Printable View
Hi guys, looking at changing my ultra reliable passat for a golf.
As per the title, mpg how do you rate yours?. I cant believe I'm questioning my purchase of a golf gtd. I cover 20k and want great economy. It appears that figures are not very accurate :-(:-(.
How do you rate you purchase?.
Thanks, Rappy.
Pretty shocking, if I'm honest. I struggle to get 48mpg on my usual commute (there is some stop start in there). I expected better.
The real kicker is that I struggle to get even the urban fuel cycle economy when on motorway journeys. I have got 56mpg on my best run, and that was with a tail wind. Every other car I've ever owned has got close to, or beaten the combined cycle figures when on a motoway run.
Nice car but don't buy if it's the claimed fuel consumption you're after! I was getting over 50mpg back in the 1980's, yes cars are more comfortable and probably safer in an accident today, but the mpg isn't its strong point.
I'm getting over 54mpg driving in Eco mode with a DSG gearbox and we love the car! Computer shows over 60mpg some days but never confirmed on a brim to brim fill.
I get 49mpg from my 1.4ACT, which I consider very good. VW say I should be getting 59mpg combined consumption which I consider a deliberate attempt to mislead and I can't believe they get away with it. I achieved the combined figure in my last two cars over 13 years and expected the same in this.
Fuel consumption lies about the current Golf diesels cost VW a customer & in my case they didn't seem to care !
D
I'm averaging 58 out of a tank and on a recent 140 mile mixed motorway/urban run using cruise control and climate control averaged 64MPG, all seems in order to me.
Averaging 17mpg at the moment on 99RON
What bhp is yours, 150?Quote:
Originally Posted by C5Clive
Double figures, I'm impressed!!! :-):-):-):-):-)Quote:
Originally Posted by mjhamilton
I can also do single figures as well ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rapport25
Golf 2.0TDI GT with DSG.
There have been a number of threads about mpg, here and on other sites. My old 170 tdi GT with DSG easily gave me 45 mpg. My Mk 7 2.0 tdi GT with dsg struggles to reach 45 mpg, even though I have it in eco most of the time.. I have checked the computer generated numbers, with top to top checks, and the computer numbers are OK.
I’m averaging 45mpg (indicated) on my GTD since new. 1600 miles in and I have seen absolutely no improvement in my mpg. This car has DPF regens a-plenty compared to my previous car, a 170TDI Scirocco and has less pull in 5th/6th gear above 60mph as well, despite supposedly being 14PS more. 33% below published combined figures on my commute, my Scirocco was 6% below published combined figures and 10% above on a long motorway run. I doubt I will ever get within 20% of the combined figure on my commute – it would have to rise to 54mpg!
One thing’s for sure – V-power Diesel is ***** for MK7 TDIs – my mpg dropped right off to 42mpg using 2 tanks of that stuff and power/response was noticeably off too. Unlike V-power petrol, the only gain for the Diesel is it’s cleaning power. It is less dense (and therefore holds less chemical energy to combust) than regular diesel, although it does burn cleanly – I never had a single active regen with the stuff.
Currently using Esso (its is 3p per litre than regular Shell and 11p less than V-power in my locality) and I have bought a big can of millers a week ago. Starting to get up to 48mpg on the ½ tank with millers additive if I can do a commute without a regen, despite the colder weather kicking in. At an additional fuelling cost of 1.2p per litre it could well be worth it.
Millers hey!!! The old jungle juice :-) I have tried that before and I dont really think it works in improving MPG.
I think it makes the car smoother and the engine quiter but mpg has to many factors to consider. If it works for you great. But I think its very subjective. I would suggest a clean car with tyre pressures slightly higher and the obvious brake early and change gear early all the usual stuff.
Also, nitrogen filled tyres. Thats what mine will be getting. Longer tyre life less heat and improved mpg. And not forgetting no supermarket fuel. I always use standard shell diesel because of its cleaning power.
I filled my tyres with 78% nitrogen, works a treat ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rapport25
OK , 3 questions,
1. Is this Nitrogen stuff urban myth or is there any tangible evidence that it actually does have an effect on mpg / tyre life ?
2. What do you need when you need to top your tyres up ?
3. Whereabouts and how much can you get this done for ?
I'm not saying it doesn't work, just would like to hear a little more about it ?
I gave a bit of thought to the Millers before I bought it, as it is the only additive that is recommended by plenty of people and isn't regarded as snake oil - even "honest John" car website endorses it.
My car is quieter and smoother (especially at idle) with it and it is supposed to raise the Cetane rating of your fuel by between 3 and 4 points, which helps the diesel start to combust a little earlier - that gives the fuel a better chance at fuller combustion and hopefully less soot for the DPF to process. My mpg was picking up a bit on its own anyway since I ditched Shell V-power, but for the last 200 miles I have averaged 47mpg instead of 44 (indicated). At an additional cost of 1.2p per litre of fuel (I got a 5 litre can delivered for £62 and you use 50mL in a full tank of fuel), I'm not going to sweat it.
Once up to speed I do all the economical stuff to preserve my momentum like seeing a situation in the distance that is going to make the cars in front brake, so I come off the throttle early, don’t accelerate to a situation that requires braking, like a roundabout or junction etc. I am probably onm the brakes only about 60% of the time that some of my mates are. Unless I'm accelerating moderately hard, I change up/down pretty much when the computer prompts me too. What I would do normally is in tune with what the MFD would like me to do when driving economically.
Nitrogen filled tyres - now I do believe that is a bit of Snake oil. Costco bang on about their nitrogen filled tyres. As soon as you put the tyre on the rim you have normal air in it at atmospheric pressure. The tyre only gets to around 2.4 bar when inflated. Unless they were inflating and purging back to atmospheric pressure 3 times with nitrogen before topping up, I would say that a "nitrogen filled" tyre still has a good 8% oxygen in it. Both Oxygen and Nitrogen act pretty much as ideal gases (Boyles law) at the operating temperature range of a road going tyre. Both have a very low boiling point (-196C for Nitrogen and -183C for Oxygen). I can see the benefit for F1 drivers when even the tiniest incremental advantage could be the difference between 1st and 2nd place, but on a road going car it is a bit of a gimmick.
As long as the air going into the tyres is dry, there's no issue (water properties do change a lot over the operational temperature range of a tyre). Most garages have a dried air supply, and now the cooler weather is upon us, just topping up with a compressor, the air will be pretty dry as at cooler temps atmospheric air can hold far less water at it's saturation point. Ever been to somewhere like Prague in the winter months, where despite it being -10C there isn't a spot of ice around anywhere? That's because the air is so cold that it's bone dry, so there's no dew to drop anywhere.
1. Is this Nitrogen stuff urban myth or is there any tangible evidence that it actually does have an effect on mpg / tyre life ?
Nitrogen tyres runs lot cooler which means less wear. They are said to improve MPG if only by a small amount. For me its a no brainer tyres last longer & mpg is improved
2. What do you need when you need to top your tyres up ?
Go back to the garage that filled them for you. I have only had to top mine up twice in a year.
3. Whereabouts and how much can you get this done for ?
Alot of places now offer this service.
I'm not saying it doesn't work, just would like to hear a little more about it ?
Thanks for such a detailed reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by maisbitt
I used Millers for nearly 2 yrs. And I think its a complete waste of money on a new car. Decent quality fuels and that it. As for the nitrogen you made some valid points. BUT!! I think we will agree to disagree.
There is a very good argument for air and not nitrogen in your tyres. Nitrogen filled tyres would have been the death of James Bond and Jason Bourne. When you are forced off the road and into a lake by a villain, they will be waiting for you to surface to finish you off. This is where the air filled tyre really pays dividends, they will wait a few mins and then assume you drowned and leave. Maybe I will mention this to Costco next time I get tyres there - they're very big on safety when the insist new tyres go on the front, despite there being a good reason for not wanting the OEM rears put on the front because the OEM front set wore unevenly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rapport25
Should You Fill Your Car's Tires With Nitrogen?
:biglaugh: at your comments above.Quote:
Originally Posted by maisbitt
As for the link, shocked!!!!!. Sounds like a waste of time & money.
Reaches for a thread about the snake oil :Blush2: TBC.......
Most things that sound too good to be true by the people peddling them usually are, or everyone would be doing it. Nitrogen filling seems handiest for those who never check their tyre pressures. Lots of people peddling things with big claims - just look at tuning boxes. 230PS from a 184PS TDI (yes it's easily doable), but 230PS and 20% gains in mpg (as most of them claim)?Quote:
Originally Posted by rapport25
Why aren't VW building them like that? Imagine what the emissions would be like on a 230PS 80mpg GTD, and imagine how many they would sell. I'm actually tempted by a tuning box for the potential extra power on tap, but best case scenario is your mpg stays the same because you don't use that extra reserve of power. I do wonder how much long term damage can be done by ramping up the fuelling pressure on the same injectors and turbo.
With Millers i'm ensuring that no matter where I get my diesel, it has a decent dose of additives that we expect in premium fuel, for what amounts to adding 1.2p per litre of fuel. I've seen my mpg go up a little (which might have as much to do with ditching V-power diesel as it does with adding the Millers), and idling is definitely quieter and smoother, especially on a cold start. I thought it was worth a shot given my poor mpg start in the GTD.
Here's the thing about nitrogen and the failings when implemented by local garages
Why nitrogen? Nitrogen contains no water/moisture, it is actually this You are trying to avoid as water expands and contracts with heat - in effect your tyres pressures will vary with heat from the road or outside ambient temp which of course will affect wear and economy
Why a kwik fit job is pointless and a waste of time?
Remember the moisture bit? This is the whole purpose of using nitrogen over normal air - how many tyre fitters do you see doing the following?
- use a dryer to heat the wheel and inside of the tyre to remove all moisture traces
- do the initial fit in a nitrogen chamber or use a vacuum to remove all traces of air and moisture from the ambient environment
I say none - so basically when the tyre is fitted to the wheel it already contains a large quantity of moisture from the ambient environment
So pouring nitrogen into the remaining space it not going to eradicate the issue
So from my experience of driving and checking pressures during hard and soft activities changes in pressure still happen so on that one I call snake oil ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisbitt
How you getting on with the Millers?. Just purchased some for our recent 2nd hand purchase. Dont know what fuel its been run on etc...... My passat has only ever run on shell diesel for 5 yrs plus forte fuel & engine treatment every service.
My car is noticeably better, but how much is down to the Millers and how much is down to ditching the Shell V-power for normal is unclear. I am going to try a tank of fuel without additions and see how the first 50 miles go. The car is slightly smoother and quieter at idle, which I would directly attribute to the Millers at this stage.
My wife recently picked up her new company car MK7 GT TDI (150) manual and so far we've put about 800 miles on the clock and been pretty unimpressed with the MPG. Even on a 160 mile motorway run we never got above 45 and that was in eco mode! I can achieve that in my 3.0 TDI A4, maybe even better! and we took her car to save fuel. Has anyone experienced the MPG improving as the engine wears in? She still thinks her old 1.4 petrol Hyundai i20 was more economical.
Mine's a MK7 GT TDI (150) DSG and now has 9000 on the clock. In early days it did about 42mpg. (Winter/Spring) It got up to 45 mpg over the Summer. Over the last 1,000 miles it is back to 42mpg. (Winter). Mostly in eco mode. I've tested the computerised mpg by using top-up to top-up mpg tests, and the computer is pretty accurate on mine.
Do not buy this car for mpg reasons! My Mk 7 170 DSG gave 45 mpg all year round, with no eco nonsense, and much quicker reactions.
Mmmm, unimpressive... I wonder if they are sacrificing performance and MPG for the nonsensical CO2 figure. Probably why she has one as a company car in the first place ;-) You would think that after 13 years since those first PD diesel golfs emerged things would be a bit more advanced. Sadly not
I would echo Dickt on the MPG point. Mine's not quite as bad, apart from over Christmas when motorway driving to relatives only got me 45mpg...
Yes the CO2 values are low, but the MPG is also supposed to be about 67 combined, 76 extra urban and 55 urban.
If you look at my Fuelly log, you can see what sort of real world mpg I have achieved. I have never had a car that didn't reach the urban cycle on motorway journeys or tanks used mainly for motorway driving. All my cars would push or exceed combined on motorway journeys (though granted would never get close to extra-urban, which is fair enough).
One thing I can say about my MK7 GTD (manual) is that Eco is a complete waste of time for me. My car is thirstier in Eco than it is in Sport, and in fact Sport is my most economical setting. I have more lower end grunt in Sport, which is negated by the need to rein in the power in the lower gears due to the abysmal grip from the OEM Bridgestone Potenza tyres. My car is more responsive in the upper gears in Normal, but thirstier for it.
The only big thing that has changed for the MK7 TDI it seems is the inclusion of stop-start to boost the EU cycle results. When the testing cycle has the car at a standstill for 24% of the test cycle, having stop-start switch off the engine during these stationary periods gives a huge boost to test mpg and CO/CO2/NOx emission results. The engines themselves seems to be no better than those fitted in the MK6 range. If you could slap a start-stop system onto a MK6 GTD I suspect that it would be pretty much matching the MK7 on the test run, as it does now in real-world driving where (in my experience) the stop-start system is rarely utilised for significant periods of stoppage. The tests bear little resemblance to real driving (who has an 11 minute commute for which they spend 24% of it going nowhere?).
My MFD indicated mileage is about 3% optimistic and my car achieves an overall average (indicated) of 44.5mpg right now on my 12 mile (each way) commute. When the car is not undergoing a DPF regen (which it seems to be doing for about 1/5 of my mileage) I can average about 47mpg on the way to work, and about 41mpg when it is undergoing a regen. When my commute increases a little to 16 miles, the regens get less frequent and I can get to 50mpg for the trip. I got 53mpg maintaining 80mph on a 75 mile round trip on dual carriageway recently.
The MK7 GTD's water gets to 90C in about 4 miles, but it takes 8 miles for the oil to get to 90C. My oil used to be up to temp in 6 miles in my 170TDI Scirocco. The car takes a far bigger proportion of my commute journey to get to temp which not only hinders my mpg directly, but indirectly also as a diesel car that spends less time at optimum temp spends more time generating soot and then more time undergoing regen to combust it. I never had a single active regen in the 30 months I had my Scirocco (they were all passive regens which don't significantly alter your mpg), now it's a weekly occurrence.
My car hasn't improved appreciably in 3200 miles, beyond the initia improvement seen 0-500 miles. My dad had his first service on his GTD DSG 2 weeks ago and at 11k miles on, he hasn't seen any appreciable gains either - he does a consistent 47mpg, but has a longer commute than me and does 20k miles a year (I do about half that). My 170TDI Scirocco could always exceed urban published values and almost always exceed combined figures for a journey exceeding 20 miles, and it was driven considerably harder than my GTD.
Some of the MK6ers on the GTI forum that had Bridgestones fitted to their GTIs and GTDs saw 10% gains in mpg when switching to Michelins. The Bridgestone (like I have) have extremely poor grip in all but the driest conditions and are very bad for rolling resistance. Could very non-eco tyres like Bridgestone Potenzas be a common link for all of us seeing the worst mpg?
When some people see a miraculous step-up in fuel economy between 10 and 20k miles, it makes me wonder whether the improvement coincides with their changing the front tyres due to wear.
I don't find my car too bad on the motorway, over the summer months I managed to get averages of 57 - 59mpg across the tank a number of times. What I struggle to understand sometimes is the wild variation from one week to the next when I'm doing similar drives on the motorway.
Now the MPG is dropping fast because the car is only used for shorter trips bar once or twice a month.
Maisbitt - I had often wondered this. I also have Bridgestones on my Golf. After 10k miles, mine are only down to 6-7mm, so some way to go before changing them...
It seems the EU emissions and CO2 targets aren't doing us any favors. My last experience of TDI Golfs was the old 130 and 150 PD engines, bar a short stint in a 2008 MK5 GT 140 Golf which I did find depressingly boring. The wifes 150 GT MK7 is no doubt smooth and refined compared to those old MK4s, but lacks the grunt. If it was a privately owned car I'd get it remapped.
Skymaster: The CR TDIs do lack the sense of urgency that the PD units had. They're every bit as fast, but due to their smoother and more linear power delivery, they don't feel as quick. Tried a tuning box and my GTD became a deathtrap. The Bridgestones seem to be on the edge of usability for the standard power output. put your foot down in 3rd at 65mph with the box on and the traction control would be fighting the urge to do a James Dean.
Wow, sounds interesting. Nothing a set of Michelin super sports or PS3s wouldn't sort out ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by maisbitt
The car was transformed for 4th/5th/6th gear acceleration, but due to lack of grip in 1st/2nd/3rd, I couldn't do much with the extra output until I was at 70mph, which gave me around 10mph to play with before you're in the territory of potentially catching the bobbies attention. The GTD is screaming out for a decent set of shoes. How much extra would it have cost VW to fit some good tyres like PS3s? I'd have happily paid an extra £100, but paying out £300 for a tuning box and then another £480 on tyres to be able to use it wasn't for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by skymaster