UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

TElwoody wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:46 pm 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.

These figures mirror the new WLTP figures for the Polo 1.0TSI 95ps. I'm confident I'll match or exceed these as even in the works van (1.6 BiTurbo Vivaro) I've got a genuine 42MPG on a 700 mile round trip to Scotland multiple times.

The very disappointing MPG of the 1.0tsi (95) makes me wish I'd just got a bigger engined one.
I think I'd easily have matched the MPG I'm getting in something with more go.
I don't mind slow if I'm getting good MPG, but slow and poor MPG is really gutting.

Very, very early days but I thought I'd take note of the (computer) MPG right from the start just for curiosity. Will do a proper full tank test in a few weeks with a few more miles under her belt.

30 miles on the clock at start
40 mile trip
3 adults
Windy and wet...

43.4MPG.

Did the first decent length (200 mile round trip) run to see in-laws and computer currently says 54MPG. Will do my short commute this week then fill up and work out a combined average.

With under 500 miles on the clock it is an encouraging start. 4th and 5th are too high geared to be fair, with 4th being most bothersome to me. 3rd is high enough geared though so will just learn to use that.

I've also been able to do a back to back comparison with a Golf 1.5TSI 130ps I had to drive 500 miles earlier this week for work (had 4k on the clock) and my Polo is definitely quieter/more refined at 70MPH Otherwise they are near twins in feel/look.

It also did >50MPG per computer with just under a 1/4 tank left/80 mile range.

Did a long fast trip yesterday.
On average speed camera sections, sitting at around 72mph, it was around 43 mpg.
On faster sections, doing more than that (ahem...), it was around 40mpg.
It was windy and the road is quite hilly.
I'd imagine still conditions and flat motorways would approach 50mpg.

So the wife has had hers for 1 week and has done 150 miles so I jumped in it yesterday to check the consumption.

Her short commute works out at about 10 miles daily through moderate London traffic and the car is averaging 32MPG. On the run back from the dealer she managed to get 48MPG.

I'm pretty impressed. My Golf R wouldn't even do 32MPG on the motorway so for her Polo to be doing that round town is excellent. Polo also feels solid round town and on motorways, definitely doesn't feel like the small car I thought it would feel like.

Averaged 50.1 MPG in my GTI today driving from Coventry to Derby, 45 Mile drive, mixture of driving styles and kept it in normal driving mode, I was quite impressed actually! Have hit 1500 miles now and consumption has definitely got better now the engine has worn in a bit.

Polo GTI 2019 ( 600 Km on speedometer)

1. Average (computer) of 15 Km per liter (~42 Miles/Gallon) on 100 Km (~62 Miles) - mostly driving 120 Km per hour.
All most as my 2014 Mazda 3 2 Liter engine.
2. Average - after refueling - 12 Km/L - mostly driving in urban area. (~34 Miles/Gallon).

Drove my Golf R to work today, put my foot down a bit harder than I would in the Polo GTI and was rewarded with 32mpg (probably would've been 34 in the Polo). The Polo is quite thirsty in a semi-urban environment where a little congestion adds up to a 22mph trip average speed. Consumption almost matched by the R with 50% more power, 4WD and about an extra 150kg to pull. Not so impressive.

I do feel a bit cheated, I really might as well have gone for more power.
I don't need it for my measly commute, but if my MPG is matched by cars with more power than I might as well have it.

Andy Beats wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:22 am I do feel a bit cheated, I really might as well have gone for more power.
I don't need it for my measly commute, but if my MPG is matched by cars with more power than I might as well have it.

On your commute, the car won't even be fully warm (oil and water), so mpg would be (relatively) crap whether you had a 1.0 Polo or a beast of a car. I don't think I would buy a car for myself with less than 150ps - but that's an easier pill to swallow with age and no claims helping out on the insurance front. If I was an 18 year old facing a £3k insurance bill for picking a Polo GTI, I probably would be in something with a sewing machine engine.

I'm still pretty convinced more power/torque will yield me better MPG.
I really need to get one of those tuning boxes ordered and actually find out.

My 95 DSG was rather poor on fuel until 2 days ago. I had been getting high 30’s MPG and typically around 300 miles from a full tank using Shell fuel save unleaded.

However, the winter tyres have just come off and the standard Goodyear tyres are back on. Economy was showing as high 50’s on my journey back down the A6 from Buxton last night

Claimed range after putting 60 miles on the trip since filling up is 400 miles.

Finally got round to working out my first tank average MPG and it was 46MPG. That is a great start and I now expect to match or better the official 50MPG average in time.

Car is loosening up nicely and my complaints of too high gearing have diminished greatly already. It is actually easier to drive than my Mii was in walking pace traffic on my commute.

Got nearly 1800 miles on the clock now, overall average of 50mpg. I get about 55mpg on longer trips. (I stick to speed limits...I mean I actually do, even on the motorway - it's really not difficult with cruise control)

I have the 115 DSG.