2015 Golf DSG
Best ever was 60.1 MPG round trip to Mom's house last year.
Over and back (to Day) 50.1
Seemed like wind was coming from ALL 4 directions.
Back in Tulsa the wind "noise" 'bout went to zip
I see one of your Sept fill-ups was 60.5See my Fuelly sig for my DSG stats: 55.7 mpg through 16k miles; purchased new in May.
Note that I only use the car for my mostly highway commute. No quick trip for groceries on the weekend. I use my GTI for that.
My 2015 6MT runs right at 2000 rpm at 75 mph, so it appears the DSG and manual are roughly the same ratio for 2015.Dont put much faith in this guys numbers, the car only has a total of 5K miles put on it in the past 3 years.
6MT will always win over the DSG, there is parasitic loss of the DSG, clutch pressure is hudralic, there's circulating pumps for fluid and cooling. Also up until 2015, the gearing of the DSG was much shorter than the 6MT, think 200 extra RPMs at 65 vs the 6MT.
The '15's DSG are stupid tall though, 2000 RPMS at 75mph tall, not sure how that stacks up against the '15 6MT.
I have to agree with you on rolling resistance. When I first went to Nokian WRG3’s, I was told that they were the same as the G2’s. No way!!. With the G3’s, which were heavily advertised as a very low roiling resistance, my MPG’s jumped about 5 mpg. At first I found that hard to believe, but it was a fact. I went from mid to upper 50’s to low to mid 60’s. When I went back to the Bridgestones, it went back down about 5 mpg’s. I gave the Nokians with more than half tread on them to a friend of mine, and his mpg’s jumped about the same as mine did, and the only factor was rolling resistanceWith my stick, I get about 40 mpg with my idiot computer saying 46. I also have a one inch lift and 235 width tires. Rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag are killer.
I have to agree with you on rolling resistance. When I first went to Nokian WRG3’s, I was told that they were the same as the G2’s. No way!!. With the G3’s, which were heavily advertised as a very low roiling resistance, my MPG’s jumped about 5 mpg. At first I found that hard to believe, but it was a fact. I went from mid to upper 50’s to low to mid 60’s. When I went back to the Bridgestones, it went back down about 5 mpg’s. I gave the Nokians with more than half tread on them to a friend of mine, and his mpg’s jumped about the same as mine did, and the only factor was rolling resistance
Those tires were the most comfortable tires that I ever had, also no noise at all. Very soft sidewalls. Stopping distance was horrible, especially in the rain, one of the main reasons I got rid of them. Also, handling was squirrely, with the soft sidewalls, the car leaned, but the tires stuck. I also had to run almost 38 psi, to get some decent performance out of themBetter MPG is always a good thing.
Question please. Noise, stopping distance, and & a comfortable ride is my personal preferences.
Did those tires sacrifice some (or a lot) in those area?
Thanks
Those tires were the most comfortable tires that I ever had, also no noise at all. Very soft sidewalls. Stopping distance was horrible, especially in the rain, one of the main reasons I got rid of them. Also, handling was squirrely, with the soft sidewalls, the car leaned, but the tires stuck. I also had to run almost 38 psi, to get some decent performance out of them
6MT will always win over the DSG, there is parasitic loss of the DSG, clutch pressure is hudralic, there's circulating pumps for fluid and cooling. Also up until 2015, the gearing of the DSG was much shorter than the 6MT, think 200 extra RPMs at 65 vs the 6MT.
The '15's DSG are stupid tall though, 2000 RPMS at 75mph tall, not sure how that stacks up against the '15 6MT.
I learned to drive on a 3 on the tree shifter. I've had nothing but manuals for some time until my first auto.If you're driving in the city or traffic, there can be a significant FE penalty for the DSG.