MPG from a 1.4 mk 5 polo ???

[ragpot]

Hi there,

just bought my wife an economical little runner - 52 plate 1.4s polo s, Mk5 shape 3 door with AC. Its been serviced and just had inspection 60k miles inc 2 new coil packs.

I was expecting a good return on the mileage for my money but as calculated I'm getting c32 - 35 mpg over the last 3 tanks.

38.5ltr unleaded = 271 miles from topping bp brim to brim.

Mileage a mix of leeds city centre and motorway 18 miles to work and back ...

I was expecting more - no fault codes on VAG COM.... driving style is also mixed - push it around the city and then cruise on the M62 in 5th....


Are all you other drivers hitting the 44+ official figure?

[Martin Burnard]

Experience selling polo's tells me that mixed motoring is not good! 40 mpg average is rare, upper 30's if fairly gentle in town and reasonable cruising on the motorway. BUT "PUSH IT" around town and it sucks fuel!!!!

In a nutshell it's not a class leader on MPG.

Martin

[ragpot]

Bummer ! (the car, not you)

[Polo Mint]

Also have a 1.4 Petrol Twist 5 door. Generally I get 37 - 42 mpg, finding a compromise between accelerating and economy can make a big difference. Switching of the A/C when you don't need it also helps about 2 - 3 mpg.

40 + MPG is dam difficult, but possible, and still doing 70 mph on the motorway.

BP Ultimate or Shell Vpower help a lot, costs more at the pump, but lasts longer too.

Hope this helps, all is not lost.

[mwvw]

Hi Ragpot
Just as a comparison - for my 04 1.2 I'm getting about 40-45 with mixed motoring. Petrol used is usually supermarket standard 4*.
Previous 16 year old 1098 would give 45-50 mpg depending on style of driving.
So it would seem that you are not far off, although as Polo Mint's consumption show's it could be a bit better.

[9n3 Silver Bird]

Well, here's my experience:

March 2006, brand new Polo S 1.2 55PS Petrol (the smallest engine size they did).
Factory fitted with a "computer" showing mpg instantaneous and mpg average over the journey. I drive it very carefully and glance at the mpg all the time.
In town after starting from cold I get 30 to 35 mpg, maybe less if I have to wait in traffic.
But, when the engine is warmed up and on a good road I will typically see 52 mpg for the journey - say Uxbridge to Mildenhall.
I have found the wind makes a big difference.
Calm day; 52mpg
Headwind; 45mpg
Buffeting crosswind (like at Easter 2008); 42mpg
Tailwind 60+mpg

The best I have had; (NW London to Dover) It showed 64mpg average when I got in the queue for the ferry.

I get a bit better mpg when the outside air temperature is low.

I thought the "computer" was faulty - but it agrees overall with the actual fuel consumption.

Believe or disbelieve it if you want, but I assure you it's true.

If you really want good mpg from a Polo then try the Diesel Blue Motion – 74mpg stated in the literature – drive it my way and that will be 94mpg.

Or, why not try a diesel Audi A2 (out of production) that’s 2 litres of fuel per 100km.


9n3 Silver Bird
NW London

[Ads]

I have a 2004 A2 1.4 Tdi Sport and consistently average via the computer 53.2 mpg

[g40jon]

the 6n/6n2 petrol models all used engines that were loosely based around the same engine fitted in the first polos and even the audi 50 (basically the same as the mk1 polo) so its no suprise that the 6n/6n2 models dont have great mpg. the increased capacity was achieved by increasing the stroke a fair amount, which make the cars fairly torquey, but the cylinder bore was only increased a small amount, so bhp isnt great. This results in an engine that isnt particuly powerfull for its cubic capacity, add to that the weight increase over the mk2/3 polo and you can see why the cars mpg is so poor. vws solution to this was to use a gearbox that to my mind is too short, as when I owned a 1.6 mk4 glx it used to be revving way above 3k at 70 mph, by comparison my g40 pulls 70 at a shade below 3k in top gear due to its good power to weight ratio.

[M11CKT]

I have the same car, 2002 on a 51 plate, polo 75bhp, s model with ac and I struggle to get 30+ mpg, which I thought meant I had a problem somewhere but it's suppoedly normal? I managed 36.3 mpg on my last long drive, but wud have been better with a 6th gear, ratios are too short 3,200 revs in 5th at 70mph.

[vc-10]

A 9n isn't a Mk.5. It's a Mk.4

But anyway, yes the gearbox is horribly done. Very slick, but completely wrong ratios! The new (actual Mk.5) model is better. In my Mk.4 (2002 9n) with a 1.2 65PS engine, 3000 rpm is about 58mph. The new one (I had a 60PS 1.2 as a rental) did about 70 at 3000rpm. Much better.

I do seem to get 45mpg no matter what I do with the car though- I have a lead right foot and thrash the poor thing. But I've not got A/C unfortunately. Was dying of heatstroke earlier today! Next car has to have A/C...

Oh and the super-economical Audi A2 (and a version of the Lupo) did 3l/100km, not 2. 2l would be really incredible! 141mpg!