Economy Improvement/Break In

[vdubtdi11]

Hi, Hope its ok that I'm creating this thread here!
I have heard different stories from different people regarding this, but my question is really pretty basic I guess. At about how many miles will I begin to see improving fuel economy due to a more complete break in? Also, at that point, what kinds of improvements can I expect? Will I see a 20% jump from new or am I looking at maybe 5%? Thanks! And sorry in advance if Im posting this in the wrong spot. I also have read through a considerable amount of thread titles and found nothing regarding this.

 

[WutGas?]

I don't think anyone can give you a definitive % increase you will get. If I was guessing, I would say 5% probably, possibly 10% or anywhere in between.

I believe the consensus is that these engines are pretty much 100% broken in at around 60K. That's not to say you won't have any increases before that though.

 

[vdubtdi11]

Ok. Cool. That sounds reasonable. Im hoping for the 10%! I hope it gets a little louder too. Then again, im only at 8,500 miles now.

 

[WutGas?]

What do you want to be louder?

I can't imagine it will get louder if that is the goal. VW spends tons of R&D money every year trying to make these quieter.

 

[Ski in NC]

My experience with non-vw diesels is that they do tend to get a little louder at idle once broken in. My best guess is once broken in, there is less friction, thus a little less fueling, less heat in cylinder therefore a little longer ignition delay. The delay and associated sharp pressure rise is what gives it that "diesely" noise.

 

[thebigarniedog]

Hi, Hope its ok that I'm creating this thread here!
I have heard different stories from different people regarding this, but my question is really pretty basic I guess. At about how many miles will I begin to see improving fuel economy due to a more complete break in? Also, at that point, what kinds of improvements can I expect? Will I see a 20% jump from new or am I looking at maybe 5%? Thanks! And sorry in advance if Im posting this in the wrong spot. I also have read through a considerable amount of thread titles and found nothing regarding this.

Ah yes, the "break in economy myth". It is a tough myth, as there are alot of people that strongly believe in the easter bunny ..... er, the break in economy myth. When you point it out to them, they tend to get angry about you telling them there is no easter bunny ..... er, statistically relevant break in economy improvement.

Your vehicle should return the fuel economy within the range estimated by the EPA. If you check out fuelly.com for the Common Rail engines from 2009 to present, you will see that this is true. The averages cancel out the incompetents, the serial exaggerators and the hypermilers and place it right where the EPA estimated it would bring. Now alot of people believe in Santa Clause (as demonstrated on the 6th), but the reality is what it is and the real question is as it always has been ................. can you handle the truth? Good luck

 

[WutGas?]

The averages cancel out the incompetents, the serial exaggerators and the hypermilers and place it right where the EPA estimated it would bring.

You don't have to be an exaggerator, a hypermiler, or incompetent to beat the EPA numbers. Everyone knows that these will out perform the EPA highway number by a relatively significant margin. There are plenty who just have a perfect commute to bring higher MPGs. They would not fall into either of the 3 categories you stated.

 

[thebigarniedog]

You don't have to be an exaggerator, a hypermiler, or incompetent to beat the EPA numbers. Everyone knows that these will out perform the EPA highway number by a relatively significant margin. There are plenty who just have a perfect commute to bring higher MPGs. They would not fall into either of the 3 categories you stated.

and yet fuelly.com agrees with the EPA calculations

 

[gulfcoastguy]

And on the delivery trip to the dealer saturday my new JSW 6M got 42.8mpg. So it delivered what was promised right out of the box.

 

[WutGas?]

and yet fuelly.com agrees with the EPA calculations

So there is nobody in Fuelly beating the EPA numbers? Or are all those folks (myself included since my commute changed) in those three descriptions you listed?

 

[thebigarniedog]

So there is nobody in Fuelly beating the EPA numbers? Or are all those folks (myself included since my commute changed) in those three descriptions you listed?

People go to Casinos and win big; You can flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row; You can smoke and live cancer free past your 90s; you can use wvo in a direct injected engine for over 100,000 miles; you can win the Powerball lottery. None of these are statistically relevant in a vacuum, since this is not the average occurrence. Stated concisely, beating fuelly averages are not the issue. The issue is a statistically relevant sampling, showing the average mpg on these vehicles, which in the case of the CR motor shows the EPA got it right --- per fuelly.com.

 

[mohawk69]

Precisely and logically stated.

 

[Ski in NC]

People go to Casinos and win big; You can flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row; You can smoke and live cancer free past your 90s; you can use wvo in a direct injected engine for over 100,000 miles; you can win the Powerball lottery. None of these are statistically relevant in a vacuum, since this is not the average occurrence. Stated concisely, beating fuelly averages are not the issue. The issue is a statistically relevant sampling, showing the average mpg on these vehicles, which in the case of the CR motor shows the EPA got it right --- per fuelly.com.

All true, but the topic of the thread is whether the OP's mileage will improve with break in, by how much, and when. Valid questions, all. He should expect at least a few percent improvement over say 10-20k miles.

What you have posted has little to do with the OP's questions. If you can break out fuelly data for new cars, then compare to the same car after say 20k, then the fuelly data is relevant. I don't think your posts indicate that.

 

[vdubtdi11]

All true, but the topic of the thread is whether the OP's mileage will improve with break in, by how much, and when. Valid questions, all. He should expect at least a few percent improvement over say 10-20k miles.

What you have posted has little to do with the OP's questions. If you can break out fuelly data for new cars, then compare to the same car after say 20k, then the fuelly data is relevant. I don't think your posts indicate that.

Good Idea. I'll try looking at that. I feel like it must be true though, what somebody said above, that having less friction, which factors in after the engine is broken in, must have an effect. The question would then be, after break in, how much pressure escapes the cylinders?

Not choosing sides at all, but the numbers on Fuelly may be skiewed for our model cars just because so many of us try and get the best fuel economy. I feel like the Fuelly numbers on say a dedge stratus for random example would better show a car's average fuel economy since no sizable chunk of stratus drivers are aiming specifically for the best MPG they can get. My personal car's average, which i have set on my number 2 trip computer and has not been reset in the car's 8,500 mile life is 41.8, which indicates the EPA's average. I can and do however get far higher mpg than that on certain trips.

 

[MonsterTDI09]

The engine doesn't break in untill around 60k.On a diesel engine you don't want blow by.I have seen a small increase in fuel milage.I'm around 37k

 

[WutGas?]

Not choosing sides at all, but the numbers on Fuelly may be skiewed for our model cars just because so many of us try and get the best fuel economy. I feel like the Fuelly numbers on say a dedge stratus for random example would better show a car's average fuel economy since no sizable chunk of stratus drivers are aiming specifically for the best MPG they can get. My personal car's average, which i have set on my number 2 trip computer and has not been reset in the car's 8,500 mile life is 41.8, which indicates the EPA's average. I can and do however get far higher mpg than that on certain trips.

You need to measure your MPG by miles driven versus fuel in. Fuelly is an easy way to do that. Unfortunately, the MPG computer could be spot on, or it could be way off. It seems to vary quite a bit by cars. It is usually pretty close to accurate though, but usually seems to read high. If your comp is saying 41.8, I would guess you at right around 40mpg in reality.

If you are averaging 40mpg, you are actually beating the EPA estimates unless you do 100% highway driving which I doubt. You must be a hypermiler, an exaggerator, or incompetent.

 

[thebigarniedog]

Sadly, myths are hard to discredit even in the face of reality.

But heck, it might be different for you

 

[WutGas?]

I don't even know what the myth you speak of is anymore.

 

[dandywriter]

data from my fuelly

For my 2006 5 speed, bought in Dec 06.
In 2007 I had 15 fuel-ups, avg mp(US)gal: 38.7 mpg.
2009, 18 fuel-ups, 42.2 mpg.
2012, 32 fuel-ups, 43.4 mpg.
If you select your car, then scroll down to view annual reports, your data will be there, easy to access.

For me, improvement, on average, is 4.7 mpg, or 12% (43.4-38.7/38.7). I think at just over 100k km (62k miles), I'm broken in.

I track all fill ups (136 so far). Avg 41.4 mpg for the life of the car.

Without data, you're a man with an opinion...

 

[WutGas?]

Beating the EPA estimates by 10% (highway) or nearly 30% (combined)....

 

[dandywriter]

Canadian version of EPA says...

We use Transport Canada's fuel consumption guide (in this case 2006). That's 6.6 l/100km city, 5.2 highway - 43 imp mpg city, 54 hwy, so at 5.7 combined, I'm in the ball park. Average should get better - slightly - with time, as my mileage now is at more efficient numbers. My highway best at 60 mph is about 4.8 l/100km-49.9 USmpg-59.9 IMPmpg now... if I'm patient.

Note, much of the improvement was in the first two years - as you'd expect, then the last 0.8 USmpg was over 3 years... So, for new owners, don't despair - it will be better.

I did follow the standard break-in thread, and still drive spiritedly to keep everything nice and clean, once it's nice and warm, at least once a tank. I do use half a "one-shot" of Stanadyne Performance Formula with most tanks, and all in the winter, for anti-water and cetane improvement.

"All things come to he who waits."

 

[Whitecloud1]

My $.02

It may take up to 30-40K miles to get "broken in". Diesels will take longer to get everything smoothed out. I wish I could give you a straight answer but not today....
My 02 seemed to really hit stride at about 50k and in the summer. Yes, the winter mix will mess with your mileage.
I've just hit 10K on my 2013 and it seems to be going up.

Use fuelly.com to get the real mileage. When you brag to your buddies, go by the MFI reading. It's usually about 2MPG higher than the real thing.

As for the EPA ratings, the diesels are one area where they dump on us and we kick butt. MPGs are either at or above the EPA highway ratings. You won't see that with the hi-brids or any other gasser. Yes, many of us do a lot of highway commuting, but not all.

Go to fuelly and look to see how well the cars do, especially the VWs with gas and diesel options.

YMMV

 

[Spanish Key]

Interesting how cold temps hit your fuel economy. This morning it was 16F and it knocked 5 mpg off my usual average for my morning commute. The computer seems to be pretty close. For this tank, it shows 44 and some small change. My math comes out to 44 even.

Funny how commuting to work and back I average 50 mpg even on the 120-mile round trip (47 going up into the mountains; 53 coming back down), but my wife manages to knock 6 mpg off my average doing her thing around town.