[Drisser]

I always really new VAG engines were more thirsty than BMW equivalents but I know for sure now. They consistently deliver less MPG than BMW equivalents I have had..

Previously, my 135i Coupe (6cyl, 306 HP) did better MPG than my Audi TTS (4 cyl, 272 HP)

MY E46 330ci did better consumption than 2.0 T Audi TT.

And now, my 330d is averaging exactly the same consumption as my 170 HP 4 cyl A3 Tdi was doing.

How can it be that a 250 BHP 6 Cylinder heavier BMW does the same MPG as a 4 cyl 3 door hatch ?!

No wonder VAG got caught out !

[Tronneh]

My current car (until next week ) a Skoda Superb Estate with the CR170 TDI engine does 45mpg, measured on tank to tank, on a good run including the 50mph zones on the motorway.
Going to be interesting what the 335 gives in comparison, although to be fair i'm not too bothered!

[dopper99]

Certainly their emissions are far worse than first thought.

[robbiep]

Originally Posted by Tronneh

My current car (until next week ) a Skoda Superb Estate with the CR170 TDI engine does 45mpg, measured on tank to tank, on a good run including the 50mph zones on the motorway.
Going to be interesting what the 335 gives in comparison, although to be fair i'm not too bothered!

My 325d Touring (manual box), 218bhp, averages 50-53 mpg on a motorway run. 43-45 mpg is local / town economy. That Skoda mpg doesn't seem hugely impressive. Though, to be fair, the Superb is more F11 than F31 size.

[335i nthehouse]

Isn't your argument making a case for BMW rigging results even more, have I missed some news?

[davyk31]

Do you not need to compare the car's actual against the manufacturers claim rather than comparing totally different cars with differing weights, aerodynamics, gearing etc etc.

You are also comparing a brand new BMW model with all the latest tech against an A3 of unknown age/mileage.

But fact remains that no car does anything like what the tests say, that may be for genuine or other reasons. In a test I was reading earlier something like only 3 out of 27 models were not testing for much higher emissions than the tests stated. That means 24 out of 27 failed. The worst offenders were an A8, X3, some Vauxhall/Opel and can't even recall the other.

One thing for sure is that this has just begun and all it is doing is proving what was known for ages but how many people bought a car expecting the published figures?

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by davyk31

Do you not need to compare the car's actual against the manufacturers claim rather than comparing totally different cars with differing weights, aerodynamics, gearing etc etc.

You are also comparing a brand new BMW model with all the latest tech against an A3 of unknown age/mileage.

But fact remains that no car does anything like what the tests say, that may be for genuine or other reasons. In a test I was reading earlier something like only 3 out of 27 models were not testing for much higher emissions than the tests stated. That means 24 out of 27 failed. The worst offenders were an A8, X3, some Vauxhall/Opel and can't even recall the other.

One thing for sure is that this has just begun and all it is doing is proving what was known for ages but how many people bought a car expecting the published figures?

Gets so complex in reality.

Making comparisons are a minefield, even without any significant 'manipulation' of figures, we still can't make any sensible cross reference to real-world driving. This problem existed even before manufacturers learned how to 'use' the NEDC test.

The test 'favours' some types of engine/drivetrain. Often the type of use makes official figures look so contrived. For example, it has been well documented over the years how factors like a big petrol with long geared autos can get mpg very similar to say a small city car, at motorway speeds. Different picture if in city driving, the situation reverses.

What I've observed, and again well documented, mpg shortfall is increasing year on year, that shouldn't be happening. Something has completely gone astray.

My 1998 E39 540i touring exceeded the 'combined figure' in my use by over 25% long term. Current 2011 F11 535i touring with very similar weight/performance, driving in the same environment and doing vitually parallel trips, is showing an mpg shortfall against the combined figure of about 8% long term.

HighlandPete

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Drisser

I always really new VAG engines were more thirsty than BMW equivalents but I know for sure now.

I'm not sure this is always true. So many factors in the mix. VW have over the years made some of the most efficient engines. Take the renowned 1.9 TDi, one of the best diesels for BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). The 1.9 PD TDi was achieving 195g/KWH at best point, back in 2000.

Take that engine as an example, mpg was very dependant on driving style. Criticised by some for poor mpg, others marvelled at how economical it could be.

We've run (still do) many VAG vehicles in the family, VW, Audi and Skoda. MPG is not an issue to be honest, stand their ground with the competition, better in some cases. We run BMW as well, so we can compare.

That is not saying there are not good and bad engine designs, reflecting in good/bad mpg.

HighlandPete

[TheLiverBird]

My current 3.0L (300+BHP) BMW averages about 40mpg - real world and over about 6 months now. My previous car (Audi A5 3.0L (245BHP)) would struggle to average 35mpg over the summer months, and nearer 30mpg in the winter. I'm more than happy with the BMW engine and think it's streets ahead of the VAG equivalent - although admittedly haven't tried the VAG bi-turbo 3.0L with more BHP, but can't imagine it being much more economical.

Obviously neither engine is anywhere near the manufacturers stated figures!!

[Drisser]

Originally Posted by 335i nthehouse

Isn't your argument making a case for BMW rigging results even more, have I missed some news?

This is my actual MPG achieved VAG v BMW I have owned.. so purely based on reality and comparing engine sizes, BMW's 6 cyl have consistently delivered better MPG than VAG 4 Cyl's

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Drisser

This is my actual MPG achieved VAG v BMW I have owned.. so purely based on reality and comparing engine sizes, BMW's 6 cyl have consistently delivered better MPG than VAG 4 Cyl's

Aren't we getting more into the smaller turbo engine vs. bigger capacity NA engine debate, more than a BMW vs. VW observation? There is a lot of evidence that the bigger engine does return better mpg in real world driving when driven harder.

The smaller capacity I4 turbo gives the better official figures, than say a bigger capacity I6 NA with the same output. The light load suiting the smaller engine, where the turbo is not working much at all. WOT and the picture will be very different.

There is a lot of criticism across the marques that 'downsizing' engine capacity is not giving the economy benefits claimed. Some cases it is worse in real-world driving. We get back to test regimes and the need to drive light, to get economy gains.

HighlandPete

[Drisser]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Aren't we getting more into the smaller turbo engine vs. bigger capacity NA engine debate, more than a BMW vs. VW observation? There is a lot of evidence that the bigger engine does return better mpg in real world driving when driven harder.

The smaller capacity I4 turbo gives the better official figures, than say a bigger capacity I6 NA with the same output. The light load suiting the smaller engine, where the turbo is not working much at all. WOT and the picture will be very different.

There is a lot of criticism across the marques that 'downsizing' engine capacity is not giving the economy benefits claimed. Some cases it is worse in real-world driving. We get back to test regimes and the need to drive light, to get economy gains.

HighlandPete

Could be partially true and in my experience these smaller engines work harder and aren't more efficient.

Even more so thought the 135i coupe was 300+ bhp 6 cyl 3.0 turbo so seems bizarre it would deliver more mpg than a 2.0 4 cyl turbo TT..

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Drisser

Could be partially true and in my experience these smaller engines work harder and aren't more efficient.

Even more so thought the 135i coupe was 300+ bhp 6 cyl 3.0 turbo so seems bizarre it would deliver more mpg than a 2.0 4 cyl turbo TT..

It is the 'working harder' that is the problem, we start losing fuel efficiency, plus other losses increase.

I can quite believe the 135i giving better results, some of it is technology, other issues can be gearing and driveability of the engine. How an engine delivers its power can influence how we drive as well, either easily working with the efficiencies or fighting against them.

HighlandPete

[TalkTalk1]

Why don't people do mpg calculated on full filled tanks, and reset the trip.

I've done the same commute for 8 years now, and I monitored the MPG (When I can be bothered). This is what they are:

VW Gold 2001 - 1.9TDI 130pd - 48mpg (Claimed 52mpg - 146g/km)
Audi A3 2.0 TDI 140bhp (Revo to 180bhp) - 42mpg (Claimed 51mpg - 143g/km)
BMW 320d ED 164bhp - 56mpg (Claimed 68mpg - 109g/km)


I think the gap has just got bigger. I am quite happy with the 56mpg I get on my current car, even though it's 12mpg less than stated. Oh, and I'm the typical 75-80mph driver on the motorway.

[leon1984]

If you don't like to hang about then bigger engines working less return better mpg than ringing the neck of a 4 pot getting half its claimed mpg.

I ran a Prius for a while, driven like a normal person that needs to get to their destination in the same day you set off you couldn't do higher than 34mpg. What's the point? Average Joe with his 120d is nearly doubling that going the same speeds

[alpine330D]

I was told by a woman in the audi service dept in doncaster that she was averaging 55mpg from the bitdi A6 she was driving round town in, i should have seen this emissions scandal coming

[rocketretro]

But good news for VAG diesel owners the government will not be claiming back duty on the fiddled CO2 figures and therefore lower VED rates over a number of years. All new vehicles to be independently assessed and no account of manufacturers claims at last. Looks like VAG is going to get a rather large bill from H.M.R & C.

[SkyJawa]

Once again great, fair posts from Pete.

[Proftinkerpot]

Let's be honest, most people on here know the cars they bought would give certain mpg.I think it's fair to say this is a forum of people who like cars and driving and there are few of us shortlisted a Renault Zoe or Datsun Leaf when getting to buying a 6 pot BMW. I know I didn't ask about the emissions except to say, what's the annual VED as I had 2 cars at the time both in the £450-500 bracket and I wanted to move away from almost £100 a month in tax.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by TalkTalk1

Why don't people do mpg calculated on full filled tanks, and reset the trip.

I've done the same commute for 8 years now, and I monitored the MPG (When I can be bothered). This is what they are:

VW Gold 2001 - 1.9TDI 130pd - 48mpg (Claimed 52mpg - 146g/km)
Audi A3 2.0 TDI 140bhp (Revo to 180bhp) - 42mpg (Claimed 51mpg - 143g/km)
BMW 320d ED 164bhp - 56mpg (Claimed 68mpg - 109g/km)


I think the gap has just got bigger. I am quite happy with the 56mpg I get on my current car, even though it's 12mpg less than stated. Oh, and I'm the typical 75-80mph driver on the motorway.

That works great for business car owners, using their car to commute the same route day in day out.

However, a lot of people do not do same route, or use their cars for doing family stuff etc.

I know with my cars, I have never had the same months driving ever.

One month might be visiting friends, a lot of motorways, relatively gentle traffic, the next month out and about in Wales, visiting friends or sports / hobby stuff. This gives a totally different return.

It can be 200 miles difference between tanks.

Even in the same week, totally different, traffic and roads.

Everyone knows that what the official speeds, power, mpg, are just marketing figures, always have been always will be.

In comparison to older cars, Modern cars have a very good power band and will accelerate very well, that comes with a price (literally).

I still don't understand people buying a 3.0l car and trying to keep getting high 40mpg or 50 mpg's - just enjoy the bloody car or get a 2.0l

[rocketretro]

Originally Posted by Brigand

..................................
I still don't understand people buying a 3.0l car and trying to keep getting high 40mpg or 50 mpg's - just enjoy the bloody car or get a 2.0l

Exactly, it's a choice either A or B and get the car that suits, although I can understand drivers that do monitor their MPG just in case they're enjoying their car a little too much.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by Rocketretro

Exactly, it's a choice either A or B and get the car that suits, although I can understand drivers that do monitor their MPG just in case they're enjoying their car a little too much.

yeah my MPG 'naggon-o-meter' went off last month.

It seems I had done too many low 30mpg drives than I am 'allowed' per month lol.