# Best MPG on 3.2Q



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

Just wondering what the best average you guys get out of your 3.2q's.

Im driving a manual and am getting 26 max at the moment! 

Obviously I want better!


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I had 31.9 showing on Monday after a 4 hour drive


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

In generally mixed driving covering motorways, main roads and some in-town driving, I'm getting an average high 20s/low 30s. That's staying below 90mph (thanks, speed alarm), and not doing 0-60 in 5secs at *every *opportunity. Also using a mix of "S" and "D" modes.

I reckon with ultra care, I could tempt 35mpg out of it, but then what's the point of having a 3.2V6  I'm happy enjoying the car, and getting c30mpg.


----------



## ezzie (Jul 2, 2004)

Over 5,000 miles averaging 26.6mpg (3.2 manual)


----------



## Pete225 (Feb 9, 2004)

Getting 26 mpg since new. Done 1500 miles.


----------



## jam225 (Jun 24, 2003)

My average after 3 months / 3000 miles is 22.7mpg :twisted:


----------



## blagman (Sep 11, 2006)

552 miles so far 20.8


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Mysterio said:


> Just wondering what the best average you guys get out of your 3.2q's.
> 
> Im driving a manual and am getting 26 max at the moment!
> 
> Obviously I want better!


Should have bought a 2.0ltr then


----------



## markrbooth (Sep 25, 2006)

3,000 miles at 24.5 so far. I don't drive slowly though.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I've had 34-36 on the motorway in d mode with cruise on.

If you dont fanny about and use motorways at a constant steady speed (80) its easy to get 32MPG.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

saint said:


> Mysterio said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering what the best average you guys get out of your 3.2q's.
> ...


Why? Do you really think there would be that much difference?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Bank manager may think so. :wink:

You'd have more oil use, more tyre wear, less k(q)udos, no v6 growl and a nagging 'should have got the v6' thought running though your mind every time you drove the car :wink:

Plus - just think of all that money you are gifting Gordon. That old man down the road will get his hip op now from you having a V6. Thats a good thing!


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

27mpg over 5000 miles. I did 34mpg over 60 miles of cross country roads at the weekend when I was running a little low on fuel. But then I filled it up, and blown was my record. If you drive the car like a sunday driver, 30+mpg is easy.


----------



## jeremyp (Oct 22, 2006)

I am just trying to get used to moving from a 2.0T diesel A3 to a 2.0T TT.
The A3 does about 53mpg on my run to work. The TT hopefully will do 37ish.
I do 120 miles a day!! - That's an increase of Â£80 a month!

Based on normal unleaded @90p/litre and using Audi's combined economy figures, you can expect the following cost per mile:

3.2 manual - 14.9p
3.2 S-tronic - 13.6p
2.0T manual/S-tronic - 11.2p

(Coupe figures)

The fuel cost implications for not having the 3.2 depend on the amount of miles you are going to do.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

Hi Jeremy,

I'd be amazed if you got 37mpg...even in a 2.0?

The A3 is excellent economy wise...


----------



## jeremyp (Oct 22, 2006)

I sit on my cruise at 70mph, almost all of my journey is dual carriageway or motorway.

The combined figure on the TTR S-tronic is 36.2 and the extra urban is 46.3 so I don't think 37 is unreasonable.

The combined figure on the A3 is 50.4


----------



## Johnnywb (May 31, 2006)

I get about 24. Mainly London driving or motoray (don't hang about) a heavy right foot doesn't help matters.


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

jeremyp said:


> I sit on my cruise at 70mph, almost all of my journey is dual carriageway or motorway.
> 
> The combined figure on the TTR S-tronic is 36.2 and the extra urban is 46.3 so I don't think 37 is unreasonable.
> 
> The combined figure on the A3 is 50.4


Might depend on what tyres, how you accelerate etc...etc.

but best i have managed was around 34mpg. (motorway)


----------



## paulie1 (Mar 6, 2007)

Best i've got is 31.9mpg.
Strangely enough i drove to Santa Pod (150 miles each way) on Saturday and got around 26mpg on the way up and 30mpg on the way back.Eh??
Mind you did get down to 20 at one stage..  
Did a whole tank of V power in one day tho-300 miles,not too bad i spose.


----------



## thebears (Jan 14, 2006)

Mysterio said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> > Mysterio said:
> ...


38 in the 2ltr on a recent trip to devon, not hanging around either.


----------



## bootha2 (Oct 9, 2006)

Do not want to steal the thread from the 3.2 boys, but for those commenting on the mpg for the 2.0T, I get high 30's easily on any motorway journeys keeping below 80mph.
Got 45mpg 2 weeks ago on a 130 mile trip back from manchester - had a temporary repair in my tyre and did not go above 60mph !!!!

Getting low 30's average if I put my foot down a bit on normal traffic roads


----------



## bw64402 (Jul 30, 2006)

bootha2 said:


> Do not want to steal the thread from the 3.2 boys, but for those commenting on the mpg for the 2.0T, I get high 30's easily on any motorway journeys keeping below 80mph.
> Got 45mpg 2 weeks ago on a 130 mile trip back from manchester - had a temporary repair in my tyre and did not go above 60mph !!!!
> 
> Getting low 30's average if I put my foot down a bit on normal traffic roads


Ditto. Low 40's doing 80-85mph on the motorway (Cruise Control & S-Tronic). Low 30's driving around London in Traffic.


----------



## misterC2007 (Jan 17, 2007)

The information system on my 2.0 T shows min 36 mpg on journies to and from work - steady flowing rush hour traffic, not too hard on the throttle. It actually showed 40 mpg yesterday morning for a 25 mile journey... I'm sure I could it get lower if I tried!! but it's nice to have the choice of higher fuel economy if you want it.


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

I challenge you Mr C to get a pic of it above 40 ! 

bet you a fiver via Paypal you can't! :lol:


----------



## melltt (Oct 5, 2006)

Also mixed motorway and ordinary roads.
First 1000 miles gave 25.
Now reset after first 1000 to test again and 26.2 after 1400 miles.
Going to reset after every 1000 break to see if any improvement


----------



## misterC2007 (Jan 17, 2007)

> I challenge you Mr C to get a pic of it above 40 !
> 
> bet you a fiver via Paypal you can't!


Sorry dude, the fuel economies that good I don't need your fiver.

How accurate is the DISmpg reading ?? anyone checked yet ??


----------



## xetronus (Apr 12, 2007)

hmm average after 4 months / 4200 miles is 24.7mpg that seem to be good


----------



## misterC2007 (Jan 17, 2007)

Mysterio, look what I found when I pulled up in the car park this morning..










Give the fiver to charity :lol: [/url]


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

Are you sure you didnt mean to write

'Mysterio, look what I found when I searched for an hour on google images for an audi mpg shot' :lol:


----------



## misterC2007 (Jan 17, 2007)

> I challenge you Mr C to get a pic of it above 40 !
> 
> bet you a fiver via Paypal you can't!


Maybe you should have been more specific in your request ??

Anyway, the image is genuine, lol


----------



## demi_god (Apr 7, 2006)

misterC2007 said:


> Mysterio, look what I found when I pulled up in the car park this morning..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Forget charity, i have it  ....baby needs new shoes....and a re-map...and new wheels... err...tints...and exhausts....and...err....more then a fiver it seems :wink:


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

misterC2007 said:


> > I challenge you Mr C to get a pic of it above 40 !
> >
> > bet you a fiver via Paypal you can't!
> 
> ...


If it is, congratulations....wish I was getting that out of mine.


----------



## demi_god (Apr 7, 2006)

Mysterio said:


> misterC2007 said:
> 
> 
> > > I challenge you Mr C to get a pic of it above 40 !
> ...


if you reset the counter, drive off slowly, the figure usually displays a high value that will the settle to the nominal figure....i'm not saying that's been done here, only that it is possible, or was possible on the bmw.  .....i know folk round here are way to honest for such deviousness, especially for the high stakes of a fiver :wink: .....which i'm still waiting for by the way


----------



## misterC2007 (Jan 17, 2007)

Maybe you would be able to believe it if there were a few similar reports from other 2.0 T owners (some did make similar claims earlier in this thread) .

As I've said, my MK II is a 2.0 T, not a 3.2 and I'm not sure how accurate the DIS is ?


----------



## Mysterio (Jan 20, 2006)

nearly 42mpg in a 2.0 is amazing if it's the case.


----------



## misterC2007 (Jan 17, 2007)

Thanks,

I'm pretty surprised myself .. type of journey I have to work must be a factor (little congestion, most of journey beween 40 - 75 mph). Like I say, I'm not hammering it.


----------



## bootha2 (Oct 9, 2006)

As I said in an earlier post, it is easy to get over 40mpg out of the 2.0T if you drive carefully. I have been getting low 40's mpg driving 50 miles to work along the M6 and M42 at a steady 65mph (too much traffic to go any faster)
I have had 45mpg on the DIS on a 130 mile trip back from Manchester doing 60mph due to a puncture temp repair.
My DIS over states by about 5% as I have been calculating the miles versus actual litres used with a good old calculator.
I can easily get 25mpg if I put my foot down big style but it always seems to come back to low 30's on combined driving including giving it a fair bit of welly


----------



## valleyboy (Apr 4, 2007)

Another tip for improved economy if you have the Stronic gearbox is not to use 'launch control' too often.

Whilst it is a novelty, you will quickly find yourself very well aquinted with your local filling station staff, and will probably end up paying to send their kids through college.....


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

Mysterio said:


> nearly 42mpg in a 2.0 is amazing if it's the case.


I dunno why, I've managed 48mpg on one journey in my 2.0; then again I was /trying/, and I didn't go above 55mph.

It helps that I have all the electornic cr4p turned off (aircon hurts to the tune of 2mpg, according to what I've worked out), and that I had cruise control on and was driving along a flat road (a coastline in fact : can't get much flatter than something beside a body of water).

I've got smaller wheels than most (the standard ones), which means less aero resistance (they are narrower) and lower rolling resistance - my car's always empty of stuff (less weight=less rolling resistance). Once you're actually in top gear, I recon the manual 'box has less friction than the s-tronic (mine's a manual) - less rotating gubbins (no second shaft to spin).

The 2.0 TT FSI starts to get on boost at about 1800rpm; if you keep it around there it's pretty economical. The 2.0 does about [email protected] in 6th; 6000rpm is about 150mph, aka top whack.

By the way, the lowest mpg I've had in the same car is ~18mpg average on a 50 mile journey; just to prove I don't always drive like miss Daisy is in the back seat. The instantaneous DIS display was showing 4.8mpg at one point...

C


----------



## seniorjj (Mar 30, 2007)

I find that cruise control really helps mpg (hence why I specced it), as you use just the right amount of fuel on a motorway. On my current car I once managed 2mpg *above* the official quoted ex-urban figure (I was cruising at 55 for a while!)

Another point on economy of s-tronic vs manual. I'm aware that the quoted figures are more economic on the s-tronic, but one of the things I like to do is (probably illegally) disengage gears and "coast" before junctions, before re-engaging and braking. I expect this will help economy and is impossible to do on the s-tronic.


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

seniorjj said:


> I find that cruise control really helps mpg (hence why I specced it), as you use just the right amount of fuel on a motorway. On my current car I once managed 2mpg *above* the official quoted ex-urban figure (I was cruising at 55 for a while!)
> 
> Another point on economy of s-tronic vs manual. I'm aware that the quoted figures are more economic on the s-tronic, but one of the things I like to do is (probably illegally) disengage gears and "coast" before junctions, before re-engaging and braking. I expect this will help economy and is impossible to do on the s-tronic.


That actually raises the consumption as coasting requires fuel to be fed to the engine in order to keep it idling - whereas if you coast up to a junction in a high gear the energy of the car gets used instead, and the car can use less petrol.

C


----------



## seniorjj (Mar 30, 2007)

CraigyTT said:


> seniorjj said:
> 
> 
> > I find that cruise control really helps mpg (hence why I specced it), as you use just the right amount of fuel on a motorway. On my current car I once managed 2mpg *above* the official quoted ex-urban figure (I was cruising at 55 for a while!)
> ...


I disagree (slightly) - I know that when it is in gear you use 0 petrol vs when it is idling, but if you keep it in gear there is significantly more "drag" and "pull" on the car which means you can't coast for very long and car slows down too quickly, overall meaning you use less petrol when you disengage + re-engage. I therefore coast until I realise that I can then re-engage without it being too early (ie needing more gas to get to the stopping point). I thus get the benefits of both- coasting (idling requirement petrol) + slowing down in 6th gear (0 petrol). When you disengage the gear the car can coast for ages and ages without needing any gas (my record is 2.5 miles down the hill into Bath- my mpg went up by about 2-3 on this stretch alone, even after a 130 mile trip), and I can get at least a good 0.5 miles coasting on a normal run in. It's a strange habit, something I adopted on my first 106. It's all very sad really.


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

seniorjj said:


> I disagree (slightly) - I know that when it is in gear you use 0 petrol vs when it is idling, but if you keep it in gear there is significantly more "drag" and "pull" on the car which means you can't coast for very long and car slows down too quickly, overall meaning you use less petrol when you disengage + re-engage. I therefore coast until I realise that I can then re-engage without it being too early (ie needing more gas to get to the stopping point). I thus get the benefits of both- coasting (idling requirement petrol) + slowing down in 6th gear (0 petrol). When you disengage the gear the car can coast for ages and ages without needing any gas (my record is 2.5 miles down the hill into Bath- my mpg went up by about 2-3 on this stretch alone, even after a 130 mile trip), and I can get at least a good 0.5 miles coasting on a normal run in. It's a strange habit, something I adopted on my first 106. It's all very sad really.


It's a shame the engine can't be stopped while you're coasting. That would be the best of both (incidentally, it's what some BMWs do now).

C


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

seniorjj said:


> Another point on economy of s-tronic vs manual. I'm aware that the quoted figures are more economic on the s-tronic, but one of the things I like to do is (probably illegally) disengage gears and "coast" before junctions, before re-engaging and braking. I expect this will help economy and is impossible to do on the s-tronic.


I dislike nitpicking but it's easy to coast using the s-tronic - just select N (neutral) and away you go :wink:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Would it appear flippant if I said I don't give a Rat's Arse about MPG?


----------



## seniorjj (Mar 30, 2007)

exodont said:


> seniorjj said:
> 
> 
> > Another point on economy of s-tronic vs manual. I'm aware that the quoted figures are more economic on the s-tronic, but one of the things I like to do is (probably illegally) disengage gears and "coast" before junctions, before re-engaging and braking. I expect this will help economy and is impossible to do on the s-tronic.
> ...


I stand corrected! Didn't know you could change the N mid flow- never used an auto.

Indeed it would be good as well if the engine could be switched off altogether during coasting, but it wouldn't make a massive difference overall.

And yes I am a bit of a loser to care about mpg, but at least it keeps me happy. When I first started driving (and was extremely poor) I drove everywhere at 56 mph, and coasted everywhere (and subsequently had everyone at work take the p*ss regularly) :lol:


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

John C said:


> Would it appear flippant if I said I don't give a Rat's Arse about MPG?


If I was that bothered I would have bough the girly little engine version :wink:


----------



## seniorjj (Mar 30, 2007)

wallsendmag said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > Would it appear flippant if I said I don't give a Rat's Arse about MPG?
> ...


Yeah, but we'll be *rich* people with girly little engine versions! :wink:


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

John C said:


> Would it appear flippant if I said I don't give a Rat's Arse about MPG?


Might you start to care the next time there's a fuel shortage/blockade :?:

I don't really care either - except for situations like that. I certainly don't drive about looking at the instant MPG all the time.

I still want to know what the car can do though - so on the way back home from karting today I had a go at getting the best mileage possible. The track is 33.5 miles from home, and the journey from there to here is a mix of country roads, motorway and urban.

I turned off ESP, the aircon was set to "off" and the lights etc were all off (it was daytime). In other words, the car was running about as economically as it can. I draw the line at folding in the mirrors for lower drag :lol:

It had a just under a full tank of fuel (bad - as it's heavy), but it only had me in it, and a small amount (<10Kg) of luggage.

My car has the (UK standard) 17" wheels. They are 225's so have a smaller frontal area than the optional wheel/tyres, being narrower. The wheels themselves are narrower, smaller and lighter. All good for economy.

I managed 57.8mpg total (according to DIS). My max speed was 50mph, and it was set to that on cruise control for most of the way.

This is heartening because I live on the south coast and my folks live in Scotland, so even if there's a problem I can still most likely get up there on one tank (the range of the car, driven economically, is over 650 miles).

Craigy


----------



## exodont (Sep 10, 2006)

Very interesting post Craigy... the best I managed on a long run was 51 mpg but I wasn't using such a stringent technique (60 mph max, air con + music). It shows that the 2.0 FSI is a superb engine, combining both power and economy brilliantly.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

CraigyTT said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > Would it appear flippant if I said I don't give a Rat's Arse about MPG?
> ...


No, I'd walk! :wink:



CraigyTT said:


> I managed 57.8mpg total (according to DIS). My max speed was 50mph, and it was set to that on cruise control for most of the way.


Seriously though interesting what you can get out of the engine when you try, glad you did the experiment. If it tried I'd make it 10 miles before my frustration took over and I gave it a bit of right foot.


----------



## AidenL (Nov 29, 2006)

21ish for me, range 280 miles


----------



## CraigyTT (Oct 19, 2006)

John C said:


> Seriously though interesting what you can get out of the engine when you try, glad you did the experiment. If it tried I'd make it 10 miles before my frustration took over and I gave it a bit of right foot.


There is usually that temptation for me as well - but I'd just had my fix of driving fast (I was coming back from Karting, see?). I always drive like Miss Daisy is in the back after I've been racing -- because if I drive "normally" then there's no distinction between "100% maximum attack" and "normal road speed" to me... better off playing it safe.

It'd be nice to have Audi/VW's engineering figures for this stuff because I recon they have much better info than the marketeers give out. For a start, they have ehra liessen to play on. It'd be nice to have a set of "economy cadence curves" for the car that show the mileage at steady state (+no wind) for all RPMs in each gear... but that /really/ is getting a bit silly.

The car was good today. Tomorrow I will reward it by revving its nuts off as usual.

>>PfÃ¼a Gott<<

C


----------



## Bryn (Feb 12, 2004)

Quite honestly I haven't got a clue what mine does - I just fill it up when it's empty!


----------



## Arne (Dec 13, 2006)

I have twice recently on longer trips (about 200-250 miles) on roads with only "medium" speed limits, managed 6.2 litres pr 100 km. That is 45.6 mpg 8)

But on average (more than 6.000km / 3.750 miles) the car has done 30.4 mpg since new - which includes a lot of heavy trafic city driving.

I think that is very good with a lot of cold starts in february and march(though I do have an oil heater thats helps), and with wide tires (245/40 *18 ).

Perhaps the remap helps, as long as I don't use the extra power al the time...?


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

seniorjj said:


> I disagree (slightly) - I know that when it is in gear you use 0 petrol vs when it is idling, but if you keep it in gear there is significantly more "drag" and "pull" on the car which means you can't coast for very long and car slows down too quickly, overall meaning you use less petrol when you disengage + re-engage. I therefore coast until I realise that I can then re-engage without it being too early (ie needing more gas to get to the stopping point). I thus get the benefits of both- coasting (idling requirement petrol) + slowing down in 6th gear (0 petrol). When you disengage the gear the car can coast for ages and ages without needing any gas (my record is 2.5 miles down the hill into Bath- my mpg went up by about 2-3 on this stretch alone, even after a 130 mile trip), and I can get at least a good 0.5 miles coasting on a normal run in. It's a strange habit, something I adopted on my first 106. It's all very sad really.


Out of interest, what speed do you drive at when "coasting", is there a queue of traffic stuck behind you?


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

I was running low on Saturday , DIS said I had 35 miles left in the tank, the only Shell garage (force of habit :roll: ) I knew of was 32 miles away. I drove ultra-cautiously and made it to the garage on fumes, I'm sure.

Anyway, having filled up with VPower (57 litres!) I got back into the car to see the DIS read 485 miles left!!! Is that a record in a MK2 3.2?!


----------

