MPG on my Car - Is it correct???

[dobber]

I am commuting to work every day in my new (to me) A3 170bhp Diesel S Line Quattro. I am doing 5 miles in light in town traffic followed by 30 miles of motorway driving. I have been sitting at a steady 70 to check i am not over doing it and it comes back at average 37-38mpg - is this correct. The car is second hand - registered Oct 06 with 10k on the clock and recently been serviced by audi. ??

Just want to put my mind at rest?

 

[Kev_M5KPL]

Have got the 2.0TDI 140bhp model on a 04 reg with 60 on clock and i am doing 500 ish miles to a full tank which is about £56quid.

so which ever that works out at?.

 

[Amchlolor]

Low 40's for my 140.
But I hardly ever get the chance to cruise (no motorways up here).
I'd have thought your M-way cruising would have benefitted you more.

 

[Matt]

Surely Quattro cant sup that much extra, especially when on a motorway?

I'm averaging around 42 over a tank and my journey is half that of yours. 5 miles of it being town driving, a couple being on 40/50 zones B roads and the rest dual carriageway at 70-75.

 

[bacardi]

mid 40's on mine, good mix of fast motorway and stop start motorway

 

[Ian W]

I do a 30 mile motorway trip to work and I generally stick to 70-80, my average is 32.1 on the DIS but thats an 8L S3 ! (standard)

I would of thought you should be getting more than what you are.

 

[SteveTDCi]

sounds right for a 170, my 140 seems to average low 40's

 

[mister.c.]

Perhaps check how far a full tank goes & then you'll at least confirm its not the DIS thats giving inaccurate readings.

I'd expect a little bit more than that with a 170 but based on people I know with other 170 cars (Octavia & Leon) then the mpg they are getting with that engine has been a fair bit below what they were led to believe from the official figures.

Just checked - the last bit of information I got from my lease company they said the 170 sline 170 quattro should be 44mpg/ 38 in real world albeit not thrashing perhaps it doesnt seem too out of line.

 

[Boydie]

Low 40's all the time??? :O

My car is modified with 19s and sound system so its a lot heavier - it also has a remap and the majority of the time i am high 40s

get some redex diesel treatment for the tank and change your fuel filter - it made a good difference to my car

 

[6andy69]

i have a 2004 140bhp model i get low 40's as well.

 

[motorbikez]

I'm averaging 42.6mpg according to DIS function 2

 

[Boydie]

I thought I was hard enough on my car lol averaged 48mpg there today over 60miles with lots of mixed driving!!

 

[lil_coz]

I've got 170 quattro and I get mid to late 40's on the motorway. Mid 30's in town driving

 

[rich32uk]

Have got the 2.0TDI 140bhp model on a 04 reg with 60 on clock and i am doing 500 ish miles to a full tank which is about £56quid.

so which ever that works out at?.

50mpg (ish).. That's not bad for a 140.. I'm getting that with the new 1.9TDIe engine, dispite that they tell me that I should be getting 65mpg (heavy foot syndrome me thinks)...

 

[Kris]

Sounds about right to me, similar figures to the 170 TDI i had (none quattro).

 

[sprout99]

Low 40's all the time??? :O

My car is modified with 19s and sound system so its a lot heavier - it also has a remap and the majority of the time i am high 40s

get some redex diesel treatment for the tank and change your fuel filter - it made a good difference to my car

just changed ours tonight - car was getting low 40's
we shall have to keep an eye on it. I blame the GF and her lead boots

 

[g4vjc]

Sounds about right to me too, I do a similar commute approx 3 miles town traffic & 20 miles motorway and get 36-38mpg on a good day. This has improved slightly with mileage as I was struggling to get mid 30's up to 4k miles and am hoping it will improve as I do more miles!!

Best I've seen is 42mpg on a long motorway run.

The 170 quattro is definitely a lot thirstier than my previous 140 tdi sport, nowhere near as economical as quoted but I think it's just about worth it!!

 

[96a6v6]

I had a "chipped" MK5 2.0 TDI Golf and it never dropped below 42mpg, however I drove it, prior to chipping it was around 45mpg

 

[Boydie]

feck i must have a good economical engine then! i was getting 54's pre modification!!

 

[96a6v6]

I did drive my Golf very hard, my journey to work at the time was 30miles all across country on b roads, at a rapid rate of knotts

 

[sputnik]

Sounds normal for a 170.

 

[si_reading]

My 170's got 34.9mpg average on dis 2 lol, think its my driving though.. Can get low 40's no a normal drive easily enough higher on a long run.

 

[Petem95]

I get high 40's from my 2.0 TDi - that mainly my commute which is 5 miles of urban then 10 miles of motorway taking it steady (65mph).

The 2.0 VAG TDi's (140 and 170) don't seem to be that economical - seems hardly anyone gets the quoted average of 51MPG.

With the petrol cars it seems you can easily exceed the quoted average however... makes you wonder if its worth getting a diesel!

38mpg is crap however - I'd be gutted at that.

 

[dobber]

Checked the mileage from a tank and getting about 500 miles - always have to fill up 40 miles from the end as dont want to run it dry!!

 

[h5djr]

Using the overall DIS readings in each case, I used to get around 48mpg from my previous 140 and I am current getting around 43mpg from my current 170.

So that's 21% more power for around 11% more diesel. The 170 is a better engine as well, quieter and a little more refined.

The 'official figures' given by manufacturers can only really be used to compare one car against another as they all perform the standard EU tests introduced in 2001 using a rolling road programme which does not take into account such things a wind resistance etc and the engineers will always drive as sympathetically as possible. Despite the generally over-optimism of these figures, at least the tests are the same for every car, so provides a consistent comparison.

 

[loftusrich]

I find that my wifes Golf 140 TDi averages somewhere between 43 and 50 mpg. It uses a bit of oil as well. Reading elsewhere on here and seem to think that low oil useage equates to better fuel consumption.

Rich

 

[Petem95]

11% more diesel. The 170 is a better engine as well, quieter and a little more refined.

That sounds good on paper, however I've got a remapped 140 and the MPG doesn't appear to have taken a knock after the remap at all, despite me tending to use the power more! - still get high 40's! So 30% more power, for 0% more fuel.

 

[Boydie]

Turned my ECON on and I got 52mpg on a quick run home! couldn't believe it!

 

[Twizzler]

So 30% more power, for 0% more fuel.

Wow! Did the remappers fit their new improbability drive?

 

[h5djr]

That sounds good on paper, however I've got a remapped 140 and the MPG doesn't appear to have taken a knock after the remap at all, despite me tending to use the power more! - still get high 40's! So 30% more power, for 0% more fuel

I've owned a 140 for nearly 3 years and the 170 is a much better engine overall. As mine is new, well nearly a year old now, there is no way I want to go down the re-map route with the possible problems if there are any warranty issues and, of course, the increase in insurance costs.

 

[hallster]

Wow! Did the remappers fit their new improbability drive?

All these figures seem like that to me .

I had a long drive this weekend (Edinburgh to Lanark), and doing the most sensible driving I've done so far, I managed just over 29 mpg

Go on the petrol engines!!