Well fill my cavity!! NO WAY! IMPOSSIBLE!!

[neg]

I got 38MPG in mine once on a run across the Boston (50+miles - rubbish single carridgeway 50MPH limit and not much chance of overtaking), anyway now I know it can do I dont need to do it again    My 'overall' average according to the comp is around 24MPG - but more importanty it get loads of smiles per mile which is what counts! 

[joesgti]

had mine about 18 months and never seen over 24 untill last weekend when i got 29mpg. strangley it was after i had fitted a short shifter 

[R32UK]

Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that

But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?

We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!

Unfortuntely I dont drive like that all the time (well not on the way home anyway )... average is approx 26mpg

[Teutonic_Tamer]

And to add to that post I will even stick my neck out and say with the right conditions, no traffic and less fuel in the tank or stuff/crap in the boot, Im convinced I could get 40mpg. (might get pulled or a few strange looks) but Im sure its possible.

And probably a few choice words too - sommat like "WTF are you driving an R32 like a granny, give it to me, and I'll drive it like it was made for!"     

If you also look at the amount of time it took me, it was only about 2-3mins over what it usually takes me. So all in all... not bad at all for a 3.2

At the other end of the scale, look at the instantaneous fuel consuption when you hold the pedal to the metal - that will make you wince! 

Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that

Hmmmmmmm.  If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers  ]).

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Well bugger me.. it's only the 90deg 3.2 V6s in audis that use FSI.. yet the narrow angle 3.6 in the passat does use FSI, in that case this engine is even more amazing

But we were only talking about the R32s 3.2 donkey!    And are you absolutely sure that the R36 Passat does actually have FSI?  Because there was an aweful lot of mis-information from the stealers when the Mk5 R32 came out, with them stating it had FSI, when it categorically didn't (and the UK sales brochures never made any mention of the 32 having FSI either).

The 65:1 is at the very extreme end of the 'ultra lean burn' and yes for a minute amount of time.. but still worthy of mention. Interesting stuff this stratified injection. Well.. interesting to me

OK, point taken.    So where did you get the info on these AFRs then? 

[R32UK]

Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that

Hmmmmmmm.  If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers  ]).
[/quote]

Ok ok... maybe went a little too far with that one!

who the hell wants to drive slowly anyway??? I only did it to prove a point.... I think that has clearly been done!! I wouldnt expect Phil to answer to any of this (he will probably just delete it anyway)

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that

But then again, if you drive a ED30 with a very light foot, like you have with your R32, wouldnt you achieve even better fuel consumption with the ED30 as well?

Yup, correct.  OK, here are the official figures for the Ed30 and the R32 (manual first, and DSG second), in mpg:

                                    Ed30 (man)                    R32 (man)
Urban:                          24.8                                18.8
Extra-urban:                 44.1                                33.6
Combined:                    34.0                                26.2

                                    Ed30 (DSG)                    R32 (DSG)
Urban:                          26.2                                21.4
Extra-urban:                 44.8                                36.2
Combined:                    35.3                                28.8

So, going by these figures - who can notice the important traits and differences between the two types of engine?

We should get a ED30 owner to test and see what they can achieve - in theory, it should be better then the R32 obviously - but wow, you get some good MPG in your car R32UK!

He must be seriously skint to drive like that.  I bet he's having Tesco Value beans on toast every night for his tea (oh, sorry, that is actually standard nosh for students!        )

[topher]

But we were only talking about the R32s 3.2 donkey! 

yes yes my exclamation was pointed at the fact I'd been misinformed yet again.. and because I was getting such great fuel economy I accepted it as truth without checking!

I had some literature posted to me regarding the FSI and ultra lean burn when the engines first started appearing (before I upset my local VW sales guy, who was also linked to VW press, by telling him I thought the very first mk5 GTI's were rubbish :embarassed:). Which box of files it is in at home.. I dread to think, although some of it can be found online, even though I know how much you dislike wikipedia


BTW there is no chance an R32 is cheaper to run than an ED30, I'd never claim that.. unless of course you get all service parts and labour free of charge, and don't pay insurance or tax

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Said it before and I will say it again.... "cheaper to run than an ED30" you can quote me on that

Hmmmmmmm.  If an R32 and an Ed30 are both driven in identical manners, then I would still have to say that the Ed30 would still be more economical - not only on fuel, but also because the R32 is a higher insurance group, higher road tax, and costs more to service and maintain (Haldex oil and filter change, 6 spark plugs instead of 4, a more difficult timing belt with an extra idler roller, larger brake components [which will naturally cost more at the stealers  ]).

Ok ok... maybe went a little too far with that one!

who the hell wants to drive slowly anyway??? I only did it to prove a point.... I think that has clearly been done!! I wouldnt expect Phil to answer to any of this (he will probably just delete it anyway) [/quote]

ROTFLMAO

[JC]

does no one watch top gear these days, jesus 

they did a run, ALL 3 cars blew away the book figures.

All 3 cars showed 0 miles left and yet went on to do over 100 miles more and STILL had fuel left proving the onboard computers where crap.

just all meet up and have a cock waving competition and be done cos lets face it - IS IT THAT FCUKING IMPORTANT 

 

PS.  nice comments TT