Diesel Consumption 110bhp

[Guest ajaycad]

Hi all,

Just returned from a rather nice week touring West Sussex with the wife and kids. I was a bit dissapointed with the economy of my Mk1 110 diesel. A mix of motorway, A road and the odd village/town returned about 42 mpg. I wasn't "hoofing" it either, so what have everyone else been getting from a Mk1 TDi 110.

[seatkid]

:D

[big_kev]

42 mpg is about right, remember that the Galaxy is a lot heavier than a normal car.

[steelblue ghia]

Ive just filled our mk1 110 tdi up today,it had done 587 miles on a tank full and by my calculations had returned just a fraction below 42 mpg,again this was a mixture of mway/town driving,I thought it was good for the size of the car.

[Guest NIGEL15]

I have just come back off holiday with our Sharan 110 1998 and checked the mpg a couple of times while we were away.

 

Towing a 20 foot caravan and carrying 2 adults, 3 children and enough of everything inc. kitchen sink to last for 2 weeks the car did 32 mpg.

 

Having left the caravan etc. pitched on site we covered another 400 odd miles during the holiday around the Yorkshire area doing mixed driving and returned 42.6 mpg.

 

I havn't had this car long but I have to say that I am chuffed to bits with it.

 

What more could you ask of a car this size, incidentaly it stormed past other cars towing caravans on hills with no problem at all.

[JONESERIC]

Hi we have a 1997 90PS Sharan with a chipped ECU, average mpg 55mpg, on a run using motorways speeds etc easily 50mpg. Our 53 130 PS Galaxy (again chipped gives 55 on normal roads and on a long run 45-55. I have on a number of occasions got the Sharan upto 63 mpg on a 35mile trip, :) really glad no one was behind.

 

Eric

[Guest ajaycad]

Eric, Do you think that its the fact that the chipped ECU is giving you such good economy, or is the 90bhp more frugal than the 110 (i doubt it) What are your figures prior to the modified ECU, if you know them? This was the first long trip we have done in our Galaxy as I have only owned it 6 weeks, and I was expecting more mpg from it. By the way, where did you get the chip from?

[Guest MATT]

NIGEL15: mine is a 115ps Automatic MKII, and i get 28 - 29 mpg towing a 1,300KG caravan, with again half the house in appliances and clothes. again, have no trouble on the hills, gives me chance to over take everybody, and to make them feel what a crap car they've bought, and that they should of got a shalaxie - lol. i get 42mpg solo.

 

i am very pleased with these figures, as it is an automatic.

 

MATT

[wjfe]

Recent trip to Tuscany i was getting 48mpg on the motorways. (2004 110bhp tdi Galaxy). I think thats the best fuel consumption i've ever had in a car....

 

Bill

[JONESERIC]

Hi in answer to AJACAD, our Sharan has done 140k, over the years I have conducted n number of studies. The chip fitted to our Sharan modifies the fuel map, moving peak torque lower down the rpm range. Boadley this allows an earlier gear change. My wife still cannot get used to it and records fuel consumption some 10% more than me. The tunning box fitted to my car does notchange the ECU inputs to the Fuel Computer. The MPG calulation is based on miles travelled verses fuel used, the ECU calculates fuel used from the intensity and duration of the injection cycle, therefore actual fuel usage data is used for the calculation.

 

Regrds

 

Eric

[seatkid]

Ha! Certain tuning boxes increases fueling, unknown to the ECU. Therefore the reported consumption by a fuel computer is wrong and reads LOW. The only way to check consumption in this case is by hand calculation.

 

No wonder all these people report improved mpg and performance.. .. :lol:

[Guest MATT]

In my opinion, most computers (especially car computers) tell you a load of rubbish, and the best way to calculate your mpg, is by how many precious litres you have to put in to fill the tank. i then divide the number of litres by 4.5 to give me the gallons, then divide the number of miles travelled by the gallons. simple really.

 

MATT

[Andrew T]

Not accurate, but consistantly inaccurate. Mine shows about 5% better MPG than the figure calculated manually.

[Guest MATT]

well that sounds about right - they lie i tell you.

 

MATT

[JONESERIC]

Matt is write, the only way to measure mpg is by how much goes in the tank. I have tested my car over 8 years, and my fiqures consistantly show there is a difference in MPG between box fitted box removed, in my case the facts speak for themselves. The reason why the tuning box gives this increase is because it invites a change in driving style caused by change to the fueling map. The ECU calculates fuel consumption by measuring the duration and quanity of fuel used by each injector.

 

A word of caution a friend of mine bought a "tuning chip" on e-bay for

[VeeDub Nutter]

I also have a TuningBox fitted to my Sharan 110 tdii.

It does make an incredible difference to the way the engine performs, but the manufacturer makes NO claims of increased fuel economy.

My car averages approx 41MPG regardless of whether the box is fitted or not.

(I'd never take it off though, dont want to spoil the fun.)

I also only manually calculate my consumption figures using the same method as MATT.

:D :lol: :D

[Guest greenfly]

Been away on hols, probably around 1500 miles, and (as always) out 110 returns 35mpg for a steady 80/85 mph motorway. I was always real happy with that (not least cos the last Gal we had was a 2.0 petrol) - but this posting has got me wondering what's wrong!

[Guest jus]

The computer readout on my 2003 tdi is accurate to within 1-2 %. Checked several times against fuel going into the tank. The readout on my previous car, a saab, was 15-20% out. Car averages about 33mpg on v.short town journies & 42 on a run with a best ever of 48 on a slow 50mph 'A' road

 

jus