Make a donation

Author Topic: TSI's - Officially 'Frugal'?  (Read 959 times)

Offline rdfcpete

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 98
  • -Receive: 52
  • Posts: 2567
    • Email
Pete


RNS-E LED 2012 | Aux-In | AP Coilovers |  Hawk HPS Pads | Revo Stage 1+
Previous: OEM+ 2006 MK5 Golf GTI 2.0T FSI Steel Grey 3 Door

Offline sub39h

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 189
  • -Receive: 84
  • Posts: 1719
Re: TSI's - Officially 'Frugal'?
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2011, 07:37:11 pm »
the problem is the whole measuring system is f*cked in europe- it's simuated on a rolling road. these conditions favour hybrid and turbocharged engines which, when driven in the real world will never EVER get anywhere near their claimed totals

as a rough guide: my A3 1.6 MPI and my current 2.0T have EXACTLY the same official mpg figures, but despite the fact i'm older, wiser, and trying to drive more economically the best i've ever gotten from the same size tank on the same V-Power petrol is 15% less than in the 1.6 (PB of 440mi plays PB of 380mi).

turbo petrols are not as economical as their purported to be - i think that's one of the reasons why they're not popular in the US where real world driving is used for the official mpg figures and then there's no appreciable difference between a larger NA engine and a smaller FI engine - and then you factor in that there's more to go wrong. our dump valves for example.

don't get me wrong, i think the 2.0T is a VERY good engine, probably one of the best i've ever driven (and i've been fortunate to drive some very nice metal in my few short years) but it doesn't answer all the questions. i still only average 29mpg or so in mixed driving conditions and tbh that's not great for a 2.0 petrol. i know of VR6 owners who do better.

as a comparison, i remember Clarkson reviewed the 2.0 FSI non-turbo in the A3 when it was first released and mentioned (probably with a hint of hyperbole attached) that he was driving it around in 4th gear because it was so refined he was forgetting he wasn't in 6th and he was still getting 34mpg. i'm sure many of us would consider chopping an arm off to get 34mpg from our cars in a steady 4th gear cruise.

i think the upcoming VAG 2.0 twin turbo soot chucker might be my next engine of choice (whenever they pull their finger out and release it).
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 07:42:31 pm by sub39h »
2006 Phantom Black A3 2.0T S-Line
DSG | Rear Parking Sensors | MFSW | BOSE | Auto lights/wipers | Half leather
MODS : '09 tail lights | TT vents | Bilstein B14 | RNS-E 2010 | AMI | AKS Tuning custom CAI | Titanium BBS VZs | NQS BBK | WALK | Autotech RARB | Bluemotion aero | Blueflame TBE | Autotech HPFP | MY11 Wing Mirrors | Bluetooth | S3 Intercooler
PLANS: Stage 2+

Offline Hurdy

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 52
  • -Receive: 137
  • Posts: 7683
Re: TSI's - Officially 'Frugal'?
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2011, 07:58:02 pm »
It all depends on how heavy your right foot is....on BOTH the go and stop pedals and how you read the road ahead.
I bet that on the same stretch of road I could get 10mpg more than my wife. She regards driving as at least 4th on the priority list when driving and that is if no-one is in the car with her!! :driver:


Seriously though, if you enjoy the car, why should it's fuel consumption REALLY matter?

As for my little 1.4TSI - it gets about 40mpg on a run and around 15mpg on a really good run  :evilgrin:

Golf R gone.

Offline sub39h

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 189
  • -Receive: 84
  • Posts: 1719
Re: TSI's - Officially 'Frugal'?
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2011, 09:52:22 pm »
Seriously though, if you enjoy the car, why should it's fuel consumption REALLY matter?

it shouldn't be the be all and end all - plus it's not always cheaper to run a diesel for example the A5 2.0T quattro and A5 3.0TDI quattro have similar straight line performance but when you factor in the extra cost of the 3.0TDI and then how much more the diesel costs i calculated (based on quoted mpg) that you'd have to run the 3.0TDI for approximately 50k miles before you saw your money back.

BUT when a comparably powered 125i (the devil's car, i know) has comparable - but better - fuel economy to the EA113 2.0TFSI and is a NA straight-six there really is no excuse.
2006 Phantom Black A3 2.0T S-Line
DSG | Rear Parking Sensors | MFSW | BOSE | Auto lights/wipers | Half leather
MODS : '09 tail lights | TT vents | Bilstein B14 | RNS-E 2010 | AMI | AKS Tuning custom CAI | Titanium BBS VZs | NQS BBK | WALK | Autotech RARB | Bluemotion aero | Blueflame TBE | Autotech HPFP | MY11 Wing Mirrors | Bluetooth | S3 Intercooler
PLANS: Stage 2+