T6 4motion fuel economy

[Peterm6diesel]

I've recently purchased a 2018 California ocean 4motion with the dsg gearbox and am disappointed because on a 250 mile journey from cumbria down to luton with the cruise set at 70mph I'm only get 32mpg is this correct?

 

[Moakesy]

Sounds a bit low. I’d expect around 38mpg or so.

was the vehicle heavily loaded with either passengers or other stuff?

Fuel economy starts off bad and gets better, but with a 2018 model I figure you’ve got a few thousand in the clock by now?

 

[Loz]

As soon as you go over 60 its a steep downward slope in mpg.

 

[Legin]

I've recently purchased a 2018 California ocean 4motion with the dsg gearbox and am disappointed because on a 250 mile journey from cumbria down to luton with the cruise set at 70mph I'm only get 32mpg is this correct?

Yes about right.

 

[Bungle009]

My 150 Manual would do about 36 in the same conditions, so sounds about right.

 

[Amarillo]

I've recently purchased a 2018 California ocean 4motion with the dsg gearbox and am disappointed because on a 250 mile journey from cumbria down to luton with the cruise set at 70mph I'm only get 32mpg is this correct?

On motorways I generally set the cruise control to 58 mph, this helps economy, keeps HGVs from overtaking, and allows me sufficient acceleration to pass slower vehicles while keeping within legal limits. I also find the drive more relaxing and therefore more enjoyable.

Having said all that, my long term average over the last 4,032 litres of diesel, in my 150 DSG Beach is only 33.72 MPG taken from diligently recorded brim to brim measurements.

 

[jts46]

But HGVs can travel at 60mph on motorways.
Travelling at 58mph is asking for trouble and in my opinion dangerous on a motorway

 

[Calimili]

I believe it's very difficult to compare in a meaningful way unless we compare likes for like. A few points to consider would be: were the tyres correctly inflated ? what size tires, 215 or 235 ? Was it with bicycle on the rack or without?
How loaded was it?
With bicycles on the VW rack, 215 tyres, 150 4M dsg , 2 people loaded for holidays at the same speed I get about the same ~32mpg

 

[Amarillo]

But HGVs can travel at 60mph on motorways.
Travelling at 58mph is asking for trouble and in my opinion dangerous on a motorway

Few HGVs are exempt from having a 56mph speed limiter fitted, so while the de jure limit may be 60mph, the de facto limit is 56mph.

 

[Lightning]

As soon as you go over 60 its a steep downward slope in mpg.

This is true. I set the cruise to match the lorries now and fuel economy

Few HGVs are exempt from having a 56mph speed limiter fitted, so while the de jure limit may be 60mph, the de facto limit is 56mph.

I do this too now. The difference in fuel consumption it makes on my petrol Cali is astonishing. It feels much more relaxed with the trucks. I cannot see how it’s less safe for me or anybody else than doing 70, 80 or 90, which I used to do in my car.

 

[WelshGas]

Few HGVs are exempt from having a 56mph speed limiter fitted, so while the de jure limit may be 60mph, the de facto limit is 56mph.

Tell the lorries on the M4

 

[B J G]

But HGVs can travel at 60mph on motorways.
Travelling at 58mph is asking for trouble and in my opinion dangerous on a motorway

HGV's are limited to 56MPH or 90kph. Legally it is 60 but Tacho registers overspeeding above the 56mph which is or can be used to aid any prosecution. Buses can do 60+mph or 100kph and as they are no longer permitted in 3rd lane of Motorways holding them back isn't either courteous or legal if inner lane is clear.

 

[B J G]

My 4M fuel from day one average is approx. 34mpg. I drive at legal limits and use the power to get up to speed, no attempt at super economy, also don't use Coasting Function.

It can be in the high 30's on a motorway run but as soon as back into traffic and roundabouts it will drop to the 33mpg area. A regen also pulls it down by approx 2-3mpg.

Not confirmed as yet but I did a low gear/manual DSG override with 3,500 revs for a few miles and it appears to have raised the fuel figure by 2mpg on subsequent trips. Note not confirmed.

An old driving economy guide that I use is that for every 5 mph over 50mph you loose 3 mpg.
A 20mph headwind can have the same fuel penalty as driving at 85+ when doing 70mph.

 

[Amarillo]

Tell the lorries on the M4

Have you tried it? Whether 58 mph in the UK or 95 kph in Europe, if you set the cruise control to that speed few HGVs will overtake. A few coaches perhaps, one or two vehicles >3.5 tonnes and <7.5 tonnes but no larger vehicles. You catch them, and with ACC track them until ready to pass.

It really is very easy, very safe, and certainly less stressful than travelling at a faster pace where you are frequently having to adjust your speed for traffic conditions.

 

[soulstyledevon]

32...
Keep smiling, that sounds pretty good to me.
I average about 29/30 in a 204 2wd.

I find cruising at 85/88 helps me get places quicker...

 

[Volkywagen]

4wd + Tarmac = Poor MPG

 

[SusiBus]

About the same as ours, which I'm OK with. Setting the ACC at 60 really improves the mpg, but hey, I'v spent about 60k on SusiBus, I'm not going to worry about MPG. OK the environmental issue is another aspect.

 

[Wesel]

In my case, thethe average displayed on the dashboard is generally 34 mpg.
While a precise calculation based on liters of diesel and km traveled, over a long period, is 31 mpg.
Do not rely too much on the display of the dashboard which is too optimistic.

 

[Legin]

This is true. I set the cruise to match the lorries now and fuel economy

I do this too now. The difference in fuel consumption it makes on my petrol Cali is astonishing. It feels much more relaxed with the trucks. I cannot see how it’s less safe for me or anybody else than doing 70, 80 or 90, which I used to do in my car.

It less safe for one simple reason. In an accident the kinetic energy getting rear ended by 40t at 56mph has a very different outcome than by 2t at 70mph. If your getting a move on your in a lane or near to an escape lane the waggons dont go.
If was going to go 60 on a motorway I would go back to a caravan.

 

[Lightning]

It less safe for one simple reason. In an accident the kinetic energy getting rear ended by 40t at 56mph has a very different outcome than by 2t at 70mph. If your getting a move on your in a lane or near to an escape lane the waggons dont go.
If was going to go 60 on a motorway I would go back to a caravan.

The minimum vehicle speed below which it’s considered unsafe is 25mph.
What do you do on single lane A roads?
Rear ending by lorries tends to happen on motorways when traffic is stationary. Do you remain in the outside lane in stationary traffic too?
The kinetic energy of hitting something yourself is higher if you are going faster, and you have less time to react to hazards. Its bleeding obvious.

 

[Legin]

The minimum vehicle speed below which it’s considered unsafe is 25mph.
What do you do on single lane A roads?
Rear ending by lorries tends to happen on motorways when traffic is stationary. Do you remain in the outside lane in stationary traffic too?
The kinetic energy of hitting something yourself is higher if you are going faster, and you have less time to react to hazards. Its bleeding obvious.

Single track roads you dont have a choice. We are talking motorways are we not.
Rear ending happens when you stop and the waggon behind doesnt. This is even worse , a sandwich. Yes I would be in either the middle or fast lane preparing for a potential accident.
Clearly its not bleeding obvious. This is nothing to do with before an accident rather what happens when you have an accident.
Its not as simple as speed so bleeding obvious neither momentum or conservation of momentum has been understood.

 

[Lightning]

Single track roads you dont have a choice. We are talking motorways are we not.
Rear ending happens when you stop and the waggon behind doesnt. This is even worse , a sandwich. Yes I would be in either the middle or fast lane preparing for a potential accident.
Clearly its not bleeding obvious. This is nothing to do with before an accident rather what happens when you have an accident.
Its not as simple as speed so bleeding obvious neither momentum or conservation of momentum has been understood.

It’s not the ‘fast lane’ it’s the outside lane.
Lorries can use both the inside lane and middle lane. So if you are in the middle lane in stationary traffic the risk of a lorry sandwich is exactly the same if you were doing 70 or 60 before you stopped. The momentum of the lorry is unchanged.
The risk of you not stopping in time yourself is obviously however increased, due to the conservation of momentum resulting from you higher velocity.
It really could not be any more obvious.
I do enjoy arguing on the internet

 

[Legin]

We are talking consequence not risk. Your referring to before the accident , Im referring to after the accident (event), classic Bowtie hazard analysis.
The middle lane means you have access to the inside or outside lane and no waggons in the outside lane. If your in the inside lane your boxed in for sure.
It really is obvious that getting hit by a car and sandwiched to a car in front of you at 70 mph is preferable to being shoved by a 40 tonner at 56 mph and sandwiched between another 40 tonner.
It could be more obvious it appears
So what I say stands mixing it with the heavy boys isnt as safe as with the faster lightweights in the outside lane. No problem straightening this out on the internet. Await reply

 

[Lightning]

We are talking consequence not risk. Your referring to before the accident , Im referring to after the accident (event), classic Bowtie hazard analysis.
The middle lane means you have access to the inside or outside lane and no waggons in the outside lane. If your in the inside lane your boxed in for sure.
It really is obvious that getting hit by a car and sandwiched to a car in front of you at 70 mph is preferable to being shoved by a 40 tonner at 56 mph and sandwiched between another 40 tonner.
It could be more obvious it appears
So what I say stands mixing it with the heavy boys isnt as safe as with the faster lightweights in the outside lane. No problem straightening this out on the internet. Await reply

The consequence of being hit by a lorry or a car in any lane at a given speed differential between the lorry and the car is exactly the same, wether you’re absolute speed before impact is 70 or 60.

Your argument appears to have evolved into ‘its safer in the outside lane because there are no lorries there’. Which may be true, but is also unrelated to your speed before impact from behind.

If you are stationary in the outside lane you are less likely to be hit by a lorry than if you are stationary in the inside or middle lane. This has nothing to do with how fast you were going before you stopped. If the inside or middle lane are clear you should be in them regardless of your speed before stopping.

It may be worth moving to the outside lane if you are stuck at the back of a queue.

The inside lane is usually adjacent to the hard shoulder though, obviously.

Risk is a function of probability and consequence. The consequence is always the same in this scenario. It is the probability of it occurring which is the variable.

 

[Legin]

Nope the consequence is different in this scenario thats what your missing. If you were right then a fly hitting would be the same but its not. Its a function of the mass and the velocity squared, the velocity is dwarfed by the difference in mass.
Thought I would work it out. A 2 t car would need to do 243 mph to have the same kinetic energy as a 38 t lorry at 56mph. Its not even marginal. So a 38t at 56 hitting you is like being hit by 2t car at 243 mph
So a waggon speeding at say 60 is colossal compared to a car doing even 100mph.
Hence the sad carnage when accidents involve a waggon and minibus.
You appear to be coming around to my assertion that outer lanes are safer because of less or no lorries.
Lets say for simplicity you hit a stationary car or waggon then you will be much better hitting the car because the momentum is passed to the car making it move whereas the waggon will remain stationary.
Then there is the fact a waggon isnt well designed to absorb the impact of a car and with the high platform and negligible crumple zone and the physical height difference will slice the top off a car.