Typical MPG for a 1.2 Polo (12v, 65ps)?

[JUV]

We bought a six year old 1.2 S recently (12v, 3 cylinder) that we're trying to get used to, after years with a diesel Pug 106 that went forever on a tank.

The 1.2 Polo was carefully selected on the grounds that it did 47 mpg (as advertised) which, taking the differences in fuel price etc into account, worked out just as cheap as the Peugeot. We're not so sure that's working out in practice tho.

My wife reckons she's getting about 350 miles, maybe a little more, on a single (45 litre) tank. This is on regular 40 mile drives to and from work, mostly on A roads at a decent speed, not city driving. By our reckoning that works out at about 35mpg (45 litres = 9.9 gallons, 350/9.9 = 35.35) so really not great at all, and well off the quoted figure.

Up until Tuesday we had an emissions fault also, and the ECU was reporting a catalytic converter failure - that was replaced on Tuesday, but the wife is convinced the fuel guage was still dropping at the same speed yesterday.

So, what do you get out of your 1.2 Polo? Does 35mpg sound normal or thereabouts, or does anyone have any suggestions?

[MGrove03]

I have a new 1.2 64ps Mk7 polo and driving economically i can get just under 400 miles to a full tank and thats mostly town/city driving (so thats 40.40mpg).
But i usually get about 320/330 miles as i sometimes tend to have a heavy foot.

[black-a4]

Ive had both a 2002 1.2 and a 2007 1.2.

In the 2002 polo I got about 330 miles out of a tank.
In the 2007 polo I get about 380 miles out of a tank.
(both cars were/are fitted with 17'' alloys)

Both cars had/have similar milages on them.

[Jamoygti]

Remember also that it's not actually a full tank unless you splutter into the petrol station...i ran my 1.0l down to almost empty(according to the gauge) got into shell, filled up and it took 39.68 litres, so that was out of a 45 litre tank as well. That gives approximately 1 gallon remaining in the tank. The mileage on that tank was 376 i think, so say you can do another 35 miles on that gallon, then your total mileage on that tank would be over 400, and around 41mpg. For that tank i'd be impressed because i drove from Birmingham to Luton in an hour, then back at around 65-70mph (high mpg range) then the rest was used on an 8 mile commute at around 40-60mph and town driving. if you kept it on the motorway at a steady 65-70 then the claimed figures would be easily acheived...but then again, how many times do the claimed figures actually work out in the real world...

I think driving style has a lot to do with it. How the driver controls the car in traffic, or when approaching a junction. I know for a fact that when my sister drives the car she's not economical, she'll de-clutch early, she'll be liberal with the revs and use the inappropriate gear on occasion, loading the engine. Not her fault, she just doesn't think about that sort of thing, whereas i try to, i try and brake as little as possible on a journey, changing gear early, not loading the engine, and not revving it from cold, and letting it warm up fully...

i know no one asked for an analysis but in relation to the 1.2 12v, it does sound about right to be honest...i'd still stick with a good diesel, i.e VW TDI if you intend on doing more than 12,000 miles a year. Also gives you tuning options and that extra lump of torque which the petrol's just don't have.

[RUM4MO]

This does not seem to be very good for an economy small car, my wife has a 2003MY 1.4SE 16V 75PS and she gets an average of 38-40MPG on A-B road 10 mile runs - in the far(ish) cold North. To check your MPG properly, I'd say that you fill up with fuel until the cut-off - okay until the delivery has given complete litres, zero the trip indicator (or note the reading) then run the car until the tank is nearly empty - maybe until the low fuel warning has been triggered, then note how much fuel was required to refil it to the cut-off etc, calculate the miles run - work out MPG (1.0litre = 0.22gallon). If you try this over shorter period ie 1/4 or 1/2 a tank of fuel you could get more errors as the fuel may have expanded or contracted due to temperature.

I'm not a anorak, but I always note MPG etc when I fill up (got fuel comp on both cars) - I've always done that as its a simple clear guide as to "how things are" with your car in general. This nonsense that I hear now and again like "I get a week out of £20 - is that good?" is utter b***cks - BTW I'm not suggesting that you are working this way!

Edited to add an extra valve!!

[david burton]

Remember also that it's not actually a full tank unless you splutter into the petrol station..

A very good point and one I'd missed when reading this the first time. You can't get an accurate figure out of what a full tank should be in litres, you can only work it out if you know how much you had to put in to fill it back up.

If I almost empty my tank (IMO) I still don't put the tank's capacity in to fill it up - I'd agree it's probably about a gallon short.

So if you were actually filling it up with 40 litres and doing 350 miles that's 39mpg which is respectable.

[FeeDub]

Bloody hell i wish i used to get about 280 out of my tank before the exhaust, after that i was lucky to get 200
Oh and that was filling to full from just below the red line.

[Jamoygti]

I'm still impressed with the 1.0...even tho you have to cain the s**t outta it you still get respectable mileage. Before this i used to have to drive a 1.1 litre rover. it had an undeniable thirst and a tank would go in around 180 miles. so when i compare 180 from what i was getting to 380ish i get now, i feel quite pleased. Although, the rover did actually have the smallest fuel tank ever (33 litres) i only managed to get a maximum of 230 out of it. The lowest i got to a full tank, was just 123 miles!!! lmfao

[JUV]

Thanks for all the comments - for the record, the best recorded MPG on this car so far is 36, and that's based on a measurement of what we actually put in the tank/how much was left etc. 36 may seem reasonable at first glance, but it's nowhere near the 47 that should be achievable, despite the car being driven in a near ideal manner - ie, long A road stretches, reasonable (but not excessive) speed, no particularly short runs.

So we suspect there's a problem, and tho and behold, the emissions light has now come on again today - despite the new catalytic converter fitted last week (as requested by the ECU) at a cost of £350. So it's going back into the garage next week, most likely for new Lambda probes (x2) for another £278. Hopefully that will nail the emissions problem and improve the MPG as well, but - who knows.

Frankly, so far, this car has been an unmitigated disaster. As of right now, I wouldn't touch another VW. We're going to have to put up with it, given the money we've blown on it already, but I'm getting us a warranty to cover against the other hundred things that are bound to go wrong with it next week, and it now has a very uphill struggle to redeem itself in anyway.

I never thought I'd say this, but our old Peugeot was far, far better engineered than this. Perhaps French is the new German.

[Jamoygti]

well, you could say that...but you can buy a bad version of any car...

French cars? well...my friend just bought a 106 GTI, and it's got nothing but problems, his other car is a Fiat Punto, perfectly reliable, faultless in fact.

[Jamoygti]

it's going back into the garage next week, most likely for new Lambda probes (x2) for another £278. Hopefully that will nail the emissions problem and improve the MPG as well, but - who knows.

speaking of which, we actually had a similar problem with our mk4 golf gti.

the engine light was on for absolutely ages (bout a year i think) didnt seem to effect performance (125mph fairly easy) or economy (40mpg attainable) but there was obviously a problem somewhere...

ended up changing all lambda probes, leads, spark plugs, reset the ecu and eventually, the light went off and the car feels like new, so it's even more efficient and a bit quicker.

don't actually know what the problem was, but the ecu was telling us that it had a fuel mixture that was both too rich and too lean! Just proves how sensitive these things are. It was an annoyance, as it cost well over £500 to sort eventually...

[david burton]

Always worth checking all the vacuum pipes for leaks. These can cause running issues.

[JUV]

well, you could say that...but you can buy a bad version of any car...

True, but the more I read about these Polos, the more obvious it is that they're all "bad versions" to some extent. Pretty much everyone has had to deal with bad coils, bad timing chains/tensioners, and mysterious emission problems like ours are very common too. Then there's the niggling things like faulty heater switches (also very expensive to fix) and washer hoses leaking everywhere...

French cars? well...my friend just bought a 106 GTI, and it's got nothing but problems, his other car is a Fiat Punto, perfectly reliable, faultless in fact.

We nearly went with a Punto ourselves, despite the Fiat badge it's actually got a very good rep for reliability, I wish we'd listened to that. Our old 106 diesel did about 60k in the space of four years and needed little more than new brake pads over the course of that; eventually in its 13th year the head gasket and radiator went at 125k and it seemed like a good idea to call it a day, but in retrospect we'd have been better off repairing it. Very solid little car.

[david burton]

you have to remember that on the forum most people post problems rather than "my car is running fine" posts..... so you get a biased views. Everyone I know with a 9N polo has had no problems.

[JUV]

I really hope that's true, it just seems that we've had no end of problems in the first couple of weeks, and every one of them seems to be a very well known problem with this model. I'd love to believe that after we've spent yet another few hundred on it, it will become the quality reliable car we thought we were buying, but in reality I'm sure there's still a few "known issues" waiting in the wings even now.