FAO VAG 1.8T engine owners - what MPG are you getting?

Around town means around town, not constantly stuck in traffic like I think it means for a good few of you.

Around town for me is a combination of short journeys of around 3 miles, stood in traffic some of the time, and a few 6 or 7 mile drives on urban roads.

The lowest I have seen with both the 1.8 TSi and the 1.8 20 VT is around 26 mpg, with the sort of driving I do.

This will depend greatly on where you live.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember reading "I'm selling my MK1 vRS for something more economical" threads on Briskoda, my reply was to drive it more carefully (however it is painful to do so)

The 1.8 20VT is still one of the most economical engines I have ever had, but you have to be so light on the throttle.

I don't think many (any?) cars give good MPG chugging along in traffic at 10 MPH, constantly stopping etc.
 
ive been thinking...

fill my tank, do the normal day to day driving and see how many miles i do

then, make a few alterations, run a tiny amount of boost (<5psi ish) add extra ignition, lean it out a bit and then run another full tank

it would obviously defy the whole point of having a 1.8t, but it would be an interesting extercise to see how economical you could make it with a few tweaks.
 
I had a passat 1.8 (non turbo) 20v and it would do 25-30. im quite surprised at some of the 40+ figures some people have claimed even if it is in a lighter car.
 
My wife had a 1.8T cupra returning around 28-29 mpg, about 32-35 on a motorway run.

I had a chipped 1.8T returning around 27mpg and about 32 max on a run. (now replaced the missus old one!)
 
p1RATE said:
I had a passat 1.8 (non turbo) 20v and it would do 25-30. im quite surprised at some of the 40+ figures some people have claimed even if it is in a lighter car.
Click to expand...

A turbo charged engine is more efficient than a normally aspirated one.

I takes willpower but if you drive a modern turbo engine carefully they will give better MPG than the NA version.

(conmment above applies to mainsteam cars and not high performance models such as Imprezas and Evos etc).
 
Just going off what the car tells me but...

Mid 20's around town
High 30's/Low 40's on main roads

Improved a tad now I've had Cruise Control fitted :)
 
Over the last few thousand miles of a mostly back roads and town driving with a few good thrashes a week mine has averaged at 28MPG.

2001 S3 with Stage 1 map.
 
180bhp TT. The commute is 30Mpg, which is normally all it ever does. Nice 5.30am Cold start, and then across town for 3 miles, then speed along between 40 and 70+ for another 7. The return journey is much more stop-start , especially the town bit.

When I do take it on longer runs, the MPG quickly climbs to 31+, which gets me all excited... Maybe one day I'll do a 400+ mile trip and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
SkodaMart said:
A turbo charged engine is more efficient than a normally aspirated one.

I takes willpower but if you drive a modern turbo engine carefully they will give better MPG than the NA version.
Click to expand...

This is not really true though, is it? Well it is - but not in the way you think.

A 200bhp Turbocharged 4 cylinder petrol engine will be more economical than a traditional 200bhp 6 cylinder N/A petrol engine. This is what is meant when people say turbocharging is more efficient - it's not the turbo that delivers mpg gains, it's the smaller capacity of the engine, and the turbo allows the smaller capacity whilst retaining similar power levels.

But thats not what the guy you replied to was saying - he said he had a Passat 1.8 20v without turbo. This would presumably be more efficient than the same engine with a turbo bolted to it.

Edit: And I thinK I've just disproved my entire argument by discovering that the Passat 1.8 20vT has a better combined economy figure than a 1.8 20v. Hmmm :p
 
Last edited:
Actual figures for my Octavia vRS (with a large downpipe and jabba remap, so 220ish bhp):

23 mpg over the course of a tank having some fun most journeys.
27 mpg over the course of a tank driving as efficiently as possible.

This is a mixture of B roads and city / traffic.
 
It wasn't quite as bad as that usually, I think most of the time it was about 18-20mpg

I once got 36mpg but it was the most boring drive of my life.

 
[TW]Fox;23263498 said:
Edit: And I thinK I've just disproved my entire argument by discovering that the Passat 1.8 20vT has a better combined economy figure than a 1.8 20v. Hmmm :p
Click to expand...

Forced induction is always going to be more efficient that a normally aspirated engine.
The perfect example of this is a comparison of a turbo diesel vs a non-turbo diesel. The turbo version is not only more powerful but it is usually more economical too.
You can't 'have your cake and eat it' however, nail the throttle in a turbo charged anything and you will pay for it at the pump.
I will also depend on how the engine is 'tuned' as I previously mentioned Evos and Imprezas are true performance cars and are tuned as such.

The VAG 1.8 20VT in 180 bhp form anyhow, is more like the SAAB low pressure turbos.
If driven carefully (and I mean a whisper of throttle) it is more economical than ANY petrol engine I have owned including 1.0 litre minis and a Fiesta 950.

Edit: I should just point out I have never owned a 'modern' small petrol engined car. Smallest other than the relics listed above has been 1.6 litre Golfs.

btw. 10 out of 10 for honesty Fox ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the wife managed an average of 21mpg combined regularly with her old LCR,

although the same woman somehow manages to only get 35mpg out a 1.8tdci focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom