Stupid MPG Question.

[Zookoo25]

Reading this thread with a lot of interest. I have a 2.5l auto and am getting nowhere near any of these numbers... In built up areas it's as low as 18-19mpg and on the motorway I can get it to about 30mpg... Average combined as read by the car is 26mpg over the last 1000 miles (also my first 1000 miles only had it a month).

Anyway, is the 3.0 really that much more fuel efficient than the 2.5?

R

 

[Montjeu]

Reading this thread with a lot of interest. I have a 2.5l auto and am getting nowhere near any of these numbers... In built up areas it's as low as 18-19mpg and on the motorway I can get it to about 30mpg... Average combined as read by the car is 26mpg over the last 1000 miles (also my first 1000 miles only had it a month).

Anyway, is the 3.0 really that much more fuel efficient than the 2.5?

R

-
Similar story on my 2.5Si manual. Had some m way on my commute, averaged 25-26. Moved jobs now commute is largely in traffic with a fair bit of inching. Average now 18-19.

 

[jimbo1958]

In my 4 years of ownership I've always averaged 24mpg around town in my 3.0 SMG.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Zeld4]

Just as a comparison.my friend has a 2.5 and he averages about 27 mpg on mainly A and B roads driven normally..
I have a 3.0 and average 32mpg ..

This was the main reason I got a 3.0 more power and better economy.. Which really annoys my friend.

So the 3.0 gives better fuel economy then the 2.5l auto???

Hard to believe but you guys know your stuff!

The 3.0si engine is more economical than the 2.5i but probably not the 2.5si.

 

[GreyZed]

2003 3.0i auto.

Long steady runs at 60 - 70mph 35 - 38mpg on the computer.
Short commutes stop start driving (10 miles) rarely above 40mph I can get 28 - 30mpg if I drive like I have a broken ankle.

If I use the loud pedal as an on/off switch on my commutes it still doesn't go below 25 - 26mpg. So I've given up driving it like a fanny and just give it some all the time.

However you need to remember the computer will likely be somewhat over optimistic in its assessment of mpg achieved. :driving:

 

[DR-Z]

However you need to remember the computer will likely be somewhat over optimistic in its assessment of mpg achieved. :driving:

Even if you calculate consumption yourself, you're still using the car's estimation of miles travelled, and reliant on its accuracy.

 

[Bayley]

Just as a comparison.my friend has a 2.5 and he averages about 27 mpg on mainly A and B roads driven normally..
I have a 3.0 and average 32mpg ..

This was the main reason I got a 3.0 more power and better economy.. Which really annoys my friend.

So the 3.0 gives better fuel economy then the 2.5l auto???

Hard to believe but you guys know your stuff!

The 3.0si engine is more economical than the 2.5i but probably not the 2.5si.

Interesting!

 

[buzyg]

Thanks for all the advice, very much appreciated.

I suppose I have an ounce of trepidation about larger engined cars, I brought my mk2 tt 3.2 on a whim and suffered majorly on the fuel running costs (<20mpg).

Not because I couldn't afford to run it, rather I'm just a tight git! :roll:

:rofl:

+1

Maybe you should try the 3.2 in the Zed. Both considerably quicker and a little more economical than the one in your old Audi. :wink:

 

[Bayley]

Guess I'll be looking for a 3.0L then now...

 

[Jetset Ron]

In my 2003 2.5i (5 speed), on my 130 mile commute to work (30 miles B roads, 35 miles A roads, 65 miles motorway), I get 36-37mpg if I sit just over speed limits with an occasional spirited blast and 38-40mpg if I drive like the pope.

All trip computer indicated. I think a 6th gear would really make a difference.

 

[horseofwar]

Thanks for all the advice, very much appreciated.

I suppose I have an ounce of trepidation about larger engined cars, I brought my mk2 tt 3.2 on a whim and suffered majorly on the fuel running costs (<20mpg).

Not because I couldn't afford to run it, rather I'm just a tight git! :roll:

3.0 Z4 fuel economy is better than 3.2 TT. I've had both in the last few years and using them daily on same work commute I averaged 27 mpg in TT (DSG gearbox) vs 31 mpg in 3.0 manual Z4.

Quick man maths suggests ca 20% better economy.

PS sub 20 mpg in TT!? Do you wear lead boots lol?

*EDIT* my commute is 20 miles each way, 2-3 miles city centre traffic (kills large engine fuel economy) rest is busy but flowing A-road (50-60 mph)

 

[Bayley]

Thanks for all the advice, very much appreciated.

I suppose I have an ounce of trepidation about larger engined cars, I brought my mk2 tt 3.2 on a whim and suffered majorly on the fuel running costs (<20mpg).

Not because I couldn't afford to run it, rather I'm just a tight git! :roll:

PS sub 20 mpg in TT!? Do you wear lead boots lol?

Short answer = I Found the sound sexual?

 

[lotus791]

Average per tank for me is 32ish .... And I'm not very nice to it

I really feel quilty it's not less !

 

[Bayley]

Average per tank for me is 32ish .... And I'm not very nice to it

I really feel quilty it's not less !

So it seems that alot of people can agree this is a pretty much sublime engine in terms or economy + ponies!

 

[MrPT]

Reading this thread with a lot of interest. I have a 2.5l auto and am getting nowhere near any of these numbers... In built up areas it's as low as 18-19mpg and on the motorway I can get it to about 30mpg... Average combined as read by the car is 26mpg over the last 1000 miles (also my first 1000 miles only had it a month).

Anyway, is the 3.0 really that much more fuel efficient than the 2.5?

R

-
Similar story on my 2.5Si manual. Had some m way on my commute, averaged 25-26. Moved jobs now commute is largely in traffic with a fair bit of inching. Average now 18-19.

I get about the same mpg in my 2.5si as the 3.0si's in this thread. 22mpg on a hoon, 32mpg in mixed driving and about 40mpg at a constant 70mph.

 

[SideExit]

I can believe the 3.0 can be more economical due to increased torque levels.

The key however is driving style. On my daily driver (VW CC 2.0 tdi) I normally average about 53 - 57 on steady long runs. However a bit of effort a few weeks ago saw 68! Driving like Miss Daisey and didn't get over 2k revs, but kept up with traffic at legal limits.

Maybe people with 2.5s accelerate that little bit harder?

 

[Bing]

Short answer = I Found the sound sexual?

In which case you should consider an M - coaxed gently it's like soft candles, champagne and satin sheets with Mila Kunis... Floor it and it's like nasty sex with Ke$ha in a back alley on class A's :evil:

I think buzyg has grown a little bit out of the inner child I have discovered - I get 23/24 on my regular commute (24 miles motorway, 10 miles London roads), but got 28.5 on a 140+ mile trip cruising mostly at 80/85 and a few miles of M25 roadworks. If I'd stayed at 70 and had no fecking about with 50 limits I'm sure it would have been higher. Mine also drinks only Shell V power though, so the miles are a touch more expensive...