What MPG are owners getting in the real world?

[Andy Beats]

I’ve only seen you and 1 other on here complain of low MPG with the 1.0TSI 95.
The Real MPG average from owners reported on Honest John is 53.9...
Obviously driving style has the biggest impact. But I didn’t drive the one I had particularly gently, in fact I revved it out on a motorway slip road to see what it’d do. And still got 50+mpg. With passengers and luggage.

Okey dokey.
Here's what Autoexpress got from their test car, which is in line with mine.
In fact, head-to-head Auto Express testing has produced a 43.3mpg real-world figure for the Polo 1.0 TSI 95 SE, and 42.0mpg for the EcoBoost Fiesta.
Honest John's real-life MPG is all well and good, but the crucial thing is it doesn't tell you how many people it involves.
So it could only be one owner that's reported that figure.
Anyway, I've registered and added mine, so that's dragged the average down to 51mpg now.
For my one result to affect it that much surely means there weren't that many owners had reported results at all.

[blackertracker]

I’ve only seen you and 1 other on here complain of low MPG with the 1.0TSI 95.
The Real MPG average from owners reported on Honest John is 53.9...
Obviously driving style has the biggest impact. But I didn’t drive the one I had particularly gently, in fact I revved it out on a motorway slip road to see what it’d do. And still got 50+mpg. With passengers and luggage.

Okey dokey.
Here's what Autoexpress got from their test car, which is in line with mine.
In fact, head-to-head Auto Express testing has produced a 43.3mpg real-world figure for the Polo 1.0 TSI 95 SE, and 42.0mpg for the EcoBoost Fiesta.
Honest John's real-life MPG is all well and good, but the crucial thing is it doesn't tell you how many people it involves.
So it could only be one owner that's reported that figure.

Agree about Honest John, but it tallies nicely with what MPG I achieved in the real world.
Honest John’s figures were ranging from 50-59mpg, until literally 10 minutes ago when someone submitted a figure of 42mpg. Was it you?

You’ve mentioned in other posts that you ‘hammer’ your car. Much like automotive journalists then
I’m trying to help you out in case there was something that could be done to improve fuel consumption for you. Perhaps as you’ve been used to the great performance of electric cars it’s a heavy right foot that is the cause, not anything faulty with the car.

[Andy Beats]

Honest John’s figures were ranging from 50-59mpg, until literally 10 minutes ago when someone submitted a figure of 42mpg. Was it you?
You’ve mentioned in other posts that you ‘hammer’ your car. Much like automotive journalists then

Yes, that was me and 42mpg is a truthful average answer - not 'fake news'
Hell, if I really thrash the thing it's easy to get under 30mpg.
How tiny injectors and three tiny cylinders can possibly swallow fuel at that rate is beyond me, but there you go!
But if I drive as gently as I'm prepared to, around 44-47mpg is achievable.
Evidently the autoexpress people drive similarly to me.

[Andy Beats]

I’m trying to help you out in case there was something that could be done to improve fuel consumption for you. Perhaps as you’ve been used to the great performance of electric cars it’s a heavy right foot that is the cause, not anything faulty with the car.

To get low-to-mid 40mpg, I'm making sure I change up between 2500 and 3000rpm and using light throttle openings.
I'm simply not prepared to drive it any more gently than that, I'd be getting in everyone's way and just frustrating myself.
The only way I could improve on that would be to live somewhere with no hills, as I've noticed flat journeys really lift the MPG.

[monkeyhanger]

The Polo GTI will do 47mpg on a long run, maintaining 80mph on the motorway.

That's impressive.
I can get 47mpg on the motorway in the 1.0tsi, but only if I stay nearer 70mph.
Approach 80mph and the MPG plummets.
Really, there doesn't seem to be a scenario where the 1.0tsi gives better MPG than the Gti.
Ho hum....

Maybe the GTIs 6th gear is taller than your 5th (95ps 1.0 comes with 5 years?), and having a lot more torque helps keep me in 6th up a hill?

Your engine will be working a lot harder than mine (% of full output) to maintain 80mph.

[CJ-77]

Just been reading the Polo brochure PDF my dealer sent me and the new WLTP MPG figures make very interesting reading:

Old NEDC figures for the Polo 1.0TSI (15" wheels) Urban: 51.4, Extra-Urban: 74.3, Combined: 64.2.
New WLTP figures Low: 41.8, Medium: 54.8, High: 60.7, Extra High: 50.4 and Combined 52.6.

Low= City driving, Medium= town/ring road?, High= NSL A/B roads?, Extra High= Motorway, Combined a mix of the 4?

This might explain your MPG, Andy? Also those getting close to a genuine 60MPG are driving gods!

[Adam_013]

Just been reading the Polo brochure PDF my dealer sent me and the new WLTP MPG figures make very interesting reading:

Old NEDC figures for the Polo 1.0TSI (15" wheels) Urban: 51.4, Extra-Urban: 74.3, Combined: 64.2.
New WLTP figures Low: 41.8, Medium: 54.8, High: 60.7, Extra High: 50.4 and Combined 52.6.

Low= City driving, Medium= town/ring road?, High= NSL A/B roads?, Extra High= Motorway, Combined a mix of the 4?

This might explain your MPG, Andy? Also those getting close to a genuine 60MPG are driving gods!

Oh well, im a god then - Thanks [emoji1787]

These are definitely more accurate though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Andy Beats]

Also those getting close to a genuine 60MPG are driving gods!

Dunno about that, one of the people getting impressive MPG say they stick it into 5th at 30mph and let it trundle along with no throttle at all.
That's below idling revs!
I'm not prepared to drive like that at all.
I'm maybe being unreasonable here, but I'd expect 40mpg from it even drving it like I stole it.
As I said before, it blows my mind that such a small engine can get below 30mpg in any scenario.....

[CJ-77]

Just been reading the Polo brochure PDF my dealer sent me and the new WLTP MPG figures make very interesting reading:

Old NEDC figures for the Polo 1.0TSI (15" wheels) Urban: 51.4, Extra-Urban: 74.3, Combined: 64.2.
New WLTP figures Low: 41.8, Medium: 54.8, High: 60.7, Extra High: 50.4 and Combined 52.6.

Low= City driving, Medium= town/ring road?, High= NSL A/B roads?, Extra High= Motorway, Combined a mix of the 4?

This might explain your MPG, Andy? Also those getting close to a genuine 60MPG are driving gods!

Oh well, im a god then - Thanks [emoji1787]

These are definitely more accurate though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Definitely more realistic and to be fair the figures are comparing very favorably to rival cars WLTP figures. Some shocking figures too (The 1.4 90ps Corsa is as low as 28.5MPG! and City cars are generally worse than the Polo on the combined cycle ).

Also those getting close to a genuine 60MPG are driving gods!

Dunno about that, one of the people getting impressive MPG say they stick it into 5th at 30mph and let it trundle along with no throttle at all.
That's below idling revs!
I'm not prepared to drive like that at all.
I'm maybe being unreasonable here, but I'd expect 40mpg from it even drving it like I stole it.
As I said before, it blows my mind that such a small engine can get below 30mpg in any scenario.....

I do agree, Andy. I've never been one to labour the engine like that as it seems counterproductive to me.

[Adam_013]

Just been reading the Polo brochure PDF my dealer sent me and the new WLTP MPG figures make very interesting reading:

Old NEDC figures for the Polo 1.0TSI (15" wheels) Urban: 51.4, Extra-Urban: 74.3, Combined: 64.2.
New WLTP figures Low: 41.8, Medium: 54.8, High: 60.7, Extra High: 50.4 and Combined 52.6.

Low= City driving, Medium= town/ring road?, High= NSL A/B roads?, Extra High= Motorway, Combined a mix of the 4?

This might explain your MPG, Andy? Also those getting close to a genuine 60MPG are driving gods!

Oh well, im a god then - Thanks [emoji1787]

These are definitely more accurate though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Definitely more realistic and to be fair the figures are comparing very favorably to rival cars WLTP figures. Some shocking figures too (The 1.4 90ps Corsa is as low as 28.5MPG! and City cars are generally worse than the Polo on the combined cycle ).

Also those getting close to a genuine 60MPG are driving gods!

Dunno about that, one of the people getting impressive MPG say they stick it into 5th at 30mph and let it trundle along with no throttle at all.
That's below idling revs!
I'm not prepared to drive like that at all.
I'm maybe being unreasonable here, but I'd expect 40mpg from it even drving it like I stole it.
As I said before, it blows my mind that such a small engine can get below 30mpg in any scenario.....

I do agree, Andy. I've never been one to labour the engine like that as it seems counterproductive to me.

If I'm honest, I only do it because I'm lazy - I can poodle along doing the speed limit and not have to press any pedals. Sounds easy to me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Andy Beats]

Some shocking figures too (The 1.4 90ps Corsa is as low as 28.5MPG! and City cars are generally worse than the Polo on the combined cycle ).

Maybe Vauxhall are just more honest than VW.....we all know VW have a history of lying.....
I could show you how easy it is to get the Polo down below 30mpg.
You'd be surprised, it's not like I have to be red-lining it in every gear to get this.
Put it this way, my mother's 2006 1.4 Micra isn't much worse on petrol than my Polo, but it's much livelier around town (conversely far too high revs when cruising at 70mph)

[johnparker]

My 95ps has done 69.8mpg on a 35mile journey consisting of 15miles of country roads and 20 miles of busy motorway that forced me to do 50mph all the way. But the same journey without the traffic and doing 78 mph all the way returns about 54.

[Andy Beats]

But the same journey without the traffic and doing 78 mph all the way returns about 54.

I just don't see how this is possible, other than the cars being extremely variable in build quality.
I mean, a flat motorway is a flat motorway, so we can rule our geography as an issue, and there's no way in hell mine will show 54mpg at 78mph!!
I get about 47mpg at just over 70mph, taking it up to nearer 80mph drops it down to not much over 40mpg.

[monkeyhanger]

But the same journey without the traffic and doing 78 mph all the way returns about 54.

I just don't see how this is possible, other than the cars being extremely variable in build quality.
I mean, a flat motorway is a flat motorway, so we can rule our geography as an issue, and there's no way in hell mine will show 54mpg at 78mph!!
I get about 47mpg at just over 70mph, taking it up to nearer 80mph drops it down to not much over 40mpg.

You'll go mad trying to compare one person's mpg with your own. Traffic, average speed, length of journey, ambient temp, whether the alternator is working overtime because you didn't use the car at the weekend but do have a dashcam running and eating into the battery charge (like me), driving style...

The mpg differences quoted between doing almost 80 and being forced into maintaining 50 on the same journey seem as expected.

[TElwoody]

Just going to add my two cents here. I have the 1.0 95hp engine and i regularly travel 100-200 miles journeys 2-4 times a week for work and travelling at 50-60 with medium to heavy traffic i can easily get 52-55 mpg. At 70 id expect 50 ish mpg and at 80 it settles at 44-46 mpg.

I even did a boring run on mostly flat with my Grandad and going 55-60 on the motorway and i got 66-67 mpg.

Driving it in town and briskly i can expect 42-45 mpg. Sub 40 is in loads of heavy traffic, mostly sitting at idle.

Most full tanks give me around 420-440 miles between fill ups.