Fuel economy - Golf Mk6 1.6 TDi 105hp (Manual)

Ultrasonic

Mobile-bits - have a look here to see what others are getting in the same car:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/RealMpg/Results?manufacturer=volkswagen

Driving style can make a massive difference to the achieved mpg. Also bear in mind that the extra-urban test has a much slower average speed (39 mph) than a 70 mph (or higher) motorway cruise, which also biases the combined economy up. Details here:

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/ece_eudc.php

Personally I wish car manufacturers were required to qoute a fuel economy figure for steady state driving at motorway speeds in addition to the existing tests.

cyclonebri1

Probably sold the car by now due to poor fuel economy.

Always best to start a new thread as you realise I think;)

Only thing to add really is just ensure you are actually reading your fuel consumption accurately, lots of views on here as to how to do that, try a quick search.

Johnmcl7

I don't have the 1.6 TDI CR engine myself but I did notice a very long thread on a Skoda forum where Fabia owners with the same 1.6TDI CR engine and having exactly the same experience with fuel economy being considerably lower than expected both against the figures on paper and the older 1.9TDI 105bhp engine. The fuel economy seemed to get better after a good amount of miles although still not that much better, I can't remember if there was an ECU update or similar that helped a bit?

John

Trebor16

I have a Golf Plus with the 1.6TDi engine and the bluemotion specification. I think the claimed combined figure is 65mpg, but I know these figures are not a true reflection on what you get in the real world.

I have tracked my MPG since I bought the car over 18000 miles and the overall average is 52.1mpg (which is much better than the OP was getting). The Golf Plus is a bigger and heavier than a normal Golf and this is reflected in its claimed figures, when compared with a normal Golf.

It has improved since I bought the car and the economy would be even better if my leadfooted wife didn't drive the car!:D

Best average over a tankful is 57.5 and worst is 47.3

smitchy73

just to add to this old thread, i've got a Golf Bluemotion(not BMT), i'm averaging 67mpg, and usually get about 750 miles from the tank with about 50 miles or so left in the tank. On a recent trip to Milton Keynes, from outside Glasgow, I stuck as close to 60mph as possible and on the constant run got over 80mpg both ways, and the whole tank took me down and back and still lasted a couple of days for work too, taking me over 900 miles before I filled up again.
I don't tend to drive much above 60 mph, use Sainsburys for fuel, and try to take as much car in reading the traffic, road, conditions etc as I can enabling me to get as much out of it as possible.
I also found my car lost mpg when I got new tyres, dropped about 10mpg.

dodo69

We have a Golf Mk6 but with the 1.6 Tdi but with the 90 bhp engine. Great car and doing 60 mpg all day long - we also have a modern (2011) Passat 2.0TDi 140 bhp (Mark7) and it usually gets around 55 mpg and I have hit 65 mpg on long journeys keeping to the speed limit.

forgotmyname

Probably down to having less power to weight.

The 1.9 will plod along in a higher gear. But the smaller engine needs to use more revs to save fuel.

I have proved this several times and surprised a few people.

In my car 6th gear at anything below 60mph gives worse fuel consumption
that using 5th gear. Even though it can pull 6th gear easily.

At 50mph the torque required is slightly more than whats provided at say 1200rpm in 6th gear. So your pushing the throttle down further to compensate.

I tried this in my car on a 40mph road. 40mph in 4th required say 10% throttle travel. I went around and repeated this stretch in 5th gear, The throttle travel required went upto 13%.

Figures were obtained from an OBDII reader plugged in at the time.
The proper exact figures are in a post here somewhere.

Bit like a pushbike, You can ride up the hill with the gears set for speed, But you have to work harder for it.
Drop the gears to give you better leverage and you move the pedals slightly faster but with a lot less effort.

Ultrasonic

forgotmyname wrote: »

The 1.9 will plod along in a higher gear. But the smaller engine needs to use more revs to save fuel.

I have proved this several times and surprised a few people.

In my car 5th gear at anything below 60mph gives worse fuel consumption
that using 6th gear. Even though it can pull 6th gear easily.

Did you possibly mean to say better rather than worse fuel consumption in 5th gear below 60 mph? What you've actually written doesn't seem surprising, or fit with what you said re. needing higher revs.

forgotmyname wrote:

I tried this in my car on a 40mph road. 40mph in 4th required say 10% throttle travel. I went around and repeated this stretch in 5th gear, The throttle travel required went upto 13%.

Figures were obtained from an OBDII reader plugged in at the time.
The proper exact figures are in a post here somewhere.

I just had a quick search for this but couldn't find it, any idea where this was posted, or when you might have posted it? I'd be interested in your data, because as you say the results are a little surprising.

cyclonebri1

forgotmyname wrote: »

Probably down to having less power to weight.

The 1.9 will plod along in a higher gear. But the smaller engine needs to use more revs to save fuel.

I have proved this several times and surprised a few people.

In my car 5th gear at anything below 60mph gives worse fuel consumption
that using 6th gear. Even though it can pull 6th gear easily.

At 50mph the torque required is slightly more than whats provided at say 1200rpm in 6th gear. So your pushing the throttle down further to compensate.

I tried this in my car on a 40mph road. 40mph in 4th required say 10% throttle travel. I went around and repeated this stretch in 5th gear, The throttle travel required went upto 13%.

Figures were obtained from an OBDII reader plugged in at the time.
The proper exact figures are in a post here somewhere.

Bit like a pushbike, You can ride up the hill with the gears set for speed, But you have to work harder for it.
Drop the gears to give you better leverage and you move the pedals slightly faster but with a lot less effort.

I think that's a slightly oversimplified conclusion?

Ok the throtlle pot position may be greater in 6th, but the airflow would be less do to lower revs so the ecu would be injecting less fuel, ie the relationship between throttle position and fuel injector rate is not linear, you would have to plot the injector rate to gain valid confirmation.

Ultrasonic

forgotmyname wrote: »

I tried this in my car on a 40mph road. 40mph in 4th required say 10% throttle travel. I went around and repeated this stretch in 5th gear, The throttle travel required went upto 13%.

Thinking about it, I don't think in isolation this tells you that you'd get higher mpg in 5th than 4th (which I think was the implication of your post?) I suspect that the throttle position is a measure of how much fuel is used per injection (or per engine revolution) so to actually work out the comparitive fuel consumption in the two gears the result would have to be weighted by the lower revs in 5th than 4th gear.

I'm toying with the idea of getting myself a Scangauge to look at this sort of thing on my car. I just wish they weren't so expensive!

Edit: Oops, cross post with cyclonebril.