49.24MPG over the last tank for me. Measured, not indicated by the cars trip computer.
I think it was on about 52 so slightly over optimistic.Sounds pretty good; I'm assuming that the on board computer is optimistic ( it's a VW group product after all..... )
Anyone have any idea by how much ? 10-15%?
My previous car, an Octavia vRS diesel was just under 5% optimistic when calculated over 40K miles. My Leon 1.4TSi (150) FR over 5K miles is currently less than 1% optimistic.Sounds pretty good; I'm assuming that the on board computer is optimistic ( it's a VW group product after all..... )
Anyone have any idea by how much ? 10-15%?
I've just filled the tank after running a tank in Eco Mode and driving as economy friendly as I can. Most of my trips are very short, it's a second car, but it was the same type of journeys as before so a fair comparison of Eco Mode and sedate driving vs Sport Mode and using the revs a bit more.
Previous tanks average about 37-38 mpg.
This tank was 40 mpg.
I suspect most of that whole 2 mpg was due to driving style and Eco Mode does pretty much feck all. Sport Mode from now on then...
So you did 124 miles, and still had 'according ot the car' another 555 miles of range left in the tank? So a theorethical range of 650 miles from 50 litres.Dunno how accurate the on board consumption indicator is, but more than happy with this:
Apparently so - which was one of the reasons I questioned the accuracy of the on board consumption indications.So you did 124 miles, and still had 'according ot the car' another 555 miles of range left in the tank? So a theorethical range of 650 miles from 50 litres.
I'll try doing a tank-to-tank comparison too and report back.
I'd like to see that.
I'll be honest, I don't understand the ACT system. It's not like you're turning the engine into a three-cylinder one. It's still a four-cylinder when running on two so the rotating mass is still the same. I would have thought that moving the car a certain distance at a certain speed would require the same amount of fuel irrespective of how many cylinders that fuel is being burned in.
I'll be honest, I don't understand the ACT system. It's not like you're turning the engine into a three-cylinder one. It's still a four-cylinder when running on two so the rotating mass is still the same.
I would have thought that moving the car a certain distance at a certain speed would require the same amount of fuel irrespective of how many cylinders that fuel is being burned in.
I'd still rather have 4 engines, in case one stops there's more chance of staying aloft?Probably why 4 engine passenger planes are disappearing for 2 engine ones.
I'd still rather have 4 engines, in case one stops there's more chance of staying aloft?