Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Seems that the 2.0 TDI fuel consumption is considerably worse than the VI version. Honest John Real MPG is 52.3 for the VII and 60.4 for the VI car. www.spritmonitor.de shows a similar variation and Fuelly is just rubbish when trying to get model specific fuel figures.

Wondered what the real world experience of this forum is??
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,990 Posts
my long term ( ie 2500 miles in 6 weeks ) average is 48.6mpg. I've seen as much as 58.6mpg on a 225 mile run but its still well short of the "official" pie-in-the-sky mpg.

To be honest, I'm quite happy with that, coming from the mk6 GT 160 which had an official combined of almost 48mpg and i averaged 34mpg over 75000 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks - I know EU figures are completely pie in the sky - the manufacturers have all sorts of non production dodges to get better figures.

Although my Mk IV official figures for combined I recall were 57.6mpg and over 120k miles it has averaged 55mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
Still early days for me at 600 miles on the clock. First run of 320 miles I had 56mpg, recent run of 80 miles I had 61mpg. First fill up had the tank at 52.78mpg which agrees closely with Honest John. I'm hoping to get mid to high 50s once the car has more mileage on the clock. I'd be happy with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
it will be interesting to see. From reading around - Green Car Congress etc - it appears that the 2.0 TDI engine is on the limits before an AdBlue/urea catalyst is required. As a result VW have made the engine do more active PDF regeneration cycles where on the Mk VI the engine would have achieved a passive regeneration - eg on a motorway run.

As a result, it won't be as economical as the Mk VI 2.0 TDI.

And of course the manufacturing crooks don't do an active regeneration during the EU test cycle. It is only the car buyers that discover that the car is not as economical as it should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
This is simply not true in my experience. My Mk7 TDi 150 is getting about 4mpg MORE than my previous Mk6 TDi 140. Road tax is 85% cheaper (just 20 quid now) and insurance was 9% less. Running costs have been the lowest of any modern car I've owned in the last decade. I'm also glad I dropped down from 18's to 17 inch alloys as the tyres are about 40 - 50% cheaper and don't break my spine anymore.

I've just had the best fuel range this past 2 weeks or so, with a range of 655 miles on a 49 litre fill. True fuel economy calculated at 60.74 mpg. The best calculated figure (not the crap MFD) I ever had on my Mk6 was just over 56 mpg and that's on the same commuting route, driving style, etc. This week I managed 640 miles on another full tank @ 49 litre fill, so it's no fluke.

People forget that the Mk6 MFD mpg meter was hopelessly inaccurate and over-optimistic, mine regularly displayed 10 mpg more than the true figure before it was traded in. It once displayed 74.5 mpg on a 32 mile return leg home - that's several more than the manufacturers figure and a statistical improbability (I calculated the true mpg on a full tank was actually 56 mpg).

Also a huge plus factor for me is that after 16,000 miles, I've made exactly ZERO warranty claims on my Mk7. My old Mk6 went back 6 times to the dealer for various quality & fit and finish problems that plagued it after just the first 3 months of ownership from new. I've had none of wiper or suspension issues that some have reported with their Mk7's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
This is simply not true in my experience. My Mk7 TDi 150 is getting about 4mpg MORE than my previous Mk6 TDi 140. Road tax is 85% cheaper (just 20 quid now) and insurance was 9% less. Running costs have been the lowest of any modern car I've owned in the last decade. I'm also glad I dropped down from 18's to 17 inch alloys as the tyres are about 40 - 50% cheaper and don't break my spine anymore.

I've just had the best fuel range this past 2 weeks or so, with a range of 655 miles on a 49 litre fill. True fuel economy calculated at 60.74 mpg. The best calculated figure (not the crap MFD) I ever had on my Mk6 was just over 56 mpg and that's on the same commuting route, driving style, etc. This week I managed 640 miles on another full tank @ 49 litre fill, so it's no fluke.

People forget that the Mk6 MFD mpg meter was hopelessly inaccurate and over-optimistic, mine regularly displayed 10 mpg more than the true figure before it was traded in. It once displayed 74.5 mpg on a 32 mile return leg home - that's several more than the manufacturers figure and a statistical improbability (I calculated the true mpg on a full tank was actually 56 mpg).
Really glad to hear that. I agree that MFD's displays are not worth the figures they show, unless can be calibrated against real mpg which I think the BMW computers allow. The only way is tank to tank brimming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Well, I've just traded from a Mk6 1.6tdi SE Bluemotion to a Mk7 2.0tdi SE Bluemotion and, after a week and around 600 miles, the car appears to be as economical as the old 1.6. I have to confess most of my mileage is on A-roads or M-ways and that I only pootle along at 60-65mph on cruise control whenever I can but, the old 1.6 averaged a true 66.23mpg for 2 years and 8 months over 70,000 miles. Thus far, the 2.0 is showing an average of 67.1mpg albeit on the MFD - mind you, I always found the MFD readouts on all my previous cars to be fractionally pessimistic compared to reality (4 x Mk4s, 1 x Mk5, 1 x Scirocco and 1 x Mk6).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
Thought I might as well update as my driving has changed from lots of long trips to more of a mixture now of short journeys with the occasionally long blast.

Last few tanks: 50.51mpg, 53.16mpg, 47.67mpg, 51.58mpg, 50,15mpg.

So roughly around 50mpg. Not surprised as long mileage has dropped loads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
Got a new GTD recently and keeping a close eye on MPG as I need 500+ miles from a tank

So far I'm finding the MFD read-out seems much more accurate than my MK6 which always used to over-read. Got 56 on the way into work today and 53 coming home which seems reasonable considering it's not run in yet!

Do people find the driving mode makes much difference? I'm using Individual mode with ACC set to Sport and Engine to Eco, everything else on Normal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
Got a new GTD recently and keeping a close eye on MPG as I need 500+ miles from a tank

So far I'm finding the MFD read-out seems much more accurate than my MK6 which always used to over-read. Got 56 on the way into work today and 53 coming home which seems reasonable considering it's not run in yet!

Do people find the driving mode makes much difference? I'm using Individual mode with ACC set to Sport and Engine to Eco, everything else on Normal.
I just leave it in sport - it's much more responsive (especially on the right foot) so I tend to leave it in that and to hell with the economy :D .
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top