# Fuel consumption - beat this!



## Xiano (Mar 18, 2016)

As I was driving the other day, I took a look and my fuel consumption and was shocked to see that I had gone above 50mpg! Although I was on the motorway, I wasn't deliberately trying to be economical, and as you can see, I was even driving in dynamic mode! I'm wondering if anyone else has ever gone above 50mpg, and what the 'forum record' might be for fuel consumption? FYI I drive a 1.8 TFSI


----------



## ttsser (Feb 27, 2017)

:lol: Haven't got mine above 25 yet!


----------



## Macauley (May 31, 2017)

Nice. What do you normally get?


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, How long did 51.6 mpg last, very few miles if any, I bet.
Hoggy.


----------



## Xiano (Mar 18, 2016)

Macauley said:


> Nice. What do you normally get?


On the motorway with a warm engine doing between 100-130kph I normally get around 45mpg



Hoggy said:


> Hi, How long did 51.6 mpg last, very few miles if any, I bet.
> Hoggy.


Not sure, but I have a feeling I drove for another 10 mins or so, and it was still just above 50mpg when I got home


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

I hit 50.9 mpg last week on a 12 mile run - from cold (I didn't reset the counter once it had warmed up).
TBH it wasn't my fault :lol: , its not like I was even thinking about it. Just a long clear road stuck at 30 mph cos of all the speed cameras and then doing about 45 mpg in slow traffic in the 50 mph limit on the motorway. And then I noticed the mpg.
Dropped down to 48+ once off the motorway with traffic lights etc.


----------



## nickyr (Mar 9, 2016)

Best I achieved was an indicated 50.7 mpg following a 220 mile drive from my home in Swansea to my sister's in Kent.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

50mpg on a 200 miles trip, very good. Is that a 2.0L you have by the looks of your red line? 
Or a 1.8. by the looks of your consumption graphic?


----------



## nickyr (Mar 9, 2016)

it's a 1.8


----------



## daddow (Jan 1, 2017)

nickyr said:


> Best I achieved was an indicated 50.7 mpg following a 220 mile drive from my home in Swansea to my sister's in Kent.


From my recollection it's uphill from Swansea to Bristol making this mpg exceptional.
That twice my TTs is likely to achieve.
Is this a similar engine to my wife's A1 185 bhp that switches off 2 cylinders whilst cruising?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Beat - WTF 
Thats a fail, beat 15MPG!


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

I think I have beaten that before. On M1 through a 50mph zone I reset and it was coming just under 52mpg. Also a 1.8


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

The 1.8 mk3 I had as a loaner when my TTS was in for a service at Cambridge Audi hit 48mpg on my drive to work with it, which is about what I'd expect from that car. Not bad considering I had to rag it a few times, given it's mediocre performance. So, if I drove it like a nun, I guess 50mpg would be very easy to achieve.

My TTS must be different from all others, as it averages 34 to 37 on my daily commute of 28 miles, mix of A roads and plodding through villages. 22k miles on the clock and the long term average is at 33. 38 to 41 is possible if you're not driving in traffic or at higher m/way speeds... I only get into the 20's if I rag the crap out of it.


----------



## ttsser (Feb 27, 2017)

Mark Pred said:


> I only get into the 20's if I rag the crap out of it.


Thats why I chose a TTS!


----------



## Xiano (Mar 18, 2016)

TTimi said:


> I think I have beaten that before. On M1 through a 50mph zone I reset and it was coming just under 52mpg. Also a 1.8


Resetting is cheating TTimi. It needs to be average for the whole journey! Plus, look at my photo - I'd say 51.6 counts as being "just under 52mpg"


----------



## TTimi (Jan 26, 2016)

Xiano said:


> TTimi said:
> 
> 
> > I think I have beaten that before. On M1 through a 50mph zone I reset and it was coming just under 52mpg. Also a 1.8
> ...


Haha. I suppose you're right in saying that. for the performance, the 1.8 is really economical!


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

According to Audi's figures the fuel economy of the 2.0 TFSI is virtually the same as the 1.8. So I presume the 2.0 can achieve similar mpg.


----------



## Omychron (Sep 9, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> According to Audi's figures the fuel economy of the 2.0 TFSI is virtually the same as the 1.8. So I presume the 2.0 can achieve similar mpg.


I believe the quotes are a bit optimistic for the 2.0, 1.8 seems to get significantly better mileage in real life.
At least that's what the numbers posted on this forum seem to indicate.
I have yet to see someone achieve 50mpg on a long trip with a 2.0!


----------



## ttsser (Feb 27, 2017)

I think owners of the 2.0 are more likely to be heavy footed than 1.8 owners and less concerned about mpg anyway???

If you drove them identically I expect the figures would be almost identical also. But why buy a 2.0 to drive at the same speed as a 1.8?


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

ZephyR2 said:


> According to Audi's figures the fuel economy of the 2.0 TFSI is virtually the same as the 1.8. So I presume the 2.0 can achieve similar mpg.


They will be the same in real life.


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

ttsser said:


> I think owners of the 2.0 are more likely to be heavy footed than 1.8 owners and less concerned about mpg anyway???
> 
> No.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

I think there may be some truth in what you say about 2.0 drivers vs 1.8 ttser although I normally drive my 1.8 as fast as road conditions / speed cameras will allow. 
If I check my mpg it's out of curiosity rather than concern 
The 50.9 mpg I got last week wasn't my fault . I was stuck on a clear road with lots of 30 mph cameras and then 45 mph heavy traffic on a 50 mph restricted motorway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ttsser (Feb 27, 2017)

4433allanr said:


> ttsser said:
> 
> 
> > I think owners of the 2.0 are more likely to be heavy footed than 1.8 owners and less concerned about mpg anyway???
> ...


If you floor a 2.0 it will drink a load more than if you floor a 1.8, no question.

If one was concerned about economy, they would purchase the more economical car? You can't say no to this comment, as each to their own. I am sure there are some on either side of the fence, but if you purchase a more powerful car you are probably not doing so with economy in mind. I chose a TTS because power is far more important to me than economy.


----------



## ttsser (Feb 27, 2017)

ZephyR2 said:


> I think there may be some truth in what you say about 2.0 drivers vs 1.8 ttser although I normally drive my 1.8 as fast as road conditions / speed cameras will allow.


Good man! And I geuss you would agree that if you did the same in a 2.0, your overall economy would go down!


----------



## 4433allanr (Mar 11, 2016)

As you said, each to their own.


----------



## Rumney (Feb 7, 2017)

Let's be honest - TDI, 1.8, 2.0, TTS, TTRS, Auto, Manual, Coupe, Roadster, Sport, Sline, Black etc.......... it all comes down to personal requirements and BUDGET (purchase and running).

I chose a 2.0 Sline manual Roadster because it met my requirements and met my budget. The TDI or 1.8 - not so much for me personally as, whilst being within my budget, they didn't quite meet my personal requirements.

Would I have chosen a TTS or TTRS (which both exceed my requirements) if I had the budget and was prepared to spend more - absolutely YES. Would I have bought a Ferrari (which also exceeds my requirements) and not a TT if I had the budget and was prepared to spend more - absolutely YES.

We all have a finite amount that we can or are prepared to spend on these great cars - you pays your money and you makes you choice


----------



## Macauley (May 31, 2017)

Rumney said:


> Let's be honest - TDI, 1.8, 2.0, TTS, TTRS, Auto, Manual, Coupe, Roadster, Sport, Sline, Black etc.......... it all comes down to personal requirements and BUDGET (purchase and running).
> 
> I chose a 2.0 Sline manual Roadster because it met my requirements and met my budget. The TDI or 1.8 - not so much for me personally as, whilst being within my budget, they didn't quite meet my personal requirements.
> 
> ...


Well said. Regardless of what spec we all have, the TT is a brilliant car.


----------



## minsTTerman (Aug 5, 2003)

> I believe the quotes are a bit optimistic for the 2.0, 1.8 seems to get significantly better mileage in real life.
> At least that's what the numbers posted on this forum seem to indicate.
> I have yet to see someone achieve 50mpg on a long trip with a 2.0!


I've done a couple of long-ish motorway trips at a steady 70mph and got over 50mpg.

Last year a trip to Oxford from Yorkshire and I got 51.2mpg over around 180 miles and earlier this year down to London area got a similar figure on a trip of around 220 miles. This is at a steady 70mph (with a bit of M1 50mph roadworks thrown in).

On my regular commute (approx 25 miles 50% stop/start town driving and 50% 50-60mph country roads) I can easily get 45+mpg if I take it steady. If I don't take it steady and do the back roads which are nice n twisty I can also get 22mpg


----------



## Omychron (Sep 9, 2016)

minsTTerman said:


> > I believe the quotes are a bit optimistic for the 2.0, 1.8 seems to get significantly better mileage in real life.
> > At least that's what the numbers posted on this forum seem to indicate.
> > I have yet to see someone achieve 50mpg on a long trip with a 2.0!
> 
> ...


45 I can do.
I have never managed to get 50. Not even doing 90kph on cruise control will give me that, not on short trips, not on long.
I don't understand how people get these figures with the 2.0...
You guys drive 40mph in a truck's slipstream or something?


----------



## jonp (Mar 26, 2016)

i got 67.4 mpg but mine is a diesel


----------



## Xiano (Mar 18, 2016)

jonp said:


> i got 67.4 mpg but mine is a diesel


Nice! I'd also love the day when I fill up my tank and see 600+ miles indicated on the fuel gauge :lol:


----------

