons in Shell V-power should also aid better combustion. All hypothesis from me, I really need to try it for myself. Right now my cheapest Esso garage is 5p/litre cheaper than my local Shell garage so i'm filling up with Esso, even though my car runs a little better on Shell (probably enough to negate the 5p/litre differences - but it's a psychological saving).

My Dad's GTD DSG has crept up to an indicated 54mpg average on his commute (about 47mpg actual) if he's quite careful and the car has 2k miles on the clock now. Still miles off what I would have expected.

[maisbitt]

Well I was given an extended test drive on my supplying dealership's Demo GTD DSG 5 Door today. He let me loose with it as long as I brought it back within 2 hours. I replicated a journey I do quite often - 32 miles from North Shields to Hartlepool (except this time the route from the Sunderland dealership to a major roundabout is very similar to the stretch that gets me from home to the same roundabout.

I knocked off the Aircon (it was under 20C outside) and put the ADC to it's shortest distance setting to minimise any unnecessary automatic braking. I had the car throttle ressponse in Normal after a brief spell in Sport saw the car far to eager to sit in a low gear and hold onto it for an age before changing up (it just sat in 5th cruising at 80 mph). I must admit, the DSG system is very sophisticated but I hated it. Manual for me all the way. Anyway, the first 5 miles of the ourney is flitting between 30/40 and 60 roads before getting onto the A19 and maintaining 70-80mph (traffic permitting) for 25 miles before a few miles into Hartlepool doing 30/40/60 mph again. A few times some slow traffic got into the fast lane doing 55-60mpg and when they moved back in I accelerated hard to 80mph (about 4 times each way).

Return journey was much the same and the car did an indicated 50.3mpg. Right now my Scirocco driven the same way would've yielded probably 56mpg with the aircon on. Considering a DSG is 10% thirsty than the manual according to the official figures, I think the GTD would've managed the same 56mpg in manual.

So 20% gains for MK7 vs previous generation do seem to be pretty much false, expect what the MK6 is giving and you won't be too disappointed.

There is also the possibility of some "wearing in" increases, but they won't be much judging by my previous 6 new VW TDIs.

The main thing I noticed was that for maintenance of fixed speed,the car seems more economical than my Scirocco, but the slightest use of the throttle for acceleration comes at a far bigger mpg penalty than any of my older TDIs.

I did manage to take 3 pics before my camera battery ran out (poor planning on my part):-

216852168621687

[Bob_S]

Someone who sits in 6th at 50mph for almost all of their time is going to find it difficult to get the exhaust up to the required temp for a passive regen. Varied running and making the engine work a little through the gears is how the driving instructor's exhaust will manage to reach the required temp for passive regen or at minimum reach the lower temp required for active regen for sustained periods. Having a car running most of the day will ensure that the vast majority of that car's running time will be spent with a warm engine and so it's potential for soot generation via cold engine running (when soot generation will be at its worst) is minimised.
So a car running all day at 50mph in 6th gear is not going to get the exhaust temperature up? I could understand that if the car was only running for 15 to 20 minutes but if running all day then surely the exhaust will reach a sufficient temperature?

[pango1in]

So a car running all day at 50mph in 6th gear is not going to get the exhaust temperature up? I could understand that if the car was only running for 15 to 20 minutes but if running all day then surely the exhaust will reach a sufficient temperature?

It's all going to be about the balance of soot build up vs burning it off. At 50 in 6th gear, it's going to be harder to reach those exhaust temps required to burn it off, but presumably not impossible.

As an example, I drove for 2 hours on the motorway last weekend. 1 hour at a steady pace and the second hour slightly more spirited. I should have been easily in the passive regen range described by Maisbitt. This didn't stop me having an active regen on Wednesday though, after 2 days of commuting to and from work (which also should have had me in the passive regen range).

I guess the only way you'll know is if you drive it around all day at 50 in 6th and you don't get an active regen cycle engage. Either that, or sit with a VAG diagnostic unit on your passenger seat and monitor the dpf's soot level.

[maisbitt]

So a car running all day at 50mph in 6th gear is not going to get the exhaust temperature up? I could understand that if the car was only running for 15 to 20 minutes but if running all day then surely the exhaust will reach a sufficient temperature?

I'm sure "all day" would do it, but unless you're some kind of rep or mobile engineer, who's going to be driving at 50mph all day (more than an hour or 2's journey every day)? I really do thinnk that is you're doing a shortish (10-20mph) journey for most of your mileage, then driving a little harder to get the car and exhaust up to temp quicker will be better for your mpg (via fewer forced/active regens) than babying it to get your non regen mpg right up. 10 mins of moderate acceleration when the conditions allow have got to be easier than driving like a nun for 2 hours to get the same elevated exhaust temp required for passive regen.

[dcdick]

I'm sure "all day" would do it, but unless you're some kind of rep or mobile engineer, who's going to be driving at 50mph all day (more than an hour or 2's journey every day)? I really do thinnk that is you're doing a shortish (10-20mph) journey for most of your mileage, then driving a little harder to get the car and exhaust up to temp quicker will be better for your mpg (via fewer forced/active regens) than babying it to get your non regen mpg right up. 10 mins of moderate acceleration when the conditions allow have got to be easier than driving like a nun for 2 hours to get the same elevated exhaust temp required for passive regen.

Surely if these engines worked properly you would be able to just get in the car & drive them & not have to adapt your driving to try & suit what is looking increasingly like a very temperamental pair of engines.:zx11:

Do other manufacturers have all these issues with their diesel engines ?

D

[pango1in]

Surely if these engines worked properly you would be able to just get in the car & drive them & not have to adapt your driving to try & suit what is looking increasingly like a very temperamental pair of engines.:zx11:

Do other manufacturers have all these issues with their diesel engines ?

D

I had a chat with an independent Vauxhall specialist about DPFs when I took our other car in for an MOT. He said that DPFs were the bane of his life and that the cars they were fitted to weren't being driven hard enough to get anywhere near passive regens. His customers were mainly retired folk, living locally, driving to the shops and back.

He did say something interesting though... In Guernsey, Seats are sold without dpfs, as there are no dual carriageways to drive them on.

[dickt]

No comment about my mpg for a while, as I'm doing some real mpg checks, before I go back to the dealers again. After a completely warmed up journey ending with a 20 mile motorway drive and 4 miles off the motorway, the other day, it decided to do a regen in my garage, again.

I do suspect though, from all the above comments and comments on other web-sites, that this Mk7 tdi in both 1.6 and 2.0 guises is the end of VAG's big-sell of diesels for those like me who do many short journeys, with only a few long motorway journeys. 10 to 20 mile motorway journeys are just not enough.

I wish I had my 170 back!

[maisbitt]

I had a chat with an independent Vauxhall specialist about DPFs when I took our other car in for an MOT. He said that DPFs were the bane of his life and that the cars they were fitted to weren't being driven hard enough to get anywhere near passive regens. His customers were mainly retired folk, living locally, driving to the shops and back.

He did say something interesting though... In Guernsey, Seats are sold without dpfs, as there are no dual carriageways to drive them on.

I do wonder whether Guernsey have special environmental dispensation (due to their confinement) to have diesels without DPF or whether a new VAG TDI is actually cleaner than emissions requirements even without the DPF on?

I do think that a lot of the people that would buy a 1.6TDI over a 2.0TDI or 1.4TSI ACT will be driving them like nuns as the fuel economy is by far their main concern (hence the reason for ordering such an engine), with the DPF scuppering all of their efforts to maximise fuel economy with a very light right foot. For this very reason I do think that the GTD may actually be the most economical on average because people who buy one will, on average drive their car a little harder/faster which helps teh DPF get the conditions it needs to regen passively.

VW's official figures are probably possible on a car with a completely empty DPF that is driven like a nun whilst on test, but to drive like that on a daily basis may well clog the DPF and ruin the mpg with active regens.

Stop start helps no one to any great extent (VW claim up to 3% savings) unless they are in perpetual gridlock and getting poor mpg as a result. Makes worst case mpg slightly less worst case, until the DPF screws them.

VW won't consider that you have any issues with the car unless your yellow DPF partially filled light comes on - at that point the car is neither regenerating passively or actively and technician intervention is required to empty it if you don't get some motorway blasting done. Any less than that and VW will likely blame the driving style/low mileage.

[maisbitt]

Just got 55mpg on my 12 mile commute to work in the Scirocco (and not sparing the horses), doubt my new GTD will match that. I will be really interested to know how the 1.4TSI ACT mpg compares in real world driving to the 1.6TDI and even the 2.0TDI 150. If the mpg on that isn't also a tall tale then it could really hurt lower range TDI sales.

[Oswald1964]

My 2.0L TDI DSG now as 5500 miles on the clock and real world average is 51.2mpg (calculated not on board computer) mostly made up of 32 mile round trip home to work and back along equal mix of rural and A roads. I did get 57mpg on 315 mile trip to North Devon 290 miles of which were motorway. Although way off the published figures I'm reasonably happy.

[Devro]

My 2.0 GT TDI DSG is now at 5000 miles and has achieved a pathetic life time average of 44.9mpg. This has been a mix of daily 7 mile commute and weekly 60 to 70mile motorway journeys. It has been inconsistent with the commute ranging from 30 to 42mpg. On the motorway it has ranged from 40mpg to 60mpg on the same stretch and in similar traffic. i don't think i have had many dpf regens and have been using BP ultimate or the Shell Nitro+ which makes the long term average even more dissapointing. I was particularly frustrated with 500 mile motorway journey to Devon and back which averaged only 45.7mpg, no where near the 68.9mpg advertised in the literature.

It has been to the garage twice to investigate the mpg issue and twice i have been told there are no problems with the vehicle and the literature is for comparison purposes only. This is complete rubbish, my mk7 = combined list of 62.8mpg achieving 44.9mpg and a friend has the mk6 2.0 GT TDI = combined list value of 53.3mpg and averages over 50mpg (and he tows a boat!)

There is some light at the end of the tunnel for me, as it is a lease vehicle and was delivered with the incorrect specification, so am currently in the process of the vehicle being returned to the lease company as it was not what was ordered. Just frustrated it is taking them so long to do anything about it!

[pango1in]

My 2.0 GT TDI DSG is now at 5000 miles and has achieved a pathetic life time average of 44.9mpg. This has been a mix of daily 7 mile commute and weekly 60 to 70mile motorway journeys. It has been inconsistent with the commute ranging from 30 to 42mpg. On the motorway it has ranged from 40mpg to 60mpg on the same stretch and in similar traffic. i don't think i have had many dpf regens and have been using BP ultimate or the Shell Nitro+ which makes the long term average even more dissapointing. I was particularly frustrated with 500 mile motorway journey to Devon and back which averaged only 45.7mpg, no where near the 68.9mpg advertised in the literature.

It has been to the garage twice to investigate the mpg issue and twice i have been told there are no problems with the vehicle and the literature is for comparison purposes only. This is complete rubbish, my mk7 = combined list of 62.8mpg achieving 44.9mpg and a friend has the mk6 2.0 GT TDI = combined list value of 53.3mpg and averages over 50mpg (and he tows a boat!)

There is some light at the end of the tunnel for me, as it is a lease vehicle and was delivered with the incorrect specification, so am currently in the process of the vehicle being returned to the lease company as it was not what was ordered. Just frustrated it is taking them so long to do anything about it!

I love that comparative excuse. It is tripe. You are absolutely right to compare the real life realisations.

It's interesting that you mention the variability of the mpg. Recently on my run to work, I achieved a glorious 58mpg, yet on another morning I struggled to get 50mpg. On the way home, I have sometimes struggled to get 44mpg. On the motorway, I have achieved 55mpg on one run of about 2 hours (rarely getting over 70 due to the traffic). I have also struggled to hit 50mpg, whilst driving in exactly the same way with less traffic on the motorway.

I'll see how it performs at the weekend. I have a long motorway run planned, followed by playing round with a VAG diagnostic unit at the other end - we'll see what the dpf sensor is up to...

[dcdick]

I've now officially given up.............................

Resisted the urge to get the fire breathing 200ps Nissan Juke & gone for an an "ordinary" 1.6 Juke with leather seats/keyless entry/fancy connect system etc.....

Goodbye VAG you have me off big time with this diesel & although I like the cars the agro with this diesel was too much.

Should have stayed with petrol but thought I was doing the "right" thing going with the hype & expecting to see 60mpg on an advertised 74mpg machine :zx11:

D

[maisbitt]

I've now officially given up.............................

Resisted the urge to get the fire breathing 200ps Nissan Juke & gone for an an "ordinary" 1.6 Juke with leather seats/keyless entry/fancy connect system etc.....

Goodbye VAG you have me off big time with this diesel & although I like the cars the agro with this diesel was too much.

Should have stayed with petrol but thought I was doing the "right" thing going with the hype & expecting to see 60mpg on an advertised 74mpg machine :zx11:

D

MPG isn't all they're doing wrong right now. I'm coming up to 18 weeks wait for my GTD and it's not scheduled to be build for another 2 weeks. I was the first to order at my supplying dealership and they've been given 3 GTD demos between 2 branches before thinking about building my order. If the MK7 wasn't so good next to the competition i'd have ditched VW.

[maisbitt]

My 2.0 GT TDI DSG is now at 5000 miles and has achieved a pathetic life time average of 44.9mpg. This has been a mix of daily 7 mile commute and weekly 60 to 70mile motorway journeys. It has been inconsistent with the commute ranging from 30 to 42mpg. On the motorway it has ranged from 40mpg to 60mpg on the same stretch and in similar traffic. i don't think i have had many dpf regens and have been using BP ultimate or the Shell Nitro+ which makes the long term average even more dissapointing. I was particularly frustrated with 500 mile motorway journey to Devon and back which averaged only 45.7mpg, no where near the 68.9mpg advertised in the literature.

It has been to the garage twice to investigate the mpg issue and twice i have been told there are no problems with the vehicle and the literature is for comparison purposes only. This is complete rubbish, my mk7 = combined list of 62.8mpg achieving 44.9mpg and a friend has the mk6 2.0 GT TDI = combined list value of 53.3mpg and averages over 50mpg (and he tows a boat!)

There is some light at the end of the tunnel for me, as it is a lease vehicle and was delivered with the incorrect specification, so am currently in the process of the vehicle being returned to the lease company as it was not what was ordered. Just frustrated it is taking them so long to do anything about it!

Are your figures indicated values from the car's MFD trip computer or calculated values from brimmed fill ups? If indicated, the values you quote could actually be almost 10% worse than you already think they are. Using the premium fuel too makes it all the worse - could the mpg be even worse on ordinary diesel? 45.7mpg on a 500 mile round trip is woeful (unless you were maintaining 90mph on the motorways). Maintaing 80mph and having the aircon on all the way, I have nudged 59mpg (indicated) in my 170TDI scirocco on a trip from Newcastle to Southampton (350 miles) before - all with no eco tech. I have a feeling my forthcoming GTD is going to be a disappointment at the pumps. Those 7 mile commutes will lend themselves to poor mpg (maybe 47mpg s what my car would be doing for that), but those weekly motorway trips should keep the DPF clear.

If VW techs can't take your car out and do significantly better mpg than you on a test run then the car is definitely to blame. On a mid to long motorway journey maintaining 70mph everyone should be able to bust the combined figure, it was a given in prevous TDIs. If enough people complain then VW should have to sit up and listen.

[dcdick]

I've now officially given up.............................

Resisted the urge to get the fire breathing 200ps Nissan Juke & gone for an an "ordinary" 1.6 Juke with leather seats/keyless entry/fancy connect system etc.....

Goodbye VAG you have me off big time with this diesel & although I like the cars the agro with this diesel was too much.

Should have stayed with petrol but thought I was doing the "right" thing going with the hype & expecting to see 60mpg on an advertised 74mpg machine :zx11:

D



Chris's censors red pencil strikes again even though the word used by me was a polite version of a common term & I used only 2 letters of the original word (stars substituted instead of letters)

Could it be because I dared to criticise VAG a little too much ??

Strange place sometimes this forum, can't even use my own christian name without it being censored:confused:

D

[Gerryf]

TBH D.....you were always on a hiding to nothing over fuel consumption where in fact you were in an unsuitable car.

Good luck with the Nissan mate :)

[dcdick]

TBH D.....you were always on a hiding to nothing over fuel consumption where in fact you were in an unsuitable car.

Good luck with the Nissan mate :)

Thanks Gerry.............. I still maintain the car is faulty/not fit for purpose call it what you will, as the fuel consumption is 100% dependent upon the implementation of the DPF system to get the "headline" figures/emissions lower than the engine can cope with in "normal" motoring. It truly is unsuitable for me in this instance, yet the Nissan diesel (with DPF, 2012 model year) I chopped in did not have any issues with my mileage/use.

Oh well it's only a car & I'm back to petrol in a few weeks with a heap of "toys" (that VW would have charged around 4.5k extra for on the Golf) included as well.

D**k :D

[dickt]

Good luck with the new car!

It is a bit ugly, though. However, as the driver, I guess you won't see that!

[Sam]

Chris's censors red pencil strikes again even though the word used by me was a polite version of a common term & I used only 2 letters of the original word (stars substituted instead of letters)

Could it be because I dared to criticise VAG a little too much ??

Strange place sometimes this forum, can't even use my own christian name without it being censored:confused:

D

Swearing, masked or otherwise, is frowned upon - thems the rules.

As for your Christian name, that's known as the 'Scunthorpe problem', hopefully you'll accept our apologies.

[mcmaddy]

Thanks Gerry.............. I still maintain the car is faulty/not fit for purpose call it what you will, as the fuel consumption is 100% dependent upon the implementation of the DPF system to get the "headline" figures/emissions lower than the engine can cope with in "normal" motoring. It truly is unsuitable for me in this instance, yet the Nissan diesel (with DPF, 2012 model year) I chopped in did not have any issues with my mileage/use.

Oh well it's only a car & I'm back to petrol in a few weeks with a heap of "toys" (that VW would have charged around 4.5k extra for on the Golf) included as well.

D**k :D

will be interesting to see what mpg's you get from your juke as I suspect you won't get manufacturer claimed figures either. my friend has one and says it's the most uneconomical car he has ever owned. will you be returning the juke if it doesn't give you claimed mpg's?

[dcdick]

will be interesting to see what mpg's you get from your juke as I suspect you won't get manufacturer claimed figures either. my friend has one and says it's the most uneconomical car he has ever owned. will you be returning the juke if it doesn't give you claimed mpg's?

Now there's a thought ;)

The current Golf7 is the only car that I have ever had this level of disparity with mpg claims.
As I posted previously I expected to get 60mpg as opposed to the 74mpg promised.
Perfectly reasonable expectation I would have thought.
Seeing as I am not alone in condemnation of VW's published mpg figures I do not feel as if it was unreasonable to force the issue as I had the spectre of DPF failure to come that I would have had to meet the cost of replacement (£2,500).

The Juke certainly polarises opinions :D
I had a QQ that did not give problems with fuel consumption (and a MK6 Golf that was good on fuel as well) etc.......

D

[maisbitt]

Now there's a thought ;)

The current Golf7 is the only car that I have ever had this level of disparity with mpg claims.
As I posted previously I expected to get 60mpg as opposed to the 74mpg promised.
Perfectly reasonable expectation I would have thought.
Seeing as I am not alone in condemnation of VW's published mpg figures I do not feel as if it was unreasonable to force the issue as I had the spectre of DPF failure to come that I would have had to meet the cost of replacement (£2,500).

The Juke certainly polarises opinions :D
I had a QQ that did not give problems with fuel consumption (and a MK6 Golf that was good on fuel as well) etc.......

D

Quoted CO2 levels do seem to be the driving force behind ever optimistic published mpg figures. How they can add all that eco-tech on, lose some weight (not as much as they were touting, for most models), supposedly improve the engine warm up times and still get a cra that in reality is just as thirsty as the old generation is beyond me. It would imply that the new engines are actually thirstier than the old ones and all the new non-engine eco additions just about drag mpg back to where it was on the last generation of car.

Juke is certainly a marmite car, I would never consider owning one unless my job required it - those very "unique" looks and Renault running gear tech do put me off. How are the residuals (GFV) on the Juke? This is a significant consideration with me buying a new car, hence VW GTD comes in as car of choice for me.

[dcdick]

Juke is certainly a marmite car, I would never consider owning one unless my job required it - those very "unique" looks and Renault running gear tech do put me off. How are the residuals (GFV) on the Juke? This is a significant consideration with me buying a new car, hence VW GTD comes in as car of choice for me.

Residuals are strong & with the lower initial cost & higher spec levels available overall cost of ownership is very reasonable. Wonder what will happen to the Mk7 residuals if this DPF saga continues unchecked though ?

It's a bit like a sports version of the QQ with quite decent handling for a X/over thing. Time will tell of course ;)

The Juke was the last of 7 cars I test drove (apart from VW) & just seemed to be the way to go for me.

D

[algarve]

I've now officially given up.............................

Resisted the urge to get the fire breathing 200ps Nissan Juke & gone for an an "ordinary" 1.6 Juke with leather seats/keyless entry/fancy connect system etc.....

Goodbye VAG you have me off big time with this diesel & although I like the cars the agro with this diesel was too much.

Should have stayed with petrol but thought I was doing the "right" thing going with the hype & expecting to see 60mpg on an advertised 74mpg machine :zx11:

D

A petrol in your circumstances seems the best idea as I see the diesel Juke 1.5 dCl (110 ) claims 67.3 MPG

AutoExpress test 40.7 MPG !

[maisbitt]

I do think that the DPF saga has a link with mis-selling to lower mileage customers. I reserve judgement on whether my 12 mile commute each way every day will cause me bother with the DPF personally (no hint of a regen on the extended test drive in the GTD DSG), but I do wonder at what lower threshold it will start to affect most users (10 mile commute / 8 miles / 6 miles?). If the worst were to happen with residuals, I have a GFV of 56% of list price on the GTD (it's about 47% on a TDI GT - presumably due to the limited allocation of production for the GTD and GTI) - I'd just give it back and wash my hands of it. I don't think all of the low mpg is attributed to DPF. Even running well without DPF active regens, I don't think you'll get much past 90% of combined mpg on a good run with the current generation of engines whether they are TSI or TDI - the current testing regime seems to be far removed from everyday driving conditions. I can surpass the Anyone know what the general achievement vs official combined in the TSI engines are? Anyone with a GTI really expecting 47mpg when they get it, or 59mpg in a 1.4TSI ACT GT?

I'm amazed at the CO2/mpg disparity between 3 doors and 5 doors on some models. For GTD DSG and 1.4TSI ACT manual, there is 3g/km CO2 difference between 3 door variant and 5 door variant on each one - putting them in different taxation brackets for the difference in the number of doors (although there is a 30kg weight gain on 5 doors).

The GFV (final payment) of a Nissan Juke is around 44% for a Diesel and 41% for a 2WD petrol, so not as good as a Golf - but cheaper to buy, so no worse off in monetary terms for monthly payments. There are tons of them up here in the North East (I'd say a quarter of all new cars locally seem to be Jukes - mainly in the Burgundy or burnt orange metallic shades), presumably due to the close proximity to the Sunderland plant - plenty of people working for Nissan or just supporting local industry.

[dcdick]

A petrol in your circumstances seems the best idea as I see the diesel Juke 1.5 dCl (110 ) claims 67.3 MPG

AutoExpress test 40.7 MPG !

Official mpg for a 1.5 DCI is 58.6 although there is a "new" engine on it's way that is obviously based around the 1.6 diesel available as an option in the QQ that does get into the 60,s for mpg & should boost the mpg of the Juke when it filters through into production. Couldn't find any mpg data for the new engine when I looked at the AE tests but my experience with the QQ diesel I had was 46/47 normal & mid 50's when cruising so i would expect the revised engine to better those figures easily

The 40.7 mpg you have seen is shocking !

I'm expecting to get around that with the petrol engine ;)

D

[dcdick]

I do think that the DPF saga has a link with mis-selling to lower mileage customers. I reserve judgement on whether my 12 mile commute each way every day will cause me bother with the DPF personally (no hint of a regen on the extended test drive in the GTD DSG), but I do wonder at what lower threshold it will start to affect most users (10 mile commute / 8 miles / 6 miles?). If the worst were to happen with residuals, I have a GFV of 56% of list price on the GTD (it's about 47% on a TDI GT - presumably due to the limited allocation of production for the GTD and GTI) - I'd just give it back and wash my hands of it. I don't think all of the low mpg is attributed to DPF. Even running well without DPF active regens, I don't think you'll get much past 90% of combined mpg on a good run with the current generation of engines whether they are TSI or TDI - the current testing regime seems to be far removed from everyday driving conditions. I can surpass the Anyone know what the general achievement vs official combined in the TSI engines are? Anyone with a GTI really expecting 47mpg when they get it, or 59mpg in a 1.4TSI ACT GT?

I'm amazed at the CO2/mpg disparity between 3 doors and 5 doors on some models. For GTD DSG and 1.4TSI ACT manual, there is 3g/km CO2 difference between 3 door variant and 5 door variant on each one - putting them in different taxation brackets for the difference in the number of doors (although there is a 30kg weight gain on 5 doors).



Most independent mpg comparison sites tend to settle on around 85% for the petrol & around 72% for the diesel versions of the MK7 .

I would normally expect to get more than this, but with the long gearing of the diesel in particular, cruising at say............6o/65 mph has the engine running at under 2,000 revs & not good enough seemingly to keep the soot away.

I have found that the petrol engines from VW are better at meeting the mpg claims. Is it because they run at higher emission levels than the diesels ?

It has to be the DPF system that is causing the problems as the farther & faster you drive the less DPF & regens intrude into your motoring.

Miss-selling to lower mileage customers is now a big problem, I heard of a couple on Mobility with an Astra that choked up the DPF inside the first week :(

D

[maisbitt]

Official mpg for a 1.5 DCI is 58.6 although there is a "new" engine on it's way that is obviously based around the 1.6 diesel available as an option in the QQ that does get into the 60,s for mpg & should boost the mpg of the Juke when it filters through into production. Couldn't find any mpg data for the new engine when I looked at the AE tests but my experience with the QQ diesel I had was 46/47 normal & mid 50's when cruising so i would expect the revised engine to better those figures easily

The 40.7 mpg you have seen is shocking !

I'm expecting to get around that with the petrol engine ;)

D

So do you think that the "new" Nissan/Renault 1.6DCI engine will be any more revolutionary than VWs "new" TDIs in the MK7 with actual better mpg than the outgoing model?

I think more likely that it will go the same way as VWs offerings - I'm sure they're both up to the same tricks - tune the engine to skew maximum EC tested CO2/mpg values that will be quite a bit detached from real driving mpg.

[maisbitt]

Most independent mpg comparison sites tend to settle on around 85% for the petrol & around 72% for the diesel versions of the MK7 .

I would normally expect to get more than this, but with the long gearing of the diesel in particular, cruising at say............6o/65 mph has the engine running at under 2,000 revs & not good enough seemingly to keep the soot away.

I have found that the petrol engines from VW are better at meeting the mpg claims. Is it because they run at higher emission levels than the diesels ?

It has to be the DPF system that is causing the problems as the farther & faster you drive the less DPF & regens intrude into your motoring.

Miss-selling to lower mileage customers is now a big problem, I heard of a couple on Mobility with an Astra that choked up the DPF inside the first week :(

D

I suppose that motability is going to prefer to offer cars with the best retained values so as to minimise additional costs to the recipient, and as diesels currently are worth more used than their equivalent petrol stablemates in general, they are going to continue to be happy to get you into a diesel without consideration as to your mileage. If they can offer you a 1.6DTI Astra at no extra cost than a 1.2 petrol one, most would plump for the 1.6DTI.
If a GTI should give 85% of claimed mpg to give you an actual 40mpg vs a GTD giving 72% of claimed mpg to give you an actual 48.5mpg, then I’d probably have bought the GTI. Time will tell what the differences are generally although I’ve had a test drive in a manual GTI (got 32mpg on a 10 mile journey) and a GTD DSG (getting 50.3mpg on a 60 mile journey). The GTI was already warm, and the GTD was cold and the DSG accounts for about a 10% drop by my reckoning, so I’m guessing a fair comparison was 32mpg vs 55mpg as the GTD’s mpg didn’t really improve after the first 10 mins around the doors before I got onto dual carriageway and maintained 80mph.
I think people are doing fewer miles in general than they used to and some are getting caught out with the DPF. I suspect that there is a certain threshold with the DPF that above x miles you will have almost no fuel penalty, but below it your mpg will suffer. Hopefully I am above that threshold with my 12 mile commute each way.
For low mileage/congested city commute people who would choke the DPF, I have no doubt that the difference between a 1.4TSI ACT and a 1.6TDI will be negligible. For those that can be bothered to populate the mpg monitoring sites, it is more likely that those suffering the worst mpg are the ones making up most of the data input.
So to a point, you do have to wonder how skewed the figures are. I guess we’ll never know – but generally those who have an issue are usually those who make the most noise. I doubt VW get many letters from high milers congratulating them about the improved mpg in the new model (assuming they suffer fewer DPF active regens which are assumed to be the only or primary cause of poor mpg in TDIs).

[dcdick]

So do you think that the "new" Nissan/Renault 1.6DCI engine will be any more revolutionary than VWs "new" TDIs in the MK7 with actual better mpg than the outgoing model?

I think more likely that it will go the same way as VWs offerings - I'm sure they're both up to the same tricks - tune the engine to skew maximum EC tested CO2/mpg values that will be quite a bit detached from real driving mpg.

Ha, ha............................ I think (like you) that as the co2/emissions get down close to the "magic" 100 mark the problems start & I know Vauxhall are suffering now & it looks as though it's Nissan's turn next, eventually all diesels are going to end up this way. I'm pleased not to be a part of it now .

D

[dcdick]

I suppose that motability is going to prefer to offer cars with the best retained values so as to minimise additional costs to the recipient, and as diesels currently are worth more used than their equivalent petrol stablemates in general, they are going to continue to be happy to get you into a diesel without consideration as to your mileage. If they can offer you a 1.6DTI Astra at no extra cost than a 1.2 petrol one, most would plump for the 1.6DTI.
If a GTI should give 85% of claimed mpg to give you an actual 40mpg vs a GTD giving 72% of claimed mpg to give you an actual 48.5mpg, then I’d probably have bought the GTI. Time will tell what the differences are generally although I’ve had a test drive in a manual GTI (got 32mpg on a 10 mile journey) and a GTD DSG (getting 50.3mpg on a 60 mile journey). The GTI was already warm, and the GTD was cold and the DSG accounts for about a 10% drop by my reckoning, so I’m guessing a fair comparison was 32mpg vs 55mpg as the GTD’s mpg didn’t really improve after the first 10 mins around the doors before I got onto dual carriageway and maintained 80mph.
I think people are doing fewer miles in general than they used to and some are getting caught out with the DPF. I suspect that there is a certain threshold with the DPF that above x miles you will have almost no fuel penalty, but below it your mpg will suffer. Hopefully I am above that threshold with my 12 mile commute each way.
For low mileage/congested city commute people who would choke the DPF, I have no doubt that the difference between a 1.4TSI ACT and a 1.6TDI will be negligible. For those that can be bothered to populate the mpg monitoring sites, it is more likely that those suffering the worst mpg are the ones making up most of the data input.
So to a point, you do have to wonder how skewed the figures are. I guess we’ll never know – but generally those who have an issue are usually those who make the most noise. I doubt VW get many letters from high milers congratulating them about the improved mpg in the new model (assuming they suffer fewer DPF active regens which are assumed to be the only or primary cause of poor mpg in TDIs).

Once upon a time you could buy a new car & not have to worry about all this DPF/percentages hassle.............. techno overkill as far as I can see with no obvious benefits apart from some pollution saving which is still shrouded in mystery as to the actual saving/long term benefits

We'll all likely be driving electric/hybrid cars in the not to distant future so how will we be able to complain about the mpg then ?

D

[dickt]

I just have a keen sense of disappointment.

(As well as being very ****** off about the lies about my seat memory, but that is a different story)

This car is very, very expensive for a 4 seater car.

The mpg is under 70% of that claimed, and is no better than my Mk 5.

It is no better in any way that I can see from my Mk5 tdi 170 with dsg. (After VW had put right the dpf unit, the sensors, and all the injectors) Arguably, it is much worse, as with the Mk 5, I just drove it. With this one, using eco to get the mpg to a reasonable level, the responses are nowhere near as good.

As I have said before, I have not changed, my driving style has not changed, and my journeys are still the same.

My aspiration with the mark 7 was to achieve, perhaps, 50-55 mpg instead of the 45 I had with the 170. VW have played a very, very cruel spin joke on us all.

[pango1in]

Well, here's a turn-up for the books... I've been playing around with VCDS and the new v12 Beta software.

I logged a trip down a dual carriageway near the father-in-law's house. It's a 2.9 mile stretch between two roundabouts. V. light traffic. Went up and down a few times. Kept it at 70 for all runs, in 6th for most runs, then did one in 5th, 4th and 3rd (at 4k rpm!) at the end. Went up and down a few times. Prior to this journey, I had done a journey of 180 miles on the motorway at 75-80 on the speedo in 6th. This may account for the low SMM of 2g at the start (see below). Total test journey time was 30 mins (1,763 secs). Engine was warm from 500 secs per oil temp log.

I logged the following:



Speed
Torque
Engine Drag
Acceleration
Oil Temp
DPF Oil Ash Volume
DPF Soot mass calculated (SMC)
DPF Soot mass measured (SMM) - don't know what the difference between SMC and SMM is - any ideas?
DPF Inlet Temp
DPF Outlet Temp


Here's some of the points that I found:



The DPF NEVER had an inlet temperature of more than 350C. Outlet temp was always lower.
Inlet temp reached 340 during hard acceleration to 70. About 310-320 under softer acceleration.
SMC steadily increased from 19.09g to 20.23g over the trip, almost in a straight line.
SMM started to increase round town, but dropped for some of the dual carriage way driving (overall 2g to 3.34g).
Interestingly, there was a jump in the rate of increase of the SMC during the 3rd gear run. The SMM also increased from a flat line from this point too. Could it be that running a car hard does nothing to reduce the soot levels, and may have the opposite effect?
Peak acceleration was 2.688m/s2.
Peak torque was 370Nm (car should only do 320Nm, but presume engine drag of around 40Nm needs to be subtracted form this).


If the DPF never gets above 350C, this would be the main reason why it keeps clogging up and needs active regens. It's also not as though I didn't give it enough time to heat up too. On each 2.9 mile journey, it heated up to say 330C then dropped to just over 300 as I cruised. It heated up as I went up hills and dropped as I went down hills (as you would expect), but all around 300C.

[maisbitt]

Pango1in:
Some very interesting stuff there from VCDS. Did you have to leave it connected during the run, or did the ECU store a certain amount of data that VCDS allowed you to recall?

That torque value is impressive, although past experience says that VWs are usually quietly understated in their output, it would seem that stated PS output is a bare minimum or perhaps straight out of the box value. There have been plenty of unaltered TSIs and TDIs dynoed at between 10 and 20% more than stated output, as seen around the forums, yours could well be one of the ones that's had a good run in. My Scirocco feels a lot more powerful now than it did from new (although the mpg hasn't really appreciated much).

The concensus for soot burning has been to keep the rpm range between 1800 and 2500 rpm (I think this is what your car's manual states), so your 3rd/4th gear run creating more soot isn't so surprising. Keeping the revs right up isn't working the car hard - the torque required to maintain 70mph in 3rd isn't a lot (think pedalling very fast in a low gear up a hill - a lot of movement but less effort spent than going up the hill on your bike in a higher gear). The car is screaming but it's not working hard. What was the DPF inlet temp during this 3rd gear run?

Not sure what the difference between SMC and SMM are. If I had to take a guess I would say SMC is perhaps the calculated total amount of soot generated and collected prior to any regen combustion and SMM is current actual level of soot and ash remaining in the DPF. If you look at your SMM and SMC levels recorded, the difference between start and end of your experimental trip for each parameter is similar (1.14g SMC and 1.34g for SMM). If SMC continues to rise and doesn't drop then I think my guess will be right, and in that case SMM is the level to be concerned with as that should rise and fall with usage and successful regens. The capacity of the DPF is approximately 47g, so a stored soot level of 3.34g would suggest to me that your car is having no bother in burning soot.

On your cyclic run of multiple 2.9 mile trips between roundabouts I would not underestimate how much the cars exhaust can cool when you're turning around to come back. Any chance of monitoring your next motorway run doing an indicated 75-80mph in 6th to see if you can nudge into the 350C zone? Perhaps VW have managed to lower the exhaust temp regen threshold through some clever catalysis on the latest generation to 320/330/340C. If you can't achieve optimum temp in 6th at the maximum speed allowable on UK roads then the car is set up wrong - VW should not be making it mandatory to speed in order to facilitate a passive regen.

Looks like it took you approx. 8 mins and 8 or 9 miles to reach normal operating oil temp (95C?) - seems like anyone doing the majority of their miles with shorter journeys than this length are never going to get their car up to temp to reduce the soot unless they are doing at least 1 motorway run a week of a decent distance. I'm assuming you did the 2.9mile run 8 times (4 times there and back) for about 23 miles total and you accumulated 1.34g of soot in the process which wasn't burnt. By that reckoning, driving as you did, your DPF would be 55% full and forcing a regen (with the yellow exhaust light coming on) after 443 miles, assuming it was completely empty prior to those 443 miles and that nothing was burnt off in those 443 miles.

[dcdick]

Seems like the tech at the dealer that supplied mine had things dead right with his remark about about anything less than 10 miles is building soot up that needs to be dealt with by regens.
Easy answer for people like me is a 50 mile minimum run once a week at the VW stipulated rev range etc..... only costs £6.40 or so ;)

The above 2 posts should be displayed on every salesman's desk, but sadly never will be

Still interesting to say the least & very informative.

D

[dickt]

Thanks to Pango and maisbitt for those posts.

I was very interested in one of maisbitt's points - "If you can't achieve optimum temp in 6th at the maximum speed allowable on UK roads then the car is set up wrong".

I suspect this might well be true for my car. Otherwise, why would it do a forced regen in my garage when I had just come off the motorway, where I had travelled for more than the necessary time and revs??

[dcdick]

Thanks to Pango and maisbitt for those posts.

I was very interested in one of maisbitt's points - "If you can't achieve optimum temp in 6th at the maximum speed allowable on UK roads then the car is set up wrong".

I suspect this might well be true for my car. Otherwise, why would it do a forced regen in my garage when I had just come off the motorway, where I had travelled for more than the necessary time and revs??

I've had a couple of these that are first noticed when you stop at the lights coming off the Mway slip road then continue when you park up the car (2 miles from Mway to home) .................... huh !

D

[maisbitt]

Made some more calculations. If your car does 50mpg and in the 23 miles (assumed) you generate 1.34g of soot to burn then the car's efficiency for combustion is 99.92% efficient in converting liquid diesel into gaseous components. Sounds very efficient but I wonder whether the car in the same conditions using V-power would do the same or better (less soot produced). I also wonder whether a MK5/6 Golf TDI run under the same conditions produces less soot per trip (unlikely, given it's lower mpg - officially at least) or perhaps whether it is more efficient at burning it off because it is quicker and easier to achieve the required exhaust temp due to set-up (far more likely).

I also wonder why VW say it costs so much to empty or replace your DPF. I am assuming that the soot capture bowl resembles a crucible you might find in a lab. When soot is burnt off, a tiny proportion of it remains as an incombustible ash (presumed impurity/non-carbon content of the diesel), and over the space of many thousand miles (MK5/6 was good for 150k miles) the incombustible ash fills it to the point it hasn't enough room for soot collection to burn. If under warranty VW can empty collected soot manually when the car can't burn it off, why can't they also empty the incombustible ash when the car has racked up many miles? When my MK5 170TDI was playing up and required manually emptying (before the service remap) it was an hours job. Why then are VW saying it's a £1200 job when the DPF fills with ash? I'm sure if we keep our cars that long, some bright spark will have found a cheap way to simply empty the ash out. Perhaps all the catalytic combustion components have a service life that ties in with the expected fill time of the DPF and it's all that which will need replacing and bump the cost up?

3780g/gallon diesel

0.46 gallons (1738.8g) used per 23 miles @50mpg

1738.8g fuel yields 1.34g soot to burn

[pango1in]

There's quite a lot for me to respond to, so I'll try and get it all in order of questions asked. I'm planning to take the car out again tomorrow morning for an extended run up the DC/motorway (including a very steep hill or two) with no roundabouts! The logging is continuous so long as the netbook's battery lasts... and provides a nice .csv file that you can manipulate in excel.

I understand what you are saying about 1.8k - 2.5k rpm, but I just don't think that's that relevant to the DPF temperatures, at least for the Golf. I'm basing this on the fact that the runs in 4th and 3rd gear along the dual carriageway did not result in any higher DPF temperature than the runs in 6th and 5th - 6th bearly reaches 1.8k rpm - interestingly, if anything, it was lower... On earlier cars with DPFs, which had no active ECU intervention as the Golf does, then you were advised to drive it along the motorway in 3rd or 4th for 15-20 mins to clear the soot out (several mechanics have said this to me). On the other hand, the Golf manual doesn't say to maintain any sort of RPM, only to keep it above 38mph for 15 or so minutes, presumably so the ECU can initiate and complete an active DPF regen, with no regard to the rpm as the engine artificially raises the temperature instead.

SMM v SMC. I'd like to think that the SMM value is the actual amount of soot in the DPF at any given time. The SMM accumulation during the trip seemed to react to how the car was being driven (it went up during the urban parts of the journey and down slightly then levelled off during the dual carriage way runs, only to rise during the 3rd gear run and the trip home). It was low to start with as I'd just done a 180 mile motorway run the day before (only achieving 50mpg on average). Perhaps SMC is the amount generated since the last regen, that would seem to be consistent with where I estimate the origin of the graph would be (my last active regen was at 1,850 miles and I've covered about 300 since).

In terms of exhaust temperature and turning round at roundabouts, I can see exactly how much it's cooled. Each run would have an initial peak to 330C after acceleration from 20-70mph, then it would dip to 250C as I travelled down a hill to the middle of the section, it would then rise again to about 300-310C as I climbed the hill on the other side, finally dropping to 200C as I turned round the roundabout at each end. It shouldn't surprise anyone how quickly the temperature of the exhaust changes, about 20 - 40 secs to rise from 200C to 330C (I'm guessing that depends on how fast I accelerated). When joining the carriageway for the first time, I really floored it. The exhaust temperature rose from 150C to 350C in 25 secs.

What I can say, is that I think each run was long enough to demonstrate that the DPF temperature will drop below 250-300C on downhill sections. I will test this out more tomorrow. But I whole heartedly agree that I shouldn't have to speed to get a passive regen.

All this test was done using Shell V-Power Nitro+, which I filled up with before the trip down here. Usually, I fill up with BP Ultimate. The total journey was about 23 miles (very good Maisbitt!!), but there was slightly more urban driving to and from the DCway. In the end, it was 3 trips up and down. The mpg was nowhere near 50 mpg - more like 40mpg overall given the urban driving before and afterwards.

Last point, I might suggest that the capacity of the DPF is more like 80g. There was a measurement that seemed fixed, but related to the DPF capacity, and read out 80g. The readout for the level of ash was 0.8g after 2150 miles.

I'm still left with disappointment though, as I could drive my old 120d like I stole it and always manage to get over 40mpg (177BHP 2.0 litre diesel with limited Bluemotion equivalent stuff). Conversely, my golf seems to struggle to hit 50mpg driving like a saint.

[maisbitt]

There's quite a lot for me to respond to, so I'll try and get it all in order of questions asked. I'm planning to take the car out again tomorrow morning for an extended run up the DC/motorway (including a very steep hill or two) with no roundabouts! The logging is continuous so long as the netbook's battery lasts... and provides a nice .csv file that you can manipulate in excel.

I understand what you are saying about 1.8k - 2.5k rpm, but I just don't think that's that relevant to the DPF temperatures, at least for the Golf. I'm basing this on the fact that the runs in 4th and 3rd gear along the dual carriageway did not result in any higher DPF temperature than the runs in 6th and 5th - 6th bearly reaches 1.8k rpm - interestingly, if anything, it was lower... On earlier cars with DPFs, which had no active ECU intervention as the Golf does, then you were advised to drive it along the motorway in 3rd or 4th for 15-20 mins to clear the soot out (several mechanics have said this to me). On the other hand, the Golf manual doesn't say to maintain any sort of RPM, only to keep it above 38mph for 15 or so minutes, presumably so the ECU can initiate and complete an active DPF regen, with no regard to the rpm as the engine artificially raises the temperature instead.

SMM v SMC. I'd like to think that the SMM value is the actual amount of soot in the DPF at any given time. The SMM accumulation during the trip seemed to react to how the car was being driven (it went up during the urban parts of the journey and down slightly then levelled off during the dual carriage way runs, only to rise during the 3rd gear run and the trip home). It was low to start with as I'd just done a 180 mile motorway run the day before (only achieving 50mpg on average). Perhaps SMC is the amount generated since the last regen, that would seem to be consistent with where I estimate the origin of the graph would be (my last active regen was at 1,850 miles and I've covered about 300 since).

I think that we both agree on what SMM and SMC are. SMC does seem to be a continuous reading of total soot generated, either from last regen or from some other count reset.

In terms of exhaust temperature and turning round at roundabouts, I can see exactly how much it's cooled. Each run would have an initial peak to 330C after acceleration from 20-70mph, then it would dip to 250C as I travelled down a hill to the middle of the section, it would then rise again to about 300-310C as I climbed the hill on the other side, finally dropping to 200C as I turned round the roundabout at each end. It shouldn't surprise anyone how quickly the temperature of the exhaust changes, about 20 - 40 secs to rise from 200C to 330C (I'm guessing that depends on how fast I accelerated). When joining the carriageway for the first time, I really floored it. The exhaust temperature rose from 150C to 350C in 25 secs.

Perhaps some of the exhaust internals like DPF components are in some way insulated - takes longer to warm up, but also longer to cool than the main exhaust to facilitate stable conditions for a sustained soot combustion when the driving conditions aren't constant, holding onto peak exhaust temp longer. If that were the case, then exhaust temp is an indicator of DPF temp rather than an absolute.

What I can say, is that I think each run was long enough to demonstrate that the DPF temperature will drop below 250-300C on downhill sections. I will test this out more tomorrow. But I whole heartedly agree that I shouldn't have to speed to get a passive regen.

All this test was done using Shell V-Power Nitro+, which I filled up with before the trip down here. Usually, I fill up with BP Ultimate. The total journey was about 23 miles (very good Maisbitt!!), but there was slightly more urban driving to and from the DCway. In the end, it was 3 trips up and down. The mpg was nowhere near 50 mpg - more like 40mpg overall given the urban driving before and afterwards.

Use of Shell V-Power Nitro+ suggests best case soot generation given it's purity, so your soot generation figures could be exceptional rather than typical (for everyone else not using premium fuel).
Last point, I might suggest that the capacity of the DPF is more like 80g. There was a measurement that seemed fixed, but related to the DPF capacity, and read out 80g. The readout for the level of ash was 0.8g after 2150 miles.

DPF capacity I quoted was taken off a website that didn't state it's capacity but stated 26g fill up was 55% full. The website was about 4 years old so it may have been talking about MK6 or even MK5 Golf DPF. According to the same website, the DPF is knackered at 55% full of ash (not enough room left to facilitate variable capacity for soot, pre-regen), so an 80g capacity and 0.8g ash after 2150 miles would suggest a service life of 118k miles under your current ash generation rate. Assuming 45mpg for your total usage to date:-

2150 miles = 0.8g soot

2150 miles @45mpg = 47.8 gallons = 217.5 litres = 181 Kg fuel

so 0.00044% by weight of Shell V-power Nitro+ is incombustible, I wonder how that compares with "normal" diesels.

I'm still left with disappointment though, as I could drive my old 120d like I stole it and always manage to get over 40mpg (177BHP 2.0 litre diesel with limited Bluemotion equivalent stuff). Conversely, my golf seems to struggle to hit 50mpg driving like a saint.

Driving the GTD DSG demo for 90 mins last week seemed to show very petrol-like fuel consumption - good consumption when maintaining a speed, but a huge fuel penalty when you put your foot down. Like you i'm used to diesels giving near same economy whether driven hard or not. worst case scenario on my MK5 170TDI was 5% penalty between driving it like I stole it and driving like a saint, 10% on my current Scirocco.

[pango1in]

Well, just finished the motorway run. It was very revealing. 40 minute run along dcway and mway and back. Light traffic, so managed to keep a constant speed using cruise control. Speed was slightly above 70.

From a cursory look at the data I can say the following:

Again, the temperature never really got above 350C. I say this, with the exclusion of the ACTIVE REGEN THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE FIRST HALF OF THE RUN!!!!! :zx11: Surprised is an understatement, given the last 400 miles have mainly been motorway driving...
SMC seems to be the total soot in the DPF. This reduced after the active regen to about 3g. During the regen, SMM was negative.
Fuel consumption on the run out was 44mpg (including the active regen) and 46.5mpg on the way back (fuel economy is always poor after an active regen for some reason).


At least I can talk to the garage on better terms now. Could it be that the engine is burning oil in its youth, creating more soot? Though I've not noticed the oil level plummet...

I will respond in full later on once I've pulled together the graphs etc.

[Dolmen]

We have now covered over 2400 miles and the MPG is still creeping up. This evenings fill now showing over 54.3mpg, with Long Term car reading at 53.9mpg.
hope this continues, as 65mpg is still some way off.

[maisbitt]

Saw something interesting on a Mazda 6 advert for their 150PS 2.2 Diesel today, boasting 67mpg economy(comparable to the GTD, but with 34PS less).

They had a prominent disclaimer stating that published mpg figures should be used for comparison between car manufacturers only and may not reflect real driving experiences. On the assumption that VW are obliged to determine mpg/CO2 by the same EU testing, their figures really are significantly detached from real-life and may not be significantly higher than the previous model tested under different conditions.

[mcmaddy]

I'm only doing 2 miles to work on a morning and 2 miles back and I'm still buying a gtd. I've found using better quality fuel has helped with my tiguan but I also do weekend trips out so this probably negate any dpf issues. it isn't just a problem with VW's no matter what anyone says. my auntie has a 1 yet old Honda crv that has displayed no issues at all with the dpf them suddenly the engine light comes on and the dpf is blocked. no forced regens nothing. so for people to jet say it's a VW problem are talking rubbish.

[dcdick]

I'm only doing 2 miles to work on a morning and 2 miles back and I'm still buying a gtd. I've found using better quality fuel has helped with my tiguan but I also do weekend trips out so this probably negate any dpf issues. it isn't just a problem with VW's no matter what anyone says. my auntie has a 1 yet old Honda crv that has displayed no issues at all with the dpf them suddenly the engine light comes on and the dpf is blocked. no forced regens nothing. so for people to jet say it's a VW problem are talking rubbish.

Your right in saying that it's not just VAG who has this DPF problem, as the other manufacturers who are playing "catch up" to get emissions down to the magic 100 benchmark are finding that regens/soot problems are afflicting them now.

However VAG & in my case the Golf in particular charge a premium price for their cars & should be able to cope with the emissions better than they currently do.

The biggest problem for me is the attitude of "the car is not faulty" that has sickened me & when my new car comes though (in a few weeks) it was going to be a TSI Golf but is now a Nissan.................. 100% due to the attitude of VW as a company in dealing with this DPF issue & it's attendant poor fuel economy (& me as a customer).

Sad to leave the Golf but a line has to be drawn somewhere & this is where my line is drawn. :(

D

[pango1in]

21831

This is the most telling graph I found. You can clearly see the active regen going on. The rest of the time, even though I'm going 75 on the speedo (about 71 in real life), the dpf never heats above 350C (well almost never). When i noticed that the temperature was up at 600C, I pulled over to check that the idling revs were high, hence the drop to 0 on in the middle of the outward run and regen cycle - the idling revs were indeed high. My mileage before the regen cycle was entirely motorway driving (for the last 200 odd miles).

After the regen, the SMC value climbs steadily, as though no/inadequate passive regen is taking place. This was exactly the same as on my first trial run on the day before, indicating that a prolonged spell on the motorway does not help to reduce soot buildup - or at least it doesn't in my car...

I will be calling VW customer service tomorrow about what the standard operating temperature should be to achieve passive regen and why the DPF doesn't seem to be getting up to temperature on the motorway.

I will add though, that I managed 56 mpg on the 180 mile trip home today, vs 51mpg out (per OBC). I think a strong tailwind helped, but I'm not complaining!

[Dolmen]

Our OBC hold us 67.9 mpg on the 25 mile run to work this morning, if only this was confirmed at the next refuel!

[maisbitt]

My dad's car does seem to be improving as the miles go on - he's getting a brim method actual 54mpg (computer says 60mpg) on his last tank, having now done about 2500 miles, about what he was getting on his MK5 170TDI GT which was chipped and giving better economy after chipping than stock. He's not using any premium fuels - mainly Esso (he lives right by Esso Fawley oil refinery - Esso seems to dominate the local forecourt choices as a result). I've found generally that my VWs haven't been working their best with Esso and prefer Shell, but if he's doing a true 54mpg in a DSG with Esso diesel then that doesn't seem bad at all.

[dcdick]

Just been to the local Esso filling station & lo & behold on the fuel nozzle (among other places) is an advert for VW saying that "Blue Motion drivers only call here once every 920 miles" :aargh4:

Anybody get anywhere near that figure ?

Trading Standards.....................:1zhelp:

D

[pango1in]

ROFL. That's brilliant... How can it be true when even VW claim that their figures are not realistic and are only for comparison with other cars.

I bearly make 500 on a tank.

My car is going in to have its DPF looked at next week. We'll see what they say.

[pango1in]

Well, it appears I have been referred back to VW Technical support. Despite going through the issues I believed I have with the car and that I understood that there were no error codes, all the technician did was plug in the computer and confirm that there were no error codes. There was no further investigation.

The only things that they pointed out were: the dpf capacity was 80g and the ash volume was 0.0g (which is wrong, as the other day it was 0.9g - so not sure where that came from).

I did get... a telling off for using the VDCS on the car. VW OBD software is the only one that should be used. Any future software issues that arise on the car that were caused by using the VCDS software will not be covered by the warranty.

Oh, and my other snags weren't cleared up either. They didn't replace my juddering rear wiper blade. They just wiped it down the blade (gee, why didn't I think of that?!) and pointed the nozzle at the rear screen a bit more (we'll see if that clears it up the leak).

Somewhat disappointed at the moment.

[dcdick]

Well, it appears I have been referred back to VW Technical support. Despite going through the issues I believed I have with the car and that I understood that there were no error codes, all the technician did was plug in the computer and confirm that there were no error codes. There was no further investigation.

The only things that they pointed out were: the dpf capacity was 80g and the ash volume was 0.0g (which is wrong, as the other day it was 0.9g - so not sure where that came from).

I did get... a telling off for using the VDCS on the car. VW OBD software is the only one that should be used. Any future software issues that arise on the car that were caused by using the VCDS software will not be covered by the warranty.

Oh, and my other snags weren't cleared up either. They didn't replace my juddering rear wiper blade. They just wiped it down the blade (gee, why didn't I think of that?!) and pointed the nozzle at the rear screen a bit more (we'll see if that clears it up the leak).

Somewhat disappointed at the moment.

Don't you just love the "customer service" you get these days...............there is very obviously an issue with the way the DPF system is implemented, but VW seem to be "playing hard ball" as they say........hopefully there is some sort of software "fix" on the way that will go some way to addressing these issues.

Good luck !

D

[dickt]

Pango. Did they make any intelligent comments about your data on the temperatures reached? What temps are necessary for a "natural" burn off?

[pango1in]

I had a very interesting chat on the phone with a technician at VW. He confirmed that my understanding of the way the DPF works is correct.

The passive burn temperature of the DPF is 350-500C. The active regen, without any warning lights, is simply part of the engine management system. This is apparently the way it is supposed to work. Despite my questions, the technician said that the system was working as intended. The engine squirts fuel into the cylinder on the exhaust cycle, which enters the exhaust uncombusted, and in turn burns in the dpf, which raises the temperature from 300C to 600C. The soot level decreases as a result. The cycle length is about 10-15 mins.

I won't pretend I'm not disappointed. But I am resigned that there is nothing that can be done (or maybe I should say "will be done") by VW. It does seem odd that the DPF won't reach passive DPF temperature in excess of 350C, even when driven at a constant speed on the motorway.

The technician did note that my mpg was on the low side and said to monitor it past 5-6k miles to see if it improves. Someone else on the forum noted that the mpg seems to vary based on air temperature. I would agree with this. I would say that, along with being low on average, it is also very variable, sometimes good (up to 56mpg!!), sometimes really bad (at about 42mpg...) for the same run.

[Gerryf]

Thanks for the definitive info Pango :)

[C5Clive]

Did he give you any indication of how long a journey and at what speed it would take to get the exhaust to between 350 and 500 for passive regen to kick in at all Pango?

[pango1in]

Did he give you any indication of how long a journey and at what speed it would take to get the exhaust to between 350 and 500 for passive regen to kick in at all Pango?

From the data I gathered, I don't think it will be possible to achieve higher then 350C, at least on my car. Other cars may be different.

Take a look at the graph I posted earlier in the thread (about 2 pages back). After the engine intervention that kicked the temperature up to 600C, the car rarely got above 350C, only breaking that barrier when going up a really steep hill.

[DSG4ME]

Don't rely on active re-gen use passive by keeping the revs up above 2000 rpm for at least 5 minutes, getting the turbo glowing is better than a bodge squirt of gas to glow the filter up, do it once a week and I'm sure you'll reap the benefits.

[C5Clive]

Don't rely on active re-gen use passive by keeping the revs up above 2000 rpm for at least 5 minutes, getting the turbo glowing is better than a bodge squirt of gas to glow the filter up, do it once a week and I'm sure you'll reap the benefits.

This is what I am trying to establish, as there seems to be some 'mis-information' going around about passive regen.

I remember from one of Pango's previous posts that his engine didn't achieve 350 degrees, and that was on a 40 minute motorway run. This is why I asked what conditions are VW techs suggesting need to be met in order to trigger passive regen, because to be totally honest I just don't think 5 mins at +2k Revs will cut it.

I really don't want to be relying on constant active regens to clear the DPF due to the MPG penalty and mixing of diesel with the engine oil that occurs.

VW state that certain driving styles may not benefit from passive regen, such as inner city and channel islands, but most 'normal' driving styles will achieve passive. If Pango's engine didn't achieve the necessary temp, even on a 40 minute motorway run, then that statement is very misleading and they shouldn't be selling cars based on it.

[pango1in]

This is what I am trying to establish, as there seems to be some 'mis-information' going around about passive regen.

I remember from one of Pango's previous posts that his engine didn't achieve 350 degrees, and that was on a 40 minute motorway run. This is why I asked what conditions are VW techs suggesting need to be met in order to trigger passive regen, because to be totally honest I just don't think 5 mins at +2k Revs will cut it.

I really don't want to be relying on constant active regens to clear the DPF due to the MPG penalty and mixing of diesel with the engine oil that occurs.

VW state that certain driving styles may not benefit from passive regen, such as inner city and channel islands, but most 'normal' driving styles will achieve passive. If Pango's engine didn't achieve the necessary temp, even on a 40 minute motorway run, then that statement is very misleading and they shouldn't be selling cars based on it.

You are absolutely correct.

I ran the car for 20 minutes in each direction. Ignoring the first run because I had an engine intervention (an active regen, without a warning light), the second run was at or just over 2krpm for 20 minutes. The temperature only exceeded 350C for about 2 minutes as I travelled up a long, steep hill. Travelling on a flat bit of motorway with constant accelerator depression (as constant as you can be), the temperature was pretty steady at just under 350C (see the graph in one of my previous posts).

The technician said that the active regens (without warning light) were PART of the passive regeneration system (we started to get confused with terminology). Essentially, part of the passive regeneration includes engine interventions to artificially increase the DPF temperature - what we are calling active regens. This is apparently part of the normal operation of the engine.

[pango1in]

Also, on one of my other test runs, I drove at 70mph in 6th, 5th , 4th and 3rd along the same stretch of road. There was no difference in the DPF temperature from driving at a constant speed, in a lower gear and at higher revs. All temperatures peaked at just below 350C for each run.

[C5Clive]

Cheers Pango, really useful info.

When I ordered my car I was trying to decide on whether to go for the 1.4 ACT or the 2.0 TDI, in the end I went for the TDI on the salesman's recommendation after discussing my likely usage, daily commute of approx. 35 mile round trip on A roads with a short burst of DC, plus some business use and occasional longer journeys at weekends.

I was under the impression that so long as my engine was warm and the revs over 2k I would achieve passive regen (ie no intervention) without any problem and that the diesel was a better choice as it was more forgiving on the odd occasion I drove it a bit harder than the ACT which I would need to 'drive like a nun' all the time in order to achieve decent MPG (Salesman's words).

I knew I was around the cut off point for petrol and diesel mileage wise, and as there was only £500 difference I thought I'd go with the diesel, after hearing what you have been told by VW I think this might have been a mistake.

[dickt]

Thanks to Pango's efforts.

So now we know. Passive regens are about as likely as pigs flying. If Pango's temp was below passive regen temp at 70mph in 3rd gear, then 70 to 80 mph for a longer motorway journey in 6th is most unlikely to achieve the required temp. No wonder mine does forced regens in my garage after I've been on the motorway.

AND - no wonder the mpg in these new Mk 7s is no better than my very non-eco 170 Mk 5.

C5 - as they are clearly quite happy to tell porkies to their customers, I suspect they give out the same drivel to sales staff. Last time I took my car in to complain, the service guy was just not in listenning mode. He was in full broadcast mode, parroting out the official truth. "Ve hav Vays of convincing you"

[pango1in]

I certainly don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm for the car!

My mpg is currently 47.5 (see below). I'm hoping this will improve as the engine loosens off. Some people seem to have had great mpg from the start, quite a few haven't. If the engine is tight, I hope the mpg will improve up to 10k (low revs mean the engine takes longer to bed in). I get much better computed mpg at 35mph in 4th than I do in 3rd. 35mph is the lowest speed you can realistically do in 4th. This seems to show the engine is still tight.

Apart from the fuel economy, the engine is very smooth, and the ride is fantastic. I'm 3,000 miles in.

[C5Clive]

Don't worry bud, you're not putting me off at all. I am still looking forward to getting it and I know it will be an excellent car, I just think I made a mistake with the choice of engine, which is something I will have to live with.

[maisbitt]

I certainly don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm for the car!

My mpg is currently 47.5 (see below). I'm hoping this will improve as the engine loosens off. Some people seem to have had great mpg from the start, quite a few haven't. If the engine is tight, I hope the mpg will improve up to 10k (low revs mean the engine takes longer to bed in). I get much better computed mpg at 35mph in 4th than I do in 3rd. 35mph is the lowest speed you can realistically do in 4th. This seems to show the engine is still tight.

Apart from the fuel economy, the engine is very smooth, and the ride is fantastic. I'm 3,000 miles in.

The MK7 must be geared considerably higher than the Scirocco/MK6 if it cannot stand being higher than 4th at 35 mph. Without regen going on, my Scirocco 170TDI is happy to change up to 4th at 25mph, 5th above 30mph and 6th at 40mph according to the MFD gear change prompts.

[dickt]

At circa 4,500 miles, my mpg has gone back to 42.5 mpg. Calculated top-up to top up.
I'll do 2 more full tanks, then back to the dealer.
(2.0 tdi GT 140 with dsg)

[sjexport2457]

Hi Everybody...just joined specifically to reply to this issue. I could have written the last post...reflects my experience exactly. I am averaging 48 since new and now at 2500 miles...dealer says it will improve. My last Golf 6 did 55mpg effortlessly almost from the beginning and much more on a long run. Love the car but to experience this on the fuel side is really disappointing. Also I cannot find anywhere that states this car has a fuel tank other than 50L but when almost empty I can never get any more than 40L in the tank..!!!

[dickt]

When I bought the car in March I would have hoped for a 48 mpg average after 2500 miles, hoping for it to improve from there. However, It started in the low 40s, went up to mid 40s, then came back down.
Am currently awaiting the next couple of refills to check the car's version of mpg.
It will get up to 55mpg on a 300 mile journey averaging 67 mph, but that is the only journey I have ever made when it went above 50. It is no better than my distinctly non-eco 170bhp Mk 5.

Why do dealers keep giving out the VW line that "it will improve"???? How on earth do they know that??. My last 2 170's did not improve much - until they replaced the DPF, the sensors, and all the injectors...............unless VW have built in to the software something that will cause an improvement?

[maisbitt]

The “it will improve, give it a chance” line is just a delay tactic to get you to stop moaning and go home. They will pretty much always blame poor mpg on personal differences in driving style if the emissions don’t support an obvious fault with the fuelling systems or DPF. On 6 new VWs, running in gains in mpg have been negligible if at all, they are built to such tight tolerances these days, after the piston rings are properly seated in the first 500 miles or so, there's very little else to bed in with the engine.

I actually tried Shell V-power for the first time the other day. Seeing as my GTD is so close to delivery now, I’m only putting in 4 gallons at a time from a near empty tank on the Scirocco. Only done 60 miles with the V-power but already it seems to have a different than normal characteristic when driving.
I noticed that when you take your foot off the gas when approaching a junction, roundabout etc, the deceleration seems to be less than when using Esso (been using Esso a lot lately as Shell garages for the normal stuff seem to have gotten more expensive lately, about 3p/litre dearer), the power delivery seems to be a little smoother/more linear, although the car doesn’t seem any more potent, and my mpg seems up slightly – maybe around 5-7%.

As the V-power is 10p a litre dearer than I can get Esso for, it needs to be 7% more efficient for the same £/mile.

I have noticed in the past that when I have changed fuels, the car seems to behave a little differently for a short while, almost as if the ECU is experimenting with the fuel mix, so I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve done at least a few hundred miles on the stuff.

Who else here has noticed an improvement when using V-power? I think I read mention of it before in reducing DPF regen action and resultant gains in mpg.

[dcdick]

I actually tried Shell V-power for the first time the other day. Seeing as my GTD is so close to delivery now, I’m only putting in 4 gallons at a time from a near empty tank on the Scirocco. Only done 60 miles with the V-power but already it seems to have a different than normal characteristic when driving.
I noticed that when you take your foot off the gas when approaching a junction, roundabout etc, the deceleration seems to be less than when using Esso (been using Esso a lot lately as Shell garages for the normal stuff seem to have gotten more expensive lately, about 3p/litre dearer), the power delivery seems to be a little smoother/more linear, although the car doesn’t seem any more potent, and my mpg seems up slightly – maybe around 5-7%.

As the V-power is 10p a litre dearer than I can get Esso for, it needs to be 7% more efficient for the same £/mile.

I have noticed in the past that when I have changed fuels, the car seems to behave a little differently for a short while, almost as if the ECU is experimenting with the fuel mix, so I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve done at least a few hundred miles on the stuff.

Who else here has noticed an improvement when using V-power? I think I read mention of it before in reducing DPF regen action and resultant gains in mpg.

V power for me did help a lot with the "regens" I would say a 50% improvement with extra mpg (due to less being used by DPF & the fuel working better) of around 9-10%. The improvements you have noticed in your 2.0 (which seems to to be more tolerant of low mileages than the 1.6) are broadly similar to my findings. Although when I was using Shell V Power the price difference was 7p per litre.

I've gone back to using "standard" Shell for the last few miles till my replacement car (petrol) arrives in a few days & am still in the "honeymoon" period of almost no noticeable regens that should last me until the car goes. (hopefully)

Not really much point in me posting any further on this as my experience with the Mk7 1.6 diesel ( & VW) has been almost totally negative & certainly colours my comments & makes me overlook the many plus points the new Golf has to offer

"Hey ho back to petrol I go" as they say ;)

D

[mcmaddy]

I've been using normal shell in the tiguan for the last six months and although the mpg's doesn't seem to be much different from sainsburys diesel it is noticeably quieter on startup and also no more bunny hops after short journeys. will probably use v-power when or if the gtd comes.

[DaveB666]

Not been on this site for ages and see that this thread is now epic! I've read the summary some pages down, and I personally never seemed to experience bad MPG with my 2.0 GT. I do have a very very annoying buzzing sound at 2,000rpm but that's a for a different post.

I've had the car 14 weeks and I've just ticked over 12,600 miles. I still use Sainsburys/Jet diesel and drive a mixture of urban, motorway and flick between ECO and Sports mode (and when in Sports mode I do drive hard).

Based on my fuel returns at work my average MPG over this time has been 57.7 mpg.

Not sure what sort of mileage people's cars have achieved but I would have thought mine would certainly considered to be 'run in' now.

[dcdick]

Not been on this site for ages and see that this thread is now epic! I've read the summary some pages down, and I personally never seemed to experience bad MPG with my 2.0 GT. I do have a very very annoying buzzing sound at 2,000rpm but that's a for a different post.

I've had the car 14 weeks and I've just ticked over 12,600 miles. I still use Sainsburys/Jet diesel and drive a mixture of urban, motorway and flick between ECO and Sports mode (and when in Sports mode I do drive hard).

Based on my fuel returns at work my average MPG over this time has been 57.7 mpg.

Not sure what sort of mileage people's cars have achieved but I would have thought mine would certainly considered to be 'run in' now.

Very interesting post here Dave & certainly seems to bear out the theory that high mileage drivers get all the benefits of the new technology, 30k per year miles certainly works for you :D

D

[algarve]

Not been on this site for ages and see that this thread is now epic! I've read the summary some pages down, and I personally never seemed to experience bad MPG with my 2.0 GT. I do have a very very annoying buzzing sound at 2,000rpm but that's a for a different post.

I've had the car 14 weeks and I've just ticked over 12,600 miles. I still use Sainsburys/Jet diesel and drive a mixture of urban, motorway and flick between ECO and Sports mode (and when in Sports mode I do drive hard).

Based on my fuel returns at work my average MPG over this time has been 57.7 mpg.

Not sure what sort of mileage people's cars have achieved but I would have thought mine would certainly considered to be 'run in' now.


Dave, refreshing to hear some positive feedback re MPG

I like you do a fair mileage, just on 8,500 miles now, mixed motoring with ECO and enjoying Sports mode.
I use Shell, Esso or Sainsburys Diesel never Morrisons.

Starting off in the low 40's mpg , now regularly get 55 - 57 mpg with the odd 60 mpg and the last time I remember a passive DPF regen was way back in the first few weeks of ownership.

In my view my 2.0 TDI GT DSG is no way any near run in yet and I speak from this being the seventh new TDI i have bought and they all improved MPG with mileage.

I am more than pleased with the cars performance.

Sorry to hear about your annoying buzzing by the way.

[dickt]

I suspect that the car/engine/gearbox has been designed for long motorway/good road hauls. The best mine ever achieved - recently at over 5000 miles was 55mpg over 300 miles from South east to Newcastle. Air con on all the way, with 2 people and a full boot. (All eco). We were not hanging around - we "averaged" 68 mph.
However, I've just come back from a 160 mile all-eco return to Brighton. This was very much "mixed" motoring as I had to leave the car park otherwise known as the M 25 due to traffic. So the mixture was part motorway, part dual carriageway, lots of roadworks and traffic issues, with a fair amount of urban and semi urban snails pace driving over the 160 miles. All it delivered was 46 mpg. Only marginally better than my non-eco much quicker 170 Mk 5, which would have done 45mpg in those conditions.

I'm going to stop worrying about mpg for a while and stick it in to Sport to get a bit more fun out of driving.

Please keep the thread running - I'll come back in a few weeks' time!!

[jv808]

Picked up my Mk7 GT 150 TDi manual yesterday with just 8 miles on the clock. MFD showed 58.5mpg on it's first run from Cheshire to Shropshire approx. 44 miles and that included 20 minutes circling around the dealership lot with the salesman demonstrating the features with the air-con on. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, seems perfectly fine to me. Just like my Mk6 GT 140 TDi, I expect the fuel economy to improve gradually over the next 2,000 miles. My Mk6 returned just 50-odd mpg when it was brand new and over 65mpg @ 66,000miles when it was traded in yesterday. Not sure if it's because I'd avoided the DSG transmission and stuck with the good old fashioned 6-speed manual box??? I've never bothered with premium diesels, always filled up with cheapo Tesco's & Morrisons fuels and saved 10p a litre.

[dkjc2010]

We only picked our MK7 2.0 TDI GT 150 on 1st September, started in the low 40's, now only done 178 miles in week 1 all local commuting, no motorway, and one quick blast down the local dual carriageway to rest sport mode:biglaugh: I have just been on a quick local run to pick my son up round trip 7 miles, and averaged 57.5 MPG. There is no way this car is even remotely run in, and with figures like this I am more than happy:Blush: Only had the 1 regen so far too. We are not big commuters average under 10K per year, this is our 3rd diesel and I cant wait to check on the motorway, it is already producing higher figures than our previous 1.6 TDI DSG.

[steve67]

if the mpg is so bad, why is there no one one the Leon Mk3 - SEAT Cupra.net - SEAT Forum (http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=309) moaning.?
its the same engine isn't it?
:confused:

[dickt]

Steve67
I suspect that VW owners are moaning more due to VW spin/marketing. I had a Mk 5 2.0 tdi GTd 170 with dsg. Once VW had put right the sensors, changed the DPF unit and changed all the injectors, I got 45mpg.
The new Mk 7 2.0 GT 150 was marketed by VW as being lighter with lots of eco credentials. I picked mine up (with dsg) in March 2013. It was relatively early off the production line as it was available for pick up in mid-Feb.
My driving didn't change, (other than using the eco mode), my routes didn't change, nothing changed. My mpg went down. A source for complaint. Now, after 6000 miles, I am getting the same mpg as the 170 gave me, and the 170 did not have all the eco b***sh**. And it was quicker.
So whilst many things about the car are good, poor mpg is not good.
I still suspect that there is a problem with either the early injectors, or the early dpf units. VW did not own up to the Mk 5 problems for a number of years. Eventually, they owned up to a dodgy batch of injectors. Only after some customers had been forced to pay for new ones. I suspect my early 2013 car has that problem.
It is great to hear that newer versions of the car have better mpg. I would like to know why they get the better mpg and I do not.

[steve67]

Steve67
I suspect that VW owners are moaning more due to VW spin/marketing. I had a Mk 5 2.0 tdi GTd 170 with dsg. Once VW had put right the sensors, changed the DPF unit and changed all the injectors, I got 45mpg.
The new Mk 7 2.0 GT 150 was marketed by VW as being lighter with lots of eco credentials. I picked mine up (with dsg) in March 2013. It was relatively early off the production line as it was available for pick up in mid-Feb.
My driving didn't change, (other than using the eco mode), my routes didn't change, nothing changed. My mpg went down. A source for complaint. Now, after 6000 miles, I am getting the same mpg as the 170 gave me, and the 170 did not have all the eco b***sh**. And it was quicker.
So whilst many things about the car are good, poor mpg is not good.
I still suspect that there is a problem with either the early injectors, or the early dpf units. VW did not own up to the Mk 5 problems for a number of years. Eventually, they owned up to a dodgy batch of injectors. Only after some customers had been forced to pay for new ones. I suspect my early 2013 car has that problem.
It is great to hear that newer versions of the car have better mpg. I would like to know why they get the better mpg and I do not.


Look at my fuelly . My mpg isn't great and worse in winter. I was sold on 60mpg average. .:(

[maisbitt]

Well i've never seen it in 6 new VW TDIs, but my dad says that his 5 door DSG GTD is improving on the fuel economy front with almost 4000 miles on. He's now getting a true 50mpg average (MFD says about 54mpg). Based on the MFD (which is what VW will consider "official", even though they're always about 10% optimistic), the car is 10% out from official combined figures (60.1mpg).

[GolfFanBoy]

First drive to work this morning since the car was collected on Friday and I managed 59.9MPG which I thought was pretty good. Engine has only done 80 miles from new so as with the last car I expect the figure to improve after the run-in period.

[maisbitt]

30 miles on the clock and my new GTD is doing 50mpg indicated (around the same as my 170TDI Scirocco, 50 mpg indicated is likely to be 46mpg actual) on the way home from the dealership and on my first commute to work. Xenons were on (headlights not usually on with the Scirocco). With very limited use my car is matching the last gen engine closest to its output – I think I’m happy with that right now, considering my mileage, hope to be pushing 55mpg indicated/50mpg actual on my mixed roads commute when the first few thousand miles roll on.

[algarve]

My figures are steadily improving as the miles increase. (2.0 TDI DSG.)

Did a 30 mile work trip today urban & cross country, Eco mode, aircon on as usual, outside temp 14.5.

Average consumption 65.4 mpg (MFD) so I can't complain.

[maisbitt]

65 miles on the clock and my car attempts it’s first DPF regen. Already? You must be kidding me! Drove reasonably sensibly and managed 49mpg on my commute despite the regen going on.

Going to use up the complimentary fuel up and drop in a full tank of V-power and see how I go from there.

[maisbitt]

My current mpg for my first 135 miles in my manual GTD is as follows:-

First trip home from the garage and my first trip to work (7-20 miles) = 49mpg
The next few commutes with a little town traffic (20-65 miles) = 45mpg
Few more commutes with the car attempting DPF regen (65 - 105 miles) = 43mpg
Trip to the Metrocentre to use up the last of the delivery fuel (105-117 miles) = 40mpg
Trip from the Metrocentre with V-power Diesel fill up (117-130 miles) = 49mpg

Mpg so far is dissapointing to say the least. I could cane my Scirocco 170TDI and still get about 50mpg on my commute and probably 53mpg on the Metrocentre visit, without using V-power, in the summer.

I had 1 experimentation with V-power on my Scirocco and ended up with 5% more mpg, which didn't quite cover the premium, but a fair few VAG TDI users claim it knocks the number of DPF regens in half and gives around 5% gains. Right now V-power diesel (and petrol) is on triple points until the end of Sept, essentially 3p per litre off.

Hopefully the new gen engine is going through some learning curve that none of my previous TDIs have gone through to get better economy in the longer term. Some MK7 150TDI GT users have seen significant mpg gains over the first 4k miles, of around 10%.

[pango1in]

Sorry to hear about the poor consumption and regens. I also had my first regen at 60 miles - I wasn't impressed.

I use V-Power (and Ultimate at the beginning). I have had regens every 200-400 miles, depending on driving conditions. I thought the miles between them was increasing, but I'm not sure that is the case. Things that seem to affect the car's mpg performance seem to be: routes with hills (downhill never recovers fully), driving into a headwind (I swear there's a 5-10 mpg bonus for a tailwind) and driving at too high revs (35mpg in 4th is waaay better than 35mpg in 3rd, even if both are below 2krpm).

I am trying to learn how to drive the car as it needs to be driven, especially as it has now done over 4,000 miles. I regularly cruise at 30mph, at about 1.2krpm in 4th, to try and save fuel, although to me that seems like it should labour the engine - hey-ho. Perhaps you shouldn't do this when runnign the car in...

[maisbitt]

Sorry to hear about the poor consumption and regens. I also had my first regen at 60 miles - I wasn't impressed.

I use V-Power (and Ultimate at the beginning). I have had regens every 200-400 miles, depending on driving conditions. I thought the miles between them was increasing, but I'm not sure that is the case. Things that seem to affect the car's mpg performance seem to be: routes with hills (downhill never recovers fully), driving into a headwind (I swear there's a 5-10 mpg bonus for a tailwind) and driving at too high revs (35mpg in 4th is waaay better than 35mpg in 3rd, even if both are below 2krpm).

I am trying to learn how to drive the car as it needs to be driven, especially as it has now done over 4,000 miles. I regularly cruise at 30mph, at about 1.2krpm in 4th, to try and save fuel, although to me that seems like it should labour the engine - hey-ho. Perhaps you shouldn't do this when runnign the car in...

I had slightly better mpg in eco mode today as opposed to sport. You might be thinking "duh!", but in the individual components of the driving settings within eco/normal/sport that you can customise in "individual", I thought that the "engine" setting was just for the sound actuator and not altering fuel usage in any way (as seemed to be the case with my Scirocco when it was in sport). Whilst sitting in Eco and halfway home I was getting a semi respectable 48mpg (compared to recent efforts this was great). I put it in sport for a mile and even though I was just maintaining the speed I had got up to and maintained in eco, my mpg started to dip quite quickly until I switched it back to Eco where it started to recover.

As ridiculous as it sounds, it seemed like the car was using significantly more fuel in sport, compared to eco when doing the exact same thing (sitting on dual carriageway maintaining 75mph). Even pushing the accelerator harder in eco to better the moderate acceleration seen with less accelerator in Sport, fuel usage was less.

I gearchange pretty much as per VW MFD prompting when i'm putting my foot down. With gentle acceleration, i'm changing up to 3rd at 20mph, 4th at 25mph, 5th at 30mph and 6th at 40mph if just trying to maintain 30 or 40mph. When a regen is going on, it likes to hold 4th to 38mph before change up and 50mph to go to 6th from 5th.

The Scirocco used to get quickly up to trip 40mpg on a trip up to 4 miles, then climb steadily to 50mpg over the next 6 or 8 miles on my commute. Going beyond 50mpg was creeping up to 55mpg over the next 15 miles and levelling out.

The GTD seems to get to about 35mpg over 4 miles, climb to 43mpg over the next 6 or 8 miles on my commute and creep up slightly after that (45mpg if I am lucky).

The other day I was up to 45mpg when starting a 4 mile stretch of the A1. This stretch is pretty much all flat or downhill. This stretch is where I can see my Scirocco get to 55mpg quite easily, but the GTD seemed to just stay at around 46mpg despite maintaining a steady cruising speed that should've used minimal fuel.

[divsec]

Am I really lucky, unlucky or just stupid?. I have done 2300 in my TDI 1.6 se manual and haven't noticed one regen. Two weeks touring Devon and Cornwall and back to Bedfordshire, nothing observed. What should be observed? Mpg on cheap fuel around 58. I have seen 70 mpg on a couple of occasions.

Finally, at what revs does the turbo kick in?

Thanks d

[pango1in]

Am I really lucky, unlucky or just stupid?. I have done 2300 in my TDI 1.6 se manual and haven't noticed one regen. Two weeks touring Devon and Cornwall and back to Bedfordshire, nothing observed. What should be observed? Mpg on cheap fuel around 58. I have seen 70 mpg on a couple of occasions.

Finally, at what revs does the turbo kick in?

Thanks d

If you are doing journeys of more than 15 minutes in length, you may never see the regen. I think I've missed one or two on my journeys because they were longer (although I did notice the mpg drop on one occasion). Congrats on getting a car that manages to do the mpg.

I'm fairly sure the mode only changes the throttle response. There's quite a marked difference, and I'm not sure that Eco ever allows the throttle to get wide open. There's nothing else that the mode could change without playing with the ECU - which I very much doubt would happen.

[maisbitt]

Am I really lucky, unlucky or just stupid?. I have done 2300 in my TDI 1.6 se manual and haven't noticed one regen. Two weeks touring Devon and Cornwall and back to Bedfordshire, nothing observed. What should be observed? Mpg on cheap fuel around 58. I have seen 70 mpg on a couple of occasions.

Finally, at what revs does the turbo kick in?

Thanks d


If you're doing lots of high speed miles you're probably burning all your soot via passive regen rather than active regen. You will be hard pushed to tell a difference in the engine during passive regen. Turbo kicks in at about 1800rpm. If you are wanting to make the mmost of the acceleration, you should change up at a point that keeps the revs in the next gear at 1800rpm e.g change up from 2nd to 3rd at 30-35mph, 3rd to 4th at no less than 45mph and 5th at no less than 60mph to keep the revs in the torque sweet spot.

[maisbitt]

Had to go to the dealership to pick up my tax disc today. For some inexplicable reason the DVLA send them to the dealerships and not the registered keeper (although that is probably registered keeper to be when the disc gets applied for). VW also strongly insist that the dealerships do not post them out to customers, as a way of getting the customer back in for feedback on the car.

Anyway, on the 15 miles there on the most direct route from work, most of the roads are 40-60mph with lots of stops and starts around the Felling bypass. Had a few chances to pull away quickly from the lights to get straight up to 40mph and stay there, in Sport all the way and I got to the dealership…52.8mpg for the journey, much better. Saw my p/x Roc up for £17995, collected my tax disc, had a quick word with the salesman after he asked how the car was a week in. He says his Tiguan improved considerably on 4k miles. All done, I set off back to work on the same route. Round trip was up to 53.6mpg, not too bad all things considered. On the short bit of central motorway I managed to get up to 75mph, the mpg for the trip was falling rapidly from a high of 56mpg.

Right now this car seems to make you pay a harsh fuel penalty for exceeding a cruising speed of 60mph. The stop start was unavailable for the whole journey, maybe it was doing a passive regen (although gear change recommendations didn’t seem to change from the norm and it wasn’t idling at 1000rpm). I thought that maybe stop-start was disabled in Sport mode, but flicking over to eco didn’t instigate a stop at a junction either. So I lost stop-start and gained mpg…..win-win!

It still seems flat as a fart in 5th and 6th next to the Scirocco – maybe that is my reluctance to get into the “clicky zone” of accelerator travel while the car is running in, or maybe I will see a noticeable difference in the car’s performance at 310 miles/500km like I did with the Scirocco.

[GolfFanBoy]

Had to go to the dealership to pick up my tax disc today. For some inexplicable reason the DVLA send them to the dealerships and not the registered keeper (although that is probably registered keeper to be when the disc gets applied for). VW also strongly insist that the dealerships do not post them out to customers, as a way of getting the customer back in for feedback on the car.

Strange, that's the opposite of what I was told, my tax disc arrived through the post for me the day after the car was collected. I was given a registration form signed by the dealer in case I was stopped without the disc on the windscreen which confirmed it was being posted to me.

I'm getting similar mpg figures with the start/stop only disabling itself once which I'm pretty sure was to keep temps up for a regen. MPG has always improved for me following the run-in period so I'm not getting too concerned with it at the moment.

[C5Clive]

My tax disc went to the dealer and then they sent it through the post to me too.

I've covered about 500 miles now and have noticed 2 regens so far, (no stop start and engine fan running after switch off) not had too much effect on MPG though, got 58 on a 50 mile round trip today, even with the regen.

[jv808]

My range has been creeping up. Now up to 580 miles per tank full. It's still down from the max. 630 miles I used to get on my Mk6 GT TDi but it's getting there even with the smaller 50 litre fuel tank. I find that the Mk7 avg fuel consumption meter is considerably more accurate than the last Golf which grossly overestimated fuel economy by a wide margin.

[maisbitt]

My car seems to be permanently doing passive regens right now (last 40 miles). The idling isn't increasing to 1000rpm (like an active regen does), yet my stop-start is almost permanently unavailable and the fan stays on a while when I park up. MPG was not bad coming home from Newcastle tonight.I had one of those perfect trips where it seems like the lights are changing at your convenience. Despite navigating over a mile of Newcastle's city centre before getting on the coast road, I caught 1 traffic light in approx 20 on my journey. I decided to give the car a quick blast once past the speed cameras on the dual carriageway and still managed 49mpg. Coming into Newcastle after work was pretty choked up most of the way there, managing a measly 35mpg which wasn't unexpected considering the traffic.

[dcdick]

Just a thought on this fuel consumption issue............................... you may remember that I gave up on the 1.6 TDI & went for a petrol Nissan Juke :D

Less than 200 miles & I am hitting the claimed fuel figures published & confidentlly expecting the economy to improve by anything up to 15% when the "running in" is over

So, Nissan either don't tell lies about fuel consumption, or, they publish more realistic test data or the engines are good.......so, if Nissan can do it why can't VAG ?

Cheers

D

[maisbitt]

Just a thought on this fuel consumption issue............................... you may remember that I gave up on the 1.6 TDI & went for a petrol Nissan Juke :D

Less than 200 miles & I am hitting the claimed fuel figures published & confidentlly expecting the economy to improve by anything up to 15% when the "running in" is over

So, Nissan either don't tell lies about fuel consumption, or, they publish more realistic test data or the engines are good.......so, if Nissan can do it why can't VAG ?

Cheers

D


I think VW had to tell lies to claim a 20% fuel economy increase over the previous gen. In reality seems like the same mpg as the previous gen when driven normally, with a smidge more power for everyone. Decent MK7 economy gains seem to only be seen by the motorway miler here. The 20% economy gains claims not being realised don't seem to be limited to TDIs either. The GTI lot and the GTD lot on another forum are consistently seeing day 1 mpg which is 30% under official combined figures when doing mixed driving.

[dcdick]

I think VW had to tell lies to claim a 20% fuel economy increase over the previous gen. In reality seems like the same mpg as the previous gen when driven normally, with a smidge more power for everyone. Decent MK7 economy gains seem to only be seen by the motorway miler here. The 20% economy gains claims not being realised don't seem to be limited to TDIs either. The GTI lot and the GTD lot on another forum are consistently seeing day 1 mpg which is 30% under official combined figures when doing mixed driving.

I think "telling lies" is closest to the truth.................. the cars are good as they are, so why on earth lie about something that is so easy to get caught out on :confused:

All very strange ....................

D

[dickt]

I suspect that someone at the top told them that they had to be as good as BMW.

Both the BMW 320d and the 120d, aswell as the 318d and the 118d have a reputation for doing excellent mpg. I regard the 118d and the 120d as being nearly as good as the Golf, but with PROVEN engines and proven mpg.

I would have bought either the 118d or the 120d if I could have got the same spec as the Golf I bought, for a similar price, even though the 1 series space is (as reported by What car and as I found on my test drives) not as good as the Mk7.

So VW over-prepped the car for the tests, and came up with figures that few will ever achieve. Spin, spin, spin.

[pango1in]

I suspect that someone at the top told them that they had to be as good as BMW.

Both the BMW 320d and the 120d, aswell as the 318d and the 118d have a reputation for doing excellent mpg. I regard the 118d and the 120d as being nearly as good as the Golf, but with PROVEN engines and proven mpg.

I would have bought either the 118d or the 120d if I could have got the same spec as the Golf I bought, for a similar price, even though the 1 series space is (as reported by What car and as I found on my test drives) not as good as the Mk7.

So VW over-prepped the car for the tests, and came up with figures that few will ever achieve. Spin, spin, spin.

I couldn't agree more. I had a 120d (old shape) and it was a joy to drive. You could thrash it around, yet still get high 50s on a steady run once the ECU had adapted. Spec was no where near as good though, and the ride was a little firm to say the least!

My friend has a 320i, which has better fuel economy than my Golf...

[Guest 2]

Just to throw this in, my A3 1.9TDI sees high 60's everyday, seen 74mpg on a recent trip down through England down to London .. Jealous much? ;)

[dickt]

MPG is only one of the issues that a car buyer thinks about. The big moan about the 2.0tdi and the 1.6 tdi in VW Golfs is the con that VW have pulled with respect to mpg. Their cars do not consistently deliver anything like the claimed figures. However, other things on the car seem to make a good price/performance/comfort package.
I'm not sure about that 1.9 engine, but I've never had one.
If I bought a car just for mpg, I think I would look elsewhere.

[jv808]

MPG is only one of the issues that a car buyer thinks about. The big moan about the 2.0tdi and the 1.6 tdi in VW Golfs is the con that VW have pulled with respect to mpg. Their cars do not consistently deliver anything like the claimed figures. However, other things on the car seem to make a good price/performance/comfort package.
I'm not sure about that 1.9 engine, but I've never had one.
If I bought a car just for mpg, I think I would look elsewhere.22506Once again, I don't see what the issue is. My GT 150 TDi's hitting 63.9mpg and it's on course for returning 600+ miles on a smaller 50 litre tank. It's more efficient and quieter than my old Mk6. I've had NO re-gen's that I know of (maybe they're too imperceptible for me to notice) the fan/regen NEVER ran after switch-off and the auto stop/start was NEVER disabled by a re-gen. I hope you enjoy your Nissan Juke, it looks so much like a clown car, right up there with the old Fiat Multipla as one of the most hideous crates on the road. The rental Juke I had for just 2 days was about as much as I could take of that garbage.

[C5Clive]

I can only echo JV's comments. Only had mine just over a fortnight but it's already getting high 50's combined, and only seems to be improving. On a long dual carriageway run I am seeing instant readings between 66 and 75, so I think if I were doing my old commute of 50 miles each way, door to door DC's I am fairly sure I'd be seeing long term MPG around mid 60's.

So in answer to the question, no, not jealous at all!

[dcdick]

22506Once again, I don't see what the issue is. My GT 150 TDi's hitting 63.9mpg and it's on course for returning 600+ miles on a smaller 50 litre tank. It's more efficient and quieter than my old Mk6. I've had NO re-gen's that I know of (maybe they're too imperceptible for me to notice) the fan/regen NEVER ran after switch-off and the auto stop/start was NEVER disabled by a re-gen. I hope you enjoy your Nissan Juke, it looks so much like a clown car, right up there with the old Fiat Multipla as one of the most hideous crates on the road. The rental Juke I had for just 2 days was about as much as I could take of that garbage.

It seems as though you are directing your vitriolic condemnation of the Juke at the wrong person jv808 :confused:.
You do seem to have one of the few Golf's that actually performs anywhere near the manufacturers claims so it seems your one of the lucky ones.
I'll stick with the Juke :D

D

[Bob_S]

Just a thought on this fuel consumption issue............................... you may remember that I gave up on the 1.6 TDI & went for a petrol Nissan Juke :D

Less than 200 miles & I am hitting the claimed fuel figures published & confidentlly expecting the economy to improve by anything up to 15% when the "running in" is over

So, Nissan either don't tell lies about fuel consumption, or, they publish more realistic test data or the engines are good.......so, if Nissan can do it why can't VAG ?

Cheers

D Which figures are you referring to, the combined, extra urban or the urban figures? The 1.6 petrol Jukes are shown as between 44.8 to 48.7 for the combined cycle depending on which version you have (94, 117 bhp or CVT 117bhp) and for the urban cycle between 34 and 39.8mpg.

[Bob_S]

MPG is only one of the issues that a car buyer thinks about. The big moan about the 2.0tdi and the 1.6 tdi in VW Golfs is the con that VW have pulled with respect to mpg. Their cars do not consistently deliver anything like the claimed figures. However, other things on the car seem to make a good price/performance/comfort package.
I'm not sure about that 1.9 engine, but I've never had one.
If I bought a car just for mpg, I think I would look elsewhere. How many manufacturers produce cars that do manage the claimed figures though? They are an indication and nothing more and certainly bear no relation to real life driving and all the variables that can affect fuel economy. If you buy a car and seriously expect it to achieve the claimed figures then it is time for a reality check.

[dcdick]

Which figures are you referring to, the combined, extra urban or the urban figures? The 1.6 petrol Jukes are shown as between 44.8 to 48.7 for the combined cycle depending on which version you have (94, 117 bhp or CVT 117bhp) and for the urban cycle between 34 and 39.8mpg.

I have the 1.6 cvt quoted at 44.8 combined & I have matched & beaten that already in a car that has "only" done 200 miles, last run was around 42 miles mixed roads medium traffic & returned 46.8 mpg displayed (speedo checked to be within 3% accurate with a garmin sat nav)

The last petrol car I had was a Mk vi Golf (1.4 Tsi) & I was able to match the claimed figures with that as well.

Only with diesels do I have trouble matching the published figures................. it's not just VAG to be honest with this diesel mpg problem, but if the petrol cars can hit the published figures why can't the diesel cars ?

The big problem with the Mk 7 I had was the threat of a huge bill for replacement of the DPF that was not covered by warranty, it's discussed further back in this thread if you want to read the gory details ;)

D

[algarve]

Pleased you're now getting a book figure on your Juke (petrol)

Not everyone is just reading a quote from a Juke 1.6 N-Tec owner quote " Surprised how bad the mpg figures were, even in eco mode "

Looks like Nissan, as are most manufacturers, in the same boat regarding claims and the real world reality.

[Bob_S]

I have the 1.6 cvt quoted at 44.8 combined & I have matched & beaten that already in a car that has "only" done 200 miles, last run was around 42 miles mixed roads medium traffic & returned 46.8 mpg displayed (speedo checked to be within 3% accurate with a garmin sat nav)

The last petrol car I had was a Mk vi Golf (1.4 Tsi) & I was able to match the claimed figures with that as well.

Only with diesels do I have trouble matching the published figures................. it's not just VAG to be honest with this diesel mpg problem, but if the petrol cars can hit the published figures why can't the diesel cars ?

The big problem with the Mk 7 I had was the threat of a huge bill for replacement of the DPF that was not covered by warranty, it's discussed further back in this thread if you want to read the gory details ;)

D So you haven't filled the car up yet to get an accurate check of your consumption and you are relying on the car's own computer for that figure?

[dcdick]

So you haven't filled the car up yet to get an accurate check of your consumption and you are relying on the car's own computer for that figure?

I don't go along with this "brim to brim" methodology as being the most accurate way of checking fuel consumption as there are variables when filling up which I am sure you are aware of & you are still relying on the car's odometer for the calculations

I've checked the accuracy of the cars speedo/odometer as far as I can & the results I get are close enough for me.

I wonder if there really is a truly accurate method of determining fuel consumption that is practical enough for everyday use ?

ps................ the car is running down a full tank at the moment & when it gets around 1/2 full I'll do a fill up out of curiosity to see if it agrees with my current figures. I do expect that there will be very little difference (if any) although I could be wrong of course ;)

D

[dcdick]

Pleased you're now getting a book figure on your Juke (petrol)

Not everyone is just reading a quote from a Juke 1.6 N-Tec owner quote " Surprised how bad the mpg figures were, even in eco mode "

Looks like Nissan, as are most manufacturers, in the same boat regarding claims and the real world reality.

They all tell lies to a lesser or greater degree to their customers about fuel consumption/emissions & use the "we have no control over how the vehicle is driven" get out of jail card to avoid prosecution.
In my experience VAG seem to be particularly bad in this respect

:(

[Bob_S]

I don't go along with this "brim to brim" methodology as being the most accurate way of checking fuel consumption as there are variables when filling up which I am sure you are aware of & you are still relying on the car's odometer for the calculations

I've checked the accuracy of the cars speedo/odometer as far as I can & the results I get are close enough for me.

I wonder if there really is a truly accurate method of determining fuel consumption that is practical enough for everyday use ?

ps................ the car is running down a full tank at the moment & when it gets around 1/2 full I'll do a fill up out of curiosity to see if it agrees with my current figures. I do expect that there will be very little difference (if any) although I could be wrong of course ;)

D
You must be one of the very few people who doesn't see a brim to brim methodology as an accurate means of measuring fuel consumption. It certainly is a practical means of assessing fuel consumption. Relying on a trip computer in the car is not accurate, certainly not in the cars and motorcycles that I have used that have been fitted with such computers. They are a rough guide and nothing more.

[Bob_S]

They all tell lies to a lesser or greater degree to their customers about fuel consumption/emissions & use the "we have no control over how the vehicle is driven" get out of jail card to avoid prosecution.
In my experience VAG seem to be particularly bad in this respect

:( It's not a get out of jail card though, is it. It's a fact. You only have to go on to sites like Fuelly or Spirit Monitor to see the wide variations in fuel consumption achieved by individuals in the same model vehicles.

[dcdick]

You must be one of the very few people who doesn't see a brim to brim methodology as an accurate means of measuring fuel consumption. It certainly is a practical means of assessing fuel consumption. Relying on a trip computer in the car is not accurate, certainly not in the cars and motorcycles that I have used that have been fitted with such computers. They are a rough guide and nothing more.


We'll have to agree to disagree on the methods of measuring mpg & the accuracy of the results.
The "brim to brim" method is widely used (& accepted) & as such is a valuable tool for comparison with others using the same method.
However to dismiss "on board" mpg measuring as only a rough guide seems to me to be to much of a sweeping a statement as this includes the odometer.
VAG speedo's for example are widely acknowledged to be 10% out....so where does that leave the odometer which is used in the "brim to brim" calculations ?

Published mpg figures do lie .............................. there will always be variations in achieved mpg but, how many posters do we see on here with the Mk7 diesel that are getting these figures ?
Surely almost everybody can not be a "heavy footed" driver with the Mk7 .
As far as I am aware most everybody is happy with the Mk6 mpg, it was when VAG published 20% fuel savings claims for the new Mk7 diesels that all this mpg furore started.
Then there's the effect the DPF has as well.

D

[Norbreck21a]

To be fair even a brim to brim method as said isn't 100% reliable. It depends on a number of factors including the attitude of the car on the forecourt (i.e is it totally level), the ambient temperature and whether you always fill to the same mark each time (i.e. for instance first click). Even that can be inaccurate as if the pump fills too quickly, them foaming will occur which can instigate the click when the tank isn't totally full. Also, as dcdick said, you are also relying on the odometer which could be out by up to 10% ? So overall, taking all the above into account, even the brim to brim method, has it faults, however, it's still probably a good idea to do the brim to brim and check with the fuel computer. If they are within 5-10% of each other, then fine, if over that, I would hazard a guess that it's more than likely the fuel computer that's out rather than the brim to brim method.

TBH, I just stick with the computer (knowing it's inaccuracies), but it gives me a reference point for tank to tank filling and knowing if the car is running OK, whether it's out is largely irrelevant to me unless of course the difference is huge !

[Bob_S]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the methods of measuring mpg & the accuracy of the results.
The "brim to brim" method is widely used (& accepted) & as such is a valuable tool for comparison with others using the same method.
However to dismiss "on board" mpg measuring as only a rough guide seems to me to be to much of a sweeping a statement as this includes the odometer.
VAG speedo's for example are widely acknowledged to be 10% out....so where does that leave the odometer which is used in the "brim to brim" calculations ? The speedo on my Golf is nowhere near 10% out so where do you get that VW speedos are out by 10%? You will often find that the accuracy of a speedo and odometer are often very different. I had a Triumph motorcycle that had a speedo that was between 15-20% out but the odometer was only 1% out. This was comparing readings with a GPS.


Published mpg figures do lie .............................. there will always be variations in achieved mpg but, how many posters do we see on here with the Mk7 diesel that are getting these figures ? In what way are the official figures a lie? We all know the cars are tested in a laboratory and are a guideline which all the manufacturers use but to describe them as a lie is over the top. [/quote]

Surely almost everybody can not be a "heavy footed" driver with the Mk7 .
As far as I am aware most everybody is happy with the Mk6 mpg, it was when VAG published 20% fuel savings claims for the new Mk7 diesels that all this mpg furore started.
Then there's the effect the DPF has as well.

D I haven't seen these 20% saving claims and when you compare the official figures of the mark 6 against the mark 7 they are nowhere near a saving of 20%. Have you got a link to where VW are claiming 20% improved economy? If you had a mark 6 with a combined figure of 65mpg you would have to have the mark 7 managing a combined figure of 78mpg to see a 20% saving.Having seen some postings on the forum it is clear there are owners out there who are happy with the fuel consumption of their mark 7's.

[dcdick]

The speedo on my Golf is nowhere near 10% out so where do you get that VW speedos are out by 10%? You will often find that the accuracy of a speedo and odometer are often very different. I had a Triumph motorcycle that had a speedo that was between 15-20% out but the odometer was only 1% out. This was comparing readings with a GPS.

In what way are the official figures a lie? We all know the cars are tested in a laboratory and are a guideline which all the manufacturers use but to describe them as a lie is over the top.

I haven't seen these 20% saving claims and when you compare the official figures of the mark 6 against the mark 7 they are nowhere near a saving of 20%. Have you got a link to where VW are claiming 20% improved economy? If you had a mark 6 with a combined figure of 65mpg you would have to have the mark 7 managing a combined figure of 78mpg to see a 20% saving.Having seen some postings on the forum it is clear there are owners out there who are happy with the fuel consumption of their mark 7's.

The speedo on the Golf 7 I had was reading almost exactly 10% over................. others may differ of course. Didn't check the odometer though.

Official mpg figures are supposed to be a fair representation of what drivers can expect to achieve in a car driven with some care & attention under "good" conditions without using ploys such as over inflating the tyres etc.....
As the mpg claims have increased from the manufacturers the actual mpg achieved by customers has fallen farther & farther behind.
They are now publishing disclaimers in brochures about the difference between test & actual consumption figures
VAG have already been in court with unhappy customers about their mpg claims

VW quoted 62mpg combined for the 1.6TDi as a Mk 6.........................The current version 1.6 TDi Mk 7 claims 74 mpg .....................close enough to 20% for me

I also saw an ad for VAG on a fuel pump nozzle saying that if I was refueling a "blue motion" VW (very non model specific ad) that I would not be back for 995 miles

It's easy enough to look back at the car reviews to confirm my figures for the 1.6 TDi 0f 62 & 74 (ignoring dec points)

I agree that some posters here are happy with their cars & the mpg, but a huge amount are not

Not much more to say on this I suppose :D

D

[Bob_S]

The speedo on the Golf 7 I had was reading almost exactly 10% over................. others may differ of course. Didn't check the odometer though. My speedo is out by 5-6%.


Official mpg figures are supposed to be a fair representation of what drivers can expect to achieve in a car driven with some care & attention under "good" conditions without using ploys such as over inflating the tyres etc.....
As the mpg claims have increased from the manufacturers the actual mpg achieved by customers has fallen farther & farther behind.
They are now publishing disclaimers in brochures about the difference between test & actual consumption figures
VAG have already been in court with unhappy customers about their mpg claims Do you honestly believe that the official figures should be achievable? Have you been able to replicate exactly what they do in the tests? That is the only way in which you can make a direct comparison with the official figures by driving in exactly the same way as they do in the tests.


VW quoted 62mpg combined for the 1.6TDi as a Mk 6.........................The current version 1.6 TDi Mk 7 claims 74 mpg .....................close enough to 20% for me I don't know where you get a combined figure of 62mpg for the mark 6 1.6TDI. I have a 1.6TDI Golf Plus Bluemotion and the combined figure for that is 65.7mpg. The Golf Plus is not as efficient as the mark 6, so where are you getting your figure of 62mpg from?


I also saw an ad for VAG on a fuel pump nozzle saying that if I was refueling a "blue motion" VW (very non model specific ad) that I would not be back for 995 miles

It's easy enough to look back at the car reviews to confirm my figures for the 1.6 TDi 0f 62 & 74 (ignoring dec points) According to this site the combined fuel consumption of the mark 6 1.6TDi Bluemotion is 69 mpg VW Golf 1.6 TDI 105 PS BlueMotion SE MkVI - CO2 107g/km (http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/24094/VW-Golf-1.6-TDI-105-PS-BlueMotion-SE-MkVI-Diesel-Manual-5-speed) As the mark 7's are all Bluemotion tech then surely that is a more valid comparison?

I agree that some posters here are happy with their cars & the mpg, but a huge amount are not

Not much more to say on this I suppose :D

D The very nature of forums is that those who are happy with their cars seldom post about that but those who are unhappy will make a lot of noise, so it is not a valid comparison to simply look at the postings on this forum to get an accurate picture.

[Bob_S]

I just checked the speedo and odometer accuracy of my Golf against my sat nav. At an indicated 60mph the GPS was reading 57mph, so 5% out. The odometer was absolutely spot on with both the sat nav and the odometer showing a reading of 5.5 miles for the journey that I did. Now from that I can't say that all cars will have odometers that are spot on but it does echo what I found on my last Triumph Sprint ST motorcycle (speedo over reading by 15-20%, odo by 1%) and also a BMW R1200GS I owned which had a speedo error of 2% and the odo was out by 0.2%. EU directives say that speedos if they are not accurate have to over-read and not under read and it is clear manufacturers are building in a bit of speedo error but they are also able to make the odo's accurate.

[dcdick]

If the odometer is accurate on VW cars then the trip computer may also be accurate (or not). If the odometer is indeed accurate that would enhance the accuracy of the "brim to brim" method but I still remain unconvinced that the brimming method is the most accurate method. Not sure how you would be able to determine which is though ?
It is a fact that manufacturers can (if they choose) install accurate instruments & I have often wondered why they don't always do so.

I have been able to achieve (or better) the published figures for the last 3 petrol cars I have had while driving them on the road................. I can't understand why the diesel should be so different.

The 62mpg figure was from a "standard" TDi 1.6 Golf, the Blue Motion models were an extra cost option. The current Mk7 is only available as a "Blue Motion Technology" model as "standard" & that was the basis for the comparison. There is a Blue Motion model Golf 7 available that claims 88.3 mpg. Using your figure of 69 for the Mk 6 Blue M gives a 19 mpg difference against the Mk 7 Blue M ...... more than 20 %

I don't know how to get a true comparison about happy/unhappy Golf mpg customers. The VW dealers will know by the amount of complaints they get, but getting them to share information like that will be difficult/impossible

You seem to be happy enough with your Golf, but this is a Mk 7 Golf forum & surely direct comparisons between the 2 different models of car are a bit pointless really ?

None the less an interesting discussion which I am happy to continue with :D

Do you not think that the real problem here is that the current diesel Golf is way out on the claimed mpg whereas previous models were much better ?

D

[Bob_S]

If the odometer is accurate on VW cars then the trip computer may also be accurate (or not). If the odometer is indeed accurate that would enhance the accuracy of the "brim to brim" method but I still remain unconvinced that the brimming method is the most accurate method. Not sure how you would be able to determine which is though ?
It is a fact that manufacturers can (if they choose) install accurate instruments & I have often wondered why they don't always do so. I have no idea why they choose not to install accurate speedos but they are certainly installing odometers that are pretty much spot on. The only other way to ensure accurate monitoring of fuel consumption is to install proper metering equipment which has been properly calibrated.


I have been able to achieve (or better) the published figures for the last 3 petrol cars I have had while driving them on the road................. I can't understand why the diesel should be so different. A lot of people can't match the official figures and I think it is What Car who carried out many tests and found there are only a handful of cars where the official figures have been shown to be achievable.


The 62mpg figure was from a "standard" TDi 1.6 Golf, the Blue Motion models were an extra cost option. The current Mk7 is only available as a "Blue Motion Technology" model as "standard" & that was the basis for the comparison. There is a Blue Motion model Golf 7 available that claims 88.3 mpg. Using your figure of 69 for the Mk 6 Blue M gives a 19 mpg difference against the Mk 7 Blue M ...... more than 20 % It is a more accurate comparison to compare the mark 6 bluemotion with the mark 7. To compare the standard 1.6TDi with the mark 7 which has the bluemotion tech as standard is not a like for like comparison. I am not sure if the old mark 6 bluemotion tech car would also be a direct comparison with the specific bluemotion spec mark 7.


I don't know how to get a true comparison about happy/unhappy Golf mpg customers. The VW dealers will know by the amount of complaints they get, but getting them to share information like that will be difficult/impossible You will never get the full picture from a forum and as VW are a private company they have no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.


You seem to be happy enough with your Golf, but this is a Mk 7 Golf forum & surely direct comparisons between the 2 different models of car are a bit pointless really ? I haven't been making any comparisons, just observations about some of the comments. I am taking an interest in the mark 7 as a possible replacement for my Golf Plus, but as my mileage has changed in the last two years getting another diesel might not be the best option for me, especially given the cost differential between equivalent petrol and diesel models.


None the less an interesting discussion which I am happy to continue with :D Likewise, always good to have a friendly debate and discussion.


Do you not think that the real problem here is that the current diesel Golf is way out on the claimed mpg whereas previous models were much better ?

D I couldn't give an answer to be honest as I have only owned one Golf, but there could be an element of manufacturers trying to work towards getting the best headline figure, coupled with tests from years gone by not being as stringent or accurate. The problem with the tests is they don't reflect the difference you get from driving in summer and winter and the different fuels supplied in winter which for diesels are not as efficient which results in a deterioration in economy.

[dcdick]

"It is a more accurate comparison to compare the mark 6 bluemotion with the mark 7. To compare the standard 1.6TDi with the mark 7 which has the bluemotion tech as standard is not a like for like comparison. I am not sure if the old mark 6 bluemotion tech car would also be a direct comparison with the specific bluemotion spec mark 7"

Disagree with that statement, the current diesel Golf has a BMT badge but is the standard available car. Likewise the Mk 6 TDi was the standard car.
This is the problem with comparing 2 different models...... the Mk 7 has a load of stuff that the Mk 6 model does not have but sits in the same segment of the Golf range as previously occupied by the TDi Mk 6

The crux is that the Mk 7 is claimed by VW to be 20% more efficient than it's predecessor & fails by a significant amount to do this.

The headline 100 gm figure that the diesels are being put out as achieving seems to me to be a step too far for the diesel engines currently available hence the current implementation of the DPF system that is causing all kinds of problems including a significant impact on economy.
The tests are indeed a "benchmark" if you like that are strictly controlled to ensure consistent repeatability but should be achievable given the right road conditions (summer motoring)

"Current diesels are not suitable for low mileage use, low mileage is less than 15,000 per annum". This is the opinion of the local VW dealer after I complained about the low mpg.
Yet they were quite happy to sell me a diesel even though I mentioned my annual mileage was 8-10,000 during the ordering process.

Strange old company VAG , managed to loose me as a customer after many years (but that's another story more to do with customer service)

D

[Bob_S]

Disagree with that statement, the current diesel Golf has a BMT badge but is the standard available car. Likewise the Mk 6 TDi was the standard car.
This is the problem with comparing 2 different models...... the Mk 7 has a load of stuff that the Mk 6 model does not have but sits in the same segment of the Golf range as previously occupied by the TDi Mk 6 We will have to agree to disagree on this one as the standard mark 6 didn't have bluemotion and standard mark 7 does.


The crux is that the Mk 7 is claimed by VW to be 20% more efficient than it's predecessor & fails by a significant amount to do this. But where is this claim, have VW made it in adverts? I haven't seen anything where VW are claiming such an improvement.


The headline 100 gm figure that the diesels are being put out as achieving seems to me to be a step too far for the diesel engines currently available hence the current implementation of the DPF system that is causing all kinds of problems including a significant impact on economy. That is your experience and that of a few posters on this forum but that is not a very reliable indicator.

The tests are indeed a "benchmark" if you like that are strictly controlled to ensure consistent repeatability but should be achievable given the right road conditions (summer motoring) I don't agree as they are not driven on the road to test them. They are nothing more than an indication. I think the old figures where they quoted the fuel consumption at constant speeds of 56 and 75mph were much more realistic than the current regime.


"Current diesels are not suitable for low mileage use, low mileage is less than 15,000 per annum". This is the opinion of the local VW dealer after I complained about the low mpg.
Yet they were quite happy to sell me a diesel even though I mentioned my annual mileage was 8-10,000 during the ordering process. That shows the dealer is clueless. You could do 6000 miles a year but if they were long runs then a diesel with DPF would be fine. The economics would be a different matter as it would take several years to recoup the difference in purchase price when compared against the cost of a petrol model. I also have to ask why you went for a diesel given your mileage and the fact it would take about 6-7 years to recover the difference in price.


Strange old company VAG , managed to loose me as a customer after many years (but that's another story more to do with customer service)

D Plenty of strange companies out there. But as long as sales figures are still good I don't think they care too much about losing a customer nowadays.

[dcdick]

"We will have to agree to disagree on this one as the standard mark 6 didn't have bluemotion and standard mark 7 does".

OK but remember we are comparing what was & is available. The Mk 7 has "Blue Motion technology" (along with all the current range) whatever that is. Sounds like your saying "it's not a fair fight guv" ;)

"But where is this claim, have VW made it in adverts? I haven't seen anything where VW are claiming such an improvement."

Definitely saw the claim in the initial launch ads for the Mk 7 ( it's allegedly 20% lighter as well)

"That is your experience and that of a few posters on this forum but that is not a very reliable indicator".

It's all I've got to go on at the moment

"I don't agree as they are not driven on the road to test them. They are nothing more than an indication. I think the old figures where they quoted the fuel consumption at constant speeds of 56 and 75mph were much more realistic than the current regime".

Agree re the "old " figures............. the rolling road tests are what they are, if you are able to match them "on the road" they must have some relevance. Even if you cannot match the figures every journey you make.

"That shows the dealer is clueless. You could do 6000 miles a year but if they were long runs then a diesel with DPF would be fine. The economics would be a different matter as it would take several years to recoup the difference in purchase price when compared against the cost of a petrol model. I also have to ask why you went for a diesel given your mileage and the fact it would take about 6-7 years to recover the difference in price".

Most dealers are clueless in my experience.
In my case as it was a lease deal, the cost to me was the same for diesel or petrol so just went for what seemed to be the cheapest to run.
I chopped in a diesel Nissan that was a 62 model year with a DPF that worked without any issues so did not see any problems going with the diesel Golf.

"Plenty of strange companies out there. But as long as sales figures are still good I don't think they care too much about losing a customer nowadays".

Agreed

D*ck

Censor doesn't allow me to use my forename :p

[maisbitt]

How many manufacturers produce cars that do manage the claimed figures though? They are an indication and nothing more and certainly bear no relation to real life driving and all the variables that can affect fuel economy. If you buy a car and seriously expect it to achieve the claimed figures then it is time for a reality check.
I could comfortably beat combined official figs for my 170TDI Scirocco on a 20+ mile journey in the summer, and with a fairly heavy right foot. Reality checked!

[Bob_S]

And what method did you use for measuring your fuel consumption, the on board computer? What would be your economy figures long term?

[dcdick]

I could comfortably beat combined official figs for my 170TDI Scirocco on a 20+ mile journey in the summer, and with a fairly heavy right foot. Reality checked!

The Mk 6 range worked well performance wise, which makes it even more galling that the Mk 7 that is supposed to be "better all round" is coming up short on things like mpg.

D*ick

[dickt]

I agree with dcd that the issue for many of us is that VW used to do (nearly) "what it says on the tin" with respect to mpg. My Mk5 170 GTD/DSG did 45 mpg, and I was happy with that. My Mk 7 150 GT/DSG is supposed to be 20+% better, and it is not.
It is less powerful, and in mpg terms, is worse.
At 6,500 miles in summer, on eco, I am struggling to get 45mpg.
Pathetic.

[algarve]

I agree with dcd that the issue for many of us is that VW used to do (nearly) "what it says on the tin" with respect to mpg. My Mk5 170 GTD/DSG did 45 mpg, and I was happy with that. My Mk 7 150 GT/DSG is supposed to be 20+% better, and it is not.
It is less powerful, and in mpg terms, is worse.
At 6,500 miles in summer, on eco, I am struggling to get 45mpg.
Pathetic.

There must be something wrong with your car surely if that is all it can manage.

Same car I regularly get mid to late 50's mixed driving and on runs 60-63 mpg.

Now just under 10k miles.

[dcdick]

There must be something wrong with your car surely if that is all it can manage.

Same car I regularly get mid to late 50's mixed driving and on runs 60-63 mpg.

Now just under 10k miles.

The DSG box does seem somewhat of an uneasy mix with the Mk 7 diesel Golf's....................... seems to work better with the petrol engines though :confused:

[algarve]

As I said same car, no problems with my DSG runs sweet with the diesel engine .

Never had any issues with any of my TDIs with DSG.

[maisbitt]

As I said same car, no problems with my DSG runs sweet with the diesel engine .

Never had any issues with any of my TDIs with DSG.

Stop-start is clumsy with DSG, something to be said for the pre-emptive clutch dip on a manual to trigger the car's restart. My dad switches his stop-start off on every trip for this reason. It's about time VW brought out a 7 or 8 speed DSG that can handle higher outputs in the Golf range to get the efficiency up to be comparable with manual. My manual GTD 5 door has £20 road tax, my dads 5 door DSG GTD has £105 car tax.

[Skinnee D]

I agree with dcd that the issue for many of us is that VW used to do (nearly) "what it says on the tin" with respect to mpg. My Mk5 170 GTD/DSG did 45 mpg, and I was happy with that. My Mk 7 150 GT/DSG is supposed to be 20+% better, and it is not.
It is less powerful, and in mpg terms, is worse.
At 6,500 miles in summer, on eco, I am struggling to get 45mpg.
Pathetic.

Have you tried switching your "engine" mode out of Eco? Sounds counterintuitive, but I have heard of a few people who have done this with 2.0 TDI Mk7's and seen a notable improvement in mpg.

[maisbitt]

Have you tried switching your "engine" mode out of Eco? Sounds counterintuitive, but I have heard of a few people who have done this with 2.0 TDI Mk7's and seen a notable improvement in mpg.
Mine is permanently in Sport, eco was nothing of the sort for me, just dulls the throttle response to the point you end up putting your foot down to get anything out of the car. Normal isn't too bad, but if you're sensible with the throttle then Sport is fine.

[algarve]

Stop-start is clumsy with DSG, something to be said for the pre-emptive clutch dip on a manual to trigger the car's restart. My dad switches his stop-start off on every trip for this reason. It's about time VW brought out a 7 or 8 speed DSG that can handle higher outputs in the Golf range to get the efficiency up to be comparable with manual. My manual GTD 5 door has £20 road tax, my dads 5 door DSG GTD has £105 car tax.

Stop-start was one of the many MK7 technical "improvements" including ADC etc etc which I had to get to used to.

I would disagree Stop-start is "clumsy with DSG'' maybe the slightly higher output on your Dad's GTD is an issue I don't know.

I quickly learn't that you can control its function, if at all necessary, purely by the time you have your foot on the brake pedal.
Otherwise in use I find its like the 'auto-hold/electronic parking brake' scenario it so smooth you forget its there and just drive.

[algarve]

Have you tried switching your "engine" mode out of Eco? Sounds counterintuitive, but I have heard of a few people who have done this with 2.0 TDI Mk7's and seen a notable improvement in mpg.

Interesting the 'ECO' verses 'Normal' mode I'm recording similar journeys at the moment having read those posts to see if there is anything in it.

I'm getting good figures already in ECO so it will be good to see what happens.

[dickt]

algarve
I strongly suspect an issue with the injectors, but last time I took it in the service person just spouted the VW official line. He said they had put it on their machine, but refused to supply any proof. He just did not listen as he was in Broadcast mode.
If it doesn't get any better, I intend to take it in to a different dealer.

[Norbreck21a]

I actually think the stop /start is quite well implemented with the DSG golfs. Like the way you can release the brake pedal and the car starts when the accelerator pedal is touched (better than it was on my scirocco). I also find it much easier to judge the right amount if pressure to not activate stop / start, when for instance, I know the lights are just about to change. As soon as the green brake light comes on, I can release the brake pedal with the engine still running and hover over the accelerator pedal ready for the off.

Also, as my car (5 door GTD DSG) has only just over 400 miles on it at the moment (still on the first tank), I'm quite pleased with my indicated long term average of 47.8 mpg, considering its just tootling to work and back through town. I've even had mid 60's on a 20 mile run to Chester the other day. Well pleased with that for the power the car has. Had mine so far only in comfort and normal mode.

[algarve]

dickT
I know what you mean when some 'Service Advisers' go into auto-mode almost a waste of time them being there if they are not going to take onboard individual customers concerns.

I hope you find a more receptive dealer if things don't improve...

[pango1in]

Sorry to drag up an old thread that has really been done to death.

My car was in for a rattle, and I finally got to talk to the Master Technician at my local garage about the mpg. He spent a little time going through some more tests, rather than just the standard ODIS readouts and the service desk staff (who aren't able to answer technical questions).

Basically, the numerous regens are normal. The DPF is designed to collect soot and then actively burn it off. The engine is also quite thirsty and 45-50mpg is typical. Even the sales staff have 1.6 TDIs, as the 2.0 is too thirsty.

This is the first person from VW that has confirmed this to me - everyone else has said that 60mpg should be easily achievable. Guess they were badly informed or were lying. As it turns out, the mk7 Golf is in the top 10 worst performers on HonestJohn too (published vs real life mpg).

[Bob_S]

The trouble with Honest Johns Real MPG stats for the mark 7 is the small number of vehicles in the sample. A total of 206 submissions have been made covering 15 different variants. If you look at Fuelly (and without looking at how many of the sample are 1.6's and 2.0's) it shows an average for all diesels of 47.2 mpg for 2012 Golfs and 47.6 for 2013 models. There are some 2014 models on there which are showing an average of 46.9 mpg. 2011 Golfs are showing an average of 47.9 mpg.

[pango1in]

I completely agree. But it's finally good to have someone at VW confirm this, rather than getting the usual rhetoric.

[algarve]

You are right this thread has been done to death.

The reality is that the majority of all manufacturers official test figures show about 20% more mpg than actually achievable in the real world.
Just follow 'What Cars' True Mpg campaign figures covering all manufacturers models.

Its Motor Industry wide issue with most manufacturers adverts now containing exclusion clauses on actual achievable figures

[GolfFanBoy]

I know people have talked about the DPF but I honestly don't have any issues with it. 5,000 miles in and my average with the 2.0TDi is 58-59 mpg at winter temperatures. During the milder weather in September I was easily achieving low 60's in normal mode. The car is driven 6 days a week and I don't even have to drive like a nun to achieve a decent mpg. My route covers a mixture of roads so even without motorway runs the exhaust temps are adequate for passive regens.

23591

[maisbitt]

Keeping the DPF clean as a whistle is vital to decent mpg. I was out for a 42 mile trip yesterday, the oil temp was running in the 97-101C range for a good 15 miles of the journey, the DPF will have been emptied I’m sure. This morning, at 1C ambient temp, I drove my 12 mile commute with a heavy right foot and achieved 46mpg, when I normally end up with 43mpg.

15 miles seems to be the sweet spot for the GTD, do at least 15 miles every day and the car is up to operating temp for ½ of its journey in the winter, enough to keep the DPF clean. Any less than that and you’re relying on motorway runs to burn off the soot accumulation. My 170TDI Scirocco used to be fine with my 12 mile commute, but it isn’t enough for the GTD. My GTD takes an average of 8 miles in the winter to get the oil temp to 90C, on the Scirocco it was 6 miles – so my GTD is now only in the soot burning zone for 1/3 of my commute.

The new and improved mpg is a complete lie – the inclusion of stop-start on all models now is the reason for big “official” increases. On the EU testing cycle, the car is sat still for 24% of the time. On the old tech, that meant the car was idling and burning fuel for 24% of the cycle, and on the MK7 that now means the engine shuts down for 24% of the cycle, there is your 20% gain in combined mpg figures.

Back in the real world, on the assumption you don’t spend 24% of your journey doing nothing, the stop-start will save you very little. On my commute, the stop-start probably saves me about 1 minute of idling on my 25 minute journey.

From the 2.0TDI (150/184), in the winter you should expect around 40mpg if you do an 8 mile commute, around 44mpg if you do a 12 mile commute, and 50mpg on a 16 mile commute, based on my experiences (and not driving like a nun). Expect 10% more than those figures in the Summer and motorway cruising at 75mph on a long journey (>100 miles) could see you nudging 60mpg.

Don’t forget also that the MFD mpg indications are very close to reality now, whereas the last gen were about 9% optimistic. 45mpg indicated on my GTD means 44mpg actual, 45mpg indicated on my Scirocco meant 41mpg actual. My GTD actual mpg is maybe 5% better than my Scirocco actual mpg.

My dad is up to 13k miles in his GTD DSG now and hasn't seen any appreciable gains in mpg since his 1st service at 9.5k miles. I'm now up to 4400 miles and see a solid 43mpg (actual) over each tank. I find BP and Esso to be the best fuels for me (mpg and response), and Shell to be the worst (my previous VWs all seemed to prefer Shell) - the car feels really laggy on Shell for some reason.

[dickt]

My 2.0 150 with DSG is still struggling along at 42 mpg. Putting it in eco or drive makes little difference.
As I have said before, my complaint is about the VW spin and deceit. My old 170 with dsg did not have all this eco crap. It quite simply did 45mpg. (After VW had replaced all the Injectors)

Otherwise, the Mk 7 is a good car.

[itavaltalainen]

I currently get 51mpg from my 2.0 TDI estate (which has near full spec and I use most of it, headlights always on, seat heating when my **** is cold, sport profile and running the not exactly fuel saving 225 45 17s).
Don't drive like a nun, if I did I could probably get 60mpg (and have once for a full tank actually).

It's so much about how you drive then thing in terms of distances. I rarely do short journey (7k miles in 2.5 months); when overtaking lorries on A-roads I don't shy away from going to 3.5krpm to pass them quickly.... but then also shift up quite early when I don't need a lot of power. Generally cruise on motorway with ACC set to 75mph.

[vwcabriolet1971]

The VW quoted fuel consumption figures relate to a standard EEC bench rolling road test and do not relate to actual "on the road" figures. The intention of the EEC figures are that different car makes / engines/transmissions etc. can be compared to the same standard.
This is the result of EC rules/regs being designed/applied by bureaucrats who don't live in the real world. This particular consumption test has been the cause of lots of problems over the years. The previous quoted consumption figures were IMHO much easily understood and did relate to real "on the road" conditions

[jv808]

On the run to work this morning I had 57mpg (34 miles) with all the lights, heater, seat heater & infotainment on plus it was -1c ambient temperature outside. The return leg was 56.5mpg.

A couple of weeks ago, my Mk7 returned 61.1mpg when the temperature crawled back above 10c. The only way I could get as low as 45mpg is if I drove it full throttle like an Audi nut-job (which I don't).

I'm getting about 540 - 560 miles in winter and nearly 600 miles in the summer per full tank. Never managed to fill more than 48.8 litres even after driving 5 miles with the range counter reading zero.

[maisbitt]

dickt: my driving modes seem to act well outside expectations. For me, Eco and Sport yield about the same mpg, although Sport is a lot more fun and Eco just frustrates with its ridiculously blunted throttle response. Normal mode is a consistent 15% thirstier than Sport on my car, which makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

[maisbitt]

jv808: I'm sure that in the main, your comparatively high mpg is down to the length of your journeys. If I was doing 34 miles to work every day, I could probably drive like an Audi nut job and still get 55mpg on every journey.

With a 34 mile one way commute, your DPF should never see a soot build up and the associated back pressure build up which kills mpg, your car will be passively regenerating the DPF clean every day. For just a week my commute increased to 16 miles each way (I was taking my car back to the VW dealer every day over a week for warranty work), and my mpg went up from 46 to 52, and I do sometimes drive with a heavy right foot. That extra 4 miles on my journey meant that the car was at full operating temp for 8 miles of the journey instead of 4 and the result was a 13% increase in my fuel economy with no driving style changes.

[pango1in]

jv808: I'm sure that in the main, your comparatively high mpg is down to the length of your journeys. If I was doing 34 miles to work every day, I could probably drive like an Audi nut job and still get 55mpg on every journey.

With a 34 mile one way commute, your DPF should never see a soot build up and the associated back pressure build up which kills mpg, your car will be passively regenerating the DPF clean every day. For just a week my commute increased to 16 miles each way (I was taking my car back to the VW dealer every day over a week for warranty work), and my mpg went up from 46 to 52, and I do sometimes drive with a heavy right foot. That extra 4 miles on my journey meant that the car was at full operating temp for 8 miles of the journey instead of 4 and the result was a 13% increase in my fuel economy with no driving style changes.

Maisbitt - the VW master technician that I spoke to at the weekend categorically stated that the VW dpfs do not passively burn off soot as they are designed not to get hot enough under normal driving (much to my surprise). They will only collect the soot and then burn it off through an engine intervention (an active regen without warning light to you and me). It also turns out (as I suspected) that you don't need to drive the car at 2-3krpm for 20 mins etc etc to allow active regen. An active engine intervention can happen when the car is idling, due to the higher idling revs and the fuel injection in the exhaust cycle. This will artificially heat the exhaust up to 600C.

Apparently Renaults work in exactly the same way. However, I will admit that this is contrary to everything I've read on the internet (hence my surprise).

My commute will change in March from 20 miles to 30 miles each way. I will update on average MPG values when this happens. Currently my commute can yield anywhere between 42mpg (when it is cold, wet and heavy traffic) and 51mpg (when no traffic and warm/dry). I would be surprised if I could get much more than 53-54mpg ever, as that's what the live mpg values state I'm doing on the flat.

[maisbitt]

Pango1:

That way of doing it seems pretty bad, if they've done away with passive regen. I was aware of the post combustion injection to heat up the exhaust quicker for an active regen at low speeds/low engine temp, but this used to be the car's last resort on the earlier 2.0TDI variants to perform a regen. It is by far the thirstiest method of clearing the DPF when you've got to be combusting fuel in the exhaust.

I can see why perhaps they might have done it - official CO2 emissions. A car that is storing up soot/carbon load to combust as CO2 at intervals is going to seem to be putting out less CO2 on the official testing cycle and get a better emissions rating as a result. At the end of the day though, they're just delaying the inevitable to fool the official tests, in fact they might actually be making the situation worse if this method of active regen means using more fuel to get the job done.

Longer journeys still have a mpg benefit though. If the car is up to temp for more of its miles then it'll be combusting the fuel more completely and generating less soot per mile. Also, if the engine is hot enough for long enough, there will be less reliance on post-combustion injection to get the exhaust temp up when the car decides to perform a regen (DPF container load threshold reached most likely is the trigger point, if not a change in back pressure to a pre-determined level.

I wouldn't be surprised if the first 5 miles of a 20 mile journey created 50% or more of the total soot created in that 20 mile journey.

I've had 53mpg from my GTD, on a 35 mile dual carriageway trip maintaining an indicated 80mph - that was at the end of October, about 1200 miles on the car and an ambient temp of approx. 16C. By that indication, I reckon that I could be at around 60mpg on a 100+ mile journey on the motorway in the summer.

Shorter journeys though seem to be killing my mpg - I'm by no means amongst the worst affected here though.

[mattlittle]

The sticky in the first page ( DPF information (http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?147028-DPF-information)) clearly states that passive regen occurs.

I spoke to aVW technician and he also believes that passive regen on long journeys is the norm

[maisbitt]

The sticky in the first page ( DPF information (http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?147028-DPF-information)) clearly states that passive regen occurs.

I spoke to a VW technician and he also believes that passive regen on long journeys is the norm

That sticky is very old and the detail might be outdated for the MK7 TDI engines. I can see the logic in VW not allowing passive DPF regen in order to cheat the CO2 emissions output by ensuring DPF regen doesn't occur during the testing regime, hopefully only if it is not to the detriment of economical running (which i'm not convinced is the case).

Either way, the way in which my MK7 GTD warms up and actively regens is noticeably different to the way my previous 3 DPF equipped VW TDIs have performed. Normal oil temp in the GTD is lower, the GTD takes 2 miles longer from cold to get to operating temp (oil @ 90C), but seems to be able to get to a hotter oil temp max (101C) when regenning. Can't see why passive regen couldn't occur on a longer journey though (unless VW retard them for CO2 figure reasons) - extended periods of normal operating temp should allow the DPF to be hot enough for regen without the introduction of unburnt fuel into the DPF system. Wonder what the current MK7 manual says.

[algarve]

Maisbitt - the VW master technician that I spoke to at the weekend categorically stated that the VW dpfs do not passively burn off soot as they are designed not to get hot enough under normal driving (much to my surprise). They will only collect the soot and then burn it off through an engine intervention (an active regen without warning light to you and me). It also turns out (as I suspected) that you don't need to drive the car at 2-3krpm for 20 mins etc etc to allow active regen. An active engine intervention can happen when the car is idling, due to the higher idling revs and the fuel injection in the exhaust cycle. This will artificially heat the exhaust up to 600C.

Apparently Renaults work in exactly the same way. However, I will admit that this is contrary to everything I've read on the internet (hence my surprise).

My commute will change in March from 20 miles to 30 miles each way. I will update on average MPG values when this happens. Currently my commute can yield anywhere between 42mpg (when it is cold, wet and heavy traffic) and 51mpg (when no traffic and warm/dry). I would be surprised if I could get much more than 53-54mpg ever, as that's what the live mpg values state I'm doing on the flat.

I think the key phrase here is 'under normal driving'.

Passive regeneration does occur in the new EA288 engines in the MK7 TDI but when the engine is subject to high loads e.g. whilst driving on motorways. (Source: VW Service Training Manual).

[pango1in]

I think the key phrase here is 'under normal driving'.

Passive regeneration does occur in the new EA288 engines in the MK7 TDI but when the engine is subject to high loads e.g. whilst driving on motorways. (Source: VW Service Training Manual).

I proved this wasn't the case when I hooked up a VAGCOM unit to my golf and went for a 40 minute motorway journey. The dpf temperature never reached 350C. I also did journeys up and down a 4 mile stretch of dual carriageway at 70mph in 6th, 5th , 4th and 3rd gear. Running at higher revs does not increase the dpf temperature (still around 250C).

At 250C, soot is not burned off and the level still increases. Even at over 300C the soot level does not burn off.

http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?149297-Fuel-Economy-MPG-DPF-Issues&p=835439#post835439

Can you provide a link to the manual?

[algarve]

Very interesting.

You can get access to VW training manuals at: https://erwin.volkswagen.com

(They are copyright protected)

[pango1in]

Very interesting.

You can get access to VW training manuals at: https://erwin.volkswagen.com

(They are copyright protected)

Thanks for the link. Unfotunately, I can't access the following document "Nr. 514: The New EA288 Diesel Engine Family" as I don't have a log in - I can only see the first 3 pages. Is the quote from this document? If so, what page?

[algarve]

You would have to 'Log in' to go beyond the preview pages to access the full manual.
Registration is open to anybody.

The DPF part is page 59 onwards.

[graham34]

According to the handbook (2.0 TDi manual gearbox) the gear change indicator will suggest a lower gear to aid regeneration, but doesn't say if this is active or passive. I haven't seen this yet, be interested if others have.

For what it's worth the sales guy on handover (last December) pointed out that driving in 6th at motorway speeds will not get the exhaust gasses hot enough to do any regeneration. He suggested changing down to get the revs above 2,500 for 10 mins occasionally, but from what has been posted here this could be a red herring. He didn't mention the gear change indicator.

[maisbitt]

^Yes, this does happen. My car is usually happy to prompt me to be in 4th cruising from 23 to 30 mph on the flat, then up to 5th 30-40mph and 6th 40+.

When a regen is going on, it wants you to keep 3rd to 30mph, 4th to 37mph, 5th to 48mph, 6th above that.

Unsure of how much tweaking there has been done with the MK7, but previous TDIs wanted you to keep the revs 1800-2500 to facilitate regen – perhaps due to the most efficient conditions for building exhaust temp whilst not caning the car so hard it is generating a disproportionately high amount of soot, so as not to be counteractive to the regen process.

Car is doing around 2000 revs at 70 in 6th – this should be fine for getting the DPF up to temp if sustained for a good 15 minutes. Oil temp seems to be the best indicator as to if a regen is going on – the oil has got as high as 102C on my car, anything over 94C seems to be well in regen territory.

[Dolmen]

our car it a new high MPG this morning, 70.8mpg over a 27 mile B roads journey with no traffic in front and an average speed of 43mph. If only this would be a sign of things to come!
Cheers

[dickt]

Impressive.
My 2.0 GT 150 with DSG is still struggling to get near my Mk 5 170 dsg.
The Mk 7 has crept up from 42 to 43 mpg. On a journey like yours, I guess it would just get over 50.

The car is OK, the mpg is a bummer..

[graham34]

Managed 73.8 MPG. Road was mainly flat, no wind, quite good road surface, most of the driving at 50-60 MPH (some a bit quicker). Quite a bit following traffic for mile after mile so no doubt helped with wind resistance. Long term up to 56.4 MPG. Problem is driving above 65 MPH and even worst pushing 80 MPH, but then that's the whole point of owning a 2.0 TDI - relaxing and refined at those speeds.

MPG definitely improving gradually now I've done over 3000m.

24653

[dickt]

Er, I think I only want to hear bad stories. These "good" stories are quite depressing. 73.8 indeed!!! Were you following a hearse?

[graham34]

Well average speed was over 50 MPH. Much of it was on a French road that is single carriageway and loads of lorries. Tedious but reasonably efficient as the road was otherwise motorway standard - limited access, no roundabouts. Just set the ACC and followed the vehicle in front except for the odd section of dual carriageway.

On a motorway run across the Massif Central (several passes over 1000 meters) managed over 60 MPG. Same stretch in March only managed 43 MPG as 1) only 1500 miles on the clock and 2) leaving the ACC to maintain 85 MPG uphill (one is over 5 miles long) is not as efficient as a bit of human anticipation and easing off on the uphill.

[jk88]

2) leaving the ACC to maintain 85 MPG Not sure I've discovered the 'maintain MPG' button on the ACC yet, but sounds just the ticket ;)

[Dolmen]

71.8 MPG today! same journey, with over 18k on the clock now, long term is over 56 MPG.
Cheers

[The PM]

Reading back through the comments, it has amused me to see people saying they drive "economically" and saying in another sentence they drive at an average of 75mph! That's not economical, folks!!

I've just come back from a round trip to Bavaria and travelling at either 70 or 75 (indicated) on cruise my Mk6 TDi DSG has averaged between 51.9 (worst) and 58.1 (best) on the German and Beligian motorways. No doubt if I'd gone down to an indicated 65 they would have been better. But there's so much in the Real World that affects consumption, wind speed and direction, hills, traffic, roadworks (which normally improve it!), etc., etc., that I doubt they could even do a proper test which would satisfy everyone...

It looks highly likely I'll be getting a Mk7 SE in November so it'll be interesting to compare with the old one....

[dickt]

This thread tends to focus on the 2.0 tdi.

My 15,000 mile 2.0 tdi 150 GT with DSG is still only doing about 42 mpg. It is still worse than my Mk 5 170 with DSG which reliably did 45 mpg.

When I bought the car, I hoped for an improvement. I certainly did not expect it to get worse!!

Lies, damn lies, and VW spin stories.

[jv808]

Recently had 655 miles returned on a full tank from my TDi 150. Calculated the real world fuel economy at 60.74 mpg. Beats my previous Mk6 TDi 140 by 4 mpg.

I think folks with DSG's are experiencing poor figures. Certainly not the case with manuals: less weight, less friction, simpler mechanicals.

[The PM]

Not so sure about those reasons, I reckon it's more to do with the fact that a human eye can read the road ahead whereas an auto box of any description can't! So mpg for a well driven manual will always be better than an auto. Having said that the DSG 'box is by far the best auto 'box out there and I can live with the relatively small difference between it and a manual for the extra convenience of not have to faff around changing gear all the time...

[dickt]

I recently drove a Mk 7 1.6 tdi with DSG - a rental - I was easily getting 55 mpg.

Maybe the early (mine got to the UK early Feb 2013) Mk 7 2.0 150 tdi with DSG was not properly "sorted".

[maisbitt]

I recently drove a Mk 7 1.6 tdi with DSG - a rental - I was easily getting 55 mpg.

Maybe the early (mine got to the UK early Feb 2013) Mk 7 2.0 150 tdi with DSG was not properly "sorted".

Long journeys seem by far the most important factor with MK7 TDI economy if you want to get decent figures without driving like a nun. I’d never done more than 40 miles in a single journey in my GTD (now at 9500 miles and about to get its first service), and recently my 12 mile commute and other mileage shopping etc has been yielding a 45mpg actual tank average with the warmer weather. I have a DTUK box (243PS modified output) and the indicated to actual mpg discrepancy has opened up from about 3% to 9%), so 45mpg actual is about 49mpg indicated. I never spare the horses and take full advantage of the power increase to get me to my desired cruising speed quickly.

Last weekend I took it down to Leeds (105 miles each way). It was 22C ambient temp going down and I had the aircon on all the way – achieved 55mpg indicated (51mpg actual is likely) doing 80mph all the way, no slowdowns. On the way back it was 80-85mph all the way, up until about ¾ into the journey. At that point I was averaging 57mpg indicated/52mpg actual and we hit a 10 mile stretch of 50mph zone with average speed cameras. Stuck the cruise on to stay at 50, got out at the other end, with a 63mpg indicated reading which settled down to 61.5mpg indicated/57mpg actual by journeys end, back up to 80mph once the roadworks had been passed. The aircon was on all the way back too.

The difference between driving for a bit of fun and trying to squeeze an extra 10% mpg makes for an extremely dull ride. Enjoy the car – your depreciation will be costing far more than modest fuel savings by trying to squeeze an extra 30 miles from a tank. I’ve given up on TDI economy – it is what it is. VW lied to us all with the 20% gains, now they have their **** covering statements about published figures not necessarily reflecting real life driving that weren't the norm when the MK7 was launched.

[dickt]

maisbitt,
Yup.
It is what it is.
And VW are a bunch of ..............etc.
I just drive it, now.

[Bob_S]

As this thread is about the claims for the 2.0 TDi then it's time to throw some figures into the equation. The Mark 6 2.0TDi Bluemotion has a combined MPG of 66 with a CO2 level of 114g/km. The Mark 7 2.0 TDI has a combined MPG of 68.9 and CO2 level of 106g/km. Where is the claimed improvement of 20%?

[maisbitt]

As this thread is about the claims for the 2.0 TDi then it's time to throw some figures into the equation. The Mark 6 2.0TDi Bluemotion has a combined MPG of 66 with a CO2 level of 114g/km. The Mark 7 2.0 TDI has a combined MPG of 68.9 and CO2 level of 106g/km. Where is the claimed improvement of 20%?


The 20% claim is vs previous non-bluemotion versions of the "same" car. Pretty much any car with stop-start is going to beat the same car without for economy by quite a margin on the official tests which see the car at a standstill for 24% of the 11 minute test cycle. In the real world when you maybe spend 2%-5% of your time at a standstill unless you live in gridlock, it won't make much difference to you.

Can't really blame VAG for this alone - all the car companies are at it. It's a pity though that the inferred message for launch of MK7 was that VW have managed to make the engine 20% more efficient, the legal disclaimers came later when they realised they might end up with a few people suing them.

One thing I have learnt however is that I definitely made the right choice getting a GTD (184ps) over a GT (150ps) as the far superior residuals negate the higher pricelist and it's more fun for the same economy when driven the same way. Even more fun with the DTUK box on (243ps) and it hasn't affected my mpg adversely at all. On my next car I might just say "to hell with mpg" and get an S3 or the new TT, my mate can get 35mpg (actual) all day long around the doors, compared to my 45-46mpg actual. Petrols have come further than diesels recently in the mpg stakes. If VAG pull their finger out and put ACT tech in the 2.0TSI, there might be little point iin buying a TDI (probably a good reason why they won't!).

[Bob_S]

As VW did a bluemotion version of the mark 6 2.0tdi then what is the point of comparing with the old non bluemotion version? And where is the 20% claim actually made? Is there a link to it?

[maisbitt]

As VW did a bluemotion version of the mark 6 2.0tdi then what is the point of comparing with the old non bluemotion version? And where is the 20% claim actually made? Is there a link to it?


VW made the claims in their MK7 brochures (the last time I looked at one was March 2013 when I was looking to order my GTD) - on the non-model specific pages when they talk about tech. On one page they talk about "up to 20% more fuel efficient" - I suppose it's in the "up to" that gets them off the hook, but they compare a MK6 without stop-start/brake energy recuperation etc bluemotion technologies with a MK7 that has it all as standard, and of course it is test conditions mpg and not real world mpg. Anyone with a MK6 bluemotion might've been able to hazard a guess that the mpg gains published weren't all they were cracked up to be when they themselves weren't seeing the big gains that the bluemotion tech implied they would. When I had my 170TDI Scirocco, I knew of people on forums doing far worse than my mpg with a 140TDI Scirocco Bluemotion. I was hopeful of seeing some gains with the MK7 because some VW literature didn't specifically tie the gains to bluemotion tech, more general engineering improvements - I'm sure low friction coatings to the engine internals were mentioned.

Either way, the only real gain has been saving £100 a year on my car tax courtesy of the official CO2 figures.

Comparing mpg between people with the same car is like comparing apples and oranges. Everyone drives theirs differently. Thinking ahead and good anticipation of other road users to use the engine to decelerate in good time rather than brake may mitigate hard acceleration losses (I consider that my style), some might accelerate gently and use anticipation to get exceptional mpg and some may do the exact opposite to get really low mpg. The only real equaliser is those on long motorway journeys on uncluttered roads where they can maintain a certain speed without the driving style taking its toll.

Do we have many mpg lemons (way lower than MK5/MK6 expectations), or is it the driving style/length of the journey/business of the roads the biggest factor for variance between owners? Going by my recent trip to Leeds, I'd say the MK7 GTD can just about edge out my Scirocco 170TDI on longer journeys, but is almost exactly the same around the doors for me. The MK7 seems quicker to drop mpg when driven hard, but is quicker to recover it when you ease up too. It seems far more sensitive to temp than previous VWs (takes much longer to warm up in the winter). Would you do any better for mpg in a BMW 120D/320D/A class 220CDI driven the same way? My 12 mile drive to work is completely uncluttered, travelling to work at 6:50am for 20 mins and leaving work for home at 15:30 makes for very light traffic compared to some. Someone else doing the same journey an hour later than me will probably see 40mpg rather than 48 due to the traffic. We rarely see the details like how heavy the traffic is (and some people's definition of light and heavy may not be the same as others).

[dickt]

I agree with maisbitt.
My Mk 5 GT Sport 170 tdi DSG gave me 45mpg. (After they had replaced all the injectors and the dpf stuff).

When I ordered my mk 7 150 DSG, in about Oct 2012, VW were using the "up to 20% improvement" marketing material, with none of the reservations that we now see.

I hoped for an average of 50 mpg. I have not changed, my journeys have not changed and my driving has not changed.

Guess what - after 15,000 miles in my new car I am on 42 mpg.

[SammoVWT]

From an engineers perspective, for every 10 engineers that say no - there will be a marketing person ignoring this overriding everyone and saying yes. Market pressure at the end of the day. These phrases sell and as soon as one company starts, the rest copy.

That 20% will be met with many many conditions by the engineers, but these facts are not important for Mr. Marketing.

[Bob_S]

The old figures where consumption was shown at a constant 56 and 75mph were much more realistic. It became apparent a long time ago that the new figures are meaningless and bear no relation to driving in real life conditions. If people honestly believe they could buy a car and achieve the same levels of economy then they need a reality check. The figures are on par with saying a car that was MOT'd six months ago is as roadworthy as it was on the day it was tested.

[pango1in]

Quick update on my MPG story.

The car went in for its second service at 19k miles a couple of weeks ago. Work to be done was the service, centre console rattle, brakes whining when cold (even without pressing the pedal) and the 45D4 ECU upgrade.

Interestingly, I don't know what the garage did, but my MPG has improved by 20%. I am not kidding. Before the service, the best I had ever achieved was 60mpg with a serious tail wind on a 90 minute journey. I drove like a vicar and was pushed along by the wind. Most of the time, I got around 50mpg on my trip to work (sometimes higher, sometimes lower, meh). After the service I noticed that I was getting higher mpg on my trip to work and going home. Up to 55-60mpg. The car also seemed to be using less diesel using the dynamic fuel economy MFD on routes I am well used to.

So on one trip on a dual carriage way I put the car in 6th and hit cruise control at 65mph. There was some traffic, so it wasn't entirely smooth driving, but I got 66mpg :confused:.

A couple of days later, I did a 45 minute dual carriage way with literally no stopping. This time at 70mph on the cruise control. The mpg was..... drum roll please.... 72mpg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeated this on a country route I am very familiar with at the weekend, and got over 70mpg.

I don't know what the garage did, but either it was the fixing of the brakes (which I think have been sticking since new) or the 45D4 ECU flash (which I thought was only for the electric handbrake on a TDI) that has remapped the ECU (??).

I am just amazed and confused. I hope this continues.

You can see how my MPG has jumped for the last fill up on Fuelly (which included my normal share of urban driving). My previous highs have all been very long motorway runs, e.g. the 55.8mpg run was mostly on the motorway and was my previous record at 60mpg for a long journey.

[dickt]

How I wish!!
Mine's on the long service approach, so altho it is over 15,000 now, it will not ask for a service for another 5,000 miles.

Still stuck on 42.
I wish I had your garage's magic wand!!

[Guest 2]

Get it off the longlife interval if you value your engine any little bit!

[FLIPKEY]

Had my golf mk7 nearly a year 2.0 tdi bluemotion, just been camping , took the golf with 3 adults and 1 child , all the camping gear for 1 week ," how we got it all in I dont know " . I filled the tank before we left , and achieved 600 miles to a full tank with about 20 mile range left. This was on A roads down to great yarmouth so you may know not the best roads for economy , I am sure that motorway driving would achieve more mileage , WELL CHUFFED. Oh and the car has been faultless.

[jv808]

I agree with maisbitt.
My Mk 5 GT Sport 170 tdi DSG gave me 45mpg. (After they had replaced all the injectors and the dpf stuff).

When I ordered my mk 7 150 DSG, in about Oct 2012, VW were using the "up to 20% improvement" marketing material, with none of the reservations that we now see.

I hoped for an average of 50 mpg. I have not changed, my journeys have not changed and my driving has not changed.

Guess what - after 15,000 miles in my new car I am on 42 mpg.


There must be something wrong on either the engine or factory mappings on your Mk 7 TDi 150. That's seriously under-performing (fuel economy wise).

I'm getting 60+ mpg on every commute. Mid-60's is a regular occurrence. It's proving to be 4 - 5mpg more fuel efficient than my old Mk6 TDi 140.

Washing my car this weekend and I noticed that there's virtually zero soot on the chrome exhaust surrounds compared to the Mk6.

[dickt]

jv
I agree that there is a problem, but neither my local garage nor VW customer services see any problem at all. They think it is "Normal".
Their procedures are that the car gets put on to the computer at the garage. The techie looks for any issues. They find none. They report to VW that there are no issues - which is simply that there are no fault codes, and VW tells me that my car is normal. 42 mpg is all I should expect.

For them, 42 mpg is "normal".

I have told them that it is worse than my 170 dti Mk 5, but they do not care. They do not want to investigate any further.
(Both my cars have DSG).

If i build up any energy to do something more about it, I might try a modern media campaign on Twitter and Facebook - possibly on their German sites as the Germans might tell the Brits to sort it.

[itavaltalainen]

@dickt

How do you drive it? What kind of distances etc?
If you only got 45mpg on the mk5 then I would not assume that you can get a lot more on a mk7, in particular because of active dpf regens...

I get 55mpg on average on my mk7 2.0 tdi estate (which has now 32k miles on it). I got down to average of 35mpg when I drove through Germany (averaging 95mph from Dutch to Danish border, testing top speed got up to 140mph according to sat nav - at that speed mpg is down to 20). On whole I managed to get up to 73mpg on individual trips, best mpg over a whole tank was 64mpg.

Just depends an awful lot on how you drive... 30 to 75mpg is possible...

[jv808]

jv
I agree that there is a problem, but neither my local garage nor VW customer services see any problem at all. They think it is "Normal".
Their procedures are that the car gets put on to the computer at the garage. The techie looks for any issues. They find none. They report to VW that there are no issues - which is simply that there are no fault codes, and VW tells me that my car is normal. 42 mpg is all I should expect.

For them, 42 mpg is "normal".

I have told them that it is worse than my 170 dti Mk 5, but they do not care. They do not want to investigate any further.
(Both my cars have DSG).

If i build up any energy to do something more about it, I might try a modern media campaign on Twitter and Facebook - possibly on their German sites as the Germans might tell the Brits to sort it.


I'm not over-egging or exaggerating the fuel economy on mine but just this afternoon after visiting relatives on a short 10-mile (in total) roundtrip, the MFD was displaying 63mpg which is what I would expect this time of year with the sunny weather and 21c (no air-con). The engine would barely have warmed up and it still returned an excellent mpg.

Perhaps your TDi is plagued by "first-adopter"/early customer model type problems from late 2012/early 2013. Maybe air flow is poor (faulty filters?) - 42mpg is no-where near normal unless you're 100% urban motoring. I would tell the dealer to get stuffed and complain further up the chain. Total outrage with VW UK. Inform them of other forum members' findings. It's more than a statistical rounding error when you're getting 20+ mpg less than me and it's an identical model.

Seriously, I've been getting 630 - 655 mile range per fill-up (approx. 49 litres) in the summertime. I always max it every 11 or 12 days and drive close to or at empty according to the range counter. Hardly varies, as reliable as a metronome. The only concession is that the fuel economy drops sharply in mid-winter by as much as 10mpg but you would expect that when it's -10c plus frost & snow.

[maisbitt]

^ I doubt airflow is a problem, diesel combusts with a massive excess of air present (for what the car needs to combust the fuel given completely), and you'd be getting DPF regens every 100 miles if it wasn't combusting the fuel as efficiently as it should.

With 13 months of driving my GTD i've concluded that unless I want to drive like a nun, a true 45mpg in the summer is all i'm going to get on a shortish journey. My commute is 13 miles each way on uncluttered roads. Fuel choice makes a big difference in my experience. Past VW TDIs have had a strong preference for Shell, not this one though. It gives the best performance on standard BP diesel and best mpg on Esso (my old TDIs used to hate Esso). When you're on a long run then the mpg can be exceptional. I got an actual 58mpg for a journey from Newcastle to Leeds (105 miles), doing 80mph all the way, with the aircon on. The MK7 2.0TDI seems very inefficient on short, varied journeys compared to the last one (170TDI Scirocco, which pretty much gave a solid 50mpg all the time).

I gave up chasing mpg last Easter and got myself a DTUK box - an extra 55ps and no mpg penalty (indicated mpg over-reads by 9%, but actuals stay the same). I've now gone one stage further in the "to hell with mpg" stakes and ordered a Golf R for next March - residuals are incredible on that thing (60% RRP on the GFV)mitigating it's high sticker price and some of the fuel costs, and there are some great broker deals on right now that I got my local dealership to match (realistic p/x on the GTD and 12% off the R). I'll only be getting 30mpg around the doors and 38 on the motorway, but it'll be a great drive.

[dickt]

I am in danger of repeating myself. My point is not about me or my driving style, or my routes, (both of which vary). My point is that a Mk5 170tdi DSG gave me 45 mpg. The much newer Mk 7 150tdi DSG with all it's eco rubbish, gives me an mpg which is about 10% less.
The DSG is a cause, but both cars had them.
Other than the mpg, and the lies about my "memory" seats, the car is fine.
The real source of annoyance is that VW have cheerfully been knowingly economical with the truth, and will do NOTHING about it.

[maisbitt]

Danger realised, and nothing new added above. In the early days of having your car you could have gone to trading standards as the car was bought without the disclaimers in place, you would have had strong grounds to reject the car (or get them to give you a sizeable discount/goodwill gesture), but then you'd have been stuck with another marque also bigging up their test run gains that aren't realised in real driving. I would have considered giving it a go, but shortly after ordering my GTD, VW did put out the **** covering statements and my dealership sent me a copy of the memo. I could've cancelled without charge.

50-55mpg is a realistic target for the 2.0TDI lump, now we're a bit wiser and VAG have some legal ****-covering statements in place. If you're driving normally on longer trips, or like a nun on the shorter ones. Some cars do vary (tolerances and running in differences - the latter likely to be more significant in this day and age of tightly controlled manufacturing tolerances), some people's driving habits vary (going to a lesser powered car might see you pushing the new one a little harder without realising it, probably not, but it's a possibility). The driving modes on the car are pretty much unfit for purpose - Sport is my most economical mode, Eco is a waste of time. My GTD behaves differently than the other 6 TDIs that came before it. They ran best on Shell, the GTD has a strong preference for Esso and BP, they ran about 5C warmer on the oil temp under all loads and the GTD takes longer to warm up - really hammering the short-end mpg of a trip (i'm sure this is to keep the NOx emissions down for Euro 6 compliance).

Looking forward to my R in March.

[dickt]

"really hammering the short-end mpg of a trip".
I suspect this is the key point. The frequent short trips that I make really hammer the mpg, and more so in the Mk7 than in the Mk 5. As the car has got older (now about 18000 miles) the possibility of mpg in the 50s on long motorway trips has come about, but it takes a couple of 200 mile trips to undo the damage that pottering about does to the mpg.

[Bob_S]

Danger realised, and nothing new added above. In the early days of having your car you could have gone to trading standards as the car was bought without the disclaimers in place, you would have had strong grounds to reject the car (or get them to give you a sizeable discount/goodwill gesture), but then you'd have been stuck with another marque also bigging up their test run gains that aren't realised in real driving. I would have considered giving it a go, but shortly after ordering my GTD, VW did put out the **** covering statements and my dealership sent me a copy of the memo. I could've cancelled without charge.



I'm amazed that people still expect to be able to get the same mpg as quoted in the official figures. The only way to do that is to drive in the precise way they do in the tests and over the same distances.