[TheStig]

Originally Posted by rohn52

I've been consistently filling in 29psi as per 2015 documentation. 36f and 33r seem to be way off - almost 20% for f. I have the stock Apollo Alnacs. Have you been provided different stock tires?

I'm also running on Apollo Alnac tyres. 185/60/R15 size.

Originally Posted by rageshgr

Yes I am really surprised. Either they have stuck the wrong sticker, or they did this to increase fuel economy. Or, something fundamentally has changed. Can you cross check with your user manual also? Because 29/29 and 32/35 (full load) has been the norm so far

I just went through the manual. Its a 2016 edition manual which includes instruction for the Ameo also.
It doesn't mention any specific pressure values. It only explains the location of the tyre pressure sticker, various symbols on it and general advisories.

Maybe these are revised values for more fuel efficiency? Can someone with a August 2016 and later production GT TSI confirm?

[DRIV3R]

Originally Posted by rageshgr

Well not all, because many ancient 4 speed Torque Converters will give lesser economy. DSG can give good mileage on light throttle. But ya your numbers are pretty much on par.
These are my experiences
Sedate city drive in medium traffic: 9 kpl
Aggressive city drive in medium traffic: 7.5-8 kpl
Sedate city drive on light traffic : 11 kpl
Sedate Highway drive : 14-16 kpl
Aggressive highway drive - 10-11 kpl

Well, owner of an ancient 4 speed TC AT reporting, car in question is the Ciaz AT, and here are the figures in a similar format.

Sedate city drive in medium traffic: 15 kmpl
Aggressive city drive in medium traffic: 14.5-15 kmpl
Sedate city drive on light traffic : 15.5-16 kmpl
Sedate Highway drive : 18-19 kmpl
Aggressive highway drive - 17-18 kmpl

And on a recent trip, with 5 people on board (with 3 heavy ones), and a bootful of luggage, plus mixed driving throughout, sedate/aggressive, the car returned 18.2 kmpl overall.

So I guess FE is specific and case to case, and you cannot really generalize it based on the type of transmission.

[rageshgr]

Originally Posted by DRIV3R

Well, owner of an ancient 4 speed TC AT reporting, car in question is the Ciaz AT, and here are the figures in a similar format.

Sedate city drive in medium traffic: 15 kmpl
Aggressive city drive in medium traffic: 14.5-15 kmpl
Sedate city drive on light traffic : 15.5-16 kmpl
Sedate Highway drive : 18-19 kmpl
Aggressive highway drive - 17-18 kmpl

And on a recent trip, with 5 people on board (with 3 heavy ones), and a bootful of luggage, plus mixed driving throughout, sedate/aggressive, the car returned 18.2 kmpl overall.

So I guess FE is specific and case to case, and you cannot really generalize it based on the type of transmission.

Thanks , Wow. That is awesome. I used to have a Hyundai 4 speed AT and it was a fuel guzzler on aggressive driving and even with light throttle, being a small little petrol engine and having only 4 gears, it was challenging to get good fuel economy. Btw, is yours a Diesel Ciaz? Because that makes a lot of difference

[DRIV3R]

Originally Posted by rageshgr

Thanks , Wow. That is awesome. I used to have a Hyundai 4 speed AT and it was a fuel guzzler on aggressive driving and even with light throttle, being a small little petrol engine and having only 4 gears, it was challenging to get good fuel economy. Btw, is yours a Diesel Ciaz? Because that makes a lot of difference

It is a Petrol, 1.4 NA, 91 BHP. Coupled with a 4 speed Aisin TC AT GB. It is not a performance oriented mill like the 1.2 TSi though.

[SLK]

Originally Posted by DRIV3R

Well, owner of an ancient 4 speed TC AT reporting, car in question is the Ciaz AT, and here are the figures in a similar format.

Sedate city drive in medium traffic: 15 kmpl
Aggressive city drive in medium traffic: 14.5-15 kmpl
Sedate city drive on light traffic : 15.5-16 kmpl
Sedate Highway drive : 18-19 kmpl
Aggressive highway drive - 17-18 kmpl

I have an Ertiga petrol with same engine as Ciaz and a manual 5 speed transmission. And I'm sorry to say, these numbers are not even close to my Alto K10, leave alone the Ertiga.

Ertiga (despite being so lethargic) inside Delhi returns not more than 11km/l under easy driving with 1 person onboard! Even the K10 Alto does only 12-13km/l, the GT Tsi does close to 11-12km/l provided driven reasonably.

[DRIV3R]

Originally Posted by SLK

I have an Ertiga petrol with same engine as Ciaz and a manual 5 speed transmission. And I'm sorry to say, these numbers are not even close to my Alto K10, leave alone the Ertiga.

Ertiga (despite being so lethargic) inside Delhi returns not more than 11km/l under easy driving with 1 person onboard! Even the K10 Alto does only 12-13km/l, the GT Tsi does close to 11-12km/l provided driven reasonably.

Well, let's restrict the comparison to atleast only ATs please. There a lot of variables going in, including your driving style, time of commute etc., my post was purely to negate the generalization that TC ATs are not fuel efficient. No point bringing in your manual Altos or Ertigas here.

You need not be sorry for my car/driving style/FE numbers.

P.S: The Ciaz AT was as/slightly more efficient as my Punto MJD within the city, and my friend's Polo GT TSi which runs the same route as I, does not return anywhere near to the Ciaz AT's FE numbers.

Let's stick to the discussion of the Polo TSi only and avoid debates here.

[SLK]

Originally Posted by DRIV3R

Well, let's restrict the comparison to atleast only ATs please. There a lot of variables going in, including your driving style, time of commute etc., my post was purely to negate the generalization that TC ATs are not fuel efficient. No point bringing in your manual Altos or Ertigas here.

Oh no, I'm not even comparing manuals with autos. I'm just saying its out of context to compare a number like this

"Aggressive city drive in medium traffic: 14.5-15 kmpl"

with anything, whether manual or auto.

Coming back to the topic, its a fact that FE on a manual can be controlled much better than an auto i.e. a manual can return better FE if driven with that intent.

In traffic, GT TSI is significantly better than TC counterparts in terms of FE, due to less slippage of the dry clutch, while manuals are still better with very limited clutch slippage that the driver can control.

For a real comparison, it might be better to compare auto vs manual FE numbers of cars like i10, where the sample size is good enough to not be skewed by statistical outliers.

See this thread and search for i10 automatic (which is a 4 speed auto with 1.2 NA) http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...iency-301.html

[aditya9567]

Originally Posted by SLK

Coming back to the topic, its a fact that FE on a manual can be controlled much better than an auto i.e. a manual can return better FE if driven with that intent.

From my experience, driving sensibly using the triptronic mode / paddle shifters return atleast 10-20% better FE than driving similarly in the D mode. I've analysed the reason behind this and what I think is that in D, you are always a gear more than what the optimal should be and therefore you end up lugging the engine and also using more fuel to reach a particular speed whereas in the manual mode you are at the optimal gear and achieve the speed using relatively lesser fuel. The above is obviously true if you're not driving like a maniac. I've seen that 1700-2500 rpm is the best to achieve max efficiency when the turbo is spooled up and provides quick acceleration.

Another of my observation is that this DSG provides better efficiency with sensible driving than other ATs and even the Polo 1.2 manual for that matter when you're on the move. But takes a b-i-i-i-g hit in slow stop and go traffic.

Cheers!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by aditya9567

Another of my observation is that this DSG provides better efficiency with sensible driving than other ATs and even the Polo 1.2 manual for that matter when you're on the move. But takes a b-i-i-i-g hit in slow stop and go traffic.

That surprises me, because I'd say it is stop-start driving where we waste the most fuel.

I'm not a hot driver, but I know I spend longer in lower gears than is necessary, and certainly longer than is economical. An automatic would take that out of my hands, and I am sure that my last AT was more economical than I would have been.

Never experienced the DSG, though.

[aditya9567]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

That surprises me, because I'd say it is stop-start driving where we waste the most fuel.

Never experienced the DSG, though.

True that we waste most fuel in stop-start, what I meant was ceterus paribus, DSG FE in stop-start is lesser than conventional ATs
The DSG is known to upshift early to maximise FE (which ironically it doesn't ), so might be the difference from other ATs.

[rohn52]

Originally Posted by aditya9567

From my experience, driving sensibly using the triptronic mode / paddle shifters return atleast 10-20% better FE than driving similarly in the D mode.

hmm ... i've studied (for work) a bit about how the auto shift logic is designed. There are at least a score of parameters that provide inputs and are considered by this logic. Its consistency versus that of manual operation will eventually win. I mean its very difficult to consistently make accurate / optimized gear shifts for FE. The frequency with which the logic makes decisions is around 50-200 Hz.
So i feel while we can extract better FE through manual on days when we really want to, overall over a longer duration of time, the auto logic for D will win.
Besides, in manual most GT owners would find it difficult to not rev slightly higher for the kicks!

[shetty_rohan]

60K Service update:
All my earlier services were done in VW Whitefield, and this time when I spoke to them, came to know that many of old people have moved out(including the manager). So, decided to take the car to VW Mysore for the service.

I had asked them to look into the below issues
- 60K Service
- DSG software upgrade
- Steering noise
- Battery light used appear in the cluster sometimes(Alternator issues)
- Wheel center caps(2 nos)
- DSG oil change

Feedback about the DSG Software update:
After the upgrade DSG holds on to the lower gears. I could see that when I am driving slow, it sticks to 1st gear(which was rarely seen earlier)

DSG Oil Change:
Bopanna(General Manager) spoke to VW technician, and confirmed that Polo does not require oil replacement.

Steering Noise update:
SA told me that steering rack has some play, and needs replacement(under warranty). Since I had to come back early to Bangalore, decided to get it done little later.

Brembo Rotors and Pads:
Bought Rotors and Pads from https://www.carzspares.com/, paid around Rs 9.8k. Got it fixed in Sri Raghvendra Motors, Whitefield(Bosch Service Center), paid Rs 550 for fixing.

How to save few bucks:
- Make sure that you tell the SA not to fill the windshield washer fluid, I guess they charge more than Rs 300
- No alignment and balancing. Instead get it done from a reputed tyre shop.
- AC Disinfection
- Shocked to see each wheel cap costs around Rs 550, insetad buy it from Aliexpress or amazon(https://www.amazon.com/Tripoint%C2%A.../dp/B00WWJULPQ). It is available for $3 for set of four.

I am pretty happy with VW Mysore, and have decided to take the car for all future services to Mysore.

[Aston Singh]

She's here!

Took delivery on Friday and have clocked 800 kms. Dying to use the car in sports mode!

[khoj]

Congratulations! The rear spoiler, is that standard fitment or an accessory?

Originally Posted by Aston Singh

She's here!

Took delivery on Friday and have clocked 800 kms. Dying to use the car in sports mode!

[Aston Singh]

Originally Posted by khoj

Congratulations! The rear spoiler, is that standard fitment or an accessory?

Thank you! Standard fitment includes the spoiler and the OVRMs.