# Audi's claim of Economy figures 'just for comparison'



## SimonJP (Oct 25, 2014)

Hi Mk 3 owners,

I've read a load of the post regarding the mark 3 TT and thought I'd share too.

I've had my 2015 S-Line Quattro (s-tronic) for 2 months now as an upgrade from an '07 FWD s-tronic. The improvements over the mk 2 are great with the virtual cockpit, LED light and a massive improvement in torque. I'll never get to use all the tech pack's features, but the sat nav is useful, especially being on the virtual cockpit. It does make the speedo & rev counter difficult to read quickly though 

The one thing that's really disappoints me every time I get in the car is the economy! I know you don't buy a TT for economy, but my old one did over 34mpg over the time I had it (I have all the figures... yes, I know... a bit sad!) with a claimed figure of 36.2. I would be foolish to think that I'd get the claimed 44.1mpg (or is it 42mpg, and why did they change it in summer last year...did Audi get found out for fixing results again?), but they state that the figure they print are for 'comparison only'.

So, I'm comparing them to my old TT. Same person, same driving style, same commute, etc. I averaged ~95% of the claimed figure. Therefore, if the new TT is on paper ~20% more economical I should be getting 40+mpg, assuming I can continue to average 95% of the claimed figure...

Guess what, I've so far got <33mpg over the last 2000 miles, so less than my old mk 2!

I contacted Audi and they gave me a load of guff.

I might get the dealer to check it out. I did wonder if it had been run in properly as it was an ex-demo car.

Anyone else had a similar experience??

Cheers 

PS, my '98 Puma before my mk2 did more than the claimed MPG!!


----------



## no name (Feb 16, 2014)

i get 20-25 in a TTS down from 35-40 in my old mk2.

Economy mode makes hardly any difference.

I'd dread to think what a new R8 would guzzle


----------



## ire74 (Mar 20, 2016)

Interesting to hear how real life consumption looks over time, as I'm about to pick up what seems to be an almost identical model, albeit a sport version. I've often gone on the assumption that whatever a manufacturer quotes as their combined mpg, you're more likely to get closer to the urban figure. I've seen that with my current Mini Cooper S Countryman AWD, which only averages mid 30's, so I'd set myself up to get similar results from the TT, which looks like it might be the case. Any better is a bonus!

Like you say, you don't buy a TT for fuel economy!

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Critter10 (Nov 4, 2010)

Until the EU completely overhaul the way MPG figures are calculated (or we leave), this farce will continue. I'm not defending Audi, or any other car manufacturer, but the methods used for calculating fuel consumption are laid down in EU law. They make no sense in the real world, but manufacturers are not allowed to publish any other figures than those arising from the EU proscribed testing methods. Of course, manufacturers can to some extent take advantage of the testing regime to maximise their results - which I'm sure they all do.

The interesting thing is that, after 8000 miles in my TTS I'm averaging almost spot on 35mpg, which is around 4mpg better than my last Mk2 TTS. Maybe it takes a while for the MK3's to bed in properly? I also only use Shell V-Power, which I'm convinced helps.


----------



## iainfrmeastkilbride (Feb 19, 2016)

Hi,
Just changing after my paint issue from Diesel to Petrol. The Diesel has done 1900mls in two months.Average consumption of 44mls per gallon.Mixed driving.The gaps not that big if you can get around 33-35mls per gallon in a petrol? So the Diesel figures quoted are off the mark too.


----------



## ptill1 (Jul 6, 2009)

Maybe we don't keep our cars long enough to get the best out of them. I kept my last mk1 for 9 years and the more milage I put on it the better it got, the fuel consumption greatly improved after approx 40,000 mls, yet you would have thought it would have been the reverse taking into account the normal wear and tear to injectors etc.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

I find a lot of cars when you cruise at 60mph, you can reach the manufacturers extra urban figures....

In the TT when you do 60mph, the mpg is lower than Audi's combined figures....

I do realise that the figures are out of Audi's hands, but the TT does seem very poor considering it is a modern 1.8 or 2.0 turbo engine.


----------



## mr gee (Apr 20, 2007)

I find the car produces better mileage than my previous Mk2 TT. This is from a trip


----------



## moro anis (May 27, 2010)

I believe the figures improve as the engine loosens up and I'd say even more the case with diesels where you'd be looking at several thousand miles on the clock before you're getting near the figures.

When I first got my TTS (new) I was expecting better figures than my Mk2 TTS but was disappointed to see about 29mpg and I was running in. However now I'm approaching 1500 miles which I know isn't a lot, in economy mode on a trip of about 20 miles she'll average 34-35 mpg. i too use on V power in my cars.

It's definitely the case with motorbikes, you can feel them start to loosen up at 2000 miles.


----------



## Cwd (Feb 22, 2016)

I have to say i think my TTS consumption is gob smakingly good for a 310 bhp car, coming from my old S5 4.2 which was positively a petrol holic, i keep looking at the petrol gauge........nope none needed yet  , local shell garage will be folding at this rate. and when it finally needs some it doesn't cost as much as the tanks about 15 litres less in capacity win , win win.


----------



## Shingy1 (May 11, 2011)

Slightly off topic, but how did you get the mpg figure in the middle of the rev counter ? Is this just something for autos ?


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

I think I've only done 1200miles so far, so let's see what happens when I get to 2500ish miles.

Currently do around 28-30mpg on my work journey, would love to see it get to 33-35mpg.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

TTimi said:


> I think I've only done 1200miles so far, so let's see what happens when I get to 2500ish miles.
> 
> Currently do around 28-30mpg on my work journey, would love to see it get to 33-35mpg.


Yeah but presumably on your way to work your're in the rush hour and there's a lot of stop-start and slow driving which is going to bring the mpg right down.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> TTimi said:
> 
> 
> > I think I've only done 1200miles so far, so let's see what happens when I get to 2500ish miles.
> ...


What I mean is I hope it rises to 33-35mpg on the same journey I am doing on the route to work now. That would be great!


----------



## Mr R (Mar 1, 2015)

Fuel economy usually does improve as the miles go on. I think it was about 10k on my A3 TDI that I started to see a real difference compared to when the car was new.


----------



## Rev (Nov 17, 2015)

I'm at nearly 500 miles and mine says about 23 mpg on the long term stats lol. Don't really mind at the moment but hope it gets better.


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 5, 2016)

If I get north of 30mpg in the TTS I'll be happy.

For balance I'd refer you to numerous posts on the new Land Rover Discovery Sport Ingenium engine. My wife has one of these and although it's quoted combined figure is 52mpg we are averaging 32mpg over the first 2k miles. That's a kick in the teeth, especially when the driving style has been very relaxed and almost entirely 20+ miles trips with significant motorway use at a sensible and constant cruising speed.


----------



## Blackhole128 (Dec 24, 2015)

Shingy1 said:


> Slightly off topic, but how did you get the mpg figure in the middle of the rev counter ? Is this just something for autos ?


There's a setting in the MMI for "Additional Display" where you can choose a gauge type (fuel mpg, oil temp etc.) to display within the rev counter.

I just thumbed through the manual for the precise instructions on how to set it, but couldn't find it. I must have stumbled on it when exploring the menus.


----------



## Shingy1 (May 11, 2011)

Blackhole128 said:


> Shingy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly off topic, but how did you get the mpg figure in the middle of the rev counter ? Is this just something for autos ?
> ...


Cool, I'll give that a go tonight!


----------



## 90TJM (Sep 30, 2013)

My car(2.0 petrol manual FWD) has only done 1000mls and is getting mid 30s which is what I got on my 1.8 mk 2.So with time and warmer weather it could get towards 40.Our other car a 1.5 Mini Cooper only gets 40 on similar journeys which is a lot lower than expected.


----------



## Dano28 (Feb 10, 2013)

Shingy1 said:


> Blackhole128 said:
> 
> 
> > Shingy1 said:
> ...


To get to that menu: make sure you are on the miles left in the tank top left on the picture, then press the right sub menu button ] (it has ok next to it on the steering wheel left hand side next to the selector wheel) additional display then pops up, you can select additional display info in there.

Hope that makes sense


----------



## Dano28 (Feb 10, 2013)

Am showing 26.6mpg for long term average, have switched over to Tesco 99 fuel now last tank I got more miles than previous 95 fuel so we'll see if the 99 makes a difference to this tank too


----------



## mackem47 (Mar 8, 2010)

I am averaging 33.2 mpg. Individual journeys can be high 30's in efficiency mode. Still have winter tyres on though and only done 3000 miles in my 2.0 stronic fwd sport. Hopefully mpg will improve


----------



## mr gee (Apr 20, 2007)

Shingy1 said:


> Slightly off topic, but how did you get the mpg figure in the middle of the rev counter ? Is this just something for autos ?


I think it was an option in the setup menu


----------



## Piker Mark (Nov 16, 2011)

Just past 1000 miles with my TTS and it has averaged 29mpg on the long term memory from the day I picked it up. My S3, same engine, same gearbox, commute to work, same person driving it :lol: averaged 33mpg. I thought my TTS would be marginally better than my S3 s tronic, not so. I could get 40mpg out of my S3 if I drove it like a Nun - done that in my TTS and best I could manage was 34mpg. So, yes, with the S3 I could actually get to Audi figures... Yeah, tried Effeciancy setting and found exactly what I had on my S3, the consumption is WORSE on that setting - go figure - have mine all set to dynamic in Individual, aside from gearbox - left in auto, suspension - left in comfort and Quattro - left in auto.

I'm not disappointed with the consumption of my TTS, it's better than my previously owned TTS and TT RS, but why it's around 4mpg worse than my S3 I don't know. I could easily pull 35 to 36 mpg in my S3, even driving quite briskly, but in my TTS it seems to hover between 28 and 32... maybe as the miles go past it'll improve? Not that fussed really, but I do use the car every day to get to work and it's added a little to weekly fuel bill. I'll trade that for the smiles I get from driving it - the S3 was dull as ditch water to drive and look at... hence trading it as soon as I was able...


----------



## Waitwhat93 (Mar 28, 2016)

Mark how many miles have you done on your S3?

If it's more than your TTS then that would agree with other posters where MPG has increased with more miles done.


----------



## no name (Feb 16, 2014)

If you're getting 30mpg+ in a tts you're not having enough fun :lol:

or like me you are sat in traffic most of the day, that's not so fun


----------



## AdamA9 (Jul 8, 2011)

Even resetting the short journey figures on the motorway I still cannot get anywhere near the figures in my TTS.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

AdamA9 said:


> Even resetting the short journey figures on the motorway I still cannot get anywhere near the figures in my TTS.


This is what I mean! Car fully warmed up and steady 65mph on the motorway and it is less than the combined figure. How many miles has your car done?


----------



## Mr R (Mar 1, 2015)

TTimi said:


> AdamA9 said:
> 
> 
> > Even resetting the short journey figures on the motorway I still cannot get anywhere near the figures in my TTS.
> ...


I reckon that's too fast for optimal mpg on the motorway. I think in mine around 55mph seems to give best mpg, any faster and it drops.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

This gives you an idea how manufacturers can squeeze more mpg out of their cars than you can ...
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/official-fuel-consumption-figures.html

Little tricks like ditching the spare wheel and running the test with the minimum amount of fuel in the tank all help to nudge up those margins. Also increasing tyre pressure and choosing tyres that give the best mpg (but may be lousy for road grip or comfort).
I wouldn't be surprised if they use jockeys as their drivers to reduce weight.

Consider also that while you can drive at less than 40 mph in 6th gear you wouldn't do in real life because bends in the road, inclines and the lack of any acceleration. Different in the test laboratory though. :?

And that's why you will rarely get near the claimed mpg, especially for Extra urban driving.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

Most cars you don't get near the claimed figures, but it just seems like the TT is further off than most.


----------



## PJV997 (Dec 17, 2010)

Hybrids are the worst because they use their batteries more in the EU test than in real life.

My rule of thumb is 75-80% of combined consumption is usually reasonable guideline.


----------



## AdamA9 (Jul 8, 2011)

TTimi said:


> AdamA9 said:
> 
> 
> > Even resetting the short journey figures on the motorway I still cannot get anywhere near the figures in my TTS.
> ...


5000 dead on now.


----------



## pcullen (Feb 26, 2016)

im getting great mpg in my TDI Sline.....


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I don't know how the Mk3 (or even Mk2) compares, but the average fuel consumption on the Mk1 generally tells porkies. You have to brim your tank and do the maths yourself to be sure.

And unfortunately, I get fewer actual MPG from the sums than my average readout. Still, 24 is a good day in a heavy MK1.


----------



## SimonJP (Oct 25, 2014)

Shingy1 said:


> Slightly off topic, but how did you get the mpg figure in the middle of the rev counter ? Is this just something for autos ?


The mpg figure comes up automatically in 'big dials' view on mine. I think it's configurable to show other stats, but you'll have to sift through the user manual to find out how to change it :?


----------



## SimonJP (Oct 25, 2014)

TTimi said:


> Most cars you don't get near the claimed figures, but it just seems like the TT is further off than most.


It's become worse in recent years, as engineers find better ways of getting around the test (I'm an engineer, and would do the same...but would feel guilty about it!)
I only found out recently how they account for rolling resistance and aero efficiency/resistance. This is done by letting the car role from a set speed (50mph?), the further it roles the better the result. In the auto with efficiency mode it de-clutches the engine, so the car roles twice as far...even though it has to use fuel to keep the engine running. We were told in the 90's that engines use no fuel when rolling with it in gear. De-clutching is illegal in a manual, but a sneaky get around for an auto.
Not sure how the manual version does so well though.
My old Ford Puma got 40+mpg almost all the time with an official mpg of 38!!!


----------



## rumblestrip (Apr 15, 2016)

90TJM said:


> My car(2.0 petrol manual FWD) has only done 1000mls and is getting mid 30s which is what I got on my 1.8 mk 2.So with time and warmer weather it could get towards 40.Our other car a 1.5 Mini Cooper only gets 40 on similar journeys which is a lot lower than expected.


A useful post for me as I currently have a 1.5 Cooper; we get 40-43mpg (better than this on a motorway run) and was pleased to see your 2.0l TT gives you mid-30s.

I joined this forum to learn more about the TT as the 1.8 Mk3 is currently at the top of my 'what will I have when I change the MINI' list. If you're getting mid-30s on the 2 litre then I could settle for that. If the 1.8 is no worse than this then I'd be very happy.

Derek


----------



## ire74 (Mar 20, 2016)

rumblestrip said:


> 90TJM said:
> 
> 
> > My car(2.0 petrol manual FWD) has only done 1000mls and is getting mid 30s which is what I got on my 1.8 mk 2.So with time and warmer weather it could get towards 40.Our other car a 1.5 Mini Cooper only gets 40 on similar journeys which is a lot lower than expected.
> ...


rubmblestrip, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the fuel economy. Whilst it's not what's quoted, they never are. I've just moved from a 1.6 Cooper S Countryman AWD to a 2.0 TFSi Quattro, and I actually think the TT is more efficient. I did a 100 mile round trip on Sunday, mostly motorway, with a long 50mph avg speed section, and I got 41mpg out of it. The Mini would have struggled to match that.


----------



## MarcF-TT (Jun 14, 2011)

Just to post for comparison, here's what I achieved in the TTS on an outward and return journey.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

That's impressive. Cruise control? Slow motorway driving?


----------



## glund91 (Feb 13, 2016)

SimonJP said:


> Shingy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly off topic, but how did you get the mpg figure in the middle of the rev counter ? Is this just something for autos ?
> ...


Bit late but better late than never, you just press the right hand menu button whilst on your car views such as date/time, mpg, short term memory etc. It will pop up saying additional display, and you can choose from there what you want in the rev counter on the big dials, or in the top left on the small. They all seem pretty useless to me other than the mpg one so I set it to that and haven't changed it since. One note to mention, however, is that if you do not have this display in your rev counter, it actually reappears on the main display as a much bigger mpg image.


----------



## LEIGH-H (Feb 24, 2016)

I get similar figures in my 2.0 s-tronic Quattro. It's difficult to get it below 28mpg on a blast, which I found quite surprising. Recently, we took my car on a 150-mile trip to Cheltenham (with the OB computer reading an average speed of 7* mph) and we're nearly an hour's country lane driving from the M6. The total mpg for the journey was just over 38. Admittedly this was running on Tesco Momentum (which I know the engine doesn't need, or very possibly even benefit from). I am in the process of running a comparison between 95 and 99 RON before I make a conclusive decision on which fuel to use. So far, efficiency tests are ongoing and performance test shows that peak power and torque are slightly higher (single figure digits and certainly not enough so as you'd notice) when running on 99 RON. Probably not enough of a difference to justify the additional cost, unless fuel efficiency proves itself to be significantly better. So far, I don't think that's going to happen because, like the performance tests, there's not yet been an *obvious* efficiency improvement.

I think the 99 RON would probably prove more worthwhile in a remapped EA888, where the revised software could possibly take advantage of the increased explosiveness of the higher RON fuel.

Certainly, so far, fuel economy is equal to my wife's A1 1.4 185 s-tronic on the urban cycle, but better when greater speeds are used on motorway runs. From what I've read on other threads from the 1.8 guys, I would guess that the 2.0 is probably at least as good in the real world as the 1.8 and possibly better still - probably down to the extra torque and less need to use much throttle to make progress. However, you'd have to be doing some big miles in a 1.8 to be out of pocket as an ownership proposition, so it's still a model that makes perfectly good sense if you're not bothered about the extra 40 horses and the extra pops and bangs.

10 years ago, to buy a standard, affordable, car with 300+ HP, you'd have been in an Imprezza or an Evo and you'd have had no low down power, huge insurance premiums, poor build quality and about 15-20 mpgs if you were going downhill. And it'd have been nicked by the time you needed to refuel, or if you were particularly unlucky, while you were refuelling. So, the TTS also makes perfectly good sense too.


----------



## rumblestrip (Apr 15, 2016)

rumblestrip said:


> 90TJM said:
> 
> 
> > My car(2.0 petrol manual FWD) has only done 1000mls and is getting mid 30s which is what I got on my 1.8 mk 2.So with time and warmer weather it could get towards 40.Our other car a 1.5 Mini Cooper only gets 40 on similar journeys which is a lot lower than expected.
> ...


I did get the 1.8 (as discussed in other posts). I filled it to the brim after a couple of days and reset the consumption read-out. Currently it says I'm getting 38mpg (UK) which is consistent with the range remaining and the miles driven figures. i.e. 400 miles range predicted from a full tank. When I fill it next I'll 'do the math(s)' and see how I've actually done. Is the Audi on-board computer reliable?

I haven't driven particularly gently, a/c on all the time, A & B roads with stretches of dual carriageway, dynamic mode engine setting. Not bad for a 'box fresh' motor.

Derek


----------



## Xiano (Mar 18, 2016)

1600 miles in and I'm getting between 40 - 42mpg on my 1.8 if I'm driving sensibly


----------



## Waitwhat93 (Mar 28, 2016)

1.8 also and I get around 40 and above if I drive normal


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Hmmmm ! Maybe my "normal" driving isn't quite the same as others.  Or maybe it just needs a few more miles on the clock.


----------



## Waitwhat93 (Mar 28, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> Hmmmm ! Maybe my "normal" driving isn't quite the same as others.  Or maybe it just needs a few more miles on the clock.


Mine was around 20-25 for a while  it's calmed down this week


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

Very early days, air con on full all week. I'm showing 30mpg. I can live with that.


----------



## Waitwhat93 (Mar 28, 2016)

4433allanr said:


> Very early days, air con on full all week. I'm showing 30mpg. I can live with that.


You have a 1.8 don't you Allan?

I'm guessing you don't cruise a lot as I pull 35-40 on my 15 mile trip to/from work and that's with a occasional overtake in 3rd gear.


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

Yes 1.8. Some town driving. And a lot of traffic jams!!!


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

I regularly got and often exceeded the claimed urban mpg on my Mk2 1.8 so I'm expecting the same with my Mk3. 
However I'm not sure to what extent driving with the roof down affects the mpg.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

Everyone with 1.8s... What kind of driving do you do to get 40mpg? If I'm driving in Milton Keynes with no traffic and driving really slowly, I get around 38mpg.

My journey to work is 10minutes of start stop traffic then 10 mins of open roads, roundabout to roundabout and I get around 30mpg in winter and 33mpg in summer.

A two hour stint on motorway at 65-70mph I only get around 46mpg.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Possibly those changes you made to your wheels and suspension TTimi are having an effect. Manufacturers now quote different mpg rates for different wheels. 
Are you still wearing those diving boots?


----------



## Waitwhat93 (Mar 28, 2016)

TTimi said:


> Everyone with 1.8s... What kind of driving do you do to get 40mpg? If I'm driving in Milton Keynes with no traffic and driving really slowly, I get around 38mpg.
> 
> My journey to work is 10minutes of start stop traffic then 10 mins of open roads, roundabout to roundabout and I get around 30mpg in winter and 33mpg in summer.
> 
> A two hour stint on motorway at 65-70mph I only get around 46mpg.


My journey to work is a 15 mile drive consisting of driving 45-55 with slow traffic at either end. Would be higher if it was a constant drive but the traffic brings it down to 40.

Driving round town is 20 - 30 depending on how I drive it.

No motorway driving unless I'm going something special..


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Are you using Economy mode?


----------



## Waitwhat93 (Mar 28, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> Are you using Economy mode?


Me? Nope Dynamic everywhere.


----------



## wesTTie (Aug 6, 2013)

Hi,
Just completed 1000 miles in a TTS and averaging 32mpg. On a long run to Devon 270 miles each way averaged 37mpg.
WesTTie


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

Milton Keynes to Bath in the 118D I managed 62mpg. In the TT I managed 44mpg. Suppose I can't really complain with that.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

I thought that the suspension changes would increase mpg lol.

Guessing my spoiler up and Windows all the way down doesn't help. Probably affects 1-2mpg.


----------



## jonp (Mar 26, 2016)

ive got a 2.0 diesel ultra, im getting 60mpg but that is 90% motorway


----------



## rbalzan (Aug 19, 2015)

I'm doing around 12L/100km which works out to around only 23.5 mpg. But I do a lot of short trips and spend a lot of time stuck in traffic. On longer drives I might do 9L/100km (31 mpg). The best I've ever achieved is round 8L/100km (35 mpg).

I drive a 2.0 s-Tronic (petrol).


----------



## Insignia (Apr 3, 2016)

After 4,000 kms long term figure is at 11.6L/100km. About 50/50 city peak hour / highway.

Done in TTS in Sydney's Northern suburbs.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

A few longer runs this week, 40mpg.


----------



## Jonnyboy71 (Jul 12, 2016)

In economy mode on the way home with the new car i averaged about 44 mpg. That was on a busy motorway at about 60-75mph. 
Then I got home, went back out in dynamic mode and put it through its paces a little bit and it immediately went down to 41mpg. Overall though I'm impressed with the consumption.


----------



## rumblestrip (Apr 15, 2016)

TT 1.8 TFSI (petrol, manual) consumption update:

460 mile trip mostly motorway / dual carriageway and the computer showed 42 mpg which I find pretty darned fantastic. A/C was always on, no particular care taken with econmy, just got on and enjoyed the drive.

Used the 'Individual' driving mode with 'dynamic' steering and acceleration but 'comfort' engine noise.

That trip has pushed the mileage over the 1000 mile mark 

Derek


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

I regularly got that with my Mk2 1.8 so I'd expect a bit more once you've got it run in.


----------



## rumblestrip (Apr 15, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> I regularly got that with my Mk2 1.8 so I'd expect a bit more once you've got it run in.


Thanks for the comment and it is certainly encouraging. Having said that, if my consumption got no better, I'd be happy so I am looking forward to seeing how it shapes up, say, at 10k.

On local runs we're getting c.36-38mpg. Still haven't done a manual calculation though. These are just the readings off the car.

Anyone have a view on how accurate the car's data are?


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

From previous cars, usual about 5-10% optimistic. About 3 weeks in now and mine seems to be levelling out at 35. Quite happy with that as I'm not driving it to maximise mpg.


----------



## winrya (Feb 22, 2014)

I was struggling with really poor figures. Best I ever managed driving as slowly as I could on country lane runs was 35mpg. Driving normally was closer to 30mpg. Last 1000 miles (just hit 5k) similar journeys are now 44mpg driving normally with 38mpg if giving it the beans. Can't believe how much it has improved. This is an 2litre s tronic Quattro btw


----------



## Matrix (Apr 11, 2016)

winrya said:


> I was struggling with really poor figures. Best I ever managed driving as slowly as I could on country lane runs was 35mpg. Driving normally was closer to 30mpg. Last 1000 miles (just hit 5k) similar journeys are now 44mpg driving normally with 38mpg if giving it the beans. Can't believe how much it has improved. This is an 2litre s tronic Quattro btw


That's something to look forward to then. Just covered 1100 miles and nowhere near that figure even in efficiency mode & using super unleaded fuel.


----------



## winrya (Feb 22, 2014)

Trying to find a mildly economical mode I found that there was pretty much no difference between any of the modes ref economy. If anything I get the best results in dynamic mode which I now leave it in. From start up the gearbox defaults to auto I believe so just leave it there and pop across to manual when I want some fun


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

Over 350 miles today, normal driving plus a bit of a blat to catch a ferry, averaging 47.6mpg. 1.8T.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

4433allanr said:


> Over 350 miles today, normal driving plus a bit of a blat to catch a ferry, averaging 47.6mpg. 1.8T.


Claimed mpg for Combined driving is 47.1 mpg - so you are in credit.


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

50miles of smooth B road, not too much braking needed @ 55mph followed by 50 miles of dual carriageway @ 60 to 70mph, then a couple of miles @ 30mph, I managed 49.1mpg on the trip computer! (1.8 manual)

That was driven very sensibly though and really smooth acceleration, braking and gear changes.


----------



## R_TTS (Mar 16, 2016)

Long term average of 28.7 MPG after first 3,000 miles in my TTS, and it seems to be getting steadily better.


----------



## GaryG (Aug 21, 2016)

Honest John's "Real MPG" page* (although there's nothing to stop the unscrupulous for adding fantasy figures) is interesting: a Mk3 TTS 2.0 TFSI quattro S tronic should be around 32 on average. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/audi/tt-2014

When enough data is added, the figures are a guide.


----------

