150 vs 204 DSG 4 Motion Fuel Consumption

[Maeve]

I have not been able to find good discussion on this elsewhere in the forum so hoping some may have good insight.

In the specs for the Fuel consumption the 4 motions are rated as follows ltr/100km:

Urban 150 - 10.3 vs. 204 7.7
Extra-Urban - 150 - 7.4 vs. 204 - 6.2
Combined - 150 - 8.6 vs. 204 - 6.7

I guess my question is, does the 150 really suffer that much of a fuel consumption hit vs the 204 in real conditions?

Thanks,
Maeve

 

[motacyclist]

Are those figures right, it looks as though the 150 uses more fuel than the 204?

Or am I reading it wrong?

Can you really have your cake and eat it?

Welcome, by the way!

 

[Maeve]

These are the specs on paper that is why I have posted the question...

I love 204 cake if it is indeed accurate!!!

Thanks for the welcome

 

[Volkywagen]

Are those figures right, it looks as though the 150 uses more fuel than the 204?

Or am I reading it wrong?

Can you really have your cake and eat it?

Welcome, by the way!

All the 150 mpg figures are higher?

 

[motacyclist]

All the 150 mpg figures are higher?

Yes, it uses more litres per 100 km as I read it.

 

[Volkywagen]

Yes, it uses more litres per 100 km as I read it.

Ahh sorry I thought it was MPG

 

[sidepod]

Drive it. Fill it. Drive it fill it. Repeat.

 

[WelshGas]

These are the specs on paper that is why I have posted the question...

I love 204 cake if it is indeed accurate!!!

Thanks for the welcome

I’m not sure where you have got your figures from, but below are the figures from the On-line brochure from VW UK.
Urban. Extra-urban. Combined.

 

[Maeve]

Interesting, this is what it shows on the latest brochure here in Ireland...I'm still a n00b and don't know how to insert a picture so here is the link to our brochure...

http://www.volkswagenvans.ie/conten...l./20171127-california-product-guide-my18.pdf

 

[WelshGas]

Interesting, this is what it shows on the latest brochure here in Ireland...I'm still a n00b and don't know how to insert a picture so here is the link to our brochure...

http://www.volkswagenvans.ie/conten...l./20171127-california-product-guide-my18.pdf

Well one of them is wrong, but which one?

 

[motacyclist]

Interesting, this is what it shows on the latest brochure here in Ireland...I'm still a n00b and don't know how to insert a picture so here is the link to our brochure...

http://www.volkswagenvans.ie/conten...l./20171127-california-product-guide-my18.pdf

Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe there is a mistake in the brochure. There must be a mistake in the cost of the Toluca alloys, €23,002!

Mistake or not, you can use that to persuade Mrs that the 204 is the one you need!

 

[Maeve]

Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe there is a mistake in the brochure. There must be a mistake in the cost of the Toluca alloys, €23,002!

Mistake or not, you can use that to persuade Mrs that the 204 is the one you need!

I am the Mrs...and I have already convinced myself hehehe

 

[westfalia]

Well one of them is wrong, but which one?

The irish one.

Go on its grand..... and all that.

 

[Ciki62]

They are both best cars you can buy just 204 is faster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ciki62]

BTW average consumption 1600 km trip to Athens high speed on motorways is 8.5 l/100km. Use google to convert to mpg.

4motion 204


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ksar-el-kebir]

I’m not sure where you have got your figures from, but below are the figures from the On-line brochure from VW UK.
Urban. Extra-urban. Combined.

View attachment 32915

As I’ve said before I must have a good’un. Mine is a 150 DSG and on a run I usually get 44 mpg. On a run (admittedly mostly on motorway) last year in Morocco between Ksar el Kébir to Essaouira, about 420 miles I got nearly 50 mpg. That was from the display though which I regard with some scepticism. Basically I do what another member suggested; fill up, drive fill up drive.

 

[Ksar-el-kebir]

As I’ve said before I must have a good’un. Mine is a 150 DSG and on a run I usually get 44 mpg. On a run (admittedly mostly on motorway) last year in Morocco between Ksar el Kébir to Essaouira, about 420 miles I got nearly 50 mpg. That was from the display though which I regard with some scepticism. Basically I do what another member suggested; fill up, drive fill up drive.

Apologies sidepod, I called you “another member”, was too lazy to check. But after all I am in Morocco!

 

[BikerGran]

I read somewhere (probably on here, too idle to check) about people getting better MPG from Premium Diesel ( or similar name) so on Friday I thought I'd try it. I'm usually of the fill, drive, repeat persuasion so I don't have figures for previous mileage, but it definitely was better!

My outward trip was largely done cross-country through little lanes and hills, the kind of trip that usually makes me decide not to even look at the mpg on the display, as it can go down to about 18! I was amazed to see it registering 27.5.

Homeward journey on motorway, dual carriageway, and sing carriageway main roads, at a day and time with little traffic, was also better than usual but not as much difference.

I suppose I'll have to start again next time the tank is empty, keeping note of mpg for various kinds of driving, with both kinds of fuel, to work out whether the higher cost per gallon makes it worthwhile. Or just carry on in happy ignorance, telling myself I'm being clever!

 

[Freeley]

Maybe I should try this in my new crafter as mpg on that is pretty appalling. After 2000 miles it's improved to just about 28mpg.
I've never bothered with premium diesel in the past as I've kind of thought that even if it did improve economy it probably wouldn't be enough to make up for the improved cost in the first place.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[BikerGran]

It'll be interesting to see what happens with my usual driving around town and round to the corner shop, as mine is my daily driver.

 

[caligraphy]

My own experience is that in real life the bigger engines get better economy. I guess they can hold a higher gear on hills. Low revs, light acceleration and lugging along using the torque of the engine is key to getting good fuel economy from such a heavy camper. I change up before 2000 rpm*.

I have a 2.5Tdi 174 TDi getting 40 mixed urban to 47 highway. Drops to 43 MPG at French motorway speeds. I almost never have to change down gears. The engine has so much usable torque.

*Not recommended when running in a new engine.
*DPF will need the odd longish drive at higher revs to clean out properly

 

[Ksar-el-kebir]

My own experience is that in real life the bigger engines get better economy. I guess they can hold a higher gear on hills. Low revs, light acceleration and lugging along using the torque of the engine is key to getting good fuel economy from such a heavy camper. I change up before 2000 rpm*.

I have a 2.5Tdi 174 TDi getting 40 mixed urban to 47 highway. Drops to 43 MPG at French motorway speeds. I almost never have to change down gears. The engine has so much usable torque.

*Not recommended when running in a new engine.
*DPF will need the odd longish drive at higher revs to clean out properly

My new one is a 204 but the engine is the same, just under 2 litres. It is a 4motion so I’d expect fewer miles per gallon.
Only done 732 miles so far and taking it very easy. Probably wait until the next adventure in the Autumn for a good road test.