1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Chat about your 2018+ AW/BZ model Polos here!
Andy Beats
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
Drives: Nissan Leaf 40KW (and Polo United)
Location: aberdeen

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Andy Beats »

monkeyhanger wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:19 pm These 1.0 units are underpowered in a big heavy Polo (fine on a little Peugeot 108). The Polo is almost the same weight as an equivalent Golf (There's only about 40Kg between a Polo GTI+ and a Golf GTI, it'll be a similar story for the low spec Golf which has the 1.0 engine vs the Polo range with the same engine).

If you're out on hills or on the motorway, a 1.0 95ps engine is going to be working hard for a high proportion of the time. The sweet spot for economy vs output has historically been around 1.4/1.5L displacement. More than ever now though, cars are optimised to give the best mpg under test conditions rather than real conditions suited to most. You've seen recently that WLTP optimised cars have now got very tall gearing. The 1.0TSI with tall gearing and low torque has to be driven to high rpm, like a motorbike, and that does the fuel economy no good at all.

A lot of people have dumped diesel over the last 3 years, but I'd pick one over a 1.0TSI if I were doing lots of motorway speed driving.
If I were driving at high revs this would be fair comment.
But when you're changing gear at VW's recommended points (as per the dash) and tickling the throttle, it's depressing to barely scrape 40MPG.
The MPG my wife got is more indicative of what the MPG is like if you rev it, guaranteed that's what she was doing.
She basically still drives turbocharged cars like normally aspirated cars, revving them far higher than they need or is good for MPG.
I jump in her Sportage, change up at 2000RPM and get over 40mpg no problem, 33mpg for her.
Note a SPORTAGE is giving better MPG than my Polo....My Polo could go in the boot of her Sportage.....
silverhairs
Gold Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Drives: 2018 Polo SEL
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by silverhairs »

Though the Mrs car is a diesel, she never uses 5th gear unless I'm in the car and tell her to "change up" , but it keeps the DPF clean :)
Muldoon
Getting There!
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 am
Drives: 2018 SE TSI
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Muldoon »

I think it is down to physics and you can't have the best of both worlds - performance and economy from a 1.0 engine, something has to be sacrificed. It seems VW have put in high gearing into the equation to try and get it cruising at low revs once you get above 40mph but round town it's a pain trying to balance gears and revs to make progress without thrashing it and ruining economy. The real time MPG display I never trust as it can swing wildly from 70 down to 30 in a second depending on moving the accelerator a fraction. As people have mentioned, a 1.0 engine in a small town car would be fine without the weight and probably achieve 45+ MPG easily and a 1.4 or 1.5 engine in a medium size car likely the same if driven sensibly. The Polo has weight and low power under some circumstances which traps you in the worst situation. I think they fit this engine in the UP or Citygo so it just shows how much more work it's got to do in the bigger Polo.
Andy Beats
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
Drives: Nissan Leaf 40KW (and Polo United)
Location: aberdeen

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Andy Beats »

Muldoon wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:31 pm It seems VW have put in high gearing into the equation to try and get it cruising at low revs once you get above 40mph but round town it's a pain trying to balance gears and revs to make progress without thrashing it and ruining economy.
This is a very good point, the high gearing is definitely a weakness around town.
Muldoon
Getting There!
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 am
Drives: 2018 SE TSI
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Muldoon »

Agree Andy - it's so noticeable I've never owned a car in the past 10-15 years with such high gearing, had plenty of Fiestas, Corsa, Punto and all sit around 3k in 5th gear at 70mph as a rule - the Polo is about 2,500 rpm. No need for a 6th gear :roll: You can cruise round town in 2nd at 30mph and forget what gear you are in as it feels like 3rd. It's great when you are on the motorway - I've no complaints as even in 5th there is just enough from the small turbo to keep you up with traffic without dropping a gear, but around town it ruins the whole feel of the car. If it had more normal gearing it would feel far more responsive and nippy off the mark and maybe easier to plan ahead and get better mpg. As it is it makes the car feel too mature and grown up. Not something easy to spot on a test drive.
monkeyhanger
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 2643
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:58 pm
Drives: Audi A4 Avant Quattro 40 TDI, Polo GTI+
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by monkeyhanger »

Muldoon wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:31 pm I think it is down to physics and you can't have the best of both worlds - performance and economy from a 1.0 engine, something has to be sacrificed. It seems VW have put in high gearing into the equation to try and get it cruising at low revs once you get above 40mph but round town it's a pain trying to balance gears and revs to make progress without thrashing it and ruining economy. The real time MPG display I never trust as it can swing wildly from 70 down to 30 in a second depending on moving the accelerator a fraction. As people have mentioned, a 1.0 engine in a small town car would be fine without the weight and probably achieve 45+ MPG easily and a 1.4 or 1.5 engine in a medium size car likely the same if driven sensibly. The Polo has weight and low power under some circumstances which traps you in the worst situation. I think they fit this engine in the UP or Citygo so it just shows how much more work it's got to do in the bigger Polo.
I do think that the fuel penalty for putting your foot down in a very small engined car is a lot bigger than that for a larger engine car. If you drive a 1.0TSI in a lively manner and then get a GTI to match it, I doubt the GTI would be much thirstier. Top Gear once had a Prius go around a track as fast as it could, and had a BMW M3 shadowing it. The M3 had better mpg.


Keeping revs under 2k all the time must be awful, as with the high gearing, you'll be pretty much labouring the engine and developing no more than about 60ps (what the engine would be putting out if it had no turbo at all).

At some point you've just got to live with what you've got and worry less about chasing that extra few mpg. If I have to drive like a nun to get 38-40mpg then i'll enjoy the drive more getting 35mpg. From my experimentation I've found that on my commute, volume of traffic kills my mpg, and there's nowt I can do about it.
jackois
New
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:58 am
Drives: Polo SE 1.0 TSI 95ps manual
Location: Southampton

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by jackois »

I bought mine with 1200 miles on the odometer.

I've driven 3800 miles in mine and recorded all fuel usage on the Connect app. The calculation comes in at 54.7 miles to the gallon over that distance.

That's a mixture of mainly around town with a journey from Southampton to Leeds and back roughly every 6 weeks. I don't drive like a fuel miser and totally ignore the 'change up' indicator which makes for a ride where the car sounds like it's labouring at 40 in 5th gear, unlike my previous car, a Fiat 500 1.2 which would happily sit in 5th and accelerate smoothly away.

The engine feels a lot more responsive as the mileage has climbed which could be to do with it loosening up, or my better understanding what it will do .

Only disappointments... the lack of illumination around the ignition slot and just how dirty it can get at this time of year.
Muldoon
Getting There!
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 am
Drives: 2018 SE TSI
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Muldoon »

jackois wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:35 am I bought mine with 1200 miles on the odometer.

I've driven 3800 miles in mine and recorded all fuel usage on the Connect app. The calculation comes in at 54.7 miles to the gallon over that distance.

That's a mixture of mainly around town with a journey from Southampton to Leeds and back roughly every 6 weeks. I don't drive like a fuel miser and totally ignore the 'change up' indicator which makes for a ride where the car sounds like it's labouring at 40 in 5th gear, unlike my previous car, a Fiat 500 1.2 which would happily sit in 5th and accelerate smoothly away.

The engine feels a lot more responsive as the mileage has climbed which could be to do with it loosening up, or my better understanding what it will do .

Only disappointments... the lack of illumination around the ignition slot and just how dirty it can get at this time of year.
Thanks Jackois, those figures sound quite reassuring. I don't keep such a close eye on consumption and just judge it off how much I put in and if it is going down faster than normal. I think owners of the Fiesta Ecoboost models have similar complaints about MPG - there is no chance of getting close to the official figures, the name 'Ecoboost' is misleading when most people use the extra power of the turbo which ruins MPG. Maybe you can only get decent figures by keeping off boost and driving it like a 60PS model?

Agree re the ignition key and hard to see in the dark - commented before it's maybe better in LHD version with the overhead interior light helping out.
Andy Beats
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
Drives: Nissan Leaf 40KW (and Polo United)
Location: aberdeen

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Andy Beats »

monkeyhanger wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:21 pm Keeping revs under 2k all the time must be awful, as with the high gearing, you'll be pretty much labouring the engine and developing no more than about 60ps (what the engine would be putting out if it had no turbo at all).
You're right that in BHP terms, there won't be much happening at 2000rpm.
But peak torque is developed at 2000rpm. 8) :idea:
This is one of the reasons I went for the Polo against the other cars I was looking at, it has a turbo where the others were normally aspirated.
So I have much greater low torque and the car can be driven around at 2000rpm very easily.
It's just the gearing....it's awful....as others have said you find yourself sitting in second gear at 30mph. :shock:
Leif
Silver Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:21 pm
Drives: SE 95 PS
Location: East Hampshire

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Leif »

Andy Beats wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:27 am Interested in what others are getting, as I'm a bit disappointed in mine.
Driving it more gently than I've ever driven a car before, I'm getting an average of only 37mpg.
On my way to work, which has long downhill periods, I'm getting around 46mpg.
On the way home, obviously long uphill periods, I'm scraping 30mpg.
This is tickling the throttle, really really gentle driving, I honestly dread to think how low it would go if I used the performance any more. :shock:
Isn't this really poor? :?:
Yeah that is poor, I am easily getting over 60 mpg in warmer weather, got 67.5 mpg once, but closer to 57 mpg when the temperature drops to 0 Celcius, cold weather really hammers mpg. I do a 25 mile commute cross country on B roads, gentle hills, not too much traffic.

I have the same engine. It sounds like something is wrong.
Andy Beats
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
Drives: Nissan Leaf 40KW (and Polo United)
Location: aberdeen

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Andy Beats »

Leif wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:07 pm
Yeah that is poor, I am easily getting over 60 mpg in warmer weather, got 67.5 mpg once, but closer to 57 mpg when the temperature drops to 0 Celcius, cold weather really hammers mpg. I do a 25 mile commute cross country on B roads, gentle hills, not too much traffic.

I have the same engine. It sounds like something is wrong.
Yet quite a few others are reporting the same as me.
TBH, your figures seem extraordinary, no one else seems to be getting anywhere close.
Maybe VW variable build quality again, like oil consumption.
Leif
Silver Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:21 pm
Drives: SE 95 PS
Location: East Hampshire

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Leif »

Andy Beats wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:12 pm
Leif wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:07 pm
Yeah that is poor, I am easily getting over 60 mpg in warmer weather, got 67.5 mpg once, but closer to 57 mpg when the temperature drops to 0 Celcius, cold weather really hammers mpg. I do a 25 mile commute cross country on B roads, gentle hills, not too much traffic.

I have the same engine. It sounds like something is wrong.
Yet quite a few others are reporting the same as me.
TBH, your figures seem extraordinary, no one else seems to be getting anywhere close.
Maybe VW variable build quality again, like oil consumption.
I got a bit better from a VW TakeUp, and always get about the official combined figures or a bit better. However, I don’t spend lots of time in traffic, that kills mpg. Also going fast consumes more fuel, it seems to like 50 mph maximum. I use the VW Connect app, as it tells me journey times,average speed etc.My last three journeys scored 99%, indicating a very gentle driving style. The long term average is 98%. I take it with a bucket of salt, but it indicates a soporific personality. :mrgreen:
Leif
Silver Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:21 pm
Drives: SE 95 PS
Location: East Hampshire

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Leif »

Andy Beats wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:15 am
monkeyhanger wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:21 pm Keeping revs under 2k all the time must be awful, as with the high gearing, you'll be pretty much labouring the engine and developing no more than about 60ps (what the engine would be putting out if it had no turbo at all).
You're right that in BHP terms, there won't be much happening at 2000rpm.
But peak torque is developed at 2000rpm. 8) :idea:
This is one of the reasons I went for the Polo against the other cars I was looking at, it has a turbo where the others were normally aspirated.
So I have much greater low torque and the car can be driven around at 2000rpm very easily.
It's just the gearing....it's awful....as others have said you find yourself sitting in second gear at 30mph. :shock:
Odd. Mine happily trundles along in fourth at about 25 mph. It will even seem happy in fifth at 30mph, but fuel consumption increases, I suspect it is labouring although it does not complain. Generally I change up to fifth at 40 mph.
Andy Beats
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
Drives: Nissan Leaf 40KW (and Polo United)
Location: aberdeen

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Andy Beats »

Massive variation in MPG last night again.
Going into town, just me in the car, was getting 47mpg.
Coming home with 4 kids in the car, same route, same driving style.....28mpg....

I give up. :?
Andy Beats
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
Drives: Nissan Leaf 40KW (and Polo United)
Location: aberdeen

Re: 1.0tsi (95bhp) MPG

Post by Andy Beats »

Leif wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:15 pm Odd. Mine happily trundles along in fourth at about 25 mph. It will even seem happy in fifth at 30mph, but fuel consumption increases, I suspect it is labouring although it does not complain. Generally I change up to fifth at 40 mph.
Yes, mine will do the same, if I wanted it to.
But you've said yourself you suspect it's labouring and it absolutely must be, as 30mph in fifth is ridiculously low revs.
Can't think what those revs are right now, I'll check later, but must be really low. :shock:
Fact is second gear at 30mph is still actually quite low revs, which is weird.
As I've said before, they've basically geared the 5-speed so that every gear seems one higher than normal.
1st is like 2nd, 2nd is like 3rd etc.etc.
Post Reply