Excellent explanation and summation of the 10 litre space there! Makes perfect sense now.
Cheers!
Cheers!
-
Hey Guest👍👎 We're looking for reviews of your local CUPRA or SEAT Dealership - it's quick and easy to do: Leave a review now
69mpg from 1.6tdi surely not !!
- Thread starter adamb87
- Start date
Yup, that's what I get! Scared the pants off me at first: we were on a 350 mile trip and I thought the gauge had jammed when there was no drop until we were over half way there.
Ive had my 1.6 cr for 2 days now, on the 70 mile journey from stafford to south shropshire i got 66mpg (acording to trip computer). this was from cold start and a stop off in shrewsbury for a spot of shopping! today ive just bumbled around the area, with 5 or 6 journeys though out the day on windy b roads mainly around clun/bishops castle area (70miles ish) and got 62.5mpg.
cant complain about that i dont think especially as im not used to the car yet.
(10 plate with 11k on the clock)
cant complain about that i dont think especially as im not used to the car yet.
(10 plate with 11k on the clock)
ok, so went from south shropshire to barmouth yesterday (80 ish miles) and got
well chuffed with that especially as i went over dinas mawddwy on the way, i was just in the flow of traffic with a few overtakes here and there too.
i have noticed though that whist i get good economy doing say a 15mile trip, i thin a longer trip is required to get better mpg as imo the car hasnt warmed up fully for at least 25-30miles to get the 65+ mpg figures
well chuffed with that especially as i went over dinas mawddwy on the way, i was just in the flow of traffic with a few overtakes here and there too.
i have noticed though that whist i get good economy doing say a 15mile trip, i thin a longer trip is required to get better mpg as imo the car hasnt warmed up fully for at least 25-30miles to get the 65+ mpg figures
Chemical Al
72.4 mpg for an 80 miles journey is not bad. The Extra Urban Cycle figure for the 1.6TDI is 78.5 mpg. Also is your trip computer accurate?
The image shows 312.8 miles on the trip odometer. Did you reset this when you filled the tank? If you did and your fuel gauge is the same as mine then you have used between 6 and 7 gallons. That's between 44.7 mpg and 52.1 mpg avarage. The Combined Cycle figure is 65.7 mpg.
The Urban Cycle figure is 52.3 mpg so even with a 1/4 of those miles at 72.4 mpg you're still not even managing to average the Urban Cycle figure.
In the 12 years of fuel records for 5 cars there was only one tankfull that returned less than the Urban Cycle Figure. We got 34.76 mpg and the Urban Cycle figure was 37.2 mpg. That was the first tank full in the new Volvo and it hadn't made any continuous journeys. The Ibiza's average per tank is always less than the Urban Cycle figure. That's one tank full in 12 years compared to every tank full in the Ibiza - that's shocking.
The Volvo S40 would return 66 mpg on a continuous run, easily beating it's own Extra Urban figure of 58.9 mpg. It also returned full tank averages between 45 mpg and 52 mpg which compares well with its Combined Cycle figure of 48.7 mpg.
Your Ibiza is doing a lot better than mine on fuel consumption and it might be possible for yours to return average mpg's close to the official figures if you try but I can't believe that mine ever will.
You beat a Volvo S40, a car almost 40% heavier than the Ibiza, by 6 mpg on a continuous run. Big Whoop - but even so those are figures that I can only dream of!
72.4 mpg for an 80 miles journey is not bad. The Extra Urban Cycle figure for the 1.6TDI is 78.5 mpg. Also is your trip computer accurate?
The image shows 312.8 miles on the trip odometer. Did you reset this when you filled the tank? If you did and your fuel gauge is the same as mine then you have used between 6 and 7 gallons. That's between 44.7 mpg and 52.1 mpg avarage. The Combined Cycle figure is 65.7 mpg.
The Urban Cycle figure is 52.3 mpg so even with a 1/4 of those miles at 72.4 mpg you're still not even managing to average the Urban Cycle figure.
In the 12 years of fuel records for 5 cars there was only one tankfull that returned less than the Urban Cycle Figure. We got 34.76 mpg and the Urban Cycle figure was 37.2 mpg. That was the first tank full in the new Volvo and it hadn't made any continuous journeys. The Ibiza's average per tank is always less than the Urban Cycle figure. That's one tank full in 12 years compared to every tank full in the Ibiza - that's shocking.
The Volvo S40 would return 66 mpg on a continuous run, easily beating it's own Extra Urban figure of 58.9 mpg. It also returned full tank averages between 45 mpg and 52 mpg which compares well with its Combined Cycle figure of 48.7 mpg.
Your Ibiza is doing a lot better than mine on fuel consumption and it might be possible for yours to return average mpg's close to the official figures if you try but I can't believe that mine ever will.
You beat a Volvo S40, a car almost 40% heavier than the Ibiza, by 6 mpg on a continuous run. Big Whoop - but even so those are figures that I can only dream of!
The good weather really improved my mpg last week - well up into the mid 60s.
Im happy with anything over 55mpg and so far my car generally achieves about that. I pay no attention to official MPG figures as none of the cars I've had or even other cars in the family have ever came close to their quoted figures.
At 55mpg my Ibiza is doing 10mpg more than my dads 05 Astra 1.7 CDTI, so I'm happy.
Im happy with anything over 55mpg and so far my car generally achieves about that. I pay no attention to official MPG figures as none of the cars I've had or even other cars in the family have ever came close to their quoted figures.
At 55mpg my Ibiza is doing 10mpg more than my dads 05 Astra 1.7 CDTI, so I'm happy.
Accurate enough for me!
no i didnt reset it, i will next time.
ive just looked out at the "2" trip readings and im returning 61.8mpg over 498miles (this is not over a tank or anything, also some of them were from test drives etc from before i bought it and i didnt reset it!
you got a heavy right foot rji?
Chemical Al
I think you missed the point of my post. No, I don't have a heavy right foot. We drive economically. Trying even harder in the Ibiza. All previous cars over 12 years have consistently returned around the Combined Cycle figure or better. We have evidence that the official figures were consistently achievable tank after tank. Our 1.6TDI has a serious problem with its fuel consumption (ours is not the only one). Seat refuses to accept there is anything wrong and they refuse to test it. They have any number of excuses as to why the consumption on some of these cars is so bad (weather, temperature, roads, driving style, tight engine, tyres pressures, air con, extra weight, roof racks, open windows, etc. etc.). But if the computer says there aren't any fault codes then there can't be anything wrong!
You get mpg's in the 60's and 70's, we struggle hard to get 46. The fuel consumption (from VAGs most fuel efficient range of engines) is utter crap. It's going in AGAIN on Friday. This time it will be the first time at the dealer we bought it from. And I'm guessing it's all going to be kickin' off.
I think you missed the point of my post. No, I don't have a heavy right foot. We drive economically. Trying even harder in the Ibiza. All previous cars over 12 years have consistently returned around the Combined Cycle figure or better. We have evidence that the official figures were consistently achievable tank after tank. Our 1.6TDI has a serious problem with its fuel consumption (ours is not the only one). Seat refuses to accept there is anything wrong and they refuse to test it. They have any number of excuses as to why the consumption on some of these cars is so bad (weather, temperature, roads, driving style, tight engine, tyres pressures, air con, extra weight, roof racks, open windows, etc. etc.). But if the computer says there aren't any fault codes then there can't be anything wrong!
You get mpg's in the 60's and 70's, we struggle hard to get 46. The fuel consumption (from VAGs most fuel efficient range of engines) is utter crap. It's going in AGAIN on Friday. This time it will be the first time at the dealer we bought it from. And I'm guessing it's all going to be kickin' off.
46 is bad, can you ask if a member of staff can come for a drive with you? , reset the computer and show them how bad it is, even a 2 or 3 mile journy (from cold should show 50+ mpg).
what age and milage are you at?
hope it gets sorted, let us know how it goes.
what age and milage are you at?
hope it gets sorted, let us know how it goes.
Chemical Al
It has over 5k in 4 months. It doesn't matter if you tell them or show them how bad it is, they don't care. The Technical Unit said that 41 mpg was "not too concerning". You might think that with a combined cycle of 65 and an urban cycle of 52 they would be concerned when the best achievable was only 41, but they're not. When a small car with VAG's most fuel efficient engine can't beat bigger cars (Scenic, S40, Carens 7 seater) there has to be something wrong somewhere. I thought the claims made for these engines must be a complete crock but some people seem to be getting the economy.
It's going in again because of a couple of noises the engine is making and a warning light (not the DPF) that has now cleared itself. Oh, and the fuel consumption, did I mention the fuel consumption?
Thanks for your interest. But I don't see it ending well.
It has over 5k in 4 months. It doesn't matter if you tell them or show them how bad it is, they don't care. The Technical Unit said that 41 mpg was "not too concerning". You might think that with a combined cycle of 65 and an urban cycle of 52 they would be concerned when the best achievable was only 41, but they're not. When a small car with VAG's most fuel efficient engine can't beat bigger cars (Scenic, S40, Carens 7 seater) there has to be something wrong somewhere. I thought the claims made for these engines must be a complete crock but some people seem to be getting the economy.
It's going in again because of a couple of noises the engine is making and a warning light (not the DPF) that has now cleared itself. Oh, and the fuel consumption, did I mention the fuel consumption?
Thanks for your interest. But I don't see it ending well.
Yeah that doesnt sound good at all, i read a thread on briskoda saying that because of the way the vag cr engines are made they can take up to 10K to return good mpg. the tollerances of the engine parts making it all a tight fit so loosening up takes longer.
ill see if i can dig it out
ill see if i can dig it out
Thanks for the link. Not much in it I haven't read before though. I have read similar posts that I think were also by Estate Man describing the very special way that VW engines are built. But the 98 mpg that Xeryus-Uk got in his Fabia would be nice. For me that would be like buying diesel at 70p per litre. Just like it was in 1999 when our 106 was getting 66 mpg average. I remember it well.
Frudo
Guest
Urban achieved
Just hit the Urban 52 mpg today for the 2nd time in 14 months and 7250 miles. Happy, no
it was achieved on a 260 mile round trip up the M6 and back no hold ups. 65-70 mph there and back, got 53 going up and 51 coming back. Probably only be 48mpg when I fill up, computer always wrong with my calcs Pretty useless mpg imo. Nothing wrong with the car though they keep telling me.
Just hit the Urban 52 mpg today for the 2nd time in 14 months and 7250 miles. Happy, no
it was achieved on a 260 mile round trip up the M6 and back no hold ups. 65-70 mph there and back, got 53 going up and 51 coming back. Probably only be 48mpg when I fill up, computer always wrong with my calcs Pretty useless mpg imo. Nothing wrong with the car though they keep telling me.
Congratulations Frudo. After 7,250 miles you finally got the Urban Cycle on a 260 mile run! - I hope you realise that's all you're going to get.
I got mine back from the dealer on Friday in my ongoing complaint that my low mpg must be caused by an engine fault. I was told by the master technician:-
-It doesn't have any faults and is running ok
-50+ mpg is GOOD for these cars (ours was displaying 53 after a 35 mile drive on the A1)
-The official figures are impossible to get
-People might SAY they're getting 60's to 70's but they're not
-All the cars that he sees have got around 50
-Even the ecomotives are low
-Tests are done on a rolling road without wind or power steering influences.
He is using the displayed figures not calculated mpg's. Mine also reads high, about 10%. It's averaging 48 mpg but displays around 53.
They had a donor car that he said had 55 mpg (I didn't see Trip No 2). But in a short test drive he got worse mpg than mine. It had 10k miles, mine has 5k miles.
I've heard all the stories about mpg increasing with mileage, and it probably will - slightly. The Technical Unit said that 41 mpg was not too concerning and will refuse to even consider there might be a fault until it has done 8,000 miles. But now the dealer's master technician has confirmed that the official figures are impossible and 50 mpg is GOOD.
In case you didn't see the numbers before you bought the car:-
Urban Cycle = 52.3 mpg. Combined Cycle = 65.7 mpg. Extra Urban Cycle = 78.5 mpg.
So it's official - the Urban Cycle figure is all you should expect. (Sorry)
I got mine back from the dealer on Friday in my ongoing complaint that my low mpg must be caused by an engine fault. I was told by the master technician:-
-It doesn't have any faults and is running ok
-50+ mpg is GOOD for these cars (ours was displaying 53 after a 35 mile drive on the A1)
-The official figures are impossible to get
-People might SAY they're getting 60's to 70's but they're not
-All the cars that he sees have got around 50
-Even the ecomotives are low
-Tests are done on a rolling road without wind or power steering influences.
He is using the displayed figures not calculated mpg's. Mine also reads high, about 10%. It's averaging 48 mpg but displays around 53.
They had a donor car that he said had 55 mpg (I didn't see Trip No 2). But in a short test drive he got worse mpg than mine. It had 10k miles, mine has 5k miles.
I've heard all the stories about mpg increasing with mileage, and it probably will - slightly. The Technical Unit said that 41 mpg was not too concerning and will refuse to even consider there might be a fault until it has done 8,000 miles. But now the dealer's master technician has confirmed that the official figures are impossible and 50 mpg is GOOD.
In case you didn't see the numbers before you bought the car:-
Urban Cycle = 52.3 mpg. Combined Cycle = 65.7 mpg. Extra Urban Cycle = 78.5 mpg.
So it's official - the Urban Cycle figure is all you should expect. (Sorry)
I beg to differ, I have seen over 70mpg on quite a few occasions now. Plus I have confirmed the figure as it was full tank to full tank and calculated, so not relying on the onboard computer.
Well I must be a very lucky man then!
With a few more miles on the car and the warmer weather I think the extra urban figure is within reach
Last edited:
The master technician has said there's nothing wrong with my car and that 50+ is all I can expect. So I'm not holding out any hope for my car getting an EXTRA 25.4 mpg to catch up with yours or an EXTRA 30.5 mpg to hit the Extra Urban. Not even on a continuous run never mind on a tank to tank avarage.
The ticking/crackling noise under load is getting worse especially when cold - but it's not a fault. The occasional air flow noise isn't a fault. And now there's another noise when idling - but I'm sure it won't be a fault.
I've just checked the oil and it's almost to the full mark. Last time I checked it was below half. I hope the dealer topped it up, they didn't say.
If Only...
The ticking/crackling noise under load is getting worse especially when cold - but it's not a fault. The occasional air flow noise isn't a fault. And now there's another noise when idling - but I'm sure it won't be a fault.
I've just checked the oil and it's almost to the full mark. Last time I checked it was below half. I hope the dealer topped it up, they didn't say.
If Only...
Similar threads
