MPG issues ON NEW GOLF MK7 2.0TDI

[tom1111]

Hi all, am new to the forum and looking for your advise please.

I have just bought a new Mk7 Glf 2.0TDI 150BHP and am really pleased with it.
Only problem is im getting about 49MPG compared to the listed values of 68.9mpg combined.

I completely understand that the 68.9 is never obtainable in the real world, especially as im only about 1000 miles into the car, but 49mpg is no where near. The company i work for pay my mileage at 92% of the listed mpg, so about 62mpg, leaving me paying to drive my car for work meetings, which at the moment is about 600 miles a week!!

What makes it even more confusing is I drove a new scirroco 2.0TDI 140BHP towards the end of last year, this had a listed mpg of 62.9 and I got about 55mpg, much more realistic.

Has anyone else come across this problem on the new golf??? what would your advice/thoughts be??

I have spoken to the garage who delivered the car, they are claiming after testing it there's nothing wrong, although off the record told me they're having the same problem with lots of vw mk7's, to the extent the salesmen has given his back.
I've also placed a call with VW customer care who say they will investigate, but not feeling very confidant.

Any help, or thoughts/guidance would be appreciated...

[Eshrules]

What sort of speeds are you doing? (assume motorway commute given the mileage?)

Also, it is only 1k in, some engines can take a while to bed in and reach their optimum efficiency so I wouldn't panic just yet.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[tom1111]

Thanks for your reply Eshrules.
As you say i'm doing lots of motorway miles, on average about 75mph.
I tried putting it into Eco mode and sitting at 70mh, i.e. more realistic to what the test would be, and it reached 51mpg.....

[Eshrules]

Thanks for your reply Eshrules.
As you say i'm doing lots of motorway miles, on average about 75mph.
I tried putting it into Eco mode and sitting at 70mh, i.e. more realistic to what the test would be, and it reached 51mpg.....

What I would suggest, as a decent comparison is a tank on your normal driving style, use the fuel used/mileage covered to calculate your mpg and repeat for a more economical driving style, keeping your speed closer to 60 than 70 and observing the usual fuel saving saving techniques.

If your mpg doesn't improve significantly with the latter, even allowing for bedding in, I would suggest either something is amiss or the figures being touted are more inaccurate than usual, which wouldn't be a surprise given a recent news piece I read regards vehicle manufacturers increasingly extreme testing procedures.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[DaveB666]

Thanks for your reply Eshrules.
As you say i'm doing lots of motorway miles, on average about 75mph.
I tried putting it into Eco mode and sitting at 70mh, i.e. more realistic to what the test would be, and it reached 51mpg.....

Using cruise control by any chance? I did a 500mile round trip from Leeds to south London and back on Monday. Car had 30miles on he clock when I set off. Obv combined city/motorway driving. No cruise control and average motorway speed of 78mph. I averaged 58mpg from start to finish. Cruise control is not the most fuel efficient way to drive any car. Using your right foot is.

[tom1111]

Using cruise control by any chance? I did a 500mile round trip from Leeds to south London and back on Monday. Car had 30miles on he clock when I set off. Obv combined city/motorway driving. No cruise control and average motorway speed of 78mph. I averaged 58mpg from start to finish. Cruise control is not the most fuel efficient way to drive any car. Using your right foot is.

Hi Dave, if only I was using cruise control. Unfortunately that's broken and the garage are having to take the car back in for a second time when the technician who is trained on this new ACC is available in couple of weeks.
The 58mpg seems far more realistic to what i was expecting/need to get to if im not gonna go broke driving for work, out of interest was the golf you drove the 150bhp version???

[tom1111]

Thanks Nexus, will try this out next week and see what it does, generally i think i drive fairly economically, but as you say i'll then know if its my driving style or the car itself and can then prove to VW....
problem long run is its not realistic for me to drive in my job at 60mph, so not sure what to do....

[algarve]

OP

I suppose the real issue in your circumstances is how much your company pay you for each of the actual 62 miles they calculate on .
Its early days yet mileage wise so I expect my 48-55 mpg (varied driving) to improve gradually as the car beds in.
From my experience of VW diesels they get better & better MPG wise and I have always managed to get ' official combined ' mpg once properly run in. I am talking 10 to 15k miles...

[tom1111]

OP

I suppose the real issue in your circumstances is how much your company pay you for each of the actual 62 miles they calculate on .
Its early days yet mileage wise so I expect my 48-55 mpg (varied driving) to improve gradually as the car beds in.
From my experience of VW diesels they get better & better MPG wise and I have always managed to get ' official combined ' mpg once properly run in. I am talking 10 to 15k miles...

In terms of losing money on business miles think your completely right algarve.
Any other company ive worked for before have paid at the revenue approved rates, which for this car would be 15 pence per mile.
This company use a calculation of 92% of listed combined mpg, and then use the AA average uk fuel price rates, which for Feb meant it worked out at 10.38p per mile, when it cost me about 14.5 pence per mile.....

Really hoping as you say it is a bedding in issue.. that said it gonna's cost me a lot of money to find out if its good once it reaches 10 to 15k miles

anyone know if I can return the car to vw on the basis of of this mpg issue??? as think in this instance choosing an economical bluemotion vehicle may not be the right idea, might be better off with a car that's more likely to perform closer to its listed mpg,
if VW would take it back that is....

[Guest 2]

i seriously doubt vw would take it back, especially as it hasn't been fully run-in yet.

[Pommyboi]

I've got a few thousand more miles on my car than the OP but have had the same results. As you see from my fuelly.com account the overall average so far is about 51 mpg. However this week I got 57mpg on a trip to Birmingham and but only 51 on the way back, I tend to use the cruise control in Eco mode now it works so well.

I understand where you are coming from if you only get a set payment per mile from work it's galling waiting to get X thousand miles under your belt before the MPG improves - I'm in the same position.

The other problem, even if you could change the car, is how would you identify a car which did very close to it's advertised MPG? A report out last week said the difference between advertised MPG and real MPG is getting worse, around 25% difference.

[Igloo]

I found a 8mpg difference with my a6 by being a few degrees warmer.

Wait a bit, but start talking to your dealer so they're aware of the issue.

It's all due to trying to be the greenest. There is no set test for mpg.

[dickt]

Tom,
I have the same car. I've done about 500 miles, not much motorway driving, including 2 awful 30 plus mins traffic jams, which really bugger the mpg. My total indicated mpg is about 38. I expect it to go up after about 2,000 miles.

If it doesn't hit about 50, I will take it in for a full check.

Make sure you get their best technician to look after your car. I once had a Merc that was too clever for all the technicians at one Merc dealer...........another dealer fixed the issues.

However, in my Mk 5 170bhp 2.0tdi, my mpg was held back by faulty injectors. VW had apparently, a dodgy batch. When these were replaced, the mpg went up to 45mpg in (very) mixed driving.

[maisbitt]

My 170 TDI Scirocco is supposed to do 55mpg combined and I can surpass this on long motorway journeys doing an indicated 75mpg. I'm assuming that there is some standardisation on economy testing - specifically the test that assigns a CO2 measurement for car tax purposes, otherwise all the manufacturers would be fiddling it under 100g/km. MK7 Golf CO2 ratings are significantly lower than those for current Roc so MK7 Golf TDIs should be a lot better in the mpg than my scirocco. Don't underestimate the effect that ambient temp has on mpg - a cold morning can hammer the economy. I didn't notice my mpg improve appreciably from 0 to 18k miles, but response/output has. The 170 TDI CR feels very "tight" when new compared with the 140 TDI CR - not sure whether the new 150 is more like the 140 or the 170 unit in that respect.

The way you run the car in has a big effect. I bought a MK5 Golf TDI and immediately drove it 300 miles stuck in 6th doing 70mpg on the motorway from Preson to Southampton. As a result the car was quite sluggish, with poor mpg and high oil consumption. Every other TDI VW i've had from new (5 of them) was run in on relatively short and varied journeys, not taking it over 3000 rpm for the first 1000 miles and they've been more powerful as a result, better with the mpg and also not using a drop of oil between services (vs a litre per 1000 miles on the one-off VW ran in on motorway miles). Looking to get a GTD MK7 on Sep plate or maybe March next year.

[dickt]

maisbitt. I agree about running in a car. Your experience shows the risk of not doing so. As ever, though, hundreds of things contribute to perceived power and mpg. A really good technician with the updated software is worth using for every query.

[tom1111]

thanks all for your replies,

unfortunately it would appear I may have run the car in badly as its first journey was the dealer driving it down from slough (motorway) and then me unfortunately having to take it straight onto the motorway for work, where its pretty much sat ever since.....

weirdly since they brought it back from the garage on friday, having done the initial fuel tests, the mpg seems to have got slightly worse, only got about 45mpg over the weekend (mix of motorway and london driving).... thou this could back up the idea that temperature drop means worse mpg.....

hopefully having taken it up with vw customer care, the technician they get to look at it should be good (probable blind faith!!!),
but what you've all helped me establish is i'm very unlikely to be seeing anywhere near 62mpg for quite some time...

[maisbitt]

I meant to say an indicated 75mph not mpg - I have had 61mpg ave for a 300 mile journey in the middle of summer with the aircon on maintaining 18C the whole way down from Newcastle to Southampton at 75mph.I'm sorry to say that if that Golf is "badly run-in" you won't get much mpg improvement over it's life except that which is attributable to seasonal gains in warmer weather. At the moment I average 50mpg on my 11 mile commute to work on mixed roads and it's about 2C when I go to work.

[Igloo]

Cars now adays don't need a running in period, not really.

I've had 3 golfs mk6 from new. First thing I did was do a 120 mile trip home on the motorway from the office in Manchester.

I always got 55-57 out of the original blue motion 1.6 and about 52 out of the 2.0 5 speed.

I would keep running it. It's a tight new engine. Give it chance to loosen up. See what it does when the weather hits 10-12oC and check its improvement.

[DaveB666]

tom111; I've another trip to South London again tomorrow, I expect the slightly lower temperatures than last time will affect the MPG. Anything <10degs will mean your MPG is lower.

In regards to running in, my Mk7 had seen over 110mph and been revved up to 5k with less than 100 miles on it - as with my mk6 which was trouble-free for the 60,000 miles I had it. It's a car, if it breaks then VW will fix it as it is under-warranty for the considerable near future.

[DaveB666]

Hi Tom, done my trip down-south today.

Huddersfield to South London(Brixton) and back. Just over 410miles round-trip. On the way down I did 85-90mph up until the M25 and then it was constant stop-start traffic for 30miles (and 70minutes). I averaged 51mpg.

On the way back I had much of the same stop-start for 30miles and then did 75-80mph on the way back and averaged 54mpg.

The temperature never went above 2deg all the time I was driving, and at the start of the journey (4am) and the end (6pm) the temperature reached -2.5deg.

Car was in 'ECO' and no ACC was used at anytime. I'm more than confident 60mpg+ is easily achieveable once the temperature rises to 10deg+

Hope this helps Tom,

[maisbitt]

Sounds like Dave's car was nicely run in during the first few hours of service to get that kind of economy - especially given the speeds averaged on the way down. If Dave had stuck to 75mph all the way there and back i'm sure he'd have cracked 57mpg even in this current weather. That's the kind of economy my Scirocco is capable of on a long motorway journey and it doesn't have any bluemotion tech on it at all. A few weeks ago I did an 80 mile round trip down the A19 between Newcastle and Hartlepool on mainly uncluttered A roads and got 58mpg for the trip in +2C temperatures.

Are VW cars really that variable in their manufacture or is it all down to the way they've been run in? My past experiences would suggest running in is the biggest factor, and if that's correct I fear that Tom's car may never achieve the kind of economy myself and Dave are seeing, although it will improve with higher temps.

[dickt]

I've only done just over 600 miles, and the overall reading is 38.2 mpg. However, it has all been shortish local trips. Yesterday it went up to 45 mpg on a 35 mile trip. Once the engine is warm, and once the weather improves, if I do not get over 50 I will be upset!.

[maisbitt]

@dickt: My first trip in my new Scirocco 170TDI from Pulman Sunderland to my home in North Shields (17 miles, avoiding the Tyne tunnel) resulted in a 54mpg ave trip (In June admittedly - better weather). It was always around the 50mpg mark from day one. Although I do not have the bluemotion tech, I don't think my economy would improve much by having it, i'm rarely stuck in static traffic on my commute.

The economy has never improved in leaps and bounds as the miles have gone on, although the power has. My driving style is quite economical even though I put my foot down. I accelerate relatively hard, but on approach to a roundabout/junction etc I do let the car decelerate a lot of the way on it's own rather than speed towards roundabouts and jam the anchors on. You should not be struggling to average 40mpg on a trip greater than 5 miles in a TDI even a new one in this weather we've been having. I have had economy issues on a previous Golf, but that was directly related to the DPF on a 170TDI PD MK5 GT Sport, the only model at that time with a DPF and there were a lot of troubles with the new tech that it was at the time. Keep an eye out and if your DPF is playing up (constantly on regen/burn-off mode) then you might have a cause there.

[DaveB666]

I've only done just over 600 miles, and the overall reading is 38.2 mpg. However, it has all been shortish local trips. Yesterday it went up to 45 mpg on a 35 mile trip. Once the engine is warm, and once the weather improves, if I do not get over 50 I will be upset!.

are you in 'ECO' dickt? If not, you're probably loosing 5/6mpg at least. I leave mine in ECO, and use 'Sport' if I want some entertainment.

[cdgthreesalmons]

This will be my first diesel engine (2.0tdi) and I am interested in the various replies regarding "running in". Maisbitt suggests under 3000rpm to run in, DaveB666 has taken his upto 5000rpm/110mph - so which is best?????

Hard driving to loosen up the engine, or gentle driving to let the engine settle??????

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[DaveB666]

I may have 'run the engine in' differently if I had been spending my own money it. However, it's a company car. If the car breaks in the first 3 years/60,000miles VW will cover it, after that I may have a new one, or my employer will foot the bill.

I just know that on my mk5 golf I did 100,000miles in 5 years and it never put a foot wrong. My mk6 did 60,000miles in 3 years and, prior to it being replaced by the mk7, suffered from a broken EGR cooler (replaced under warranty). The EGR cooler faults seem to be a new common problem on the mk6's so that can't be associated with the manner I ran the car in on.

My advice would be to drive as you would normally - if you normally pootle about and never go above 3,500rpm then so be it. If however you drive hard, then do drive hard.

Car ticked over 1,100 miles today. (got it 2 weeks ago). Runs beautifully and I'm enjoying driving it more and more.

[dickt]

maisbitt and DaveB
Thanks
(I'm only on 630 miles)
For first 400 miles I did not use Eco. I switched at about 400 miles.
So far the car has never been anywhere near 50mpg in any circumstances.
My Mk 5 170 did 45mpg with ease, but only after VW replaced all the injectors, and, as you say, fixed the DPF issues. No DPF issues with this 7. .
I'll be doing a few miles at the weekend, and will check again then.

[maisbitt]

This will be my first diesel engine (2.0tdi) and I am interested in the various replies regarding "running in". Maisbitt suggests under 3000rpm to run in, DaveB666 has taken his upto 5000rpm/110mph - so which is best?????

Hard driving to loosen up the engine, or gentle driving to let the engine settle??????

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

In my personal experience I haven't thrashed it from day one, but variation is definitely the key in the first few hundred miles - don't let it sit in 6th doing 70mph on the motorway while it's bedding in - lots of shortish journeys (<30 miles) with plenty of scope for changing speed and getting through the gears. Acceleration with maybe 2/3 throttle once the oil temp is normal, and i've had the occasional lapse into 4000rpm territory. I would say "mild thrashing" is probably better for the car than driving it like you're driving miss Daisy.

The above is what worked well for me in 5 of my 6 VW TDIs I have owned (1 x 1.4 3-cyl; 1 x 140TDI PD; 1 x 170TDI PD; 2 x 140TDI CR; 1 x 170TDI CR) - the one with motorway miles (140TDI CR) run in was a bit of a dog with it's thirst for oil low economy and relatively low power.

[dickt]

cdg.
I'm on my 3rd VW 2.0tdi. A 170 in a Passat, a 170 in a Mk 5 Golf, and now the 150 in a Mk 7 Golf. I would simply echo what mais has said about "Variation". Vary speeds, gears, conditions, road types for about 1,000 miles.
Some dealers say you do not have to do this anymore. I disagree, but have no "science" to prove my opinion.
Some engineers still advocate changing the oil after 1000 miles............due to bits and pieces getting in to the oil in the settling in period. I have no opinion about that idea, and I have not done it.

[Pommyboi]

are you in 'ECO' dickt? If not, you're probably loosing 5/6mpg at least. I leave mine in ECO, and use 'Sport' if I want some entertainment.

how did you reach the conclusion of loosing 5/6 mpg? I have it is Normal or Sport as Eco mode made the engine unresponsive and sluggish even on the motorway. On my trip back from Sheffield today I was wondering how I could possibly measure the MPG difference between the different modes to see if it is worth sticking with Eco. I do have the cruise control in Eco but that's it.

I managed 58mpg over 2 hrs of motorway driving at 70mph.

[newowner2tdi]

Hi all, am new to the forum and looking for your advise please.

I have just bought a new Mk7 Glf 2.0TDI 150BHP and am really pleased with it.
Only problem is im getting about 49MPG compared to the listed values of 68.9mpg combined.

I completely understand that the 68.9 is never obtainable in the real world, especially as im only about 1000 miles into the car, but 49mpg is no where near. The company i work for pay my mileage at 92% of the listed mpg, so about 62mpg, leaving me paying to drive my car for work meetings, which at the moment is about 600 miles a week!!

What makes it even more confusing is I drove a new scirroco 2.0TDI 140BHP towards the end of last year, this had a listed mpg of 62.9 and I got about 55mpg, much more realistic.

Has anyone else come across this problem on the new golf??? what would your advice/thoughts be??

I have spoken to the garage who delivered the car, they are claiming after testing it there's nothing wrong, although off the record told me they're having the same problem with lots of vw mk7's, to the extent the salesmen has given his back.
I've also placed a call with VW customer care who say they will investigate, but not feeling very confidant.

Any help, or thoughts/guidance would be appreciated...

I have exactly the same issue with the same model (Mk7 2.0TDI 150BHP). Motorway driving at approx 70mph is delivering a very poor 48-50mpg. Previously I had the 2010 Golf Mk6 2.0TDI 140BHP in which i was getting approx 10mpg better fuel economy (in similar winter conditions).

As well as the issue with the poor fuel consumption, I am also massively disappointed with the power/torque on the new engine. The majority of reviews have raved about the new engine with it's fantastic torque at low revs. I find the complete opposite, particularly at 60-70mph range in 5th or 6th, where I almost have to floor the accelerator to get anything out of it! Note, I'm a Mr economy driver and not a 'boy racer' so my expectations around acceleration are at pretty conservative!

Thought there was something wrong with the car so took it back to the dealer to check it. They said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the power or consumption. They did say, however, that a number of other mk 7 owners had brought cars back complaining about poor consumption. All were dismissed with 'it's winter, so you'd expect it to be low'

To say that I am disappointed with the new Mk7 is an understatement. I've swapped a 2010 model for a 2013 model which has worse performance and worse consumption. All at a cost of £25k!

[Pommyboi]

The majority of reviews have raved about the new engine with it's fantastic torque at low revs. I find the complete opposite, particularly at 60-70mph range in 5th or 6th, where I almost have to floor the accelerator to get anything out of it! Note, I'm a Mr economy driver and not a 'boy racer' so my expectations around acceleration are at pretty conservative!

My car is only like that when I have it in Eco mode.

I had a Mk5 and A3 with the 2.0 tdi engines and I'm sure they were only getting late 40's mpg on average, I'm finding the Golf MK7 gives better MPG after 4000 miles and particularly when it's a milder temperature. At the start I was also disappointed but now I'm hopeful it will continue to improve.

[newowner2tdi]

Thanks Pommyboi. Until recently, I was getting 55-58mpg on motorways on old golf mk6 2.0 TDI. Given new model is supposed to be about 14% more efficient (78.5mpg compared to 68.9 on 'extra' vw official fuel figures) it just seems crazy that it's far worse. New golf has just clocked 1000 miles so I'm hoping for some improvement but even with milder conditions and longer run in time I can't see it jumping my more than 5 or 6 mpg. What are you currently getting on motorways?

[Pommyboi]

Thanks Pommyboi. Until recently, I was getting 55-58mpg on motorways on old golf mk6 2.0 TDI. Given new model is supposed to be about 14% more efficient (78.5mpg compared to 68.9 on 'extra' vw official fuel figures) it just seems crazy that it's far worse. New golf has just clocked 1000 miles so I'm hoping for some improvement but even with milder conditions and longer run in time I can't see it jumping my more than 5 or 6 mpg. What are you currently getting on motorways?

But how many miles were on your MK6 and what did you get when it was first being ran in? There was a report out two weeks ago (links somewhere on the forum or this thread) showing the gap between the real world MPG and advertised MPG is growing, now something like 25% on average.

I am getting an average of 52 mpg over all but this week it went up to 58 mpg on the whole trip back from Sheffield to home, 2 hrs on the M1 with cruise control in Eco and the engine in Normal or Sport mode. Nice steady traffic all the way back.

[algarve]

But how many miles were on your MK6 and what did you get when it was first being ran in? There was a report out two weeks ago (links somewhere on the forum or this thread) showing the gap between the real world MPG and advertised MPG is growing, now something like 25% on average.

I am getting an average of 52 mpg over all but this week it went up to 58 mpg on the whole trip back from Sheffield to home, 2 hrs on the M1 with cruise control in Eco and the engine in Normal or Sport mode. Nice steady traffic all the way back.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said how many miles on your mk6 and what did you get when it was first being run in.
In my experience of VW diesels it takes a fair mileage for them to run in (10K+) before you start to enjoy book mpg.
I do doubt the figures of 68+mpg being achieved in the real world by the average driver though.
Perhaps we'll all be proved wrong once they are properly run in.

[newowner2tdi]

But how many miles were on your MK6 and what did you get when it was first being ran in? There was a report out two weeks ago (links somewhere on the forum or this thread) showing the gap between the real world MPG and advertised MPG is growing, now something like 25% on average.

I am getting an average of 52 mpg over all but this week it went up to 58 mpg on the whole trip back from Sheffield to home, 2 hrs on the M1 with cruise control in Eco and the engine in Normal or Sport mode. Nice steady traffic all the way back.


45k on mk6 but mpg changed little over the life of the car (other than seasonal). Re: 25% gap - I've currently got a 37% gap. I can only dream of 25% gaps!

The power/torque issue is the other big problem I have. How do you find the acceleration in 6th from 65+?

[dickt]

In a 7/tdi/150/dsg, I'm now on about 750 miles, and getting even 50 mpg looks to be unlikely. Deliberately set up a 10 mile run on a warm engine yesterday, in eco with cruise set at 50 mph, and aircon off, and only got 48mpg. Since new, only got 38.
If this carries on, it's on the phone to VW and take the car in for a check up.

[maisbitt]

The stories on here are crazy for fuel economy on the MK7 GT. my 170TDI Scirocco has no Bluemotion tech and is driven on mixed roads moderately hard and it is difficult to do less than 48mpg in it even in current temperatures. I have just done a round trip today from North shields to Newcastle to Sunderland, then after a few hours shopping, onto the metrocentre and back to North Shields (about 40 miles all in) and averaged 53mpg, doing 80mph on the dual carriageway stretches and 30 to 40mph everywhere else due to the abundance of speed cameras on those roads. My car has never really improved in it's economy from day 1, it has just grown in power (which probably makes me drive it faster, negating any economy gains that might have been experienced).

I wonder whether these published economy claims are due to a completely different consumption profile whereby there is a bigger penalty for putting your foot down than on previous incarnations of the 2.0TDI? I noticed in the old PD engines that economy never suffered at all when you put your foot down - no matter how you drove it the economy didn't vary by much and with the CR versions I have had more recently there is definitely more of a consumption penalty for putting your foot down. I wish I could help you's out now, but it will be interesting to see what my forthcoming GTD manages to achieve in comparison with the 150TDI GT.

If the economy you are getting is more to do with how it was run in than a traceable fault then VW won't do anything for you. If this poor economy is widespread amongst enough owners then expect a firmware update for VW to remedy the issue. Maybe it would be handy to check out a German VW forum to ask the question what they're getting out of their cars.

I have never found it hard to achieve published combined cycle economy figures on a mid to long journey in current or previous VW TDIs but if everyone here is struggling to get within 20% of it even driving conservatively then something is wrong with the car or VW are going to extraordinary extremes on their test cars to achieve these figures which tally with the published CO2 levels.

[maisbitt]

I wonder whether by far the thirstiest cars here are DSGs or those who rely heavily on the cruise control. Cruise control is not an economical way of driving, even less so on busy roads. The new gap maintaining cruise control is probably much thirstier than traditional CC if it is constantly braking a little for you when the system desired gap shortens between you and the car in front.

[newowner2tdi]

I wonder whether by far the thirstiest cars here are DSGs or those who rely heavily on the cruise control. Cruise control is not an economical way of driving, even less so on busy roads. The new gap maintaining cruise control is probably much thirstier than traditional CC if it is constantly braking a little for you when the system desired gap shortens between you and the car in front.

Can't answer for others but mine not DSG. However, I am using Adaptive Cruise Control. Agree that this could be thirstier so will turn off and give it a go and report back.

[newowner2tdi]

After a trip from the Lake District to Newcastle (mix of motorway and decent A roads with limited traffic) today, I noticed that even the slightest incline causes the consumption to drop significantly. E.g. on motorway with slight incline I was getting around 28-30mpg at 70mph in 6th gear. Overall mpg on this trip was a whopping 47mpg driving as economically as I could. Used to get over 60mpg on this run in the old Golf Mk6 2.0TDI. And the acceleration at 65mph plus in 6th is still non-existant.

[algarve]

After a trip from the Lake District to Newcastle (mix of motorway and decent A roads with limited traffic) today, I noticed that even the slightest incline causes the consumption to drop significantly. E.g. on motorway with slight incline I was getting around 28-30mpg at 70mph in 6th gear. Overall mpg on this trip was a whopping 47mpg driving as economically as I could. Used to get over 60mpg on this run in the old Golf Mk6 2.0TDI. And the acceleration at 65mph plus in 6th is still non-existant.
That bit sounds as if something is not right with your car re non existent acceleration.
I would not read too much into instantaneous fuel consumption read outs especially under load ie inclines.
Don't be offended but your speed limiter isn't set on at all ?

[newowner2tdi]

That bit sounds as if something is not right with your car re non existent acceleration.
I would not read too much into instantaneous fuel consumption read outs especially under load ie inclines.
Don't be offended but your speed limiter isn't set on at all ?

:) If only it was the speed limiter. When I say 'non existant' i mean v poor. I'm comparing against my old mk6 2.0tdi where a touch on the pedal would take it from 60-75 in no time.

[vc-10]

Let the poor car run in first. Expecting it to run nicely having done 1500 miles is like expecting you to run a marathon with no problems when you can only just about manage a trip round the park. Let it run in, if it's still a problem when it's done 10k then there's an issue.

Although I'm quite sure that VW are just as bad as everyone else about fiddling the CO2 figures.

[maisbitt]

Let the poor car run in first. Expecting it to run nicely having done 1500 miles is like expecting you to run a marathon with no problems when you can only just about manage a trip round the park. Let it run in, if it's still a problem when it's done 10k then there's an issue.

Although I'm quite sure that VW are just as bad as everyone else about fiddling the CO2 figures.

I think at 1500 miles on the car it should be within 10% of what would be expected at 20k miles in terms of fuel economy and power. Perhaps with all the gadgetry on the new vehicle, if it's all on it could be hammering the economy, but not to the point where it could be sapping 10% of output (imagine how much heat you could output in your house with 15KWh!) Usually aircon is the biggest culprit but I doubt anyone is using that to cool their car further in the current climate. With the tech on there I do think the new cruise control system has the most potential to ruin fuel economy if the engine is doing everything it should be. I would expect that if the car is running "rich" that the DPF regen will be working overtime - anyone experience this? This happened on my MK5 Golf GT Sport TDI170 - the first TDI with DPF technology. The economy was poor and DPF regen was happening on a daily basis. The engine was checked over for leaking injectors, nothing was found, but they found a slight burr in the cylinder head which they thought might be responsible. A week after replacing the cylinder head and the DPF was choked up again so no fix. After further enquiries for technical support to VW headquarters, a bulletin from VW Germany prompted an engine management firmware update and the problem was solved. My economy wasn't drastically low, it was more about the full DPF that prompted my concerns.

Another possibility is the "wipe dry" brakes. This has been standard for a while on the Passat (and presumably the Golf) whereby the brakes are gently applied at regular intervals to wipe the discs - maybe they're on a little harder or longer than is required, or maybe the new electronic handbrake isn't fully disengaging? How quickly does your Golf decelerate with no throttle, more so than your last Golf TDI? If so then it could be the brakes partially sticking on.

[Neil Ramsay]

I've done 2067 miles in a 2.0TDI DSG over the last two months.

5 brim to brim fill ups, average overall is 49.0 MPG, best 49.5 MPG. My impression is that it's the urban that is pulling it down as I can average mid 50's with motorway driving only to see it fall back with a couple of days of just driving to the station and back.

Car is in ECO mode and I never use cruise.

Just swapped for another new Golf last Friday, so will report back once it's had a couple of fill ups.

[vc-10]

The wipe dry brakes would certainly have some kind of impact. The rest of the gadgetry (ACC excepted) shouldn't have any change- the electrical load on an engine isn't a huge amount, and any increase should be well offset by the introduction of regenerative braking as standard fit. I doubt that the new infotainment system uses any more energy than the old system (maybe a bit more because of the larger screen), and there's little else that could use more power other than the cruise control, which is more an issue by the way that those systems accelerate and decelerate all the time.

The new car is a lot lighter than the previous model, and this will have a positive effect- that's just physics. The aerodynamics are also supposedly improved, which will do likewise. It's quite possible that the software will be changed for the better (and hopefully so), but modern engines are made to ever improving tolerances, so I'd suggest letting these parts bed in before slamming the new model.

All those complaining about getting around 50mpg though- my dad had a 12-plate 1.6 Focus TDCI for a bit as a temporary company car before his BMW was ready, and he never got it over 50mpg (mostly around 45), despite the fact that it had done a fair number of miles (around 6k when he got it, 10k by the time he gave it back) and had a smaller, supposedly more efficient, engine. And he drives more for efficiency than thrills...

[maisbitt]

With the cars built to ever improving tolerances they should need less running in, not more. They should also be less variable in their economy and output between individual units. Miles on a modern VAG TDI don't improve the economy by much. For those with a fuel economy issue now, they will probably still have it in 10k miles time. The only thing I would wait for to see an improvement is the weather. If your car isn't getting within 10% of quoted figures in the summer on any journey over 10 miles that is on open roads then something is wrong. My current car does and always has exceeded the published combined figure for a 30 mile journey on dual carriageways doing 80mph on uncluttered roads in the summer and is just under combined figure in the winter - right from day one of new ownership). Perhaps the new unit is very sensitive to colder temperatures in terms of economy? With no improvement in the engine at all the new GT fuel economy should be benefitting from the 100kg saving of the new platform and enhanced aerodynamics. ADC does seem to be the one driver aid with the most potential to wreck economy if it is putting the brakes on ofter to maintain distance from the car in front (excluding anything not working correctly such as handbrake partially on etc).

[ajmoir36]

I think you are forgetting that temperatures are still at 0 degrees first thing in the morning that will impact fuel economy more than anything. Also turn of the heater and aircon to start with, let the car warm up.

[maisbitt]

Temp was 2C for me coming into work this morning in my 170TDI Scirocco. 12 miles commute consists of 1.5 miles doing 30-35mph on urban roads, then onto a dual carriageway and staright up to 80 for 5 miles, then back down on urban roads doing 30-40mph for the rest of it. The Roc did 50.4mpg for the trip, and even when new would have got close to this in the winter. So in the winter I can get within 10% of combined (55mpg) on a relatively short journey, without driving like a nun. For a car that is supposed to do 69/63mpg (manual/DSG), I would be expecting at least 55mpg in the winter on a brand new manual Golf 7 150TDI if your commute is at least as long as mine and you're not stuck in snarled up traffic. I'm not sure what it is with the DSGs on this generation of Golf, but the MK7 seems to have a bigger gap between manual and DSG for CO2 and economy official figures than older VWs, there definitely seems to be a bigger penalty for not buying manual on the MK7.

As ajmoir says, I get my car up to temp as quick as possible by not putting the heating on until the car's water temp is normal (oil temp normally lags about 20C behind water temp whilst getting to temperature).

[Ceber]

Checked my consumption tonight after 262 miles, with journeys between 10 and40 miles= 46mpg. 2.0 gt tdi. One of the main attractions for me was the mpg figures so a bit dissappionted at the moment but weather does make a difference.

[Li_Greeny]

Might throw my two pence in here.

I have the same 2.0L Diesel and I have a variety of driving routes. The car is at 1300 miles and the MPG has varied somewhat depending on my driving distance and condition however I have noticed something around 55 mpg on the motorway but about 45 mpg through town driving.

I wouldn't say I particularly let the car bed in, I suppose I should have, but I just drove how I normally would have. I have noticed that the ACC on the motorway, compared to my own driving isn't as great it just cant pre-empt enough going on.The figures listed are from the trip computer which I don't always trust, compared to what goes in the tank and how far you get.

[maisbitt]

I do wonder whether the ADC is doing a lot of braking to maintain distance between you and the car in front (perhaps it is quite subtle and going un-noticed), killing the mpg?

@Li_Greeny: The computer on my last 5 VWs has over-read by about 6% in terms of mpg e.g. 50mpg indicated is more like 47mpg actual. I tend to run my tank low and fill it right up then measure the actual mpg.

[Dolmen]

Just wondering where folks are buying their diesel? I've found that buying premium diesel over supermarket diesel gives at least 4-5 mpg more in our present car... I'm sure it plays a huge part in all this!

[maisbitt]

I always aim to buy Shell or BP when there isn't a massive price differential for doing so. Esso always seem to make my TDI run poorly in terms of response but without any detrimental effects on the mpg. Shell Optimax is a massive waste of money for diesels, unlike the petrol equivalent the diesel isn't any more potent than standard Shell diesel, but it is a bit cleaner having been synthesised from natural gas rather than refined from oil.

[DaveB666]

Just wondering where folks are buying their diesel? I've found that buying premium diesel over supermarket diesel gives at least 4-5 mpg more in our present car... I'm sure it plays a huge part in all this!

Mine's always run on supermarket sludge :D

As a side-note, on my first months fuel return the overall mpg was 51.7 start to finish - my local driving over the last week reduced it from a possible 54.5mpg - both of which I'm happy with.


Yesterday I had an amazing drive from Wakefield to Huddersfield over the 'country' roads, stayed in sport the entire time. Did 14 miles and achieved 33mpg :biglaugh:

[algarve]

Just wondering where folks are buying their diesel? I've found that buying premium diesel over supermarket diesel gives at least 4-5 mpg more in our present car... I'm sure it plays a huge part in all this!

Run mine on 'Shell Regular Diesel' try not to use 'supermarket sludge' because its my own car and I'm particular on what I feed it. lol

Hadn't bothered to try 'Driving Modes' until recently when I set ECO mode .
I was really surprised how frequent 'Coasting' was enabled with the engine on idle over a mixed route of 65 miles.

[Pommyboi]

It's not going to help anyone improve their fuel economy but this is at least a step in the right direction: http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/asa-rules-on-misleading-fuel-figures/265695?utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=WCAR%20ENews%20Bulletin%20%2808.04.20 13%29%20B&utm_content=article2a_headline

[dickt]

Extremely disappointed with my mpg in a gt 2.0tdi.
I've now done 1000 miles. Mainly local, little on motorways. 400m using "normal" and 600m using eco. I have a very light right foot.

39 mpg from new. Latest reading from a trip 43 mpg.

Best ever trip was 45mpg.

I've never got anywhere near 50 mpg.

My old Mk 5 170 gtd did 45 mpg easily, (once VW had sorted the dpf and put in new injectors) without any of this eco nonsense.

Seems to me there are lies, damn lies, and manufacturer's mpg claims.
I'll keep an eye on it for the next couple of hundred miles, and then it is off to the garage for a full check up.

[Dolmen]

Just as a trial could folks say what brand of fuel they use in their posts so we may establish if buying a premium brand vs supermarket diesel is playing any part in the poor fuel economy. There's going to be a big difference in driving styles, and journey types, though it should average out across the board.
Fuel would be the next big variable, Tia. Just an idea if you're up for it.

[maisbitt]

@dickt: I would say that the tall mpg claims must have an element of truth in them to attain such low CO2 levels for taxation purposes, the kind of CO2 figs quoted do correlate with the claimed mpg. The question is just how are they achieving them officially when customers are getting nowhere near them. Maybe it's time to do a trial run with absolutely no ADC or cruise control aids on at all, maybe knock off the stop-start also and pretty much just run the car with only the radio (and lights when required) on to see if that brings the mpg values up a bit?

[Pommyboi]

@dickt: I would say that the tall mpg claims must have an element of truth in them to attain such low CO2 levels for taxation purposes, the kind of CO2 figs quoted do correlate with the claimed mpg. The question is just how are they achieving them officially when customers are getting nowhere near them.

It's not that hard to work out, they test in a lab with all the very best conditions and environment to get the best results and we test a standard car on the road: Mind the Gap! Why official car fuel economy figures don’t match up to reality | Transport & Environment (http://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/mind-gap-why-official-car-fuel-economy-figures-don%E2%80%99t-match-reality)

How would stopping the stop-start system help? It's there to stop the engine from burning fuel when you are stationary.

[maisbitt]

@pommyboi: They can't just pull mpg figures out of the air, those CO2 figures quoted are from standard tests approved by the government or EU to ensure HMRC aren't being ripped off with false lows. If you're not waiting for long whenever you stop (such as waiting on a traffic light system that has a fast cycle switch or at a roundabout that isn't particularly busy)there are no benefits to the start-stop system (the rule a few years ago was that if your car is going to be stopped less than 40 seconds there are no benefits to switching off due to the fuel consumption in restarting, although the situation might have improved a little more recently).

However if you are stopped for a few mins at a time in heavy traffic or at temporary lights servicing a road repair with long cycle times etc then you will see a benefit. As a general rule, unless i'm going to be stopping for more than a minute I don't switch my engine off. Stop start technology won't do much for plenty of drivers depending upon their commute most of the time. Brake recuperation etc will help everyone though.

I understand that test conditions are optimal, but do VW resort to the ridiculous to achieve their figures such as taping up gaps between body panels, ridiculously overinflating tyres, stripping out seats and trim etc? I don't believe so. I did read somewhere that their figures are based upon 100kg of ballast - 70kg for a driver and 30kg in the boot, as well as half a tank of fuel - maybe more honest than some.

For the MK7 being 100kg lighter but fitted with far more gadgetry than the last model and being 20% more efficient on paper (which is reflected in the CO2 rating), these models should be giving better economy than their predecessor straight out of the box when compared to a well run in MK6. I have never seen efficiency gains of 20% for a run in TDI vs brand new in the 6 TDIs I have owned, I have not even seen 5% gains, although I have seen noticeable power increases.

If you want to eliminate all the variables between the MK6 and MK7 you can start with turning the tech off and seeing if it makes a difference. If the ADC is subtly braking for you at regular periods without you even knowing.

As I have said previously, for my 6 previous TDIs I have frequently come within 10% of published combined figures on my 12 mile commute and can exceed it by 10% on a mid to long motorway journey maintaining 75-80mph. With seemingly nothing else significant changed but the extra tech by way of drivers aids I would consider their effects first. If my forthcoming GTD doesn't exceed my current mpg (Scirocco 170TDI) by at least 10% on the same journeys i'll be disappointed, but i'll also be experimenting with the driver aids if that is the case to find out if they are the cause.

Of course driving style plays a massive part in determining economy, but under the assumption that there are previous TDI owners here experiencing poor economy with the MK7 and they haven't significantly altered their driving style, I would be looking at the tech first. If the TDI engine was operating less than optimally you would expect lots of DPF regen issues coming in too.

I have alsways found VAG TDIs come way closer to official figures than Ford/Vauxhall and Volvo cars I have used in the course of work. My Boss' BMW 520D comes very close to book economy on the motorway.

[DaveB666]

Lets see what everyone gets after this weekend when the weather has warmed up, I bet you'll be looking at an increase of around 10% (unless you go for "a drive") - that should take me to an average of around 57/58mpg. Happy with that tbfh. It's still a 2.0 engine, if you really reeeally wanted good economy then the 1.6 should have been bought.
In regard to "driver aids" - ADC, cruise control etc - these are not fuel-saving aids. they are DRIVER aids, designed to make driving easier, not more economical. If you use ADC/cruise control at any point in your journey then you are NOT using the car in its most economical way.

Ease of Use - ADC/Cruise Control
Economy - Right Foot.

[dickt]

My point is clear............it does not matter which fuel I use, and which gadgets are on/not on, this Mk 7 150 2.0tdi is less efficient than my Mk 5 170 bhp 2.0 tdi which gave me 45mpg easily.

I've tried the obvious - turning off the aircon and the Distance control, turning off the engine stopping feature, and anything else that might use power, and I have never got near to 50 mpg. My driving style has not changed - if anything I have been softer with my right foot than I used to be with the 170.

An increase of 10% due to weather might get me back to where the 170 was.

So I just do not believe VW's b/s about less weight and eco.

It is a good car, but the mpg claims are complete b/s.

As I said above, I think I'll give it another couple of hundred miles, and then start complaining.........

[DaveB666]

If i was a vw tech and my boss asked me to look at a car because it wasn't achieving book mpg figures I'd think it was a wind-up. It's like buying a can of lynx and then complaining that angels don't fall out of the sky when you walk in public.

[dickt]

Dave,
I am not complaining about it not hitting "book" mpg. I am complaining that it will not get anywhere near my previous car's mpg. The previous car was more powerful, had no eco-whatever, and did not say "Bluemotion ********" on the rear.

(and the angels fell out of the sky for me well before Lynx was invented)

[mcmaddy]

Dave,
I am not complaining about it not hitting "book" mpg. I am complaining that it will not get anywhere near my previous car's mpg. The previous car was more powerful, had no eco-whatever, and did not say "Bluemotion ********" on the rear.

(and the angels fell out of the sky for me well before Lynx was invented)

Just out of interest what fuel are you using? You need to avoid morrisons at all costs due to the high levels of bio crap they use. Ive also found that esso fuel is rubbish too. Poor fuel quality will hamper your mpg no matter what people say. Ive used normal shell diesel for a good few years now and my car seems to run very nicely.

[dickt]

I'm using the same mixture of fuels for the Mk 7 as I did for the Mk 5. The fuel mixture has not changed. I try to fill up with asda fuel due to price. However, I also put esso in, as it is our local garage, and BP also have a garage nearby. I currently have BP fuel in the car.

Whilst fuels might have an impact on overall mpg, they will not impact on the relative mpg between the Mk 5 and the mk 7 "bluemotion ********"

[Dolmen]

I'd like to make a point please, I ask about fuel because 'I have proven' to myself that cheaper fuel stops are selling a lesser diesel. I do not get the same mpg, I only have a BP station or supermarket types .... BP is giving more mpg. There are times I have a mix in the tank, but the car runs noticeably better on the BP fuel.... I have no scientific evidence to prove the matter, but it's interesting that the last chap with mpg is mostly on supermarket diesel, perhaps the new golf doesn't like the cheaper fuels?? Worth trying, I know I will when our new golf arrives.

[DaveB666]

I'd like to make a point please, I ask about fuel because 'I have proven' to myself that cheaper fuel stops are selling a lesser diesel. I do not get the same mpg, I only have a BP station or supermarket types .... BP is giving more mpg. There are times I have a mix in the tank, but the car runs noticeably better on the BP fuel.... I have no scientific evidence to prove the matter, but it's interesting that the last chap with mpg is mostly on supermarket diesel, perhaps the new golf doesn't like the cheaper fuels?? Worth trying, I know I will when our new golf arrives.

I only buy my fuel from Sainsburys (nectar points!) - no issues with mpg on my car.

[Hex69]

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vii-2013

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vi-2009

It looks as if you're not the only ones suffering.

[Pommyboi]

@pommyboi: They can't just pull mpg figures out of the air, those CO2 figures quoted are from standard tests approved by the government or EU to ensure HMRC aren't being ripped off with false lows..

I'm not entirely sure what point you are making as I know this and have never suggested otherwise.

The best analogy I came up with today is a car company is like an MP claiming expenses, they work (usually) within the system and rules but know exactly how to stretch it for their own benefit not ours.

For the record I am using Shell diesel since getting the car but will switch probably back to Tesco fuel and will look for a difference. With 5000 miles on the clock I just got 60 mpg on my motorway trip today. 143 miles each way, nice steady traffic @ 70 mph with a temp of about 12c. I'll see what the next average is for the tank then get the dealer to check it over.

[maisbitt]

Pommyboi: I was making the point that the CO2 they're quoting for taxation purposes must be based on an achievable results (by hook or by crook). The CO2 quoted does tally with their claimed mpg (my car has a lower claimed mpg and a correspondingly higher CO2 rating. Like you I use Shell as much as I possibly can, Shell and BP I find give a very noticeable difference in performance over Esso and Supermarket fuels - there really is a difference.

If I were to do a 70mph run at 140 miles each way with 12C ambient temperature, i'd be likely to hit 60mpg ave in my "53mpg combined" Scirocco 170TDI that has no bluemotion tech at all, so although you've done better than most are seeing here, it's still off the official figures and I do think that if you can stay at around 70mph on a long journey (without cruise control) on uncluttered roads then you should be able to meet or exceed the combined quoted figures.

Maybe VW used to be far more "honest" about how they conducted their efficiency testings than they are now. Perhaps now they're playing the others at their own game to stay ahead on the published mpg. If that's the case then it would seem that in reality the MK7 is no more efficient than the MK5 or 6 despite having newer tech or weight-savings - i'll reserve judgement until I get my hands on the new GTD.

[mcmaddy]

Generally all the vag cars I've had with the exception of my current tiguan have exceeded VW mpg figures. always used to use sainsburys diesel (now shell) but in reality don't see much difference at all. may be quieter on start up but doesn't affect mpg figures drastically. the cold weather does more to reduce mpg than anything else especially on the common rail engines. it didn't bother the pd engined vehicles as much. new car + cold weather +poor quality fuel will never get anywhere near the claimed mpg's. when testing for official fuel figures they will use the best quality fuel, probably a car that's been run in and conduct the test during the best temperatures is not cold winter/spring months. I'm sorry but you can't expect to get official mpg's every single journey you do so don't worry about it.

[dickt]

I'll have one last go at this, and then I'll give up.

I am NOT comparing my mpg with the VW mpg figures.

I am comparing my new 150 2.0 tdi DSG with my old 170 2.0 tdi DSG. The new one is worse. Despite all the bluemotion b/s, and the alleged eco mode, and the lighter weight, the new one is worse.

Nothing else has changed. It has been cold for the old one, it is cold for the new one. The same sort of fuel mix, the same sort of driving habits, the same sort of everything.

The car is otherwise fine. However, I believe I was conned by VW marketing bull. I will not be conned again.

[newowner2tdi]

I'll have one last go at this, and then I'll give up.

I am NOT comparing my mpg with the VW mpg figures.

I am comparing my new 150 2.0 tdi DSG with my old 170 2.0 tdi DSG. The new one is worse. Despite all the bluemotion b/s, and the alleged eco mode, and the lighter weight, the new one is worse.

Nothing else has changed. It has been cold for the old one, it is cold for the new one. The same sort of fuel mix, the same sort of driving habits, the same sort of everything.

The car is otherwise fine. However, I believe I was conned by VW marketing bull. I will not be conned again.


I agree with dickt. I think quite a few people are missing the point.

- My disappointment is based on moving from a Mk6 golf 2.0TDI (140ps) to a Mk7 golf 2.0TDI (150ps) and getting far worse mpg when I should be getting significantly better (based on VW's figures)

- other than 'running the car in' this is a pure like for like comparison (i.e. Same journeys, same very cold conditions, same fuel, electronics turned off etc. etc.)

- With all my previous new cars, mpg has only improved marginally over time so I can't make myself making up the gap

- the new golf is sold heavily on the fact that the fuel consumption is much improved and the 'blue motion' tag is part of this sales process

However, I can't conclude anything other than I have spent £25k on a new car which will have WORSE mpg and, in my view, WORSE performance/power/torque (although I admit that I seem to be on my own on the latter).

[algarve]

I like probably a lot of others here come with experience of lots of VW TDI cars.
My last was a Golf Mk6 2.0 TDi 140ps DSG and now the Golf Mk7 2.0 TDI 150Ps DSG.
I am pleased with the fuel consumption already compared with the mk 6 at this stage.
Its hardly run in with a few thousand miles on the clock
i never ever entertained labtest MPG figures as real for all the reasons already given.
As for performance this car moves and the torque is just as good as the Mk6.

[mike77t5]

So it seems that the MPG is about the same or worse than the mk6 2.0 tdi. What I want to know is how does this new engine feel compared the older one. Does the 10 extra bhp make any difference?

[DaveB666]

Well, did anyone good comparable journey yesterday. 200 mile round trip with 180miles of that being a straight run on he m1/m42.

In the morning I averaged 95/100mph and achieved 46.3mpg in total. Temp was c. 3deg.

On the way home in the evening I averaged 60/65mph and achieved 64.2mpg. Temp was c.9.5deg.

Really happy with that tbh - the magical 60mpg threshold has been achieved lol

[Norbreck21a]

Just to reiterate the point that temperature does make a big difference to the diesel engines, on my 2011 Scirocco with the 140 engine and DSG (yes I know it's not a MK7 - but bear with me please), I have been really struggling to crack 40 mpg during my normal commute to work. The drive is approximately 10 miles and takes in a town centre, urban roads and a small 1 mile section of dual carriageway. It normally takes me about 20-25 minutes.

Well over the last few weeks I've been setting off in temperatures of approx -1 to +2°C. Driving pretty carefully, I been struggling to get to 35-37mpg (much less if the car has been standing whilst I scraped the windows from frost). The oil temperature only reaches about 60-65°C by the time I reach work, and the coolant temperature had only just reached normal.

For the last week I've been working away in Germany so this morning was the first time in a short while I've driven the car. Setting off this morning, the temperature was a much more reasonable 12°C. Did my normal journey, as usual got stuck at every single set of traffic lights :(, but on arriving at work managed to achieve a much more respectable 47mpg. In addition, the oil temperature had reached 80°C and the coolant hit normal half way through the drive.

Whilst I know the above isn't exactly scientific, it does at least strike me that the CR Diesel engines are much more susceptible to cold weather conditions than my old PD engine MK5 Golf ever was.

Be interesting to see now that the weathers got warmer, if all you MK7 girls and boys start to see any improvement ?

[maisbitt]

Well, did anyone good comparable journey yesterday. 200 mile round trip with 180miles of that being a straight run on he m1/m42.

In the morning I averaged 95/100mph and achieved 46.3mpg in total. Temp was c. 3deg.

On the way home in the evening I averaged 60/65mph and achieved 64.2mpg. Temp was c.9.5deg.

Really happy with that tbh - the magical 60mpg threshold has been achieved lol


I think that 46.3mpg doing at least 95mph average is exceptionally good, especially considering the temperature at that point in your journey. I didn't think you should have to do a saintly 60/65mph to get 64 mpg. On my Scirocco I have always been able to match the combined published figures maintaining 75-80mph when it has been about 8-10C, surpassing it by 10% when you get into the realms of summertime weather (20C+).

[mcmaddy]

I've spoken to a specialist VW tuner near where I live and he said the cr diesel engines are bothered by the cold a lot more than the pd engines. in my Leon fr I always got high 50's no matter how I drove it and whatever the weather and getting low 60's on motorway runs. never got anywhere near that in my jetta and its even worse in the tiguan!

[dickt]

My 2.0 150 tdi dsg with 1300m on the clock did a 150 mile return today. Temp was 12.5 to 14. 140m on the motorway at 70 to 80. No holdups at all. Average mpg was 47mpg. No improvement whatsoever on my mk 5 2.0 170. As the old car did not fuss about eco/freewheeling/bluecrap and all that, this new one is a terrible disappointment.

Do no buy this car for mpg. VW are clearly economical with the truth when comparing it to the mk 5.

The other things about the car are OK, but the mpg is awful.

[Huftons]

My 2.0 150 tdi dsg with 1300m on the clock did a 150 mile return today. Temp was 12.5 to 14. 140m on the motorway at 70 to 80. No holdups at all. Average mpg was 47mpg. No improvement whatsoever on my mk 5 2.0 170. As the old car did not fuss about eco/freewheeling/bluecrap and all that, this new one is a terrible disappointment.

Do no buy this car for mpg. VW are clearly economical with the truth when comparing it to the mk 5.

The other things about the car are OK, but the mpg is awful.

My first run to work (20 miles, mix of motorway, A road and crawling in traffic) in my new GT 150 DSG. Got 56 mpg. Compares with late 40s in my previous Tiguan with around 15k. Not fantastic but certainly not a disaster.

[algarve]

My first run to work (20 miles, mix of motorway, A road and crawling in traffic) in my new GT 150 DSG. Got 56 mpg. Compares with late 40s in my previous Tiguan with around 15k. Not fantastic but certainly not a disaster.

Thats good for a car with no real mileage.

Its clear from posts now that 60+ MPG is achievable and as cars get proper mileage on them it will improve.

Enjoy.

[Ceber]

Checked my consumption tonight after 262 miles, with journeys between 10 and40 miles= 46mpg. 2.0 gt tdi. One of the main attractions for me was the mpg figures so a bit dissappionted at the moment but weather does make a difference.

Up-date!!! Did 200 miles this weekend on Aand B roads, switched off ACC before i left, carefull driving in eco mode, car now says 56.3mpg. Nice and warm yesterday:D

[Eshrules]

Well, did anyone good comparable journey yesterday. 200 mile round trip with 180miles of that being a straight run on he m1/m42.

In the morning I averaged 95/100mph and achieved 46.3mpg in total. Temp was c. 3deg.

On the way home in the evening I averaged 60/65mph and achieved 64.2mpg. Temp was c.9.5deg.

Really happy with that tbh - the magical 60mpg threshold has been achieved lol

And you just admitted to speeding on a public forum. I'd advise against doing this, I believe we have several police officers on vwaf...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[DaveB666]

And you just admitted to speeding on a public forum. I'd advise against doing this, I believe we have several police officers on vwaf...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Lol. I'm so scared.

[Hotspur]

My car has reached 1000 miles now.

I did a 300 mile round trip to Norfolk last weekend when the temp was around 10C. On the trip up there on dual carriageways and rural Norfolk's A roads I managed 67.8 mpg, over approx 140 miles with a warmed up engine, using normal mode and relatively gentle accelaration. For the round trip after some local journeys and sitting in a few queues, the average has dropped to 58 mpg and this was with using normal and sport mode and my usual driving style rather than an economical driving style. I'll expect a small improvement on this over time as the engine loosens up a little.

[dickt]

My 150 GT DSG is now at 1700 miles. The weather is now much warmer, so cold temps are no longer a defence for VW. I have never got near 50 mpg on any journey. The "from new" number is 41.4 mpg. At 400 miles, I switched from normal to eco. That did not make any difference to achieved mpg.

That is awful. My old GT 170 DSG Mk5 did 45 mpg.

Lies, damn lies, and VW mileage claims.

[DaveB666]

Clearly a driver issue then.

[dickt]

That's the point. It is NOT a driver issue, as I have not changed my style. All the eco and bluerubbish stuff was not on my 170 mk 5 dsg, yet it returned much better mpg.

[maisbitt]

@dickt: Is your car going through any noticeable DPF regen on a regular basis? Could be an indicator that the car is running rich via a leaky injector etc. Perhaps you can get a test drive in another car of the same spec and if yours feels down on power in comparison then you've most likely got a fault that would affect the economy negatively too.

I know people will still say you've got to give it more wearing in time but I would not expect to see significant gains in economy between now and 20k miles.

I would ask whether maybe you're driving it a bit harder than your old 170TDI as it has less power, but I drove my old 140TDI Sciorcco with no bluemotion tech very hard and found it difficult to dip below 45mpg driving, even in the middle of winter and you have all that on the new one so it should be better than what you previously had.

If it's not the driver and there is nothing physically wrong with the car, then the only variable left is it being run in for the first few hundred miles on motorway cruising which does it no good at all, but there's nothing that can be done about that if it happened.

[dickt]

Maisbitt,
Yup, good point. It does appear to do the regen on a very frequent basis compared to my mk 5. I will ring up VW. Thanks for the thought.

I ran it in carefully, so it won't be that.

[mcmaddy]

its your pirelli tyres!

[DaveB666]

its your pirelli tyres!

Can't be - I have them and my mpg is fine.

[vc-10]

Hmm.... if lots of cars are having issues, and they're all 2.0 TDIs, and they're doing regens all the time... bad batch of injectors? It's not unheard of, and the tell-tale black smoke that bad injectors normally produce would be masked by the DPF.

[maisbitt]

VW have had plenty of history in bad injectors, and they go quite far back too. My dad's 07 reg 170TDI GT Golf MK5 had a recall and replacement injectors fitted last year, but there are more recent examples than that. If unburnt fuel from a faulty injector is making the DPF work overtime then you'll get poor economy. My 170TDI Scirocco does 2 or 3 regens a week for about 5 mins a time, and i'm no motorway miler, if it's happening on a daily basis and your commute isn't a crawl through static traffic then I think you have a problem.

[dickt]

I had all the injectors replaced on my Mk 5 2.0 tdi 170 dsg. The car was new in march 2008, and they replaced them, for free, in 2012, well outside the warranty period. This followed their need to re-new the regen gadget, and renew all the regen sensors. They said that their supplier had given them an unreliable batch of injectors..............However, there had been one hell of a lot of Internet chatter about how bad the injectors were, and how dreadfully expensive it was to replace them.
After that injector replacement, the car's mpg improved to an easy to attain average of 45 mpg. No eco-rubbish, and a powerful car, easily achieving 45mpg.

I stupidly expected the new 150/tdi/dsg to achieve at least 50 mpg.

I rang VW UK customer services, who refused to comment until I had taken it to a main dealer, who needed to put it on their diagnostic system. Given that few, if any dealers have technicians fully trained on the 150 engine and its problems, I am not too hopeful, but I might be lucky.
I suspect I have some sort of Injector problem. If VW do not solve it, I think I'll go down the newspaper complaints column route.

[maisbitt]

Hopefully they'll be able to recall abnormally high DPF regen frequency through the diagnostic equipment or detect higher than expected CO/NOX emissions from the exhaust if the car is burning more fuel due to dodgy injectors or corrupt engine management software.

[dickt]

I took the mk7 GT 2.0 tdi DSG to the local VW dealers (Citygate, High Wycombe) on Friday. I typed up the issues, and what I expected them to do - (as confirmed by VW customer service over the phone).
it now has 1900 miles on the clock.

I made it clear that multiple aborted regens and only 41 mpg were my concerns.

The person booking it in on the day was aggressive and rude and treated me as though I was thick and had never owned a diesel car before. (I told him about the injectors and regen saga with my last dpf car). He said that they had been told by VW to refuse to test cars until their first service was due. He was very annoyed that VW customer service had suggested that I should take it in.

Reluctantly, he booked the car in.

When I picked it up...........
They said that they had put it on their computer and that it had no faults.
I asked them for the print out, and they refused to supply it.

They also refused to supply the results of the NOX/CO tests that I had asked them to carry out.

They took it out for about 23 miles, and only got 38mpg.

I asked them to put in writing that multiple regen abortions and only 41 mpg was normal. (They told me that, verbally). Not surprisingly, they refused to put it in writing..........

All in all a very unpleasant experience.

Back to VW customer service on Monday.

Why did I ever trade in a brilliant 170 with much better mpg for this eco-thing?

[maisbitt]

dickt: With an attitude like that I would be taking my future business to another dealership - some are good, some are bad, some are good for haggling down a new car, some aren't etc. Not sure why they'd be so annoyed having to do something for you - either you're the 20th person through the door with the same issue or maybe it's a job VW UK won't pay out warranty on unless they find a fault? Either way they don't deserve your service money or VW's warranty rates. Do you think they actually did the NOX/CO testing? Either they didn't bother and were looking not to tell you the results or maybe they found something a little abnormal but can't be bothered.

VW's contracted warranty labour rates are a lot lower thatn you or I would pay for a non-warranty issue. Maybe they've got lots of non-warranty work that they don't want to forego for less lucrative warranty work?

The trouble is that VW UK don't care too much either. With VW you have dealerships with a variable attitude towards the customer and VW UK don't care much themselves, on the other hand you have Audi dealerships that are generally quite arrogant, but Audi UK really care about their customer. Seems you walked into a VW dealership that has the attitude of an Audi dealership.

I would tell VW UK that you were unsatisfied with the service received. Ask them to speak to someone with technical knowledge if you're getting nowhere with someone on the end of the phone that seems to know nothing about cars and certainly doesn't know what a DPF regen is.If the dealership couldn't match your already low consumption on their test run in the warmer weather we've been having then something is definitely wrong with the car. All that Eco tech and 41 mpg? My 170 Roc (with no eco tech at all) managed 56mpg on a spirited 40 mile round trip yesterday, and 99% of that is not down to it being more run in than your mk7 Golf.

[dickt]

I once was thinking of buying an Audi, a Co car, an A6. I went in to the showroom near Slough twice, and rung them up 5 times. Their "fleet" person was never available and never returned my calls. At the time I had answering machines on all my phones, and a PA at work, so there were no excuses.
Back to the Golf. I agree about the 170. Mine went from circa 45mpg when it had about 1500 miles to 40mpg after about 30,000 miles. Only after new regen kit and regen sensors and new injectors did it get back to 45, with, as you say, spirited driving in normal mode. (It seldom got close to 50 - my motorway driving tended to be "get there fast")
I told the long version of the story to the man at the VW garage, but he had his ears turned off as he was in full transmit mode, and had forgotten that he had a receive button. His excuse was that VW had told him to say what he said.

[Devro]

I also have a Golf 2.0 GT DSI and took it in to my local dealer (St. Albans) on moday due to high fuel consumption (currently averageing 38.4 mpg). They refused to look at the injectors or the DPF and only ran the electronic diagnostics, which unsurprisingly identified no problems. They provided no paper work or evidence of what they had done or the results from these diagnostics. They took it out and tested it and in eco mode driving as efficiently as possible the highest they could achieve was 41.2mpg after a 10 mile test)Their conclusion is that it is "working as intended" and will take no further action. I am very interested to hear if you get anywhere with this as i am also particularly dissaponted with the efficiency of the vehicle and the service i recieved from VW.

[maisbitt]

For reported poor consumption I would expect at the very least that they would do an emissions test. If the car is thirsty then the CO/CO2 emissions will be high.

Devro: Have you had lots of DPF regen attempts during your normal driving?

I can't see how a VW technician can drive a car as economically as they can on a test drive, attain only 60% of the combined figure and say nothing is wrong with the car. I could understand you being 10% off around the doors driving normally. 20% if you're driving like a loony, but they drive like a saint and are 40% off (presumably with a warm engine too as they'll have gotten into it after you drove it to the dealership).

[Devro]

No, i haven't had any DPF regen problems occur. My driving is a mix of town and motorway, so suspect particulates are currently not building up. The car is still fairly new (less than 5000 miles) so this may change further down the line.

[maisbitt]

The reason I asked is that if your car is being very thirsty and inefficient, it is probably making an abnormally high quantity of particulates. A thirsty Diesel is usually accompanied by DPF regen happening a lot more than normal. Have you tried switching off the ADC system? Perhaps if you drive a little closer to the car in front than the ADC system would like, the car is braking for you quite a bit of the time, hammering your economy?

It seems that there is more to all this than VW are letting on, the dealers don't seem to be doing much for you or Dickt, you seem to be hitting the same wall of silence and denial there is a problem. My 170TDI Roc is routinely achieving published combined economy figures for my 12 mile mixed roads commute to work for the current weather and it has no efficiency tech on it at all. I would try my luck with another dealer.

[dickt]

Devro - and anyone else with low mpg.

I would strongly encourage you to contact VW Customer Services (UK) on 0800 0833 920 (it is a free call from a land line) and to formally log your concerns with them. Make sure that you get a case number, and you need to specifically ask them to leave the case Open. (Like other call centres, they always want to "close" the cases. I suspect that they have a bonus based on closed cases).

Unless they get complaints from drivers about this issue, they will never admit that there is an issue.

I have rung them again about the low mpg and the fan over-running, and they then rang the garage. The garage said to them what they said to me, and the Customer services guy just repeated it all back to me.

I asked them why the garage could only get 38 mpg on a 22 mile run. No comment. I asked about the Emissions test. "Oh", he said, "I forgot to ask them about that".

One thing that the customer services guy did say, which was news to me, was that the fan over-running is now normal for Mk 7 Golfs. I explained to him that it had never happened with my 2 170s, and he said that the new "enhanced" system would sometimes still be working when the car was turned off. (??? Technically, I am no expert, but that sounds fishy to me. Any Engineers out there??)

The customer services guy recommended that I take it to another garage, without telling that second garage the history, and that I should ask them to run all the diagnostics again. I'll do that in a couple of weeks time when I am closer to 3000 miles. (Now at 2200, and still at 41 mpg overall. A trip on the M 40 to Brum and back yesterday, 220 miles, mainly motorway, in eco, and driving carefully, got me all of 46mpg)

I strongly suspect that VW have another bunch of dodgy Injectors, and either do not yet know it, or are denying it.

[maisbitt]

The fact that you have mentioned your fan running on, long after you have switched the engine off on a regular basis suggests to me your car may be going through a DPF regen quite often. You would only see dash lights for this if your DPF was getting quite full due to regeneration not being possible. When the DPF is going through a regen it raises the exhaust temperature much higher than normal to burn off the particulates. The car puts out some fuel into the exhaust system to initiate post engine combustion which raises the exhaust temp and allows the DPF to burn off the particulate build up. This in itself increases fuel consumption.

There are times when the car may still have its radiator fan on after you have switched the car off, but unless you've been caning the car just before you pulled up, it won't be happening that often - more so in the summer, shouldn't be happening too much right now.

Keep an eye on your water and oil temperatures. Both should be ideally around 90C, much more than 95C for the oil without having caned it for a short while is unusual. The water should consistently be reading 90C most of the time, but you will see the oil drift between 90 and 95C depending on how hard you've been driving it. Seeing any different than the above indicates something is happening to make the car run a little hot - usually a DPF regen.

[DaveB666]

My GT golf has just ticked over 4,000 miles. In the time I've owned it I've only noticed the fan over-running twice once I'd turned off/locked the car. The first was within the first 50 miles, and the latter was at around 3,900miles.

My 'long-term' consumption is now 52/53mpg or something, but if I don't hoon around in sport-mode, I can happily achieve late 50s/early 60s on a run.

Late 60s/early 70s as someone noted in another post are just a pipe-dream though lol

[ept55]

I just thought I,d bring a bit of perspective to the discussion by comparing the petrol engine MK7, in the form of my mileage on my 1.4 ACT GT. I,ve had it now just over a month now and covered 893 miles of mixed motoring in Eco mode utilising the stop-start technology and the latest read-out on the computer is an excellent 49 MPG. This is the best number so far with the lowest being 44 MPG. This is quite surprising to me as it is out performing a fair few 2.0 TDI,s in this thread,anybody got any theories as to why this should be?

[Eshrules]

I don't understand why people are relying on the DIS, there's only way accurate way to calculate your mpg and it isn't relying on a computer system that's been proven to be less than accurate.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[G0rdon]

As a comparison, my 1.4 ACT GT gives a real, fuel-to-fuel calculation of approximately 44mpg around town between fill ups. Can get 53mpg, judging by what the average consumption reckons on, for example, a constant run but not had better. Car has done just over 4000 miles.

[zf44]

I just thought I,d bring a bit of perspective to the discussion by comparing the petrol engine MK7, in the form of my mileage on my 1.4 ACT GT. I,ve had it now just over a month now and covered 893 miles of mixed motoring in Eco mode utilising the stop-start technology and the latest read-out on the computer is an excellent 49 MPG. This is the best number so far with the lowest being 44 MPG. This is quite surprising to me as it is out performing a fair few 2.0 TDI,s in this thread,anybody got any theories as to why this should be?

It's the DPF in all diesel engines which is causing all these fuel consumptions issues not only on VW but in all makes and models: each time these engines begin the regeneration process it affects the fuel consumption. Witnessed this in all my Golfs. So impressed with the latest range of petrol engines which VW are rolling out especially with low road tax and 'diesel levels' of consumption.

[Pommyboi]

I just thought I,d bring a bit of perspective to the discussion by comparing the petrol engine MK7, in the form of my mileage on my 1.4 ACT GT. I,ve had it now just over a month now and covered 893 miles of mixed motoring in Eco mode utilising the stop-start technology and the latest read-out on the computer is an excellent 49 MPG. This is the best number so far with the lowest being 44 MPG. This is quite surprising to me as it is out performing a fair few 2.0 TDI,s in this thread,anybody got any theories as to why this should be?

I'm surprised you are surprised. Is this not why you got the 1.4 ACT so you had petrol refinement with performance and economy similar to diesel? Or was it because it was the only petrol choice in GT trim?

Either way I would expect and hope your car was doing as well as diesel cars and should improve a bit more because it still has low mileage.

[cdgthreesalmons]

Silly question maybe - but - my new 2.0TDI DSG is my first diesel engined car. How do I know when "DPF regen" is occurring AND people talk on here about "failed DPF regen attempts" - again how do I know.

Car currently averaging best part of 50mpg - get just over 50 on a decent run - mix of town/country driving in Normal mode. Im pretty happy with that as I know the engine will loosen up with use.

[zf44]

Silly question maybe - but - my new 2.0TDI DSG is my first diesel engined car. How do I know when "DPF regen" is occurring AND people talk on here about "failed DPF regen attempts" - again how do I know.

Car currently averaging best part of 50mpg - get just over 50 on a decent run - mix of town/country driving in Normal mode. Im pretty happy with that as I know the engine will loosen up with use.

Not a silly question. Hope this guide from the AA helps,

diesel particulate filter (dpf) | AA (http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/diesel-particulate-filters.html)

If the ECU forces regeneration, it sounds like the engine fan running after you switch off your engine. DPFs were so troublesome in my MK5s but thankfully improved with the later MKs.

[jv808]

I don't understand why people are relying on the DIS, there's only way accurate way to calculate your mpg and it isn't relying on a computer system that's been proven to be less than accurate.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

You are absolutely CORRECT. I hope other forum members are taking note of your comment. My current Mk6 GT 2.0L TDi manual with 60,000 miles on the clock is currently returning 54mpg, based on a recent 53 litre fill-up and 630 mile range. The most I'd ever achieved was 57mpg (53.5litres and 675 mile range) even though the MFD displayed between 60 - 70mpg. It even once displayed 74.4mpg, I believe that was the time when my Mk6 managed 675 miles on a single tank. During the freezing weeks of last winter, the range dropped as low as 560 miles and demonstrates very well how adverse weather affects consumption. My new Mk7 GT TDi is on order and I'm realistic with the manufacturers fuel economy claims, i.e. deduct 10mpg from their advertised figures for real world motoring.

[ept55]

I'm surprised you are surprised. Is this not why you got the 1.4 ACT so you had petrol refinement with performance and economy similar to diesel? Or was it because it was the only petrol choice in GT trim?

Either way I would expect and hope your car was doing as well as diesel cars and should improve a bit more because it still has low mileage.
Hi Pommyboi, I,m not surprised by the mpg I,m getting in the 1.4 GT. The surprise is that I,m getting better mpg than a number of 2.0TDI owners on this thread, as my previous car was a scirocco 2.0 140TDI which averaged 53 mpg. I went for the petrol engine because I don,t do the mileage anymore to justify a diesel.

[maisbitt]

Silly question maybe - but - my new 2.0TDI DSG is my first diesel engined car. How do I know when "DPF regen" is occurring AND people talk on here about "failed DPF regen attempts" - again how do I know.

Car currently averaging best part of 50mpg - get just over 50 on a decent run - mix of town/country driving in Normal mode. Im pretty happy with that as I know the engine will loosen up with use.

When regen is happening you'll find the car idles faster than normal (around 950rpm as opposed to 800rpm) and if you pull up at a junction/roundabout etc whilst it is happening you may get a whiff of a burning smell. In my experience of 6 new TDIs, you'll get very little benefit from the car loosening up, 5% if you are lucky. For those 35% wide of the mark for the combined figure, even on longer journeys - something is wrong with the car's consumption or VW told some epic porkies for MK7 TDI consumption. In all my TDIs I have easily surpassed published combined figures on a longer journey (in excess of 30 miles on dual carriageway). Even this Saturday on flooded roads and 9C temp, my 170TDI Roc managed 55mpg (published comb = 55.3mpg).

[DaveB666]

Doesn't help dickt with his problem but, my car is now on 4,300miles and on coming back from Cheltenham to Yorkshire yesterday at an average speed of 65mph (computer indicated) i achieved 69.9mpg from door to door. Very impressed with that.

[Ceber]

I have just returned from a 1050mile round trip to scotland, 18 hours of driving, approx 14 on the motorway at 70-75 max, and 4 hours on a,b, and single track roads in Scotland and yorkshire dales.Computer says 61.1:D since refill (scotland) and 63.3:D since start (yorkshire dales) i live in oxfordshire. Car now covered 2600m.

MK7 GOLF GT 2.0TDI MANUAL

[dickt]

You're just making me jealous. On only 1 run have I ever had over 50 mpg, and that was on a low-traffic 50 mpg max 20 mile local run, starting with a warm engine, in full eco mode, on a warm day. I think I'll cry. I'm not doing much mileage at present. When I get to a total of 3,000 I'll take the car to a different dealer.

[dcdick]

My 1.6 is currently returning an indicated 54 mpg ( the computer is 2% optimistic, & close enough for my needs) on what I would describe as 75% light urban 25% dual carriageway/motorway. Never been past 80 yet though ;)

350 miles so far, so not that far from what i had hoped for, however I will need a 15% improvement in economy to meet the published figures.

[dickt]

I am now convinced that altho the garage said that they did not do a thing, the improvement in mpg has continued. 2.0tdi 150 gt with DSG.
The previous average mileage of 41-42 mpg has sustained its improvement to 47mpg overall. (I reset the mpg calculator at circa 2500 miles) . It now has 560 miles post reset, for a total of circa 3100 miles.

So maybe there is an improvement of c 15% with mileage.
I hope it will continue to get better!!

[maisbitt]

I am now convinced that altho the garage said that they did not do a thing, the improvement in mpg has continued. 2.0tdi 150 gt with DSG.
The previous average mileage of 41-42 mpg has sustained its improvement to 47mpg overall. (I reset the mpg calculator at circa 2500 miles) . It now has 560 miles post reset, for a total of circa 3100 miles.

So maybe there is an improvement of c 15% with mileage.
I hope it will continue to get better!!

An improvement like that is nothing to do withrunning in - they've definitely done something! Most likely they've either emptied the DPF (in which case your mpg will deteriorate again as it fills back up), or they've identified a fuelling issue (leaky injector etc), or they've applied a warranty remap that has changed the parameters of the fuel/engine management system (they did this on my MK5 GT Sport 170TDI - but they told me about it).

[dcdick]

An improvement like that is nothing to do withrunning in - they've definitely done something! Most likely they've either emptied the DPF (in which case your mpg will deteriorate again as it fills back up), or they've identified a fuelling issue (leaky injector etc), or they've applied a warranty remap that has changed the parameters of the fuel/engine management system (they did this on my MK5 GT Sport 170TDI - but they told me about it).

My 1.6 tdi was in on Tuesday to "investigate" low fuel consumption...........after taking an hour or so to do a "check procedure" they gave me back the car saying all parameters were within specification (surprise, surprise)

Still waiting to hear back from VW UK ...................................... would have expected an acknowledgement within the 48 hrs it has been so far at least............... or are they inundated with fuel consumption complaints ?

I am now convinced that as the DPF "fills up" with soot, the fuel that is used to "burn" it off cost's (what seems like to me) 5-6 mpg. Grrrr :aargh4:

D

[pango1in]

Sorry to drag this old chestnut up again... but it appears my car was undergoing an active DPF regen last night, with only 60 miles on the odometer...

I first noticed that my auto start/stop wasn't working. Then I noticed that the idle revs were about 1000 rpm. Can't think what else it would be.

[maisbitt]

DPF and stop start seem to be a poor match to me. Stop-start is of greatest benefit in clogged up inner-city traffic, and driving in those conditions is not good for the DPF. I would also imagine that the restart process following a stop generates a less than efficient initial combustion which will only further clog the DPF.

Idling at 1000rpm as opposed to 800 is the usualy giveaway sign for DPF regen (as is the burning smell if you stop in traffic whilst the car is perfroming one).

[pango1in]

I agree with your thoughts maisbitt.

The worrying thing was that the regen was active after a stint on a dual carriageway/motorway (about 11 miles, 15 mins) , during my commute home.

Is this something to worry about, given the car only has 60 miles on the clock?

Also, i noticed that the average mpg yesterday, with my regular commute and a 50 min drive along th emotorway and A roads was only 47 mpg, which seems low.

[maisbitt]

The car probably thought to activate regen on the last leg of your journey as optimal conditions had been met at that point (exhaust temp etc) - it's not bright enough to know you're almost home when it started. As long as the car was just attempting a passive DPF regen it's probably not an issue of concern. Passive regens are attempted all the time, way earlier than the car needing a forced regen by artificially creating optimal conditions via extra fuel usage. It'll try again the next time optimal conditions are met and if you're sat on the dual carriageway doing at least 2000rpm when it starts and finishes then you'll probably not even notice.

47mpg on a journey of that length is poor. I am currently managing 52mpg on my 12 mile commute to work on mixed roads, not sparing the horses. This is in a 170TDI Scirocco that has absolutely no bluemotion tech fitted at all.

[pango1in]

I hope that this is a one off and shouldn't happen again. Perhaps the engine just needs to loosen up - although there are varying reports as to how much this really impacts mpg...

I was under the impression that a passive regen happened all the time, as long as the exhaust was hot enough, and an active regen only engages when the DPF is more than 45% full (when passive regens are not possible or not effective). It's entirely possible that the active regen was running whilst I was on the motorway and for a short time afterwards.

My expectation on a motorway is that my exhaust would reach optimim temperatures without any active intervention, allowing passive regeneration to take place. I was therefore surprised that my engine was idling at 1000rpm when I came off of the motorway. Active regen will also use more fuel to "boost" exhaust temperatures (presumably resulting in the poor mpg I experienced).

I'm also surprised that the car could possibly have thought the DPF was 45% full after only 60 miles (!!!!).

[maisbitt]

In ownership of 6 TDIs from new I have never seen large gains post-running in in fuel economy. In the current weather my economy is pretty much as good as it gets. If you're getting 47mpg right now you'd be lucky to hit 44mpg in the winter.

60 miles straight out of the box might be pushing it to know if your car is running correctly - maybe give it a few hundred miles for all the seals to have seated properly. You should know after your first tank of fuel is used up whether you have any issues. I can't honestly remember when my first DPF regen kicked in, but maybe passive regen occurs at any stage of DPF loading because when optimum driving conditions are reached, they allow it to happen without any fuel penalty so the car could try and burn up what little there is in there as a matter of course.

If you're not getting a minimum of 50mpg with a few hundred miles on the clock for a journey that exceeds 10/12 miles long (to have allowed the engine to warm up) in our current UK weather then I would say there's something wrong with it or VW have lied massively about touted MK7 fuel efficiency gains.

There are plenty of others here with the new 150TDI engine with disappointing fuel consumption. My dad's GTD DSG should be with us next week (it is waiting at Emden port for it's ship to the UK as we speak). I'll be interested to see how the 184TDI GTD engine performs in terms of economy.

[dcdick]

Is there anyone on this site getting anywhere near the claimed mpg figures on a Mk 7 diesel 1.6/2.0 bluemotion tech or even full bluemotion variety diesel ?

I share the opinion with some other posters that your economy should be no less that the "urban" figure quoted (in my case 61.something mpg) no matter how fast (or slowly) or whatever, you drive.

This nonsense about having to drive a minimum of 10-15 miles to stop the filters sooting up is just unbelievable. If this is the case then that would see these engines being used as taxis/delivery etc.. that do shortish journeys & switch off between journeys to save fuel have "forced" regens almost constantly.
Where does it say any of this in the handbook/model description/showrooms ? not that I have seen.
Cruising down motorways on longish journeys is a strong point of diesels as well as short stop-start journeys always was, but apparently VW have there own set of parameters for driving there cars that are only revealed to people like me after I have used the car.
I chose the car solely for the lower running costs that the published excellent fuel economy figures bring to whatever mileage I choose to do (around 10,000 per year in my case) after I have taken the car it now seems I do the "wrong kind of mileage" ???????

I also do not subscribe to the theory that today's cars have to be allowed to run for 1,800-2,000 miles to get to optimum fuel consumption. After a few hundred miles at most the engine is going to be as good as it will get due to the exacting quality of materials/tolerances modern engines are made to & the way the running is dynamically controlled by the on board management systems.

Incidentally the 1.8-2.0k mileage is part of the specs for the official fuel economy testing procedures which dates back to 1994 in parts

D

[Dolmen]

I just picked our new 2.0 GT tdi up today, it was a 60 mile drive home. When I got settled in and started watching the MPG it came from low 30's to 54.2 on having covered roughly 50 odd motorway miles, not going above 2k revs. I pulled into a BP station to fill her right up to get started on keeping proper records, I then got 60.1 over the final 10miles home, not motorway.... But more interesting is the fact that I got held up behind a slow moving vehicle for the last mile before pulling in home and a regen started as I switched the car off!! So it looks like it takes very little to start clogging the DPF.
I think under similar road conditions it will be best to engage the paddle shift mode and drive in a lower gear to keep the revs up and keep the PDF clean. Just my first observations and rather pleased so far.

[algarve]

Is there anyone on this site getting anywhere near the claimed mpg figures on a Mk 7 diesel 1.6/2.0 bluemotion tech or even full bluemotion variety diesel ?

I share the opinion with some other posters that your economy should be no less that the "urban" figure quoted (in my case 61.something mpg) no matter how fast (or slowly) or whatever, you drive.

This nonsense about having to drive a minimum of 10-15 miles to stop the filters sooting up is just unbelievable. If this is the case then that would see these engines being used as taxis/delivery etc.. that do shortish journeys & switch off between journeys to save fuel have "forced" regens almost constantly.
Where does it say any of this in the handbook/model description/showrooms ? not that I have seen.
Cruising down motorways on longish journeys is a strong point of diesels as well as short stop-start journeys always was, but apparently VW have there own set of parameters for driving there cars that are only revealed to people like me after I have used the car.
I chose the car solely for the lower running costs that the published excellent fuel economy figures bring to whatever mileage I choose to do (around 10,000 per year in my case) after I have taken the car it now seems I do the "wrong kind of mileage" ???????

I also do not subscribe to the theory that today's cars have to be allowed to run for 1,800-2,000 miles to get to optimum fuel consumption. After a few hundred miles at most the engine is going to be as good as it will get due to the exacting quality of materials/tolerances modern engines are made to & the way the running is dynamically controlled by the on board management systems.

Incidentally the 1.8-2.0k mileage is part of the specs for the official fuel economy testing procedures which dates back to 1994 in parts





The MK7 is my seventh TDI engined car from new and without exception they have all improved substantially once they have got a reasonable mileage on them and both the gearbox and engine are settled in, I am not talking about just 1,800 to 2,000 miles. I started with an average of low 40s mpg and this has steadily improved to 52 mpg average with 57mpg on longer runs at a current mileage of 5,000 miles. I am fairly hopeful I will achieve a combined figure of 57mpg or near the 62mpg as the mileage builds. I enjoy the power of the TDI and utilise it fully ! Like most I never believe the book figures so am pleased with what I am getting and the continuing improvement. Its the 2.0 engine by the way with DSG. I think as said before your particular circumstances re lease of the TDI v 1.4 petrol are unfortunate and perhaps the salesperson from what you have said with hindsight may have discussed your usage in more depth re Petrol versus Diesel.

[DW58]

Having read this thread, I'm so glad I opted for the 1.4TSi 122PS rather than the 2.0TDi 150PS I was considering. Much of my mileage is relatively short journeys, the TDi would be a nightmare for me.

[dcdick]

The MK7 is my seventh TDI engined car from new and without exception they have all improved substantially once they have got a reasonable mileage on them and both the gearbox and engine are settled in, I am not talking about just 1,800 to 2,000 miles. I started with an average of low 40s mpg and this has steadily improved to 52 mpg average with 57mpg on longer runs at a current mileage of 5,000 miles. I am fairly hopeful I will achieve a combined figure of 57mpg or near the 62mpg as the mileage builds. I enjoy the power of the TDI and utilise it fully ! Like most I never believe the book figures so am pleased with what I am getting and the continuing improvement. Its the 2.0 engine by the way with DSG. I think as said before your particular circumstances re lease of the TDI v 1.4 petrol are unfortunate and perhaps the salesperson from what you have said with hindsight may have discussed your usage in more depth re Petrol versus Diesel.

It appears that the 2.0 engine (especially the "standard 150ps model) is more economical than the 1.6 although the published figures are some way south of the 1.6 :confused:.
If you are confident of eventually getting around 62 mpg while not being overly concerned with driving in the "green" fashion VW seem to think you should use.... that is good & must be very close to the published figures for your car.
Maybe I should have gone for the 2.0 150ps model instead ? the initial price difference was quite small & may well have been covered in 5,000 miles use.

I wish another couple of people with 1.6TDI's could post so I can compare my results, starting to feel a bit isolated now. :(

D

[dcdick]

Having read this thread, I'm so glad I opted for the 1.4TSi 122PS rather than the 2.0TDi 150PS I was considering. Much of my mileage is relatively short journeys, the TDi would be a nightmare for me.

Hi Rob

What made your mind up when choosing petrol or diesel at the dealers. ?

Did the "adviser" you dealt with quiz you about your driving mileage wise & was any mention made of DPF & the issues that could arise from this ?

Would be interested in your experience with this but will completely understand if you are reluctant to discuss this on an "open" forum.

D

[DW58]

Hi Rob

What made your mind up when choosing petrol or diesel at the dealers. ?

Did the "adviser" you dealt with quiz you about your driving mileage wise & was any mention made of DPF & the issues that could arise from this ?

Would be interested in your experience with this but will completely understand if you are reluctant to discuss this on an "open" forum.

D

To be honest the dealer didn't push e toward either. I went to test drive the Mk.7 on launch weekend - my plan was to replace my Mk.6 1.4TSi 122PS Match Manual with a Mk.7 1.4TSi 122PS SE DSG. The options on offer for test were: a 1.4TSi 122PS SE Manual and a 2.0TDi GT DSG - I drove both and was very taken with the performance of the GT TDi. This left me to do much research myself as the dealer didn't really volunteer much either way initially. I tested both cars over the same twelve mile route on a wet Saturday morning in January. To be absolutely honest I was most taken by the GT 2.0, but decided to do some serious research.

My final decision was made in terms of cost and my low mileage more than anything else - I learnt about the DPF and fuel consumption issues a bit further down the line by which time I had already decided on another 1.4TSi, but with DSG/paddles this time as I'm partially disabled and find the clutch a bit of a bother at times. Having been out for a burn this afternoon in my Mum's new-ish Audi A1 1.4TFSi Sportback with DSG today, I'm pretty certain I made the right decision.

With the DPF Regen issues, I think the GT 2.0 could have been nothing but trouble for me.

[pango1in]

Spoke to the dealer about the low MPG. The advice was to leave it 2,000 miles or so.

The engine is pretty tight, the ECU hasn't learnt my driving style. Interestingly, the dealership demo (which is DSG) manages 50mpg on short journeys...

We'll see what happens over the next few weeks.

[dcdick]

Spoke to the dealer about the low MPG. The advice was to leave it 2,000 miles or so.

The engine is pretty tight, the ECU hasn't learnt my driving style. Interestingly, the dealership demo (which is DSG) manages 50mpg on short journeys...

We'll see what happens over the next few weeks.

Same story I got, will do nothing untill 2,000 miles or so.

Interestingly there has been no "forced regens" since the dealer ran the "check procedure" early last week. By coincidence my mileage since then (apart from one 50 mile round trip that returned av 58mpg) has been almost all short 3-4 mile journeys that would certainly have set the car into regen at journeys end by now.
Currently running Shell nitro diesel that is reputed to be super clean, maybe it is that keeping the filter cleaner than "ordinary" diesel ??

The mpg was going well with up to 53-54 mpg (indicated, but only 2% optimistic) on journeys of 6+ miles (300 miles) then the filter sooted itself up & the regens started & that dropped the mpg by around 5-6 mpg

I'll persevere with Shell nitro for another couple of fuels & see what happens............ who knows if this is the answer ?

D

ps .......................... Does the ECU really have the capability to adjust to our driving habits ?

[pango1in]

ps .......................... Does the ECU really have the capability to adjust to our driving habits ?

I know it sounds weird, but I have noticed this on my old BMW 120d. Drive like a vicar for 1/2 a tank and you'd have a jump in mpg on the motorway, as the engine had detuned itself. Drive like you stole it for half a tank and it would be quicker off of the line with sharper throttle.

I don't know if the re-tuning is designed to take some of the stress off of the engine - who knows?

[dickt]

Mine (2.0 150 with dsg) seems to have maintained its improvement to circa 48 mpg. Now at 3300 miles (It has not been used much of late).
Whilst that is better than my Mk 5 170dsg, (45mpg), it has not been worth the cost of the change!

[Pommyboi]

Mine (2.0 150 with dsg) seems to have maintained its improvement to circa 48 mpg. Now at 3300 miles (It has not been used much of late).
Whilst that is better than my Mk 5 170dsg, (45mpg), it has not been worth the cost of the change!

Did you change just for improved MPG as you would surely never have got the difference back in many many years? Comparing two new cars, petrol and diesel, I had always been under the impression you would have to do 15000+ to make it worth while going with a diesel car and that's where the difference in price might be less than £1000, it must be much much more between a new diesel and a used car.

If I didn't do motorway driving most of the time I wouldn't be surprised if I got the same MPG as you.

I just had my first service so I'll see if anything has changed/improved when I'm out and about next week.

[dcdick]

Did you change just for improved MPG as you would surely never have got the difference back in many many years? Comparing two new cars, petrol and diesel, I had always been under the impression you would have to do 15000+ to make it worth while going with a diesel car and that's where the difference in price might be less than £1000, it must be much much more between a new diesel and a used car.

If I didn't do motorway driving most of the time I wouldn't be surprised if I got the same MPG as you.

I just had my first service so I'll see if anything has changed/improved when I'm out and about next week.

Fuel economy was the reason for me to choose diesel Golf over petrol. My cost of change/ownership difference between petrol/diesel was literally £40 more for the diesel & spread over the 3 years lease I should have been £'s in but the lies told by VW about their "new" diesels with "Blue motion technology" mean that I am only getting 1-2mpg more than I would in the petrol equivalent (1.6 TDI v 1.4 TSI) after taking in to account the cheaper cost of petrol per litre.

Wonder if we will ever see stickers on car windscreens in dealer showrooms that say something like "diesel engine, only for 20,000+ pa motorway drivers", probably when the display team from the UK "Flying pig circus" appear at the dealers :rocketwho

[Eshrules]

Fuel economy was the reason for me to choose diesel Golf over petrol. My cost of change/ownership difference between petrol/diesel was literally £40 more for the diesel & spread over the 3 years lease I should have been £'s in but the lies told by VW about their "new" diesels with "Blue motion technology" mean that I am only getting 1-2mpg more than I would in the petrol equivalent (1.6 TDI v 1.4 TSI) after taking in to account the cheaper cost of petrol per litre.

Wonder if we will ever see stickers on car windscreens in dealer showrooms that say something like "diesel engine, only for 20,000+ pa motorway drivers", probably when the display team from the UK "Flying pig circus" appear at the dealers


What's your annual mileage and how much of that is city : motorway?

[dcdick]

What's your annual mileage and how much of that is city : motorway?

Around 10/11k very mixed driving probably 25 % "city" ................... remainder "A" roads & Dual carriageway/motorway.
This should not matter these days as the car has amongst the "Blue motion stuff" "traffic" features such as "stop start" "low speed anti collision etc..........

This is a current hi-tech diesel car....................... should achieve close to published figures..................... VW petrol cars seem to get close enough, why can't the "new" diesels ?

Been through all this nonsense with VW both at national level & dealer & they just stonewall by saying that as they can't control the way the car is driven, they won't act on my the mpg figures until they can see an identifiable fault. There diagnostic routines show no such fault.

It's the only thing that lets the car down & it's the one thing that costs me money :mad:

D

ps.................... as you drive a Fiesta why do you post in the VW forums ?

[Eshrules]

Around 10/11k very mixed driving probably 25 % "city" ................... remainder "A" roads & Dual carriageway/motorway.
This should not matter these days as the car has amongst the "Blue motion stuff" "traffic" features such as "stop start" "low speed anti collision etc..........

This is a current hi-tech diesel car....................... should achieve close to published figures..................... VW petrol cars seem to get close enough, why can't the "new" diesels ?

Been through all this nonsense with VW both at national level & dealer & they just stonewall by saying that as they can't control the way the car is driven, they won't act on my the mpg figures until they can see an identifiable fault. There diagnostic routines show no such fault.

It's the only thing that lets the car down & it's the one thing that costs me money :mad:

D

ps.................... as you drive a Fiesta why do you post in the VW forums ?

11k miles a year is approx. 211 miles a week.

assuming 25% is city that's 7>8 miles a day city, 22>23 miles a day motorway.

Unfortunately, diesels take a while to loosen up and shorter runs aren't going to return the higher end of the MPG scale.

I can't seem to see where you've mentioned your average MPG, but fuelly is a good site for keeping track of your brim>to>brim economy.

If you're managing to see around 45>50mpg based on your driving/mileage, I wouldn't say that's too bad, given that economy figures are quoted to be around 65/70 and it's fair to assume us humans will only ever see 75>85% of that quoted figure.

I've been posting on VWAF since I owned my first VW.

[pango1in]

Quick update.

My MPG seems to be creeping up. Done 330 miles. This morning, the drive to work had an average of 54mpg. That's up from 45-47mpg in the first 100 miles. Average on my first tank is still down at 44.8 mpg (done 330 miles, range 160 miles), but hopefully this will improve! Done in Eco mode with cruise control on.

[dcdick]

11k miles a year is approx. 211 miles a week.

assuming 25% is city that's 7>8 miles a day city, 22>23 miles a day motorway.

Unfortunately, diesels take a while to loosen up and shorter runs aren't going to return the higher end of the MPG scale.

I can't seem to see where you've mentioned your average MPG, but fuelly is a good site for keeping track of your brim>to>brim economy.

If you're managing to see around 45>50mpg based on your driving/mileage, I wouldn't say that's too bad, given that economy figures are quoted to be around 65/70 and it's fair to assume us humans will only ever see 75>85% of that quoted figure.

I've been posting on VWAF since I owned my first VW.

Fuelly doesn't work for me as I don't believe in filling "to the brim" when refueling ............... normally stick 30 or 40 £'s worth in when the gauge is getting near the warning marks 1/5th fuel left ?

Problem with modern cars in brimming the fuel tank is that you can't see the fuel level like you could a few years ago so there is always an element of guess work that may or may not be significant. I worked out the miles done after the first fill up & got within 2% of the cars display which is close enough for me.

Fuel figures quoted are 61.8 to 72.4 mpg................accepted tolerance is - 10% which should be easily achievable if you drive in a reasonable manner. In my car I should be able to see mid 60's with more on a "run" but am prepared to accept the urban figure quoted as the "norm" & that is 61.8 mpg, expecting to better this on a "run" (as a ref my mkvi 1.4 tsi would hit 59/60 mpg on a run & never went below 46/47 mpg)

The big hit on my consumption has been the DPF using fuel doing this regen cycle................. first 250/300 miles from new i was seeing 53/54 mpg & happy enough to expect better when the engine got some more miles through it.
Then the regens started, very annoyingly quite a few times when you park the car up. Mpg dropped to 47/48 during this period.
Dealer visit-diagnostics-no fault etc...
Now running the car on premium diesel (Shell nitro) & mpg back up to 54 mpg & seeming to be getting better & best of all no regens noticed in the last 600 miles. Price difference between branded standard petrol & premium diesel where I live is 12p per litre extra for the diesel (about 4 mpg compare this against a mk vii 1.4tsi blue motion tech that I would expect to be able to get around 50 mpg in normal driving)

Initial cost for this car was £40 more than the petrol equivalent (spread over 3 years & 30,000 something miles is not an issue).................you expect to get more mpg with a diesel, DPF questions were asked (& answered when choosing the car)

My benefits so far in owning a diesel Golf7...............nothing, only aggro with dealer & VW UK so far

Lease company sympathetic but are making me hang on till 2,000 miles comes around then they will change the car for me ( but will have to jump through several hoops to get that )

Have you any direct experience of the modern VW diesels with this DPF/Blue motion tech that they are running now ?....................VW are very reticent about discussing the technology they use nowadays & always interested in hearing opinions about these soot particles that are causing havoc at the moment.

Really nice car spoiled by lies about economy & arrogantly non-existent customer service when a customer dares to question anything VW

If this diesel car really has to do a minimum journey length to work properly of 10+ miles that is complete nonsense in 2013 with a £20,000 car

[maisbitt]

When I had DPF and poor economy issues with my MK5 Golf 170TDI (the 2.0 170TDI PD was the first TDI engine to get a DPF), VW were falling over themselves to help out. They had the injectors out to check for leaks (there were nnone) and they had the cylinder head off. They found a tiny casting fault on one of the internal surfaces of the cylinder head and replaced it. As a matter of course they emptied the DPF and then sent me off with my "repaired" engine. Pre repairs the car would start with about 1/3 of a second turning over. Post repair it took about 2 seconds of turning over to fire up.

Anyway, a week later the DPF issues started again (what had been emptied had returned, I presume) and the dealership consulted VW Germany's engineering division who gave them a remap to apply. This solved everything (except the now longer turnover time for the engine) - my fuel economy was through the roof and every regen after that was passive. Overfuelling did seem to be the cause in my case.

For VWs outright refusal to really look into your issues says to me that either it's a widespread problem that they're aware of and don't currently have a fix for (it would be nice to know that they at least acknowledge the issue and are working on a solution), or they have really stretched the truth for MK7 economy/changed their testing regime to give figures far more removed from everyday driving than used to be the case.

My Dad's MK7 GTD DSG will be in the country today (I still have a long wait for mine despite ordering it before him from the same dealership) and he'll be getting it Monday or Tuesday - it will be interesting to see what the economy is like on that.

[Teflon]

There are some hard and fast rules about car economy, which I'll wager are every bit as correct today as they always have been:





You will never achieve the brochure mpg. Not unless you are completely fixated and adopt tricks like knocking it out of gear going downhill. Even then you still won’t.
The Honest John website has reviews which give you a percentage accuracy for manufacturer mpg figures versus real world. NONE of them are anywhere near the hype.
Engines vary. Tolerances have improved immensely, but they still vary. It’s a fact. Mpg varies as a result. Deal with it.
On total running and lifetime cost a diesel is better if you are doing big mileages. Any other situation, think carefully. DPF and petrol turbos have made this equation more true.
New engines are rubbish. A diesel isn’t really run in until it’s in 5 digits. Some people would say 40-50k.
If you are an mpg junkie it’s pointless filling brim to brim. It’s like driving around with a fat bloke in the boot.
Your driving style, route, the odd hill here and there has much more effect on mpg than you could possibly imagine. A 20 mile jaunt around Lincolnshire is a lot more frugal than the same distance around the Lakes.
Premium fuels will give you better mpg than the supermarket stuff, but never by enough to justify the extra cost. It’s been proven time after time in technical tests for the motoring mags.
Fuel varies. Both in terms of it’s energy content and how much you get. Always buy fuel on a freezing cold day, preferably after a month of icy weather. It will be at it’s maximum density. Even better, buy it from a small garage where they don’t have the equipment to warm the stuff and make it expand a bit.


Here’s a final bit of empirical evidence for you. My wife and I have exactly the same 2 litre 200hp turbo engines, same DSG box. The cars were bought new, delivered two weeks apart. From day one, mine has got through oil at an alarming rate but it’s now settled at about 1500 miles per litre. Hers has never been topped up. Mine seems to have has better mpg, even though I drive a little more spiritedly and do shorter trips. They’re just different.

p.s. The trip computer lies. So does your speedo. They underestimate distance and over-report speed. Results with mpg vary, but my own one-off experience over several thousand miles of brim to brim fills was that it under-reported mpg. Some folks say the opposite. If you don't believe they lie just find a nice stretch of empty Sunday morning motorway. Set the cruise control at exactly 70mph. Get a stopwatch out and time about 10km worth of the 100m marker posts, each has an ID on it in case you lose count. Do the maths. You will have been doing 64-67mph and the distance on the trip computer will be short. If you try this with a SatNav running it will give you an accurate, lower speed as well.

[dcdick]

There are some hard and fast rules about car economy, which I'll wager are every bit as correct today as they always have been:





You will never achieve the brochure mpg. Not unless you are completely fixated and adopt tricks like knocking it out of gear going downhill. Even then you still won’t.
The Honest John website has reviews which give you a percentage accuracy for manufacturer mpg figures versus real world. NONE of them are anywhere near the hype.
Engines vary. Tolerances have improved immensely, but they still vary. It’s a fact. Mpg varies as a result. Deal with it.
On total running and lifetime cost a diesel is better if you are doing big mileages. Any other situation, think carefully. DPF and petrol turbos have made this equation more true.
New engines are rubbish. A diesel isn’t really run in until it’s in 5 digits. Some people would say 40-50k.
If you are an mpg junkie it’s pointless filling brim to brim. It’s like driving around with a fat bloke in the boot.
Your driving style, route, the odd hill here and there has much more effect on mpg than you could possibly imagine. A 20 mile jaunt around Lincolnshire is a lot more frugal than the same distance around the lakes.
Premium fuels will give you better mpg than the supermarket stuff, but never by enough to justify the extra cost. It’s been proven time after time in technical tests for the motoring mags.
Fuel varies. Both in terms of it’s energy content and how much you get. Always buy fuel on a freezing cold day, preferably after a month of icy weather. It will be at it’s maximum density. Even better, buy it from a small garage where they don’t have the equipment to warm the stuff and make it expand a bit.



Here’s a final bit of empirical evidence for you. My wife and I have exactly the same 2 litre200hp turbo engines, same DSG box. The cars were bought new, delivered two weeks apart. From day one, mine has got through oil at an alarming rate but it’s now settled at about 1500 miles per litre. Hers has never been topped up. Mine probably has better mpg, even though I drive a little more spiritedly. They’re just different.

Interesting post especially the car economy table
Agree with some & disagree with others ;)

The simple fact remains that this car I have is using more fuel than it should..............
VW obviously are having more people than me complaining about it.................
VW are doing nothing about my complaint (yet) in particular & their diesel engines economy issues in general

I am dealing with it by taking the action that I have & intend to & I'll post up the result in due course.

I notice your cars are not the current models & perhaps if you were driving the "Blue motion technology" current version you would have a different opinion on the fuel consumption issues ?

D

[pango1in]

Teflon, these are very wise words.

I would agree with all except the premium fuels - there are other benefits to these fuels than just mpg - and it will improve mpg significantly if you have an old, dirty engine as the valves and injectors have diesel krap removed. The mag reviews I have seen all use relatively new cars, or performance cars, which need to be tuned to the fuel...

I think the point that is being made here how far the figures are from the manufacturer's. Honest John is a great site. You'll note it states that on average drivers get 87% of the stated MPG. We all know you'll never get there, but 87% is entirely reasonable (the golf mk6 reaches 88%, with some TDIs hitting 104% of the average stated mpg!).

Unfortunately, the Mk7 has left a lot to be desired. The equivalent TDI (the 150PS) is only reaching 76%. Not only well below the average % achieved vs manufacturers, but a country mile below the Mk6's %. Even with all the Bluemotion stuff on board, on average, the Mk7 mpg is lower than the equivalent Mk6 mpg.

I think it's the above that annoys so many people. If you can't even reach the manufacturers urban mpg when doing a long motorway run, surely there's something wrong with the manufacturer's figures or the car?

[Teflon]

..................

I notice your cars are not the current models & perhaps if you were driving the "Blue motion technology" current version you would have a different opinion on the fuel consumption issues ?

D
Fair comment. The last 35 years of my driving might not be representative of the present.

To my mind, all that the Blue Motion Technology does is attempt to do what the high-mpg gurus have been doing for years. Switch off at the lights. Restrict fuel on the over-run and avoid engine braking. Freewheel when you lift off. Use regenerative braking to top up the battery rather than use engine power on the alternator (that one's definately not been available to the light of foot brigade). And so on.

The result is that mpg has improved significantly but the declared (and expected) economy figures have shot up. I've just traded my Passat. Looking at the spec. for a new equivalent I would be about 12mpg better off but I'll bet I'd never have achieved it.

Here's the thing though. As Blue Motion pushes up expectations, conditions to get near those numbers have to be ever more perfect and in the right window. No-one compained if their car did 27mpg instead of 30. There's good reason to complain if you only get 40mpg instead of 64.

I sincerely wish you the very best of luck with your challenge to VW. If you have even partial success you must get in touch with Watchdog and tell them about "my consumer victory".

Sadly, I don't hold great hopes for your venture, if only because there is so much to lose for them, both financially and in image terms. It took years to get the injector failure problem resolved as a recall, despite the danger of cars just stopping in the outside lane of the motorway; VOSA had to kick them into action. There are lifetime warranties on DSG gearboxes in the USA and China, but we have to cross our fingers and hope nothing goes wrong. "A problem with fuel consumption you say, Sir? No pal, it's your lead foot and we're in the clear".

[dickt]

Yes, we all wish dcd luck with the complaint.
VW do eventually react if and when they get enough written complaints, BUT you have to have the garage on your side too.
In my mind, that means that lots of VW Golf Mk 7 customers have to be complaining to garages a lot more often.
My first complaint to my local garage in High Wycombe was more or less ignored by the plonker of a service rep as all I heard was the standard VW line, as though he had just come back from the VW B/S course.
However, as Mais and I found with the 170 bhp dsg Mk 5, EVENTUALLY - VW owned up. In my case - to a dodgy regen unit, to dodgy sensors, and eventually to a full set of new injectors, (when the car was 4 years old!!!!). Before then, they had been charging customers for replacing the crappy injectors!!!!
After all that, the car delivered 45 mpg.

So for dcd to succeed, I think you'll have to make a bl**dy nuisance of your self to VW and to at least one garage.

[maisbitt]

There are some hard and fast rules about car economy, which I'll wager are every bit as correct today as they always have been:





You will never achieve the brochure mpg. Not unless you are completely fixated and adopt tricks like knocking it out of gear going downhill. Even then you still won’t.
The Honest John website has reviews which give you a percentage accuracy for manufacturer mpg figures versus real world. NONE of them are anywhere near the hype.
Engines vary. Tolerances have improved immensely, but they still vary. It’s a fact. Mpg varies as a result. Deal with it.
On total running and lifetime cost a diesel is better if you are doing big mileages. Any other situation, think carefully. DPF and petrol turbos have made this equation more true.
New engines are rubbish. A diesel isn’t really run in until it’s in 5 digits. Some people would say 40-50k.
If you are an mpg junkie it’s pointless filling brim to brim. It’s like driving around with a fat bloke in the boot.
Your driving style, route, the odd hill here and there has much more effect on mpg than you could possibly imagine. A 20 mile jaunt around Lincolnshire is a lot more frugal than the same distance around the Lakes.
Premium fuels will give you better mpg than the supermarket stuff, but never by enough to justify the extra cost. It’s been proven time after time in technical tests for the motoring mags.
Fuel varies. Both in terms of it’s energy content and how much you get. Always buy fuel on a freezing cold day, preferably after a month of icy weather. It will be at it’s maximum density. Even better, buy it from a small garage where they don’t have the equipment to warm the stuff and make it expand a bit.


Here’s a final bit of empirical evidence for you. My wife and I have exactly the same 2 litre 200hp turbo engines, same DSG box. The cars were bought new, delivered two weeks apart. From day one, mine has got through oil at an alarming rate but it’s now settled at about 1500 miles per litre. Hers has never been topped up. Mine seems to have has better mpg, even though I drive a little more spiritedly and do shorter trips. They’re just different.

p.s. The trip computer lies. So does your speedo. They underestimate distance and over-report speed. Results with mpg vary, but my own one-off experience over several thousand miles of brim to brim fills was that it under-reported mpg. Some folks say the opposite. If you don't believe they lie just find a nice stretch of empty Sunday morning motorway. Set the cruise control at exactly 70mph. Get a stopwatch out and time about 10km worth of the 100m marker posts, each has an ID on it in case you lose count. Do the maths. You will have been doing 64-67mph and the distance on the trip computer will be short. If you try this with a SatNav running it will give you an accurate, lower speed as well.

I agree with some points, disagree with some others. Adding them up I don't think I can blame the owner, just vast stretching of the truth by the car manufacturers which is inexcusable.

Almost universally speedos are 8% optimistic. Ever driven past those displays that show your speed? If it says you're doing 30mph, your speedo will be saying 32mph.

The mpg trip computer on VWs (and probably all other marques lies). Mine is about 4% optimistic. When new is was almost 10% optimistic, but over the first few tankfuls it seems to get more accurate and closer to reality.

I do think that on pre MK7 TDIs it has been relatively easy to achieve combined figures on 10mile + journeys in the summer if you don't drive like a loon.

Your car will be 10% less efficient in the winter. Most fuel delivery systems at petrol stations have a compensation system to avoid overfuelling (the garage owner giving out more than it needs to), taking into account denser fuel in colder temps - diesel becomes about 1% more dense per 6C temperature drop, so in a British winter Diesel is about 5% denser, but the colder ambient temp hurts fuel economy so you're not really much better off.

Higher residuals on TDI cars usually more than compensate higher purchase price (if any). For most VWs, the difference between TDI and the nearest TSI equivalent (in terms of output) are very close in price e.g. 2.0TDI 150 GT vs ACT 1.4TSI GT. The TDI is £505 dearer - you will recoup that in fuel alone over the first 15k miles, and the TDI will be worth £1500 more at 3 years old. You don't need to be doing high mileage to make TDI pay for itself on a Golf.

There are variances in mpg/power and oil consumtion, but from the factory these should be small due to tight engineering tolerances - the way you run the car in has a huge influence. Lots of moderately short journeys (10-20 miles) with a bit of variety (don't baby it too much, don't thrash it either) in the engine speeds up to 2/3 of rev range and up to 1/2 throttle for the first 500 miles to get a good piston ring seating. This has served me well for 5 out of 6 of my last TDIs, the other wasn't run in this way and it was an oil thirsty pig of an engine.

I think I have quite an economical driving style. I do accelerate quite hard to get to a speed that I will maintain for a while (a few seconds of hard acceleration is more economical than 5 x as long doing moderate acceleration to get to the same speed), but once there I keep the speed steady and don't rely on cruise control. I let the car decelerate to a roundabout quite a bit before I apply the brakes (engine braking harder to achieve with DSG). I seem to use my brakes less than most.

Modern engines use no fuel when decelerating via engine braking, knocking them into neutral and coasting uses some fuel to maintain idling speed - nothing saved there.

I have never noticed appreciable gains in a VAG TDI's economy as miles go on, beyond the first 1000 miles when it is running in. My 21k Scirocco is no more economical than it was a year ago with similar weather.

Something seems to have changed for the worse with MK7 quote fuel figures. Where have 20% gains come from? Brake regeneration accounts for 3% fuel savings. stop/start tech gains are negligible if you are not stuck in inner city traffic for a large proportion of your commute - on a long motorway run they are completely irrelevant. Some small gains were quoted for incorporation of a new internal exhaust manifold set-up to improve warm-up times, but as before, the longer the journey, the less effect warm-up time has on your journey's economy. Reasoning, I can't get anywhere near the 20% quoted gains on paper for the new tech employed.

[dcdick]

Fair comment. The last 35 years of my driving might not be representative of the present.

To my mind, all that the Blue Motion Technology does is attempt to do what the high-mpg gurus have been doing for years. Switch off at the lights. Restrict fuel on the over-run and avoid engine braking. Freewheel when you lift off. Use regenerative braking to top up the battery rather than use engine power on the alternator (that one's definately not been available to the light of foot brigade). And so on.

The result is that mpg has improved significantly but the declared (and expected) economy figures have shot up. I've just traded my Passat. Looking at the spec. for a new equivalent I would be about 12mpg better off but I'll bet I'd never have achieved it.

Here's the thing though. As Blue Motion pushes up expectations, conditions to get near those numbers have to be ever more perfect and in the right window. No-one compained if their car did 27mpg instead of 30. There's good reason to complain if you only get 40mpg instead of 64.

I sincerely wish you the very best of luck with your challenge to VW. If you have even partial success you must get in touch with Watchdog and tell them about "my consumer victory".

Sadly, I don't hold great hopes for your venture, if only because there is so much to lose for them, both financially and in image terms. It took years to get the injector failure problem resolved as a recall, despite the danger of cars just stopping in the outside lane of the motorway; VOSA had to kick them into action. There are lifetime warranties on DSG gearboxes in the USA and China, but we have to cross our fingers and hope nothing goes wrong. "A problem with fuel consumption you say, Sir? No pal, it's your lead foot and we're in the clear".

There lies the rub with mpg figures & complaints...............VW think they have the complete get-out in saying that as they have "no control over the way a car is driven" mpg figures in the 40's are "within expectations".
As you say, for VW to admit they have got the Mk7 diesel engines wrong is going to take some special effort from a number of people to gain even "gain partial success"
The previous injectors nonsense is still very fresh in their mindset & they certainly don't want to go "public" on this.

This is the first car that I have struggled to get anywhere near close to the published figures in :(

Just notched up my 50 years last year of driving everything with wheels & a fair few things with tracks
VW stonewalling me just annoys the life out of me & makes me more determined to get a result of some sort. Especially since I worked in & around the motor trade for 25 years (75-99)
Realistically I imagine the best I can hope for is to get "paid off" by VW with some sort of deal on accessories/vouchers etc.. will that will pacify me enough to give in ??

I think you are also dead right with "Blue motion" being 100% dependent upon "ideal" conditions to hit it's published targets

Time will tell I imagine

D

[dcdick]

dickt, maisbit & teflon

Thanks for your reply's they are appreciated

I used to fit tachographs & taxi meters as well as working with speed checking devices & the speedo's are usually deliberately 10% optimistic to help keep customers licences clean (sadly with the amount of "boy racer types around these days it would need to be 50% optimistic to have any chance of working that way)

It's all part of the hype of
more power........................ quote hp figures in ps.
better top speed .................make speedo 10% optimistic
better economy ...................make mpg display optimistic

Wonder if anybody from VW reads these forums ?

D

Me ...cynical ???

[Dolmen]

Not that anyone seems to notice my posts, but on the chance that someone does... Our long term reading is showing 51.7mpg and today I had our second fill with BP and the actual was 50.7mpg with 563 miles on the clock. The computer showed us getting as high as 60.1mpg on one trip and a high of mid 50's on most journeys. Signed up to fuelly but can't work out how I put it in the sig if anyone would care to talk me through it. Tia

[Brycie]

Who said that? ;)

[dcdick]

Who said that? ;)

?????

[dcdick]

Not that anyone seems to notice my posts, but on the chance that someone does... Our long term reading is showing 51.7mpg and today I had our second fill with BP and the actual was 50.7mpg with 563 miles on the clock. The computer showed us getting as high as 60.1mpg on one trip and a high of mid 50's on most journeys. Signed up to fuelly but can't work out how I put it in the sig if anyone would care to talk me through it. Tia

I notice your posts

Look here

Join Fuelly (https://www.fuelly.com/login/join.gas)

for fuelly

D

[Brycie]

?????

Just a daft joke because he said nobody notices his posts; I'll get my coat :rolleyes:

[pango1in]

Bah, started not to be impressed with the MPG again...

Did a 60 mile round trip on A roads. About 50mph all the way (average speed cams), very little traffic, driving like a vicar. Managed 57 mpg for first 2/3 of the way out, then something happened and the mpg dropped. When we parked up at the destination, the engine was idling at 1000rpm and the fan kept whirring once the ignition was turned off. There was also a smell of burning oil/diesel. End of trip, the mpg was pushing 53mpg.

So far active regens seem to have happened at 60, 260 and 460 miles. Not impressed, particularly as urban driving is only a third of my use.

[dcdick]

Well, the plot thickens as they say ;)

100 mile round trip this weekend almost exactly 50 miles each way, all m/way/dual/A roads dry & warm traffic constant but light. (2 adults + weekend luggage) Both from overnight "cold" start

Out on Sat morn 62.1 mpg, was showing 65.5 until the last 1/2 mile through the destination town that was slow moving 5 mins at low speed 15/20 mph cost me 3+ mpg on a 50 m journey ??

Return journey on Mon morning returned 59.4 mpg, no hold ups of any kind, same weather conditions as out journey max speed for both journeys was never more than 70 mph for odd occasions while overtaking.

Bit surprised at the return mpg as the gradients seemed to be in favour of the return leg.
Av consumption 60.75 mpg, cars mileage passed 1k on the journey so engine should be working to it's best (or as good as it is going to get)

I had to drive far, far to carefully to get this mpg, using the "freewheel" option on the eco setting as much as possible/anticipation/driving with an egg between my foot & the accel pedal etc..... in these circumstances I should have been getting at least the combined figures of 72.4 mpg driving like this.

Next move is to stick some more fuel in & drive in normal mode without care for economy & see what happens to the mileage

Think I'll try & see if Top Gear will do an economy run in one of these "standard" Mk 7's ................. now that would be interesting !

What is wrong with these engines ??

D

[pango1in]

DCDick - what mileage are you up to?

I spoke to the garage this lunchtime as I was concerned with the number of regen cycles. They said that although I was only getting 47mpg, this will improve to somewhere between 56-62mpg on the combined cycle after about 4,000 miles. They seemed to be happy with the fact that the car had had 3 active regens within 500 miles of new, despite fairly long distance drives each day. I will give it until 4,000 miles.

[dickt]

I suspect that we will all get the standard VW line in our various complaints.

1. "We cannot know your driving style" (My 150 with all the eco stuff is only now as economical as my mk5 170)
2. "It will improve over time. (Er, why? My previous 170/dsg combinations ones hit their max at circa 1,000 miles)
3 "It will improve after your first service" (Er, for mine, that is likely to be 20 months in)

We need to find a garage that is on the Customer's side, and not just spinning the VW line.

Don't forget people paid thousands to replace their Injectors in the Mk 5 before VW admitted that they had installed a very faulty batch. They do not have a good record with admitting errors

[dcdick]

DCDick - what mileage are you up to?

I spoke to the garage this lunchtime as I was concerned with the number of regen cycles. They said that although I was only getting 47mpg, this will improve to somewhere between 56-62mpg on the combined cycle after about 4,000 miles. They seemed to be happy with the fact that the car had had 3 active regens within 500 miles of new, despite fairly long distance drives each day. I will give it until 4,000 miles.

I don't subscribe to this "needs 4/5000 miles before it works properly" theory as modern engines (especially from "premium brands") are made to exacting tolerances & are pretty much up to spec from new, (perhaps 2/3 mpg after car has been used for a while at the very most )
Sounds to me as though the garage is "fobbing you off"
What happens when you go back after 4k & your mpg has not improved by 30% as the garage says it will ?
Has anybody on this forum experienced a 30% better fuel economy after driving their car for 4,000 miles ?

This mpg thing with the Mk 7 Golf (especially with the DSG) stinks :mad:

Current mileage is 1,120

D

[SammoVWT]

It may have tighter tolerances, but dont forget you are running on synthetic - so its going to take longer to run-in anyway. Everything is tight at the moment - give it a bit to loosen up and 'adapt' to how you drive. The number of times ive seen these posts about new models, but they always settle down after 5k. If they dont, you may have an issue, but don't forget you are running a car vs a 'best possible result' lab test. Driving style has a lot to do with it and the amount of time you sit in stationary traffic. I wouldnt panic just yet.

[dcdick]

It may have tighter tolerances, but dont forget you are running on synthetic - so its going to take longer to run-in anyway. Everything is tight at the moment - give it a bit to loosen up and 'adapt' to how you drive. The number of times ive seen these posts about new models, but they always settle down after 5k. If they dont, you may have an issue, but don't forget you are running a car vs a 'best possible result' lab test. Driving style has a lot to do with it and the amount of time you sit in stationary traffic. I wouldnt panic just yet.

I respect your opinions, but my personal experience does differ.
It's only had £40 's worth of synthetic fuel so don't know how much of an issue that will be.
I've always found it get's the best results to raise issues early rather than waiting to let them "develop" .
If the fuel economy gets a lot better after c 5k miles why doesn't it say so in the handbook/dealers/advertising/long term road tests etc..... ??
I don't panic but I also don't let things I am unhappy with run on without doing something about it.

The lease company have set some conditions & it seems that they will exchange the car after I have done 1,800/2,000 miles (which are the mileage criteria that the economy tests are conducted under)

Good car, rubbish fuel economy.

D

[SammoVWT]

By synthetic i meant the oil by the way. My old golf has taken a hell of a long time to run in properly after the rebuild since i'm running on full synth oil.

The fueltank brim test is always the best way to be sure at any rate, trip computers always underestimate. Clever advertising means there will be a *reference somewhere which you have to look up the data. They hide it because its always best to put 1000 mpg from a relatively non realistic drive.

From a marketing perspective, if they advertise a car as realistically 62mpg, vs another brand who bends it and says 80, then you will always pick the other brand.

I dont think they would out and out lie, I just think that engineers can only give data based on set conditions. Since traffic is so variable its a finger in the air type of job to say what urban consumption is like.

Also don't forget they have been selling cars for a long time, which is why they give out the standard lines of my car is doing this and that because they have seen it hundreds of thousands times before. Saying that, since I've never owned a new car out of the box. I wish I could afford to do it so I don't feel the same level of frustration, but I'm sure I would if I had parted with so much cash too.

But from my rebuild, which will have a similar effect with a shiney new crank and rings I have noticed my mpg increase and my oil consumption drop over time. The problem with dropping 40 quid of fuel in here and there is that prices vary, as do temperatures/volumes. The best way is a brim test for an identical journey.

When my engine was first rebuilt, it was chugging down on semi synth at a rate, after my first 500 miles, i swapped to synth and its been a steady improvement since then to the point where I can drive anywhere without checking my oil after every trip and be confident I've not burned it/evaporated it away. I always check because i'm a paranoid bugger, but trust me have a bit of patience.

Sometimes making too much noise has the reverse effect, and the customer service team will know you by name and wont want to deal with you. Shouldn't happen, but i'm sure this happens in every line of business. The best case you have is to follow what they instruct by the letter, even documenting real world mpg readings vs mileage, loadings and distance, and then make a case if you feel that strongly. Its a lot of effort to see that your mpg figures will most likely improve.

If they dont, VW will probably be very nice to you with all the evidence you have gathered.

Also 'rubbish' fuel economy is subjective. I'm happy with 45+mpg on the motorway ;) and im running V-power too, so it does cost me a bit more than standard 95.

[dcdick]

Thanks for your reply Sammo

Shell V nitro is a synthetic diesel distilled from lpg, I just presumed you were referring to the diesel :D

The only way I can justify new cars is through a lease deal, If I had paid £20,000 of my own money ( I wish) for a Golf that was doing this I would have researched this mpg very thoroughly as the only benefit diesel has is fuel economy & would almost certainly not have bought an overpriced Golf.

VW customer service is legendarily bad, especially after the injector fiasco of a few years back so I really do think that they lie & rely on the VW global brand "name" to see them through.

This is the first car ever that I have not been able to get close to the mpg advertised (& I'm not the only one either) so something is wrong somewhere :(

Interested in your engine rebuild, been too long since I have gotten my hands "dirty", but these new engines are a world away from the engine you are working on.
Sadly the "anti pollution" lobby have strangled & demonised motorists & we are now suffering really great engines strangled with this emissions tech stuff to meet targets that only half of the world have signed up to.
Makes me long for my old E30 Beemer with a real engine that you can do things with & don't mind so much getting mpg in the 30's when you can have fun doing it :D:D

Oh well ................................ Thank you VW.

D

[algarve]

It may have tighter tolerances, but dont forget you are running on synthetic - so its going to take longer to run-in anyway. Everything is tight at the moment - give it a bit to loosen up and 'adapt' to how you drive. The number of times ive seen these posts about new models, but they always settle down after 5k. If they dont, you may have an issue, but don't forget you are running a car vs a 'best possible result' lab test. Driving style has a lot to do with it and the amount of time you sit in stationary traffic. I wouldnt panic just yet.


As you say I suspect a lot of people's MPG will improve with decent mileage on them.

As you say 5K +

My experience is exactly that with all my TDIs from new.
My current MK7 2.0 TDI GT(DSG) has steadily improved from the early low 40s to early 50s with 57 mpg on runs and a 65 on a recent longer work trip.

More than pleased with the continuing improvement and enjoying the car generally better than the Mk6.

[dcdick]

As you say I suspect a lot of people's MPG will improve with decent mileage on them.

As you say 5K +

My experience is exactly that with all my TDIs from new.
My current MK7 2.0 TDI GT(DSG) has steadily improved from the early low 40s to early 50s with 57 mpg on runs and a 65 on a recent longer work trip.

More than pleased with the continuing improvement and enjoying the car generally better than the Mk6.

You seem to be getting fuel economy close to the published mpg figures which is good, well done...............what is your current mileage ?

My car itself is good, it's the mpg figures that are the issue.......... but the 2.0 seems to be better than the 1.6 at hitting it's fuel economy targets.
If the 1.6 had published figures of say 64 combined instead of 74 there would not be a problem, so what about the full Blue Motion 1.6TDI now available claiming 88 mpg............... close to 1,000 miles a tank of diesel ??

I seem to remember top gear doing a run in a diesel Polo a while ago that got a huge mileage from a tank of diesel, will have to try & find it.

(I ran a QQ for 18 months until May this year with a published figure of 57 mpg combined & easily achieved 55/56 on a "run" & sometimes hit 60+ with the average being around 48 mpg which I was happy enough with. So I am capable of driving in such a fashion as to be able to hit the published figures & also with the Mk vi 1.4 TSI I had prior to that)

I really don't see why I should have to wait 5,000 miles to get anywhere close to the published figures...........this doesn't happen with VW's petrol engines

Seems to me the 1.6 TDI engine is the problem as a lot of the 2.0 litre drivers are getting better results than me :(

D

[algarve]

You seem to be getting fuel economy close to the published mpg figures which is good, well done...............what is your current mileage ?

My car itself is good, it's the mpg figures that are the issue.......... but the 2.0 seems to be better than the 1.6 at hitting it's fuel economy targets.
If the 1.6 had published figures of say 64 combined instead of 74 there would not be a problem, so what about the full Blue Motion 1.6TDI now available claiming 88 mpg............... close to 1,000 miles a tank of diesel ??

I seem to remember top gear doing a run in a diesel Polo a while ago that got a huge mileage from a tank of diesel, will have to try & find it.

(I ran a QQ for 18 months until May this year with a published figure of 57 mpg combined & easily achieved 55/56 on a "run" & sometimes hit 60+ with the average being around 48 mpg which I was happy enough with. So I am capable of driving in such a fashion as to be able to hit the published figures & also with the Mk vi 1.4 TSI I had prior to that)

I really don't see why I should have to wait 5,000 miles to get anywhere close to the published figures...........this doesn't happen with VW's petrol engines

Seems to me the 1.6 TDI engine is the problem as a lot of the 2.0 litre drivers are getting better results than me :(

D


From my experience of VW diesel engines ( 7 TDIs ) you do need to wait 5k+ miles for them to settle in despite all this ' modern engines built to tight tolerances etc....

Can't comment on petrols.

I've done close on 6k miles now.
i

[gustogroove]

Im about to fill the tank for the first time since getting my 103TSi Highline. Here are my mpg figures (with approx. 65 km's of fuel still to go)

21349

[dcdick]

Im about to fill the tank for the first time since getting my 103TSi Highline. Here are my mpg figures (with approx. 65 km's of fuel still to go)

21349

That's around 33 mpg............still some way to go then, be interesting to see how your car gets on with this when summer comes around & its running with air con on most always

D

[maisbitt]

My dad's Deep black Pearl MK7 GTD (184PS) DSG arrived yesterday and it is amazing inside and out. He bought it up where I live (newcastle) and is driving down to Southampton (where he now lives) today - i'll be eager to know what mpg he gets on it. The DSG is about 10% thirstier than the manual according to the figs, but with combined official figs of 62mpg I expect he'll surpass that if he sticks to 75mph going home. Can't wait for my manual GTD in Tornado Red to be here for Sept.

Algarve: Have your TDIs really become that more fuel efficient after 5k miles? I've had 6 TDIs and they gain appreciably in the summer vs winter, but in general as miles got added on they are no better on mpg from one summer to the next. I have always been able to achieve combined figs for TDIs in the summer for short journeys and for longer journeys in the winter - something the 1.6TDI doesn't seem to be able to do. On the 20 mile journey home from collection with 8 delivery miles on the clock, going the "scenic" route I achieved 54 mpg in my 53mpg combined (official figures) Scirocco 170TDI.

It's easy to buy a car in the colder months and then attribute summer gains to running in, before the mpg dips again in the next winter. VWs used to have power and mpg figs for "new out of the box" cars, that's why many people find VAG engines to be outputting significantly more than official power when they have them dyno'd etc. Seems that the 1.6TDI for those that have complained would have gotten more mileage out of a 2.0TDI unit.

I suppose it is tempting for the city drivers to pick the 1.6TDI rather than a 1.2TSI that maybe they should've got and be shocked at how low their typical mpg is (I don't think anyone with issues here is in that boat)

Holding out until 5k miles weakens your position to negotiate for remedial work (and to reject the car, if that is possible), but disputing customers complaints for mpg is an easy thing to do as there is the driver influence to consider until the dealership techs take your car out and drive it as they would consider "sensible" and get worse results than the complainant.

Sometimes the dealerships are stuck between a rock and a hard place - they have no control over what VW do centrally but are 100% responsible in the eyes of the law. They will only do work for which they are confident on getting reimbursement through VW for. I have had a valid warranty claim rejected for cosmetic corrosion on alloy wheels because Benfield's warranty manager was not confident VW would reimburse them for replacement. They tried to claim stonechips had caused a breach on the lacquer even though the lacquer was untouched. Sunderland Pulman immediately recognised it as a common problem and got replacements sorted. Sometimes the dealers don't help themselves by bullsh!tting the customer and making out it is their fault rather than saying "yes, we get this a lot but our hands are tied as VW don't have a solution/don't care".

[maisbitt]

QQ = Qashqai? If a crossover with the aerodynamics of a brick more weight and Renault DCI engine fitted (what size?) can achieve combined figs by the complainant without much bother, I think you can exonerate the driving style as the culprit when a Golf 1.6TDI can't get within 20% of it's official figures and struggles to do what the QQ did.

[Gerryf]

****, if you pump the tyres to the max and don't allow your engine to exceed 1700 rpm or 40mph you should get close to the VW figures albeit you'll be a nuisance and a danger on Motorways....Cruise Control and the radar should be disabled for best results...wind on your back wouldn't go amiss either....lol

Even if you manage more mpg's......you're still in a car unsuitable for you.......I'm guessing failed re-gen's will break your heart ?

The Tsi isn't too far behind the Tdi in certain conditions but at least it will remain reliable and refined......in your position....I would be looking forward to the Tsi.

[maisbitt]

My dad's new GTD DSG, with his very uneconomical style of driving, setting ADC/cruise to maintain 85mph and having the aircon set to maintain 17C achieved 45mpg (vs 62.7mpg official combined) yesterday on a 350 mile journey from haing no miles on the clock. I don't think that's bad straight out of the box with the cruise and aircon doing all they can to hinder mpg and taking into account his relative speed.

[pango1in]

My dad's new GTD DSG, with his very uneconomical style of driving, setting ADC/cruise to maintain 85mph and having the aircon set to maintain 17C achieved 45mpg (vs 62.7mpg official combined) yesterday on a 350 mile journey from haing no miles on the clock. I don't think that's bad straight out of the box with the cruise and aircon doing all they can to hinder mpg and taking into account his relative speed.

Was the journey all on the motorway? If so, that's not too bad for the first 350 miles.

[maisbitt]

Was the journey all on the motorway? If so, that's not too bad for the first 350 miles.

The first 200 miles is all motorway - From Newcastle down the A1 becoming M1, coming off near Northampton then A43 around Silverstone>Oxford, a few miles down the M40 for a junction and then A34 through Newbury>Winchester and doing about 20 miles down the M3 and M27. I suspect the mpg was a lot higher before he came off the M1.

[pango1in]

Haha! Got to love that A43... ;)

[dcdick]

QQ = Qashqai? If a crossover with the aerodynamics of a brick more weight and Renault DCI engine fitted (what size?) can achieve combined figs by the complainant without much bother, I think you can exonerate the driving style as the culprit when a Golf 1.6TDI can't get within 20% of it's official figures and struggles to do what the QQ did.

It was the 1.5 (1484cc) engine & on a run I could get close to the "extra urban" figures but easily match the combined figure on a run of more than a few miles.
Your right the Qashquai is very tall for a "car" & shares it's aerodynamic qualities with a breeze block & weighs close to 1.5 ton.
And never any hint of regen going on although there was a warning light procedure similar to VW's for clearing the DPF described in the handbook.

[dcdick]

Well, well the plot thickens again.........

I had written to the MD of VW.UK last week & one of his managers rang this morning.
Nice guy who showed good technical knowledge during our conversation.
While refusing to acknowledge that the 1.6TDI was in anyway faulty he agreed the mpg being achieve was too low but insisted it was explained by my "low" mileage use of the car & not my driving "style". (fair enough). He also said this would lead to failure of the DPF system & that would entail a repair cost of well into 4 figures that is not currently covered by warranty. As this would certainly cause friction with the lease company I think that was one of his main concerns as well.

He has determined that I should have taken the petrol equivalent instead of the diesel (I also agree now)

Further, he had already been in touch with the supplying dealers service department to confirm the results of my visit when I initially complained about the fuel consumption.
So VW. UK have put the "blame" completely upon the sales dept (especially since the car I returned as part of the deal was showing a low mileage for a diesel & should have been picked up on during the pre ordering process) He said that he was getting on to the Sales manager as soon as he had finished talking to me to seek a resolution. (one unhappy dealer by now I would think)

Resolution promised within 48hrs (Friday ?)

For the first time I am now feeling positive about getting a result in this. Hopefully to be resolved on Friday in a way that keeps me happy

For info................my technique in this(apart from moaning about this on this forum;)) was to follow the problem/complaint procedure & remain calm & polite at all stages while leaving the person I was dealing with in no doubt that if I was not satisfied with there response, I would go to the next level until I got somewhere ( & that included copying my letter to VW. UK to head office to Germany for their information)

Nice to know that the complaints system does work, not so good is that you have to continue to push & push after being told "this matter is now considered closed"

D

[dickt]

So do you now have a resolution to the problem?

[dcdick]

So do you now have a resolution to the problem?

Well, its Friday & the offered resolution is to exchange the car for a petrol model of equal spec (1.4TSI, SE, DSG ) with no financial penalty to be incurred by me in the "change over" .
VW have been in touch with the lease company to facilitate this & basically I can now go into any VW dealer & choose a petrol Golf to my preference with the promise of "priority ordering/shipping & delivery to move this quickly into a permanent resolution"
(The reason given for this decision was that if the DPF was not to fail from a fault but solely from too low mileage use, it would not be covered by VW warranty & the lease company would not accept it as a warranty claim either. I of course would refuse to pay for it & just hand the car back & it would then get very messy.)

I now need to think this through carefully as there are direct alternatives from Skoda/Seat etc... not having the VW badge does not bother me that much as it is after all a leased car, but I would like to keep the DSG system in the next car.

Decisions, decisions...................... even though I have "won" it is a hollow victory & the whole business has left a bit of a "bad taste in the mouth" as they say. :(

D

[maisbitt]

Well, its Friday & the offered resolution is to exchange the car for a petrol model of equal spec (1.4TSI, SE, DSG ) with no financial penalty to be incurred by me in the "change over" .
VW have been in touch with the lease company to facilitate this & basically I can now go into any VW dealer & choose a petrol Golf to my preference with the promise of "priority ordering/shipping & delivery to move this quickly into a permanent resolution"

I now need to think this through carefully as there are direct alternatives from Skoda/Seat etc... not having the VW badge does not bother me as it is after all a leased car, but I would like to keep the DSG system in the next car.

Decisions, decisions...................... even though I have "won" it is a hollow victory & the whole business has left a bit of a "bad taste in the mouth" as they say. :(

Good result. Did you like the Golf enough apart from the economy issues and poor attitude of the dealership/VW UK? Would you have a Skoda/Seat over the Golf 7? Same tech (so same reliability) but the MK7 is very generously equipped – do the alternatives stack up on this front?
If not it can get very expensive with the leasing to add on options (seeing as they have almost no residual value in the main). You might also find that leasing a cheaper car that has lower residual values could cost you the same or more than the Golf. Don’t forget that if you have a poor relationship with your dealer after all the hassle you had, you can always go to a different dealer for any servicing or warranty work.

I have found my local Seat dealership to be the worst place I have ever been for car sales. They (Jennings, Newcastle) wanted me to commit to buying a Seat Leon Cupra before they’d even let me have a test drive. I could understand them trying to dissuade spotty 17 year old boy racers wanting a 10 minute thrill with absolutely no intention or means to buy the car, but I actually turned up in a Golf that had been worth as much as the Leon when it was new 2 years previous.

[mickpoil]

I am very interested in this thread as I am considering a MK7 2.0 150 SE diesel as my next company car. I want the option to pull a small caravan.

I have had 3 Focus 1.6 TDCIs over 7 years, all of which came close to the combined mpg on the runs that I do based on the optimistic computer. At least, the first two did very much from the word go, and mileage (22K+ per year) did not improve things as much as the temperature did. The third one, which is the ECO model, was more than 10% worse when I first had it and felt like it was down on power. To cut a VERY long and painful story short, after a big ECU upgrade 6 months into ownership, it finally started to behave like the old cars in terms of mpg and performance. Basically duff programming in the ECU for maybe 18 months after the car was first made available to the public! Could this be the case for the Golf?

The 2.0 Mondeo TDCI is beginning to look more attractive. At least I have 3 days to test drive them first.

[dcdick]

I am very interested in this thread as I am considering a MK7 2.0 150 SE diesel as my next company car. I want the option to pull a small caravan.

I have had 3 Focus 1.6 TDCIs over 7 years, all of which came close to the combined mpg on the runs that I do based on the optimistic computer. At least, the first two did very much from the word go, and mileage (22K+ per year) did not improve things as much as the temperature did. The third one, which is the ECO model, was more than 10% worse when I first had it and felt like it was down on power. To cut a VERY long and painful story short, after a big ECU upgrade 6 months into ownership, it finally started to behave like the old cars in terms of mpg and performance. Basically duff programming in the ECU for maybe 18 months after the car was first made available to the public! Could this be the case for the Golf?

The 2.0 Mondeo TDCI is beginning to look more attractive. At least I have 3 days to test drive them first.

Nissan had similar issues with the diesel QQ that was remedied with an ECU upgrade/re write ............seems to me VW are in the same place with their diesels (to be fair the petrol's are fine performance/mpg wise)

The 2.0 diesels seem to be slightly better with the DPF issues but this does seem to be a worrying trend in modern cars :confused:

D

[dcdick]

Good result. Did you like the Golf enough apart from the economy issues and poor attitude of the dealership/VW UK? Would you have a Skoda/Seat over the Golf 7? Same tech (so same reliability) but the MK7 is very generously equipped – do the alternatives stack up on this front?
If not it can get very expensive with the leasing to add on options (seeing as they have almost no residual value in the main). You might also find that leasing a cheaper car that has lower residual values could cost you the same or more than the Golf. Don’t forget that if you have a poor relationship with your dealer after all the hassle you had, you can always go to a different dealer for any servicing or warranty work.

I have found my local Seat dealership to be the worst place I have ever been for car sales. They (Jennings, Newcastle) wanted me to commit to buying a Seat Leon Cupra before they’d even let me have a test drive. I could understand them trying to dissuade spotty 17 year old boy racers wanting a 10 minute thrill with absolutely no intention or means to buy the car, but I actually turned up in a Golf that had been worth as much as the Leon when it was new 2 years previous.

Yes the Mk7 SE is almost as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect to get from a mainstream manufacturer, apart from the economy issues with diesel engines (especially DSG ones).
To be fair I feel the dealer is not the main villain in this as they are getting a load of grief about fuel economy/DPF while VW head offices are just batting back problems they get to the dealers to sort.
I feel 50/50 responsible with the dealer in choosing the diesel over the petrol as I have been around cars long enough not to be believing the "hype" although I did ask the right questions at the time :confused:

Skoda/Seat offer a better deal with specs at a lower price & the residuals don't really affect me that much apart from having a higher initial payment as the model spec rises & of course any extra accessories purchased that cannot be re-used are just wasted money.

Almost certainly going to be a 1.4TSI (unless something better pop's up in the next few days;))

D

[algarve]

Yes the Mk7 SE is almost as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect to get from a mainstream manufacturer, apart from the economy issues with diesel engines (especially DSG ones).
To be fair I feel the dealer is not the main villain in this as they are getting a load of grief about fuel economy/DPF while VW head offices are just batting back problems they get to the dealers to sort.
I feel 50/50 responsible with the dealer in choosing the diesel over the petrol as I have been around cars long enough not to be believing the "hype" although I did ask the right questions at the time :confused:

Skoda/Seat offer a better deal with specs at a lower price & the residuals don't really affect me that much apart from having a higher initial payment as the model spec rises & of course any extra accessories purchased that cannot be re-used are just wasted money.

Almost certainly going to be a 1.4TSI (unless something better pop's up in the next few days;))

D

Pleased to hear you have a resolution so you can enjoy the car knowing you'll get the petrol version in due course..http://www.vwaudiforum.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon14.png

[Dolmen]

Refuelled today and am reasonably happy with 53mpg at his early stage and still running in on Normal setting, might try Eco mode this week! Only had premium fuel in his car so far, there have been 2x regens that I've noticed and the miles covered are now almost 1100.

[dcdick]

Refuelled today and am reasonably happy with 53mpg at his early stage and still running in on Normal setting, might try Eco mode this week! Only had premium fuel in his car so far, there have been 2x regens that I've noticed and the miles covered are now almost 1100.

By "premium" do you mean branded fuel....Shell/BP/Esso etc... or are you using the premium versions ie..Shell nitro/BP Ultimate etc...................since I started using Shell nitro (7p extra per litre) there have been no regens in over 500 miles & I have seen an increase of 3-4 mpg in economy. This brand is distilled from lpg & will have a very low soot content in the burnt residue.
Apologies if you are running this fuel already.
You should also see an improvement in economy when using "eco" mainly due to the "freewheel" mode
Not sure of the engine you have, but 53 mpg seems good for a "GT" model

D

Soon to be going back to petrol

[Dolmen]

Yes I mean BP Ultimate, it would be great if switching to Eco mode meant even more mpg.

[maisbitt]

Not sure how the eco setting works with a manual (assuming the car is runing on a few map profiles, with Eco being the most economical), but on my dad's GTD DSG, when the ADC is doing it's stuff and slowing the car down - reaccelerating automatically to close the gap when the car in front accelerates is very slow. On a long journey it will probably make less of a difference between the modes.

[maisbitt]

I’ve just been reading up on some EEC directives after seeing some quoted in the VW brochures.

Directive 93/116/EEC is about standardised tests for fuel economy and emissions and VW state they conform to it.
There are steadfast rules of what can and can’t be done by the manufacturer when performing tests to determine official economy and CO2 listings.
The car must be standard spec for the model tested, with no omissions that could affect it’s weight. The fuel tank is to be 90% full and provision is given for 75kg ballast (68kg driver and 7kg of luggage). It is to be run-in between 3000 km and 15000km and no extraordinary settings of the engine or vehicle control (especially idling settings, cold start device and exhaust emission control) are allowed – stock settings only.

The tested car/s are conditioned to ambient temperature of between 20C and 30C for a minimum of 6 hours until the lubricants and coolants are within 2Kelvin of ambient temperature. Car heating and aircon devices are all off and only equipment necessary for the function of the vehicle is to be operating. There must be standard lubricants/fluids and OEM tyres inflated to recommended pressures are to be used.
The standard urban and extra-urban testing is then performed for a weighted combined figure.
With all the above in mind it seems that VW testing should represent achievable figures as the scope for fiddling seems to be small (beyond being at the optimum end of every given permissible range e.g. 30C temp and 15000 km run in as opposed to 20C and 3000 km run in)..
I would say that for anyone having economy issues, they should be able to get close to combined figures if the car is in single occupancy, it is a warm day (at least 20C – although you should be able to forget the temp conditioning if you’ve driven your car to the garage in 20C + temperatures and the oil/coolant are therefore warm), if you’ve left the heating and aircon off (as well as things like lights/radio etc) and you have at least 2000 miles (3000 km) on the car, driving with moderate acceleration. If your car cannot get within 10% of the combined figure in the summer under those conditions, then there is something wrong with it according to the definitions of the testing regime, even if VW deny it.

[dcdick]

I’ve just been reading up on some EEC directives after seeing some quoted in the VW brochures.

Directive 93/116/EEC is about standardised tests for fuel economy and emissions and VW state they conform to it.
There are steadfast rules of what can and can’t be done by the manufacturer when performing tests to determine official economy and CO2 listings.
The car must be standard spec for the model tested, with no omissions that could affect it’s weight. The fuel tank is to be 90% full and provision is given for 75kg ballast (68kg driver and 7kg of luggage). It is to be run-in between 3000 km and 15000km and no extraordinary settings of the engine or vehicle control (especially idling settings, cold start device and exhaust emission control) are allowed – stock settings only.

The tested car/s are conditioned to ambient temperature of between 20C and 30C for a minimum of 6 hours until the lubricants and coolants are within 2Kelvin of ambient temperature. Car heating and aircon devices are all off and only equipment necessary for the function of the vehicle is to be operating. There must be standard lubricants/fluids and OEM tyres inflated to recommended pressures are to be used.
The standard urban and extra-urban testing is then performed for a weighted combined figure.
With all the above in mind it seems that VW testing should represent achievable figures as the scope for fiddling seems to be small (beyond being at the optimum end of every given permissible range e.g. 30C temp and 15000 km run in as opposed to 20C and 3000 km run in)..
I would say that for anyone having economy issues, they should be able to get close to combined figures if the car is in single occupancy, it is a warm day (at least 20C – although you should be able to forget the temp conditioning if you’ve driven your car to the garage in 20C + temperatures and the oil/coolant are therefore warm), if you’ve left the heating and aircon off (as well as things like lights/radio etc) and you have at least 2000 miles (3000 km) on the car, driving with moderate acceleration. If your car cannot get within 10% of the combined figure in the summer under those conditions, then there is something wrong with it according to the definitions of the testing regime, even if VW deny it.

100% agree with this, the petrol VW engines seem to be able to get up around the published figures................... so why can't the diesels ??

It's obvious to me that the emission targets that VW are trying to meet are causing their diesels no end of bother especially with the DPF system.

[dickt]

It is simple. VW never intended any car to ever achieve these figures with diesels.

When I took mine in to complain, their techie at the dealers took it out warm and achived about 38 mpg, versus 62.8 claimed.

it was b/s when they launched them, and remains b/s now.

I am very happy for dcd that he will get his replacement.

I am currently in the 46mpg range, after 3500 miles. (150 tdi GT DSG).

[dcdick]

It is simple. VW never intended any car to ever achieve these figures with diesels.

When I took mine in to complain, their techie at the dealers took it out warm and achived about 38 mpg, versus 62.8 claimed.

it was b/s when they launched them, and remains b/s now.

I am very happy for dcd that he will get his replacement.

I am currently in the 46mpg range, after 3500 miles. (150 tdi GT DSG).

Whatever did the dealer say when his "tech" was only able to get 60% of the published mpg................ Hmmm "no control over the driving style sir, he's only a tech" ................. the arrogance of the VW management in their dealing with this diesel fiasco is truly staggering................

D

[mickpoil]

Does anybody know what is the mpg with what I think is the same engine in the Skoda and Audi?

[C5Clive]

A quick look on the A3/Octavia boards didn't show any similar discussions, but Honest John's Real MPG is showing 75% for the A3 (51MPG) and 89% for the Octavia (55MPG). I couldn't see how many people had entered readings and you have to factor in that it is down to individuals entering the figures so there could be quite a variation there.

It is showing 76%, 52MPG for the Golf though, which is fairly consistent with the some of the Fuelly ratings I have seen on signatures here.

[Dolmen]

We just started using Eco mode for the first this week, two commutes to work on a 26mile journey mostly A and B roads have shown 63.4 and 64.5 mpg, 1x return journey was down by c10mpg! Mind you the weather is much warmer and air con was being used.

[C5Clive]

82% of the quoted extra-urban figure, seems pretty reasonable to me. A larger number of journeys would give more reliable results stats wise though.

[mickpoil]

I get to test drive a 2.0 SE manual 150 diesel for 3 days next week, so I will post my results. I have an 125 mile round journey to work and I get 60+ mpg on my Focus' computer for that trip in warm weather, and I will be doing that journey at least once.

[dcdick]

We just started using Eco mode for the first this week, two commutes to work on a 26mile journey mostly A and B roads have shown 63.4 and 64.5 mpg, 1x return journey was down by c10mpg! Mind you the weather is much warmer and air con was being used.

I would have been happy enough with the 63.4 & 64.5 figures, (68 mpg published for manual 2.0) however as you say the conditions are about as good as they can get .

I'm off for a test run in a 1.4 TSI Leon FR tomorrow (140ps, too many toys/gadgets to count, but thankfully still a mechanical handbrake) could be interesting ;)

D

[C5Clive]

68 is the combined figure though, 78 for extra urban.

The A3 with CoD might be worth a look for you, you can have it on all trim levels with Audi.

[maisbitt]

68 is the combined figure though, 78 for extra urban.

The A3 with CoD might be worth a look for you, you can have it on all trim levels with Audi.

You'll never see the extra urban, unless your commute is down a long and steep hill. Combined should be achievable in good weather on a medium run (certainly were pre-MK7 for 2.0TDI 140/170).

[C5Clive]

I wasn't suggesting that extra urban is achievable. I was saying that I didn't think the journey described was likely to be classed as combined and judging the returned mileage against the combined figure probably wasn't appropriate.

[dickt]

dcd
Daughter has a late 2012 Seat Ibiza 1.4 tsi (140) with dsg. The mpg is extremely sensitive to traffic conditions, and slight hills. On a long clear motorway trip, over 50 mpg is achievable, but in traffic it shoots down to mid 30s. However, it is not the same engine as the "BlueGT engine in the Polo. Maybe the newer Leon has that engine?
On balance, though, the Seat Ibiza is a great car.
I would also fancy VW using their "BlueGT" mpg know-how from the Polo in the Golf. Apparently the engine is the same, but the Polo is better at mpg and 0-60, and I'm not sure that the 58kg weight difference accounts for that. My "much lighter" Mk 7 150 tdi barely beats my non-eco Mk 7 170 tdi, so weight is not the answer. Hammond's review of the Polo Blue GT was that even when "being naughty" in the car, it did over 50 mpg..

[maisbitt]

dcd
Daughter has a late 2012 Seat Ibiza 1.4 tsi (140) with dsg. The mpg is extremely sensitive to traffic conditions, and slight hills. On a long clear motorway trip, over 50 mpg is achievable, but in traffic it shoots down to mid 30s. However, it is not the same engine as the "BlueGT engine in the Polo. Maybe the newer Leon has that engine?
On balance, though, the Seat Ibiza is a great car.
I would also fancy VW using their "BlueGT" mpg know-how from the Polo in the Golf. Apparently the engine is the same, but the Polo is better at mpg and 0-60, and I'm not sure that the 58kg weight difference accounts for that. My "much lighter" Mk 7 150 tdi barely beats my non-eco Mk 7 170 tdi, so weight is not the answer. Hammond's review of the Polo Blue GT was that even when "being naughty" in the car, it did over 50 mpg..

Weight might be a bigger impact than you think. The "up to 100kg reductions" on the MK7, most of the range comes nowhere near. 23Kg came from the bodyshell changes and there'll be about 5kg saved in lieu of smaller fuel tank, the new GTD is only 30-odd Kg lighter than the previous one. Biggest weight savers in MK7 seem to be the 120PS and under ones that in addition to losses above also have a simplified rear suspension set-up (no multi-link rear suspension). For a 140 1.4TSI the weight savings will probably be in the region of 40Kg vs the old one. Also don't forget that the 5 door Golf is 30kg heavier than the 3 door one (I'm moving to a 5 door Golf for the first time, so that extra weight makes it no lighter than my Scirocco).

Does the daughters Ibiza have the ACT technology (cylinder 2 and 3 deactivation under light loads)? That will be a big help to mpg and is available on the Golf as a GT, coming in at 109-112g CO2 per km, it is 10% thirstier than the 150TDI in manual and a smidge less thirsty than the 150TDI in DSG guise dur to the 7 speed DSG on the TSI being more frugal than the manual.

140TSI ACT vs 150TDI is a bit of a dilemma now for mpg (60.1 TSI vs 62.8 TDI in DSG, 60.1 vs 68.9 in manual), especially as the TSI is about £500 cheaper than the TDI to buy - although I do think the TDI will be more forgiving of a heavy foot in everyday use than the TSI for all but the shortest of journeys.

VW do seem to be coming on leaps and bounds recently with TSI fuel saving technology, if you want a Golf GT in DSG I'd be thinking very hard about whether you want TSI or TDI. The new GTI (220PS) does 47mpg. If they introduced ACT on that engine I'm sure it'd crack 55mpg. Compare that to a 184PS GTD doing 67mpg, if they went bi-turbo to get a similar output and mpg dropped to 60mpg (a Golf R D with bi-turbo and 225PS is being rumoured), again it makes the difference between TSI and TDI quite small.

[Gerryf]

I decided against diesel's when DPF's were introduced....my short journeys and very low mileage means I'd certainly run into particulate filter problems so I decided on an auto/DSG Tsi 122 BHP.
To my amazement, my present Tsi is "as near as damn it" on fuel as the Ford Focus 1.8TDCI it replaced (similar mpg to VW's of the time)

I guess what I'm really trying to say is........sales people should put folk in the most suitable car as opposed to selling them a diesel that's going to break their heart.

[dcdick]

I decided against diesel's when DPF's were introduced....my short journeys and very low mileage means I'd certainly run into particulate filter problems so I decided on an auto/DSG Tsi 122 BHP.
To my amazement, my present Tsi is "as near as damn it" on fuel as the Ford Focus 1.8TDCI it replaced (similar mpg to VW's of the time)

I guess what I'm really trying to say is........sales people should put folk in the most suitable car as opposed to selling them a diesel that's going to break their heart.

Your right there the petrol VW's seem to be at or around the published figures while the diesels are struggling to live up to the "hype"

D

[dcdick]

Weight might be a bigger impact than you think. The "up to 100kg reductions" on the MK7, most of the range comes nowhere near. 23Kg came from the bodyshell changes and there'll be about 5kg saved in lieu of smaller fuel tank, the new GTD is only 30-odd Kg lighter than the previous one. Biggest weight savers in MK7 seem to be the 120PS and under ones that in addition to losses above also have a simplified rear suspension set-up (no multi-link rear suspension). For a 140 1.4TSI the weight savings will probably be in the region of 40Kg vs the old one. Also don't forget that the 5 door Golf is 30kg heavier than the 3 door one (I'm moving to a 5 door Golf for the first time, so that extra weight makes it no lighter than my Scirocco).

Does the daughters Ibiza have the ACT technology (cylinder 2 and 3 deactivation under light loads)? That will be a big help to mpg and is available on the Golf as a GT, coming in at 109-112g CO2 per km, it is 10% thirstier than the 150TDI in manual and a smidge less thirsty than the 150TDI in DSG guise dur to the 7 speed DSG on the TSI being more frugal than the manual.

140TSI ACT vs 150TDI is a bit of a dilemma now for mpg (60.1 TSI vs 62.8 TDI in DSG, 60.1 vs 68.9 in manual), especially as the TSI is about £500 cheaper than the TDI to buy - although I do think the TDI will be more forgiving of a heavy foot in everyday use than the TSI for all but the shortest of journeys.

VW do seem to be coming on leaps and bounds recently with TSI fuel saving technology, if you want a Golf GT in DSG I'd be thinking very hard about whether you want TSI or TDI. The new GTI (220PS) does 47mpg. If they introduced ACT on that engine I'm sure it'd crack 55mpg. Compare that to a 184PS GTD doing 67mpg, if they went bi-turbo to get a similar output and mpg dropped to 60mpg (a Golf R D with bi-turbo and 225PS is being rumoured), again it makes the difference between TSI and TDI quite small.

Drove a Seat Leon 1.4 TSI this morning (FR trim) & loads of goodies included if ordered before 30 Sept (Sat Nav/LED lights inc DRL etc... & waiting lists are only a couple of weeks at most )

Excellent car to drive running 140 ps instead of the Golf SE's 122 ps the extra "oomph" is very noticeable............... :biglaugh:

It seems that the engines in the Leon have their version of "blue motion technology also.

A very good part of the visit was that they have Nissan, Mazda, Seat & Hyundai in the same building with only one sales person needed to talk to (and deal with) no what you are interested in............... drive anything you want, even offered to bring one round to my house for me to try out

Now what to do ;)

D

[C5Clive]

I decided against diesel's when DPF's were introduced....my short journeys and very low mileage means I'd certainly run into particulate filter problems so I decided on an auto/DSG Tsi 122 BHP.
To my amazement, my present Tsi is "as near as damn it" on fuel as the Ford Focus 1.8TDCI it replaced (similar mpg to VW's of the time)

I guess what I'm really trying to say is........sales people should put folk in the most suitable car as opposed to selling them a diesel that's going to break their heart.

Completely agree, unfortunately they are only interested in selling you a car, any car and increasing their sales figures by 1.

I have driven diesels for the last 12 years, but the ACT really made me consider whether to stick with them for this one. In the end I decided against petrol for 3 (fairly lame) reasons:

1. There was only £500 in the list price and I figured residuals would be higher on a diesel. Audi charge £1500 less for the CoD against the corresponding 2 litre diesel model.
2. All published MPG are way out, so if the ACT only achieves 75% like the diesel does then it wouldn't be right for me and the type of driving I do.
3. When I asked about ACT the salesman was less than enthusiastic, suggesting that unless I drove like a vicar all the time it would kill the overall MPG, he said the diesel was much more forgiving on the odd occasion you put you lead lined driving shoes on.

I am hoping that I have still made the right decision, but reading some of the posts on the forum regarding the MPG that are being achieved I suspect I may be heart broken!

[pango1in]

It seems that the engines in the Leon have their version of "blue motion technology also.

I believe that the chassis and engines are identical, including all bluemotion tech.

On a side note... ;)... my car managed 55mpg on a long motorway run (about 100 miles), going between 60-70 most of the way. Interestingly, at the start of the return journey I had an active regen, which meant that the mpg dropped to about 45mpg and refused to pick up on the way home (average speed was faster at just over 70). Still shocking mpg on the way home. My average mileage on this tank is heading towards 46mpg. Half on the long motorway run and the other half around town. Still not great.

I would be interested to know why after a long run, and just before a second long run, the car decided that it needed to regen the DPF.

[C5Clive]

There shouldn't really be any reason for the DPF to go into an active regen after a 100 mile motorway drive. VAG Techs reckon that 10-15 minutes driving above 40mph should clear it with a passive regen. Have you thought about speaking to the dealer about this?

[dcdick]

I believe that the chassis and engines are identical, including all bluemotion tech.

On a side note... ;)... my car managed 55mpg on a long motorway run (about 100 miles), going between 60-70 most of the way. Interestingly, at the start of the return journey I had an active regen, which meant that the mpg dropped to about 45mpg and refused to pick up on the way home (average speed was faster at just over 70). Still shocking mpg on the way home. My average mileage on this tank is heading towards 46mpg. Half on the long motorway run and the other half around town. Still not great.

I would be interested to know why after a long run, and just before a second long run, the car decided that it needed to regen the DPF.

My 1.6 did a regen that "ran on" after I switched it off yesterday (first one in 750 or so miles) & that was noticed as I was pulling up at the lights at the junction to leave the motorway. 5 mins or so to house then fans & regen ran on for around 10 mins. Motor way journey was around 15 miles or so at about 70/75 mph (apart from a 50 mph crawl behind an idiot wagon driver taking about 2 miles to overtake).
Last fuel up was standard BP & not the previous Shell nitro that had seemed to have stopped the regens completely.

Speed sensitive regens ???

My (limited) experience so far is that running Shell nitro (distilled from lpg) stops regens completely .............

People are getting around 50 mpg in petrol cars from VW.............................. all very strange

BBC Watchdog last night was slagging off the motor trade in general & picked on 3 of the worst offenders in the fuel figures scam but no mention of VW (and as usual no action from the programme)

D

[algarve]

It was interesting to learn of only just a few of the 'tricks 'used by all manufacturers for the EU lab tests.

Kill the lights & aircon ( both depend on the battery which uses fuel) - pretty obvious one

Disconnecting alternator so that the battery doesn't recharge.

Brake pads pushed back so no friction at all on discs.

Any extra trim is removed ( that one does conjure up pics of car shells )

All these & no doubt other stuff like low viscosity oil , taping up grills are all legitimate.

[maisbitt]

My 1.6 did a regen that "ran on" after I switched it off yesterday (first one in 750 or so miles) & that was noticed as I was pulling up at the lights at the junction to leave the motorway. 5 mins or so to house then fans & regen ran on for around 10 mins. Motor way journey was around 15 miles or so at about 70/75 mph (apart from a 50 mph crawl behind an idiot wagon driver taking about 2 miles to overtake).
Last fuel up was standard BP & not the previous Shell nitro that had seemed to have stopped the regens completely.

Speed sensitive regens ???

My (limited) experience so far is that running Shell nitro (distilled from lpg) stops regens completely .............

People are getting around 50 mpg in petrol cars from VW.............................. all very strange

BBC Watchdog last night was slagging off the motor trade in general & picked on 3 of the worst offenders in the fuel figures scam but no mention of VW (and as usual no action from the programme)

D


Regens are supposed to be exhaust temp activated (for passive regen), it's unfortunate that sometimes optimum temperatures are achieved for passive regen right at the end of a journey. When a passive regen is going on for me, the gear change suggestion indicator alters it's pattern, suggesting I hold onto gears for longer to keep the revs up for the optimum (1800-2500rpm) required. This would appear to be an uneconomical way of driving, but short term pain might well lead to long term gain - 10 mins of driving in "too low" a gear to get a passive regen going could well use less fuel than trying to drive to minimum revs in the highest gear and suffering forced regens as a result.

Makes me wonder whether driving like a saint is actually less economical than putting your foot down, purely because of the hefty forced regen fuel penalty. Driving around on the motorway at 60mph to try and get your economy up rather than driving at 70-80mph could be counter-productive in relation to fuel economy because if the car is doing no more than 1700rpm whilst sitting at 60mph, that exhaust temp isn't going to be up where it needs to be for passive regens. Driving the car a bit harder will get the exhaust temp up earlier in your journey (less likely to be starting a regen just as you're coming home) and higher revs due to a higher cruising speed will help things along too.

I'll admit that I do drive my Scirocco moderately hard (as well as the previous 2 TDIs with DPF) and I have never had a regen in around 60k miles of driving since my MK5 GT Sport TDI 170 got "fixed" with an official remap.

I can't help feeling that putting your foot down in a TDI may well yield better economy than actually trying to drive it in an economical style.

If Shell V power Nitro + (Can't wait for the improvement that Shell V power Nitro + Mach 3 Turbo Excel Ultimate Supercharged brings) costs 10p a litre more (7% more) than regular and gives you at least that in economy improvement and fewer forced regens then it's money well spent, even if it is painful to be weighing over nearly £1.50 per litre at the pumps.

[pango1in]

Regens are supposed to be exhaust temp activated (for passive regen), it's unfortunate that sometimes optimum temperatures are achieved for passive regen right at the end of a journey. When a passive regen is going on for me, the gear change suggestion indicator alters it's pattern, suggesting I hold onto gears for longer to keep the revs up for the optimum (1800-2500rpm) required. This would appear to be an uneconomical way of driving, but short term pain might well lead to long term gain - 10 mins of driving in "too low" a gear to get a passive regen going could well use less fuel than trying to drive to minimum revs in the highest gear and suffering forced regens as a result.

Makes me wonder whether driving like a saint is actually less economical than putting your foot down, purely because of the hefty forced regen fuel penalty. Driving around on the motorway at 60mph to try and get your economy up rather than driving at 70-80mph could be counter-productive in relation to fuel economy because if the car is doing no more than 1700rpm whilst sitting at 60mph, that exhaust temp isn't going to be up where it needs to be for passive regens. Driving the car a bit harder will get the exhaust temp up earlier in your journey (less likely to be starting a regen just as you're coming home) and higher revs due to a higher cruising speed will help things along too.

I'll admit that I do drive my Scirocco moderately hard (as well as the previous 2 TDIs with DPF) and I have never had a regen in around 60k miles of driving since my MK5 GT Sport TDI 170 got "fixed" with an official remap.

I can't help feeling that putting your foot down in a TDI may well yield better economy than actually trying to drive it in an economical style.

If Shell V power Nitro + (Can't wait for the improvement that Shell V power Nitro + Mach 3 Turbo Excel Ultimate Supercharged brings) costs 10p a litre more (7% more) than regular and gives you at least that in economy improvement and fewer forced regens then it's money well spent, even if it is painful to be weighing over nearly £1.50 per litre at the pumps.

This is interesting. I thought passive regens happened without any driver input (e.g. higher revs, lower gear, maintain speed), and that was the whole point. Perhaps there are two "levels" of passive regen?

I've been using BP Ultimate since delivery of the car. I've had active regens at 60, 260, 460 and 913 miles (that I've noticed). Maybe I should switch to VPower for a bit?

[dcdick]

Regens are supposed to be exhaust temp activated (for passive regen), it's unfortunate that sometimes optimum temperatures are achieved for passive regen right at the end of a journey. When a passive regen is going on for me, the gear change suggestion indicator alters it's pattern, suggesting I hold onto gears for longer to keep the revs up for the optimum (1800-2500rpm) required. This would appear to be an uneconomical way of driving, but short term pain might well lead to long term gain - 10 mins of driving in "too low" a gear to get a passive regen going could well use less fuel than trying to drive to minimum revs in the highest gear and suffering forced regens as a result.

Makes me wonder whether driving like a saint is actually less economical than putting your foot down, purely because of the hefty forced regen fuel penalty. Driving around on the motorway at 60mph to try and get your economy up rather than driving at 70-80mph could be counter-productive in relation to fuel economy because if the car is doing no more than 1700rpm whilst sitting at 60mph, that exhaust temp isn't going to be up where it needs to be for passive regens. Driving the car a bit harder will get the exhaust temp up earlier in your journey (less likely to be starting a regen just as you're coming home) and higher revs due to a higher cruising speed will help things along too.

I'll admit that I do drive my Scirocco moderately hard (as well as the previous 2 TDIs with DPF) and I have never had a regen in around 60k miles of driving since my MK5 GT Sport TDI 170 got "fixed" with an official remap.

I can't help feeling that putting your foot down in a TDI may well yield better economy than actually trying to drive it in an economical style.

If Shell V power Nitro + (Can't wait for the improvement that Shell V power Nitro + Mach 3 Turbo Excel Ultimate Supercharged brings) costs 10p a litre more (7% more) than regular and gives you at least that in economy improvement and fewer forced regens then it's money well spent, even if it is painful to be weighing over nearly £1.50 per litre at the pumps.

Shell nitro costs 7p more per litre locally & attracts an extra 100 "Shell points" that are worth a little bit as well, the benefits in economy are worth more than the extra paid at the pump but I still resent the fact that I have to do this to make the car run "properly"................

I'll be pleased to get out of this diesel & go back to petrol, so much less hassle than diesels with their more & more aggressive use of DPF filters to meet these emission regs/aspirations

There is a direct correlation between the emissions levels & the DPF problems................. last diesel I had claimed emissions of 129 whatsits had a DPF & never caused any problems for me.
This Golf claimed emissions are 109 (I think) & DPF causes problems

Maybe diesels are in need of a rethink about how they work as they are clearly struggling to meet the emission standards & work as they used to as recently a year or two ago.

D

[maisbitt]

This is interesting. I thought passive regens happened without any driver input (e.g. higher revs, lower gear, maintain speed), and that was the whole point. Perhaps there are two "levels" of passive regen?

I've been using BP Ultimate since delivery of the car. I've had active regens at 60, 260, 460 and 913 miles (that I've noticed). Maybe I should switch to VPower for a bit?

There is only 1 type of passive regen. Passive regens generally only happen at 1800-2500 rpm at a high exhaust temp achieved under sustained driving at pace. It is considered "passive" because it is assumed that most drivers will drive under these conditions on a regular basis. If you hardly ever drive on the motorway/dual carriageway at 70mph or more for at least 15 minutes then you're going to struggle to initiate passive regeneration.

You may well find that to recreate the same circumstances at lower speeds for those that rarely find themselves on 70mph roads, the car will encourage you to drive in a higher gear when it wants to regen e.g. gear change prompts encourage you to hold off changing from 4th to 5th until 38mph (as opposed to 30mph normally) and correspondingly suggest other gears are held longer than usual. Do you pay attention to the gear change prompts or do you always change up in good time, whether the car wants you to or not?

It may help you reduce your regens to switch to V-power.

BP ultimate is full of detergents and additives like Cetanes to boost performance (a little), but is still based on Diesel distilled from crude and the trace impurities that brings.

V-power is a diesel synthesised from natural gas, the only other stuff in there apart from Diesel hydrocarbon is what Shell adds in. Purer fuel is likely to burn cleaner and more completely, and is likely to not only reduce the soot loading in the DPF, but also the inorganic ashes (by-product of DPF combustion) that will build up in the DPF container over its service life (should be well in excess of 150k miles even with normal diesel fuelling). Less inorganic impurities = less incombustible ash. I have never seen any tangible benefits with Shell V=power as my car seems to be doing passive regens all by itself, but for those experiencing them, Shell V-power might really make a difference to your car. (note: I do not work for Shell ).

[dcdick]

It was interesting to learn of only just a few of the 'tricks 'used by all manufacturers for the EU lab tests.

Kill the lights & aircon ( both depend on the battery which uses fuel) - pretty obvious one

Disconnecting alternator so that the battery doesn't recharge.

Brake pads pushed back so no friction at all on discs.

Any extra trim is removed ( that one does conjure up pics of car shells )

All these & no doubt other stuff like low viscosity oil , taping up grills are all legitimate.

I wouldn't put that much store on the "tricks" that were talked about like that, they have certainly gone on in the past & if a car is struggling to meet a target I'm sure, but modern cars are normally "production" models that are surely looked at carefully but not to the extent as described last night.
If you think about it, what is the point of taking excess trim off/taping up grills if there is no wind resistance to affect the test results ?

They are looking at a new way of doing these tests but they have to be repeatable & consistent.............. the only way that is agreed currently is to do the testing on a "rolling road" in a controlled environment.
The current method is better than nothing but clearly needs to be advertised/discussed at the point of sale in a better way.

Some people are hitting the claims as well if circumstances are favourable.

I managed over 89 mpg on a short run to the local town that was basically a slight decline mostly in 30mph limits on a hot (26 c) day with light traffic. So the claimed figures are possible, but certainly not in "normal" driving

D

[maisbitt]

It was interesting to learn of only just a few of the 'tricks 'used by all manufacturers for the EU lab tests.

Kill the lights & aircon ( both depend on the battery which uses fuel) - pretty obvious one

Disconnecting alternator so that the battery doesn't recharge.

Brake pads pushed back so no friction at all on discs.

Any extra trim is removed ( that one does conjure up pics of car shells )

All these & no doubt other stuff like low viscosity oil , taping up grills are all legitimate.

It is completely illegal to perform those trick if you state your car testing is as per directive 93/116EC as VW does.

The directives standardise many variables - You can't modify any system on the car to operate more optimally than as is standard factory fit e.g. no disconnecting alternators, no overinflating tyres beyond recommendations, no disconnecting aircon compressor, nor stripping out trim/parts etc for weight savings, standard lubricants and other fluids (such as coolants) used on factory output must be used, altering aerodynamic characteristics by tape or alternative parts/blanking plates etc are not allowed.

Everything has got to be as per standard car straight off the production line. The only variables allowed are that the car must be temperature acclimatised to ambient temp of between 20 celcius and 30 celcius and the car can have more than 3000km miles but must be less than 15000km (so no super running in advantages there). It is legit to turn off all electrical systems that a consumer can turn off (i.e. use switches rather than kill wiring). Fuel tank must be 90% full and 75kg of ballast (68kg for driver and 7kg cargo) is used.

Not sure if it a requirement of all cars sold in the EU to conform with the directive, but if a manufacturer is doing as per the watchdog report now then they cannot say they comply and independent testing to the directive parameters should find them out.

I do think there was a little shock journalism going on there, I doubt many of the big companies selling in the EU still employ the practices reported to create grossly unreasonable expectations on fuel economy. If all manufacturers are conforming to 93/116EC then they should be proportionally out on reality for any given driver.

[dcdick]

Have you noticed the figures on this thread ?

Almost exactly 15,000 views as I type this

Is fuel economy (or the lack of it) the most popular topic in this forum ?

Anybody from VW care (or has the bottle) enough to comment ?

D

[UPTONJE]

my experience with my 2.O DSG is for the last 2500 miles (since ownership - total mileage 6900miles) exclusively on Shell Nitro is no obvious regens passive or forced. No over runs and excellent economy- 49on local runs ---60 + on motorway runs. I am reluctant to use conventional diesel now

[maisbitt]

my experience with my 2.O DSG is for the last 2500 miles (since ownership - total mileage 6900miles) exclusively on Shell Nitro is no obvious regens passive or forced. No over runs and excellent economy- 49on local runs ---60 + on motorway runs. I am reluctant to use conventional diesel now

So what gains does that mean vs standard diesel (for your first 3400 miles) ?

[UPTONJE]

Sorry I got this Golf estate 12 plate with 4400 on the clock so can't verify what early mileage mpg was. But my previous car was 2.0l TDI Audi A4 Avant and I found that Shell Premium gave me more than 10% better mpg compared with standard diesel. I think my current MPG is slightly better than manufacturers figures for the Golf 2L DSG The Audi was 2006 and did not have DPF fitted so with all the horror stories ref DPF regen etc I am delighted if this Shell Nitro is clean enough to mean less issues with DPF.

[dcdick]

Sorry I got this Golf estate 12 plate with 4400 on the clock so can't verify what early mileage mpg was. But my previous car was 2.0l TDI Audi A4 Avant and I found that Shell Premium gave me more than 10% better mpg compared with standard diesel. I think my current MPG is slightly better than manufacturers figures for the Golf 2L DSG The Audi was 2006 and did not have DPF fitted so with all the horror stories ref DPF regen etc I am delighted if this Shell Nitro is clean enough to mean less issues with DPF.

The engine in your car is somewhat different from the current (Mk7) engines & in the Mk7 the DPF system is more aggressively implemented to keep the emissions down which gives rise to a lot more issues, still good to hear of somebody else getting positive results with Shell nitro in their VW. :D
My experience with Shell nitro mirrors yours although with a slightly more modest economy boost (7-8%)

My last fuelup was standard diesel & now after 200 miles the regen cycle has started again (yesterday & today) this confirms to me that without running on Shell nitro my 1.6TDI will be regenning & wasting fuel on a very regular basis

Bloody VW diesels in their current incarnation are crap & it is due entirely to the DPF & the way VW have implemented it.

I was going to let it go & just take a petrol Golf but I'm so annoyed with the way VW have just refused to acknowledge there is a problem that I will pursue this further starting with Trading standards & also Top Gear if I can get them interested.
There is always the European court of silly walks eventually I suppose, seeing as they like fining organisations & making rules

D

[dickt]

I suspect that VW dealers have been instructed to be unhelpful. The last time I went in to complain about the mpg in my Mk 7 150 tdi with dsg did not want to hear about the fact that the mpg was, at that point in time, worse than my Mk 5 170 tdi with dsg.

He just would not listen. He was in full VW-speak broadcast mode, and had turned his ears off.

Now the mpg is 46-47 for the Mk 7, compared to 45 for the Mk 5. To achieve that, I have to have it in eco mode all the time, which is a pain as the gear changes are very different from the normal mode. It is, of course, a much less powerful car.

That cannot be called an improvement.
I wish you all the best with getting the subject aired in any way in Top Gear,/What Car or on any public forum.
The only downside to that is that they have to give VW the chance to respond, and I could write VW's script now - as I've heard it all from the dealer.

[dickt]

dcd
where/who is the dealer with lots of brands under one roof?
We need to replace daughter's Polo, but current Polo prices are a rip off, so I'd like her to see alternatives.
ta
dickt

[dcdick]

The dealer is SG Petch Durham. I believe there are quite a few around these days like this, normally in retail parks .

Polo is seriously overpriced, especially when compared to the SEAT Ibiza which is cheaper & better.

D

[maisbitt]

My dad is starting to get disappointed with the mpg on his DSG GTD (combined published figs are 62.8mpg). He's done almost 900 miles in the night-on 2 weeks he's had it, with the first 350 miles being a long motorway journey from Newcastle to Southampton (he lives down there now).

His last big fillup was 38 litres to full from previous full and did just 323 miles (39mpg) on it (computer indicated 47mpg ave) around the doors/commuting, whereas his MK5 GT 170 2.0TDI PD DSG he just traded in managed an easy 50mpg, with absolutely no bluemotion tech. He is usimg the aircon to full effect, but he wasn't shy on using it on the MK5 either.

If GTI figs are close to reality (47mpg combined) then there'll be no advantage to getting a GTD, although if they're tested the exact same way and have the exact same tech (which may be hindering mpg, not aiding it) I seriously doubt they'll average in the 40s.

[dickt]

maisbitt.
It sounds like your dad's old car was exactly the same as mine. My driving style gave 45mpg in my Mk 5 170 2.0 tdi dsg. As I said above, my new Mk 7 150 GT (not gtd) with dsg is only getting 46 - 47. I put the extra 1 mpg down to the "freewheel" effect of the eco mode, and the stop/start system.
I wish I could have my old engine back in the new car, with the option of "eco" mode.

[maisbitt]

maisbitt.
It sounds like your dad's old car was exactly the same as mine. My driving style gave 45mpg in my Mk 5 170 2.0 tdi dsg. As I said above, my new Mk 7 150 GT (not gtd) with dsg is only getting 46 - 47. I put the extra 1 mpg down to the "freewheel" effect of the eco mode, and the stop/start system.
I wish I could have my old engine back in the new car, with the option of "eco" mode.

Is your 46-47mpg actual (brim method determination) or computer indicated?

[dickt]

Currently computer. I did brim to brims earlier, and the puter seemed close enough. The difference was in the low numbers - not like your dad's difference.
It does make the point that I should check it again.

[maisbitt]

Currently computer. I did brim to brims earlier, and the puter seemed close enough. The difference was in the low numbers - not like your dad's difference.
It does make the point that I should check it again.

The difference on my Scirocco is about 10%. According to the computer on my last tank, I got an indicated 49.8mpg, but I filled up with 53.8L (11.85 gallons) and did 541 miles (45.7mpg true) - indicated mpg is 109% of actual. Could make a hell of a difference between poor mpg and really poor mpg. That overestimation is nothing new - all my previous VWs have been 5-10% out on the mpg values in the MFD. How this is allowed to stand is beyond me, Which?/Watchdog/The AA should be all over this issue. It is so easily proven too, nothing at all to do with driving style.

Could it be even worse than that, with an indicated mile on the computer possibly being marginally being longer than an actual mile, putting your indicated mpg even further away from reality? After all, the speedo is set to 8% optimistic - if it runs on speedo vs time then every recorded mile will be 8% longer than a true mile.

If this was food companies giving you a 730g loaf of bread instead of an 800g loaf of bread, or underfilling declared weight/volume on bottled or tinned goods, there'd be hell to pay.

[Gerryf]

Sounds like we're down to a Fishes and Loaves miracle :D

[dcdick]

Well, looks like VW have won ...................

After another contact with VW & a meeting with a solicitor, it seems that the fact that my contract with this car is with the lease company precludes me from taking action of any sort against VW.
The lease company will not discuss with me what (if any) contact they have had with VW are offering me another car without financial penalty with the proviso that it is not a diesel.

Ah well, I tried to get something done about the fuel consumption/DPF situation & I suppose eventually it will get sorted after a fashion with some form of software rewrite/update.

Back to good old petrol for me then, slightly cheered up by the vast new oil reserves being opened up in the USA that hopefully will force prices down:D

D

[maisbitt]

I don't think you were ever going to be able to take action against VW. If you'd gone in there and paid cash for your car you'd have been able to take action against the dealership perhaps, but not VW directly. Maybe this is a very good reason why VW won't sell directly to the public, nor own any of their dealerships (Peugeot "Robin and Day" dealerships are owned by Peugeot) - an **** covering exercise? Your contract always lies with who you bought the car from. VW would claim that the dealership mis-sold you a TDI unsuitable for the driving that you do.

Testing of cars for environmental statistics seems so far away from reality now, the only benefit we really get by them influencing the outcome is cheaper car tax via reportedly low CO2 emissions. Hopefully your woes were tied to shorter journeys than the DPF would like to be dealing with, but I wouldn't be expecting any mpg miracles from the TSI (are you going for the 1.4 140 ACT?) - I'd still expect 15-20% less than book combined figures. My dad's GTD is exhibiting no DPF issues at all, yet his true mpg achieved (the fact that the indicated mpg is 9% optimistic on actuals is something VW should be taken to task over) is 65% of combined figures.

Hopefully the new car will not be a source of disappointment for you - let us know what mpg you get with it.

[jv808]

<removed>

[maisbitt]

<removed>

[jv808]

<removed>

[dickt]

<removed>

[Eshrules]

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