Fuel consumption

Chat about your 2018+ AW/BZ model Polos here!
SRGTD
Bling Bling Diamond Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:40 pm
Drives: 2020 AW Polo GTI+, Pure White.
Location: UK

Re: Fuel consumption

Post by SRGTD »

monkeyhanger wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:29 am
Everyone will end up with the active info/digital instrumentation. Tech is getting cheaper all the time, and we're probably at about the point now where the TFT screen is cheaper than the dial set-up That has a tiny central TFT screen of its own. VW won't be able to charge extra for for this very long. It's already standard in all facelifted performance Golfs (I think all Golfs, but unsure).
Yes, standard in performance Golfs and the GTE model, optional on all other models, other than the entry ‘S’ model. I’ve read that it’s expected to be standard in all models in the forthcoming mk8 Golf model line 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: Fuel consumption

Post by Andy Beats »

I prefer leather by a country mile, but it's not something I'd expect in a small car, so I'm not bothered I don't have it any more.
Same with fancy instruments etc.
All these things are a result of people wanting to downsize their cars, but still wanting to have the features they're used to in their bigger cars, I suppose.
Would prefer VW to spend time making their engines more efficient than fancy instruments....
All fancy instruments will tell me is how poor the MPG is, but brighter. :roll:
Leif
Silver Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:21 pm
Drives: SE 95 PS
Location: East Hampshire

Re: Fuel consumption

Post by Leif »

monkeyhanger wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:45 pm Is yours the 7 speed DSG Leif?
Oops, this discussion seems to be GTI specific, not at all clear from the thread title, or the more recent preceding posts. I see the official mpg for the 6 speed GTI is 48 mpg (new figures) so a real world 40 would not be so bad. A real world 30 though is getting rather low. Must admit I still find it hard to believe the car does better mpg at 60-70 mph than 30-40 mph. At 60-70 mph the air viscosity/drag starts to be quite significant. Admittedly your gearing will help when compared to my 5 speed manual car.
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: Fuel consumption

Post by Andy Beats »

Leif wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:15 pm Admittedly your gearing will help when compared to my 5 speed manual car.
The number of gears you have is irrelevant, it's the final drive ratio that matters.
So at 70mph your/my 5-speed car might actually be doing the same revs as a 7-speed DSG.
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: Fuel consumption

Post by monkeyhanger »

Andy Beats wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:48 pm
Leif wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:15 pm Admittedly your gearing will help when compared to my 5 speed manual car.
The number of gears you have is irrelevant, it's the final drive ratio that matters.
So at 70mph your/my 5-speed car might actually be doing the same revs as a 7-speed DSG.
It matters if you're in anything but your highest gear and cruising. If you've got 5 gears, you'll have a wider ratio difference between each gear. You might find that a 6 gear Polo is happy in 4th on the flat maintaining 30mph, doing 1500rpm, but 30mph in the 5 speed one you're doing 2200rpm in 3rd because the 4th gear is so much higher than the 3rd that the car would be labouring in 4th at 30.

More gears gives more flexibility to be economical at a number of speeds and loads.

Think it doesn't matter? I remember my mate's Dad buying Chrysler Neon 1.6 with a 3 speed auto box - the fuel economy was awful because there were only a few speeds suited to 2nd and 3rd.
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: Fuel consumption

Post by Andy Beats »

monkeyhanger wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:29 pm
Andy Beats wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:48 pm
Leif wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:15 pm Admittedly your gearing will help when compared to my 5 speed manual car.
The number of gears you have is irrelevant, it's the final drive ratio that matters.
So at 70mph your/my 5-speed car might actually be doing the same revs as a 7-speed DSG.
It matters if you're in anything but your highest gear and cruising. If you've got 5 gears, you'll have a wider ratio difference between each gear. You might find that a 6 gear Polo is happy in 4th on the flat maintaining 30mph, doing 1500rpm, but 30mph in the 5 speed one you're doing 2200rpm in 3rd because the 4th gear is so much higher than the 3rd that the car would be labouring in 4th at 30.

More gears gives more flexibility to be economical at a number of speeds and loads.

Think it doesn't matter? I remember my mate's Dad buying Chrysler Neon 1.6 with a 3 speed auto box - the fuel economy was awful because there were only a few speeds suited to 2nd and 3rd.
Nah, these multi-gear gearboxes are just fashion....seriously they are.
Motorbikes have 6 or 7 speed gearboxes because they have a very narrow power band.
I'm talking maybe a couple of thousand revs where serious power and torque is made, so it's important to have many gears to keep it on the boil.
Cars don't have that, you're getting full torque on turbo cars from 1850rpm.
And the difference between each gear is only a few hundred rpm, fuel consumption isn't affected that much.
Sorry, these multi-speed gearboxes are unnecessary marketing horlicks on cars, like shaver companies always coming out with 'one more blade' on your razor.
Leif
Silver Member
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:21 pm
Drives: SE 95 PS
Location: East Hampshire

Re: Fuel consumption

Post by Leif »

Andy Beats wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:48 pm
Leif wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:15 pm Admittedly your gearing will help when compared to my 5 speed manual car.
The number of gears you have is irrelevant, it's the final drive ratio that matters.
So at 70mph your/my 5-speed car might actually be doing the same revs as a 7-speed DSG.
Yes obviously, but since there are 7 on the other person's car one would hope the top gear or gears were higher than my fifth. Would you ever create a 7 speed gearbox that was otherwise?
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: Fuel consumption

Post by Andy Beats »

Leif wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:18 pm Yes obviously, but since there are 7 on the other person's car one would hope the top gear or gears were higher than my fifth. Would you ever create a 7 speed gearbox that was otherwise?
No guarantee at all that the top gear is any higher just because it has more gears.
These multi-speed gearboxes often have their ratios spaced so-closely together it's a joke.
There's a guy down my street has a BMW with the 7-speed DCT gearbox, it's comical how many gearchanges the thing will go through in a short piece of road.
It's like the designers have decided the owners will like the sound of needless gearchanges. :(
Like multiple gearchanges make the car sound sportier or something.
mike sel
Silver Member
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:16 am
Drives: SEL
Location: Dorset

Re: Fuel consumption

Post by mike sel »

Andy Beats wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:09 am I find options like 'active screens' out of place on small cars.
No-one expects them, no want really wants them.
It's like full leather, no-one expects that in a small car either.
If you accept you won't get any of the extra money back on that option when it comes to re-sale time, that's fine.
It might make the car more attractive over the next one, but it won't fetch a penny more.
active screen? I want it, I have it, I would not now want to be without one. :D
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: Fuel consumption

Post by monkeyhanger »

Right now VW have been cost reducing left, right and centre on the Golf and other models (but not the new Polo - yet), trimming things like locks on gloveboxes, substituting frameless rear view mirrors, removing chrome trim on switches etc. All little things they hope you won't notice but do add to the "premium" perception.

If 5 speed boxes were as economical as 7 speed boxes in all gears, VW would be giving you 5 speed boxes and pocketing the difference. 6 and 7 speed boxes offer economy benefits vs 4 and 5 speed boxes - that's a fact.

I believe the BMW autos are 8 speed - the gains are probably negligible against a 7 speed, but 4 gears to 5 and 5 gears to 6 show noticeable improvements.

The6 (relatively) low ratios of my Golf R are the primary reason my Golf R matches my Polo GTI for urban mpg despite it having 50% more power and carrying 10% more weight. It is begging for a tall 7th gear to bring the motorway mpg up from 34 to somewhere close to the 43 that my GTI sees when maintaining 80 on a decent motorway run.
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: Fuel consumption

Post by Andy Beats »

monkeyhanger wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:31 pm If 5 speed boxes were as economical as 7 speed boxes in all gears, VW would be giving you 5 speed boxes and pocketing the difference. 6 and 7 speed boxes offer economy benefits vs 4 and 5 speed boxes - that's a fact.
'Real life' MPG websites don't reflect this.
Here's some figures from a real life average MPG website, for the Golf.

TSI220 manual 35.4MPG
TSI220 DSG 34.8MPG

TSI230 manual 35.5MPG
TSI230 DSG 33.5MPG

And for the Polo

TSI95 manual 53.8MPG
TSI95 DSG 44.6MPG
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: Fuel consumption

Post by monkeyhanger »

Andy Beats wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:50 am
monkeyhanger wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:31 pm If 5 speed boxes were as economical as 7 speed boxes in all gears, VW would be giving you 5 speed boxes and pocketing the difference. 6 and 7 speed boxes offer economy benefits vs 4 and 5 speed boxes - that's a fact.
'Real life' MPG websites don't reflect this.
Here's some figures from a real life average MPG website, for the Golf.

TSI220 manual 35.4MPG
TSI220 DSG 34.8MPG

TSI230 manual 35.5MPG
TSI230 DSG 33.5MPG

And for the Polo

TSI95 manual 53.8MPG
TSI95 DSG 44.6MPG
That does nothing to prove that more gears doesn't equate to better economy. You're comparing pre facelift standard Golf GTI Mk7 (220ps) manual which has 6 gears to same car with 6 speed DSG in your first comparison.

In your second comparison you're comparing pre facelift Golf GTI PP MK7 (230ps) or post facelift standard Golf GTI MK7.5 (230ps) 6 speed manual to 6 speed DSG.

I don't know about the last one -5 speed manual vs 6 speed DSG?

All you've demonstrated there is that like for like, DSG is thirstier than manual in the real world (Although official figure usually show a slight DSG favour).

I've stated that many times. In a like for like car, I get 10% more economy in a manual than a DSG. When driving my Dad's MK7 Golf GTD DSG in the same manner, it was 10% thirstier than my own MK7 Golf GTD manual.

If I had a manual Polo GTI, i'd be expecting an easy 38mpg average instead of 34 current. This is primarily because you use the brakes far more on a DSG, where engine braking is almost non-existent. You're braking against a car that wants to keep going and is still fuelling, in a DSG. When you engine brake a manual, it is using no fuel.

If you want to try to demonstrate that more gears is no more economical then you've got to compare manual to manual or DSG to DSG. Find a car that's had a gearbox upgrade to an extra cog e.g. pre facelift MK7 Golf R DSG6 to post facelift MK7.5 Golf R DSG7 or the same with the GTI PP pre and post facelift. The combined figures, although not representative of real life, are comparable to each other because the test regime is the same (pre WLTP). There's quite a difference between old and new PP and old and new R mpg, despite the slight power hike the facelifts got).
Last edited by monkeyhanger on Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Muldoon
Getting There!
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 am
Drives: 2018 SE TSI
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Fuel consumption

Post by Muldoon »

I'm happy if I get mid 40's to 50mpg when I check the on board computer now and again (Average consumption since starting journey).
I know that short runs hammer the mpg and even with a 1.0 engine it still needs working to keep up progress. So long as it doesn't dip down to the mid 30's which may suggest a problem I'm ok - sometimes you feel in the mood for maximising economy but mainly just drive normally.
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: Fuel consumption

Post by Andy Beats »

Some interesting results with my MPG, now that the Aberdeen bypass is open and I have a choice of routes home.
My old route is 4.5 miles of 40-50mph traffic with no need for any hard acceleration - about 45mpg using that route.
Using the new bypass the distance is cut to 3 miles, but I have to accelerate hard up a hill to join the faster moving traffic - way down into the low 30s using that route.
But I'm home a lot quicker because of the faster speeds and lesser distance.
Hmmm....what to do....
silverhairs
Gold Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Drives: 2018 Polo SEL
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Fuel consumption

Post by silverhairs »

You may have to accelerate hard to blend in with the motorway traffic, but once on the motorway, why can't you just drop your speed down to 60 MPH, you don't have to do 70+ MPH. Reducing your speed by 10 MPH, the getting home time difference with be just a couple of minutes, also you will get more MPG
Post Reply