Poor Fuel Efficiency
#21
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
Thanks Tomashek. I noticed those hwy#s too. In spite of my rather dismal city numbers, highway has been surprisingly good: 7.5 - 8.5 with heavy inclines (#99 to Whistler). Why this break-in period results in bad city & good highway #s I am not technically-inclined enough to know, but it is promising.
#23
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
Are you all posting the results from the trip computer? I found that it underestimates the fuel consumption by about 10% compared to what I actually get when calculating fuel economy from fill-up to fill-up.
I have a 2.0T and my actual fuel consumption is averaging 11.2 L/100 km after 5600 km, whereas the trip computer is averaging 10.1 L/100 km.
This is a mix of City and Highway driving since early April.
I have a 2.0T and my actual fuel consumption is averaging 11.2 L/100 km after 5600 km, whereas the trip computer is averaging 10.1 L/100 km.
This is a mix of City and Highway driving since early April.
Does the computer know what tire radius I have? i.e. is there a set-up I can do? or is it dealership and/or VAG-com?
Thanks.
#24
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
Are you all posting the results from the trip computer? I found that it underestimates the fuel consumption by about 10% compared to what I actually get when calculating fuel economy from fill-up to fill-up.
I have a 2.0T and my actual fuel consumption is averaging 11.2 L/100 km after 5600 km, whereas the trip computer is averaging 10.1 L/100 km.
This is a mix of City and Highway driving since early April.
I have a 2.0T and my actual fuel consumption is averaging 11.2 L/100 km after 5600 km, whereas the trip computer is averaging 10.1 L/100 km.
This is a mix of City and Highway driving since early April.
I am over 9400 km now, with the trip computer reporting an optimistic average of 10.67 L/100km, whereas the actual consumption has been 11.6 L/100 km (1100.71 litres to drive 9477 km).
I would appreciate if others would indicate it in their posts whether they are reporting actual (fuel purchased/distance travelled) or indicated (trip computer) fuel consumption. This way we can compare real world results, and not "apples to oranges."
#25
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
Just a thought about the accuracy of calculating fuel economy from fill up to fill up. There is a margin for error to the actual fuel you get from the pump. I am pretty sure they over charge for the amount of fuel you actually get in the tank. There's no way to prove it, unless you take a measuring cup with u to fillup.
That being said, my trip computer says 11.3 but I calculate 12.0 over 1500 kms
That being said, my trip computer says 11.3 but I calculate 12.0 over 1500 kms
#26
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
Just to add to something.
If you're using the onboard computer to calculate the efficiency.
It can be very misleading (happened to me).
You have to drive a bit to see the more accurate ones.
If you're using the onboard computer to calculate the efficiency.
It can be very misleading (happened to me).
You have to drive a bit to see the more accurate ones.
#27
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
Yup, that's why only with many fill-ups (think of them as trials in a science experiment) does the figure become statistically significant. It's rather easy to fill up to different levels every time, or even have a pump shut off early/late compared to other pumps, making single-tank data nearly useless.
#28
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
Just a thought about the accuracy of calculating fuel economy from fill up to fill up. There is a margin for error to the actual fuel you get from the pump. I am pretty sure they over charge for the amount of fuel you actually get in the tank. There's no way to prove it, unless you take a measuring cup with u to fillup.
That being said, my trip computer says 11.3 but I calculate 12.0 over 1500 kms
That being said, my trip computer says 11.3 but I calculate 12.0 over 1500 kms
Yup, that's why only with many fill-ups (think of them as trials in a science experiment) does the figure become statistically significant. It's rather easy to fill up to different levels every time, or even have a pump shut off early/late compared to other pumps, making single-tank data nearly useless.
Regarding the measurement of fuel at the pumps, there is a tolerance for the error, and it could result in one getting slightly more or slightly less fuel than indicated. The calibration for the pumps is inspected regularly. I am sure that there are some stations that try to shortchange the customers, but overall I believe that most employ accurate pumps.
Does anyone have evidence of the trip computer agreeing with the pump data over a significant number of fill-ups? It seems to me that the difference is due to an error in the calibration of the trip computer.
#29
Re: Poor Fuel Efficiency
"Wow, 7.5L/100KM is great for a vehicle like the Q5 - now I want to get the wife one even more! At what kind of speeds are you able to achieve that economy, and how are you collecting your data?"
I usually do 117, and simply switch trip computer to real time fuel consumption.
I usually do 117, and simply switch trip computer to real time fuel consumption.
#30
14,000 km update on fuel consumption
I don't know how to reset the computer for a different tire radius. However, both my winter and the OEM all-season tires have an identical circumference, so the trip computer should be accurate.
I am over 9400 km now, with the trip computer reporting an optimistic average of 10.67 L/100km, whereas the actual consumption has been 11.6 L/100 km (1100.71 litres to drive 9477 km).
I would appreciate if others would indicate it in their posts whether they are reporting actual (fuel purchased/distance travelled) or indicated (trip computer) fuel consumption. This way we can compare real world results, and not "apples to oranges."
I am over 9400 km now, with the trip computer reporting an optimistic average of 10.67 L/100km, whereas the actual consumption has been 11.6 L/100 km (1100.71 litres to drive 9477 km).
I would appreciate if others would indicate it in their posts whether they are reporting actual (fuel purchased/distance travelled) or indicated (trip computer) fuel consumption. This way we can compare real world results, and not "apples to oranges."
To those posting incredible fuel numbers - have the courtesy to let us know whether they are the optimistic (bogus?) trip computer data.