2.0T fuel consumption
NEWS
 

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 29 of 29
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By PlaneCrazy
  • 1 Post By JerseyJeff

Thread: 2.0T fuel consumption

  1. #1
    3rd Gear
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    in another dementia
    Posts
    1,913

    2.0T fuel consumption

    So the very first trip I took in my 07 wagon was from Toronto, where I puchased it late last August, to Ottawa. In 402km I avereaged 6.4l/100km. Keep in mind, this was a 28C day, rolling on 16" summers, no one else in the car, no luggage, a full tank and of course, summer gas.

    This past weekend I went to Toronto for the weekend and on board were my fiance, my seven year old daughter and our two dogs (90lbs and 75lbs each), luggage, rolling on 17" snow tires using winter gas. Despite this, I averaged 6.8l/100km each way.

    I'm loving this car! It's also nice to fill the tank and see your range come up on the MFD as 900km. LOL

  2. Remove Advertisements
    VW Passat Forum
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    14
    Frugal AND fast... such a deal!!

    I'm doing a trial period with premium fuel just to see what happens. Better mileage, more spunk? Or, no difference except when I pay for it... This is seat-of-the-pants science, just to be clear.

  4. #3
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto,Canada
    Age
    27
    Posts
    148
    What do you mean by winter gas and summer gas?
    Unfortunately I don't get such numbers, my computer says 7.2L/100km as I drive in 80km/h speed limit going 90-100km/h, and 7.7L/100km as I drive on the highway with 100km/h speed limit but obviously I was doing around 120km/h

  5. #4
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by GhosT-86 View Post
    What do you mean by winter gas and summer gas?
    Unfortunately I don't get such numbers, my computer says 7.2L/100km as I drive in 80km/h speed limit going 90-100km/h, and 7.7L/100km as I drive on the highway with 100km/h speed limit but obviously I was doing around 120km/h
    The fuel manufacturers reformulate the gasoline chemical mix. Winter Gas contains less hydrocarbon variants and is cheaper and easier to refine. Summer gas is designed to reduce Smog during the hot summer months. It also has a chemical make up that resists expansion under high summer temperatures. This article has a great explanation and the more scientific details if you are interested. Oh and the summer blend is more expensive to make, hence the price hike for summer gas.

    http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/13/234043/431

  6. #5
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto,Canada
    Age
    27
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Plufis View Post
    Oh and the summer blend is more expensive to make, hence the price hike for summer gas.
    Honestly I didn't notice the price drop before the winter

  7. #6
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Burbank, CA
    Posts
    47
    I just took at trip from Los Angeles to Zion National Park. I had the cruise control set at 80mph the whole way and got 29.1mpg.

  8. #7
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto,Canada
    Age
    27
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott K View Post
    I just took at trip from Los Angeles to Zion National Park. I had the cruise control set at 80mph the whole way and got 29.1mpg.
    29.1 miles per gallon = 8.08297537 l per 100 km

    Is it what your computer was telling you or it's actual consumption?

  9. #8
    3rd Gear
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    in another dementia
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by GhosT-86 View Post
    Honestly I didn't notice the price drop before the winter
    No kidding, it just keeps going up. FWIW, on my old B5 V6, I noticed I got worse fuel consumption in the winter. Part of that is down to the colder temperatures and taking the car longer to get up to proper operating temp., part is due to the snow tires (more rolling resistance) but I think (and this is NOT scientific) the winter gas doesn't burn as efficiently as summer gas. Just a theory.

    I'm just amazed by the diff in fuel consumption on the 2.0T waggie vs my old 2.8V6 waggie.

  10. #9
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto,Canada
    Age
    27
    Posts
    148
    I absolutely agree as my previous car was 3.5L V6 Nissan Maxima and in that car I was lucky to get 500km in one tank which is the same size. In my B6 I easily get 600km with 90% city driving, and it's the first summer for this car with me behind the wheel so gonna see how it does

  11. #10
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    77
    I just drove form Columbus OH to Knoxville TN and I averaged 30.7 mpg, according to my mfd. Premium fuel. 93 oct

  12. #11
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto,Canada
    Age
    27
    Posts
    148
    I wonder how fuel might be different in States, here in Canada our premium is 91 oct

  13. #12
    3rd Gear
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    in another dementia
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by GhosT-86 View Post
    I wonder how fuel might be different in States, here in Canada our premium is 91 oct
    Not any more... Petro Canada now sells Ultra 94.

    http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fue...utmk=105514627

  14. #13
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto,Canada
    Age
    27
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratt View Post
    Not any more... Petro Canada now sells Ultra 94.

    http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fue...utmk=105514627
    I know what you are saying but I mean the word "premium" means different things in Canada and in US.
    I guess with ultra 94 oct your millage will suffer with no visible gain

  15. #14
    3rd Gear
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    in another dementia
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by GhosT-86 View Post
    I know what you are saying but I mean the word "premium" means different things in Canada and in US.
    I guess with ultra 94 oct your millage will suffer with no visible gain
    What do you mean 'milage will suffer with no visible gain'? I've only read what's on the PC site, but from what I understand, with a 2.0T engine, the higher the octane, the more efficient it is. If you get say 10% better economy with 91 over 89, you should get at least a 10% increase in efficiency with 94 over 91 (I have no idea, but in theory, it should work).

    Also, I haven't hit a PC station yet that sells 94 (only a handful in Ottawa) so not sure if the 94 is more expensive that 91 either. If it is, I'll stick to 91.

  16. #15
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kinnelon, NJ
    Posts
    64
    Interesting Thread. Does anyone have any suggestions or expierence concerning what speed to maintain on the highway to get the best MPG?
    Thanks

  17. #16
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto,Canada
    Age
    27
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by fruch View Post
    Interesting Thread. Does anyone have any suggestions or expierence concerning what speed to maintain on the highway to get the best MPG?
    Thanks
    In theory it's the speed at lowest rpms in last gear. As I mentioned earlier my on-board computer was showing an increase in fuel consumption when I accelerated from 90 km/h to 120 km/h

    Some people argue that the higher the octane number the more stable the fuel is, in other words when you put 87 instead of 91 it detonates faster than it should causing engine to knock, but in relation to millage a lot of engines desined to work on regular and recommend premium "for maximum performance" will get better MPG when there is regular gas in it.

  18. #17
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by GhosT-86 View Post
    Honestly I didn't notice the price drop before the winter
    Oh I agree, the rat bastards never do seem to lower the winter fuel price in conjunction with the cheaper fuel. They claim to but.....
    I guess just because its cheaper to make doesn't mean the will lower the price after all these are the same people who have no problem murdering the eco system in the gulf of Mexico for the chance to keep an oil well their faulty equipment damaged in the first place.

    As for fuel economy

    I find that 72 MPH in our car seems to get up about 31 MPG

  19. #18
    1st Gear
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Eastern Townships, Quebec
    Posts
    175
    I agree these things get pretty good highway consumption. At a steady 100 km/h in summer, I also see about 6.4-6.5 L/100 km and average overall 7.0.

    Trip average:



    Overall average:



    Range just 11.5 km after filling up:


  20. #19
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    89
    I love the metric system, i wish my ASS Backwards country would just accept that the world runs on metric and let the old American Standard system of measures just fall away into history.

  21. #20
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Burbank, CA
    Posts
    47
    That was the actual.

  22. #21
    1st Gear
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, NY
    Age
    29
    Posts
    366
    I dont know if I would use anything below 91 grade on a turbocharged engine.

  23. #22
    1st Gear
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Eastern Townships, Quebec
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by SickTRed08FSI View Post
    I dont know if I would use anything below 91 grade on a turbocharged engine.
    You can, the engine computer will automatically retard the timing to prevent detonation. But as a result you'll suffer a performance loss, and if you live in hilly country like I do it will be quite noticeable. But if you always drive gently on flat highways it won't make much difference.
    Schmoo likes this.

  24. #23
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by GhosT-86 View Post
    29.1 miles per gallon = 8.08297537 l per 100 km

    Is it what your computer was telling you or it's actual consumption?
    Just did a 500 mile trip on mixed interstate and two-lanes. Calculated from actual consumption: 28.7. From the MFD: 28.7. I'm pleasantly surprised that it's so accurate.
    Schmoo likes this.

  25. #24
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    8
    I recently just made the trip in my b6 2.0T from San Antonio, Tx all the way up to Milwaukee, WI (approx 1200 miles). I averaged 34 miles to the gallon with cruise control set at 66 mph. Car is still getting 25-27 mpg in the city.

  26. #25
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    8
    That was also using 93 octane Shell V Power Gasoline for the whole trip. I have also only used Shell V Power ever since I purchased the vehicle

  27. #26
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    98
    Wow Planecrazy, I just converted your range of 1060 km to miles and its 658 miles! I just recently filled my tank up and it read 500 miles for the range! You must really be driving conservative to get such a high range! I know when i first picked my car up from buying it it said 435 miles and by the time i got home it said 445, so i know it varies buy the way you drive but 658! how im i suppose to find the extra 158 miles of range your getting?

  28. #27
    3rd Gear
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    in another dementia
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by e10rice View Post
    Wow Planecrazy, I just converted your range of 1060 km to miles and its 658 miles! I just recently filled my tank up and it read 500 miles for the range! You must really be driving conservative to get such a high range! I know when i first picked my car up from buying it it said 435 miles and by the time i got home it said 445, so i know it varies buy the way you drive but 658! how im i suppose to find the extra 158 miles of range your getting?
    WHen driving at a steady 100km/hr with a full tank, my car routinely tells me my range is in the 900km range. Have yet to see it over 1000km, though.

    One thing's for sure... the Passat 2.0T with a manual (no auto experience) is a miserly car for its size.

  29. #28
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    123
    I find fuel economy to be highly dependent on speed. Note that the passat speedometer is typically 3 mph high which may equate to about 3% difference in mpg.

  30. #29
    Neutral
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sevilla (espaƱa)
    Posts
    9
    my passat 2.0 TDI-DSG today, its consumption is 5.8 l/100km, with a full tank about 1150 km makes me a speed of 120-130km / h

  31. Remove Advertisements
    VW Passat Forum
    Advertisements
     

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2