JC: why would you want 91? Everyone on the west wished they could get their hands on 93, or at least high octane fuel

 

i only have a part time job... so when i have to fill up i have to use 93, and its pretty damn expensive....

 

by the way the correct way of figuring out MPG is filling your tank, resetting your odometer. then on your next fillup you see how much gas it takes and how many miles you drove then divide. saying 'oh i went about 350 miles on a tank' isnt very accurate, and niether is 'i drove 210 miles on 1/2 tank'. 1/2 tank could mean anywhere between 6 to 10 gallons depending on how accurate the gauge and your eye is.

i still seriously doubt people claiming 30+ mpg without driving extremely grandma-like, even on a 1.8t. once you get on the boost, gas mileage goes down the crapper. i could get 28-30mpg if i really really tried, but that would involve never getting on the boost and cruising on the highway at 65. wheres the fun in that? driving like every average joe on the road would get me somewhere like 25-27mpg. agressive driving is less then that. when im pissed off i get close to 20 lol. man i would kill for a 6th gear....

someone did the math on that a few weeks ago, figuring you drive 12k miles per year it works out to be about a $90 per year difference between using 87 and 93. an extra $8 a month is worth it to keep your car running better imo. its an extra like $3.75 every full tank.

 

I did my MPG a couple weeks ago. I drive about 21 miles round trip to work, plus I went on a longer trip (DC to Pittsburgh and back) so I averaged it over a couple tanks of gas. I got about 25 mpg, but I drive like a dick sometimes lol. If I would have kept my foot out of the car a little more I'm sure it could have been better.

On a side note, I believe the 5spd trannys generally get better mileage than the tips. Guys correct me if i'm wrong on that one.

GL!

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that cruise control takes alot of gas.

The primary goal of cruise control is to maintain an exact set speed. No matter what the terrain, maintain 73mph (assuming a 75mph speed limit of course or whatever the setting is). The problem comes when you are not in South Dakota and there are hills. The car applies more pedal to get you up the hill at that precise set speed, wasting gas. It applies less going down the hill on the other side, but no where near what it wasted to maintain 73 going up.

Driving by foot, you are less likely to accelerate as hard to go up the hill, and will not waste the gas. You'll likely wind up at 68 at the top of the hill, and maybe 75-78 by the bottom once you get over it, but the total fuel used to go over that hill was much less.

I've always done better by foot than by cruise control on anything but flat land, and in every vehicle I've ever owned.

--MIKE--

 

Hmmm +1 Mike, never thought of cruise control like that. I typically don't use it anyway, because even on the highway, maintaining a constant speed isn't always good, unless you're goin straight. Traffic, hills, curves, I'd rather be in control in those situations than trust the car.

On a side note, is there a noticeable difference in fuel economy between the Quattro and 4wd?

 

Boonies in IL are all flat. I know my car is slow as hell so I'm not gonna be zooming around like most ricers. The most I see is 5 lbs of boost driving normal. Not that I wanna drive like a grandma but it just suits my style. I drive my diesel a lot harder since its 2x as fast as my 1.8t and still gets the same gas milage. But I know I can get close to 30 going 70ish and its sucking 10inches of mercury then close to 34

 

use cruise control it helps

 

There is a difference in gas mileage between the front wheel drive... my mother owns a 2004 passat with the same engine as my 2001 quattro and she averages 32 on the highway while i average 27-28

 

i got bout 26 mpg on my 01 manual 1.8t