10 years of 2.0 diesel Passats: the MPG truth

[mondeoman]

V8 BM - I'm happy with 23.4 average.

[clarkey]

Actual figures I've recorded in the last few years:

BMW 520d M-sport - 7894 miles, 45.02mpg
BMW S1000XR - 1631 miles, 42.54mpg
Discovery 3 - 58,835 miles, 26.35mpg

previous cars/bikes:

BMW R1200GSA - 3065 miles, 43.81mpg
mk7 Golf GTi - 19300 miles, 37.64mpg
2001 Honda Insight - 12578 miles, 69.16mpg

The Insight was impressive for older technology.

[LeoSayer]

donkmeister said:

I wonder if there is any effect from people driving more sedately as they get older? Mpg could improve even if the cars themselves get no more efficient.

I wondered that as well.

As well as more sedate, also better anticipation and planning from experience.

[icepop]

stackmonkey said:

oceanview said:

icepop said:

Interesting, I have similar for my last 4 diesels too, over a period of 12 years :

VW BORA ..................1.9 /150......180K miles..........55mpg
SEAT LEON................2.0/ 140.......147K miles.........57mpg
SEAT TOLEDO...........1.6/105........130K miles.........60mpg
SEAT LEON................1.6/105.........46K miles..........62mpg currently

mainly rural/town driving, several big euro trips to the alps......'sympathetic' driving style where appropriate.

Very "sympathetic" i'd say .

Most people would get nowhere near that unless driving very sedately.

I'd agree.
I had a SEAT Toledo with the same engine (albeit mapped mid-ownership) and averaged 48mpg over 80k. It would do 55-60 mpg on a decent run.(Official combined figure was 53.x mpg)
Followed by a VW Passat TD 170 which has done 43.2mpg over 35k., (Official combined 46.mpg)

Err, it's not the same, you've had it re-mapped !!

Not really, just adopting the correct driving style for the road circumstances, rather than foot to the floor, trying to get something out of the engine that it was not designed for. For the first two cars shown, I think others may have shown something similar wrt mpg. Yes, when booting both engiines, especially the Bora, I could see high 40's, very rare though in the 2lt pd. Both were checked regularly using brim to brim method and were in general agreement with the trip on both cars. The 1.6lt CR is a little gem, and as I do those long M way runs to the Alps, can check quite easily the brim to brim figures, which are always within 2-3% of the trip, you can also get an general idea by the intertank range. On the last trip to the Ecrin Alps, and to Mt Ventoux, then the 1000k journey back, fully loaded with camping stuff, road bike, and 2 peeps, cruise set to 125 kph on the autoroutes, it returned, tank checked, 58.7mpg. You just need to use a bit more common, and not rag it, and that extre 5-6mpg can be easily attained. I'm sure it's the same in a petrol car, but the many I've had as courtesy cars when mines been in for service, generally smaller turbo units, are all 20mpg away from matching the diesel, which, along with the general reliability I have so far got from the 4 diesels I have owned, has kept me on the dark side.

Edited by icepop on Monday 23 October 11:26

Edited by icepop on Monday 23 October 11:28

[Pan Pan Pan]

The way to determine the true mpg of a vehicle is to look at the actual fuel volume put in compared to actual miles covered figures. The fuel consumption indicators on many cars only give a vague indication of actual mpg being achieved.
I have used Passat Bluemotion`s for 10 years, and found that the 2 litre 5 speed, was more economical than the 1.6 6 speed version I had, with the 2 litre car returning an actual 53 mpg, and the 1.6 returning 47 mpg.
I try to drive to the posted limits as far as possible,, since IMHO owning and using a vehicle, and then travelling at bus speeds is totally pointless. Like buying an electric cooker, and then lighting a fire on top of it to cook the dinner! The posted limits are already set low to allow the widest spectrum of drivers to achieve what some might believe a reasonable level of safety, so going slower than the posted limits starts to take away the whole point of using a motorized vehicle.
The Passat to some extent makes up for driving the crossflow Seven, which can just about make 18 - 20 mpg! .

[phil1979]

Does anyone know how to access the average MPG data on a 2014 Merc C63?

I just tried, but it keeps bringing up a photo of the owners of my local petrol station for some reason.

[icepop]

Pan Pan Pan said:

The way to determine the true mpg of a vehicle is to look at the actual fuel volume put in compared to actual miles covered figures. The fuel consumption indicators on many cars only give a vague indication of actual mpg being achieved.
I have used Passat Bluemotion`s for 10 years, and found that the 2 litre 5 speed, was more economical than the 1.6 6 speed version I had, with the 2 litre car returning an actual 53 mpg, and the 1.6 returning 47 mpg.
I try to drive to the posted limits as far as possible,, since IMHO owning and using a vehicle, and then travelling at bus speeds is totally pointless. Like buying an electric cooker, and then lighting a fire on top of it to cook the dinner! The posted limits are already set low to allow the widest spectrum of drivers to achieve what some might believe a reasonable level of safety, so going slower than the posted limits starts to take away the whole point of using a motorized vehicle.
The Passat to some extent makes up for driving the crossflow Seven, which can just about make 18 - 20 mpg! .

Know where you are coming from matey, my diesel conversion came from running a prodrive Impreza along side a 1991 crossflow seven. Impreza.....24 - 27 mpg, and XF, yeah in the region of 20 - 22mpg, but lighting up the lanes on a warm summers night and setting off alarms, in an extremely childish way sort of made up for it

Got to say though 47mpg from the 1.6 diesel, wtf is going on there !!!!!! have you changed the accelerator for an on/off switch ?? Only one thing for it, I will brim the tank at the end of the month, good selection of rural/town/Mways coming up, and drive at MY style, not granny'ing about, nor like a k**bhead, and see what gives.

[Pan Pan Pan]

icepop said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The way to determine the true mpg of a vehicle is to look at the actual fuel volume put in compared to actual miles covered figures. The fuel consumption indicators on many cars only give a vague indication of actual mpg being achieved.
I have used Passat Bluemotion`s for 10 years, and found that the 2 litre 5 speed, was more economical than the 1.6 6 speed version I had, with the 2 litre car returning an actual 53 mpg, and the 1.6 returning 47 mpg.
I try to drive to the posted limits as far as possible,, since IMHO owning and using a vehicle, and then travelling at bus speeds is totally pointless. Like buying an electric cooker, and then lighting a fire on top of it to cook the dinner! The posted limits are already set low to allow the widest spectrum of drivers to achieve what some might believe a reasonable level of safety, so going slower than the posted limits starts to take away the whole point of using a motorized vehicle.
The Passat to some extent makes up for driving the crossflow Seven, which can just about make 18 - 20 mpg! .

Know where you are coming from matey, my diesel conversion came from running a prodrive Impreza along side a 1991 crossflow seven. Impreza.....24 - 27 mpg, and XF, yeah in the region of 20 - 22mpg, but lighting up the lanes on a warm summers night and setting off alarms, in an extremely childish way sort of made up for it

Got to say though 47mpg from the 1.6 diesel, wtf is going on there !!!!!! have you changed the accelerator for an on/off switch ?? Only one thing for it, I will brim the tank at the end of the month, good selection of rural/town/Mways coming up, and drive at MY style, not granny'ing about, nor like a k**bhead, and see what gives.

It was an estate which is a bit heavier, but I tried to drive it the same way I drove the 2 litre car, and the average actual fuel consumption over two years worked out at 47 mpg, I think it had to work much, much harder to move the Passat, which is a fairly big car for a 1.6 litre engine, especially 4 or 5 up with luggage, in fact a lot of the time it felt fairly gutless, compared to the 2 litre car, although the figures showed not much difference in terms of horse power and torque.
The best I ever got from the 2 litre car was just over 70 mpg on a run from Scotland to the South coast, but I was really trying for a good mpg figure, I really could not drive like that all the time, as one starts to lose the will to live, travelling at the sorts of speed that deliver the truly best mpg figures.
As posted earlier I try to drive to the posted limits as much as possible, as this tends to represent the fastest legal way of getting about, but I would add that gentle acceleration, rather than driving with deep sea divers boots on seemed to give the best results I do get a bit p*ssed of with dawdlers travelling at well below the posted limit though, who don't even allow me to get the Passat into 5th gear

[Loyly]

had ham said:

10+ years in 140hp diesel Passats? You have my absolute sympathy

I can think of worse cars to use a day to day slugger.

[djohnson]

2ono said:

On the school run my C63s does about 9mpg, I’ve averaged 17.5mpg over the last 2500 miles, and I once saw 29.8 mpg average on a M25 trip to Heathrow.

My ML63 is about the same (although never seen anything like 29mpg).

[mattfuey]

A couple I’ve tracked:

- 2007 A3 170 DSG - 48.80mpg over 42,044 miles
- 2016 Golf GTD DSG - 45.17mpg over 27,900 miles

Two very different situations for both though. Audi was c.100 mile/day commute. Golf is 45 mile/day commute + anything upto 300ish miles/day usually split between a bit of motorway and a lot of B-roads/lanes.