Fuel economy difference between t6 and t6.1 California

[TALLANDREW]

I‘m considering buying a t6 but am put off by the fuel consumption of 9 litres per 100 km on a van with 4 motion dsg and 204ps. The same model t6.1 with newer 150ps motor seems to do a more respectable 7 litres per 100 km. These numbers are from sprit monitor.de

As far as I understand the key difference is a redesigned suspension and low rolling resistance tires.

I read an article in my car club magazine that claimed low emission tires run at the right pressure can create a 10% improvement.

Is this correct? Could the tire choice improve the fuel efficiency of that older more affordable van or do i just need to save another year and go for a t6.1

 

[StueyStuey]

You’re comparing apples to oranges there.

The 204 4 motion is a twin turbo 4WD van and is the highest spec engine and drivetrain. The 150 is the second tier single turbo so lower power and a lighter van owing to the lighter FWD drivetrain

 

[SamD]

As above really! The 4wd system will use more fuel.

 

[DXX]

I think it all depends on whether you have one of those little spoilers on the back of your brick.

 

[Bav]

I think it all depends on whether you have one of those little spoilers on the back of your brick.

...or go-greener decals

 

[Salty Spuds]

As the owner of a 204ps LWB t32 4mot DSG, I can testify that I can get 40mpg on a run & 30mpg running around. The figures largely depend on how you drive it. I could easily get a 150ps to use more fuel than mine if I was “sporty”.

 

[JOG]

I always get my sums in a twist when trying to convert the continental litres per 100km measure to our mpg measure (ironically when we buy our fuel by the litre!)

 

[Bav]

I always get my sums in a twist when trying to convert the continental litres per 100km measure to our mpg measure

5l per 100km equates to around 50mpg (slightly less)

Add (subtract) 10mpg for every litre less (more) per 100km.

All very approximate, but saves with all (most of) the maths stuff.

 

[Salty Spuds]

I always get my sums in a twist when trying to convert the continental litres per 100km measure to our mpg measure

40mpg = 40miles/4.54litres
40 miles = 40x1.6=64km
so 40mpg=64km/4.54 l
4.54/64=0.0709 litres / km
0.0709x100 = 7.09 litres per 100km Simples

 

[Bav]

5l per 100km equates to around 50mpg (slightly less)

Add (subtract) 10mpg for every litre less (more) per 100km.

All very approximate, but saves with all (most of) the maths stuff.

Actually, the above is just b*****ks - it only works with US gallons

 

[Long tall John]

Actually, the above is just b*****ks - it only works with US gallons

OK Mr. google, how many US gallons in a continental gallon?

 

[Salty Spuds]

….continental gallon?

Would that be a metric gallon?

 

[Bav]

Would that be a metric gallon?

Now there's an oxymoron.

 

[TALLANDREW]

You’re comparing apples to oranges there.

The 204 4 motion is a twin turbo 4WD van and is the highest spec engine and drivetrain. The 150 is the second tier single turbo so lower power and a lighter van owing to the lighter FWD drivetrain

So the drive train is lighter on the t6.1? Is that part of the suspension redesign.

Did anyone try low rolling resistance tires on a t6 does it make a difference or is it just marketing?

 

[Long tall John]

No, you getting confused. The 150 Engine with Front Wheel drive only is lighter than the 204 Engine that has four-wheel-drive

 

[StueyStuey]

So the drive train is lighter on the t6.1? Is that part of the suspension redesign.

Did anyone try low rolling resistance tires on a t6 does it make a difference or is it just marketing?

No the drivetrain is lighter between a 4motion and a front wheel drive model so consider if you need 4WD. If you don’t it opens up the lower powered 150 engine as an option.

More power = lower efficiency
More weight = lower efficiency

 

[Chippie1]

I apologise in advance for who I’m about to offend but fuel consumption goes straight over my head!
I have a 150 manual mainly driving around town average 350-400 miles on a tank computer says average 28miles to the gallon and I don’t give a hoot how much fuel it uses I need the van and enjoy driving the van so surely that’s all that matters‍

 

[TALLANDREW]

Agreed the 2WD version will be more efficient than the 4WD versions and the more powerful engine will need more juice.

but if we compare 2 similar spec vans t6 to t6.1 I see a difference in average fuel consumptions.

My question remains unanswered what is the reason for the fuel efficiency difference between t6 t6.1 and is it something which can be matched my simply changing the tires on a t6?

or is it more as a result of redesigned suspension and motor design development.

 

[Bav]

@TALLANDREW, your question remains unanswered because you haven't yet demonstrated a difference in consumption between a T6 and a comparable T6.1.

In your initial post you compared a 204ps 4M with a 150ps...

...fuel consumption of 9 litres per 100 km on a van with 4 motion dsg and 204ps. The same model t6.1 with newer 150ps motor seems to do a more respectable 7 litres per 100 km

...hence why everyone pointed-out that you weren't comparing like-for-like.

If you have comparable consumption figures, what are they?

 

[TALLANDREW]

if you compare the VW catalogues its 8.5-9.1 l/100km for T6 vs 6.2-7.9 for T6.1 both 204 PS 2WD

if you use sprit monitor the numbers are closer. 9.5 l/100km vs 8,2 l/100km

but either way there's a clear difference between different generation vehicles with the same transmission and power.

same goes for other models

As far as i can see the key differences between 6 and 6.1 which might effect efficiency are:

suspension design (significant updates)
motor generation (same design with updates)
tires
empty weight improvement from 2,568kg to 2,424kg
nominal aerodynamic improvements with face lift bumpers.

so assuming a difference of 1.3 l/100km that difference would be about 650 pounds on 20000 mile annual millage and a 2 pounds a litre fuel price.

If main difference driving that difference is changing your tires then you could be onto a winner after 1 year. Is that a bad pay back?

hence the question.