Skoda Kodiaq SUV Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i'm kicking myself for getting the 1.4 AWD because of its thirst (Dec order, April arrival).

apart from added weight of mechanicals, why are AWDs significantly thirstier than 2wds ?

cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
What stats are you looking at for the difference between 2wd and AWD?

HonestJohn.co.uk has fuel Stats of:
6.19 l/100km for a 2wd 7 seat

6.31-7.1 l/100km for a AWD 7 seat DSG

The AWD, 7 seats, Towbar, DSG, will increase the fuel consumption but these all seem to be wanted when people look at a SUV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
KodiaqNZ said:
What stats are you looking at for the difference between 2wd and AWD?

HonestJohn.co.uk has fuel Stats of:
6.19 l/100km for a 2wd 7 seat

6.31-7.1 l/100km for a AWD 7 seat DSG

The AWD, 7 seats, Towbar, DSG, will increase the fuel consumption but these all seem to be wanted when people look at a SUV.
I'm sure you're correct for everything else but a DSG box decreases fuel consumption.

I'm not quite getting 33mpg on motorways at almost 1000 miles and i don't think it'll be much worse for 4wd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
I have the 1.4 AWD DSG and my family just this Christmas (2017) made a trip to the Netherlands and back, with 4 people and plenty of luggage.

On our outbound journey of 368 miles on mostly motorways we achieved 35,31 mpg average [source: Skoda Connect].
I won't balance that with the return journey as we travelled through the thick of storm Eleanor, which really impacted the mpg badly.

I have made shorter journeys with less luggage and people and got the claimed 40 mpg.
I have also made journeys where the MPG was only mid 20s.

I knew what I was getting myself in to when I bought this version of the Kodiaq.
But it did surprise me that the claimed 40 mpg was actually achievable, seeing as most manufacturers embellish their data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
"seeing as most manufacturers embellish their data"

I think that's unfair. The published figures are the "urban", "extra urban" and "combined", according to particular laboratory conditions, so that different cars can be compared, against exactly the same (totally irrelevant!) conditions. People seem to think that, for example, the "extra urban" figure relates to what you will get on a long journey, but in fact NO-ONE, manufacturer or otherwise, has said that.

Consider what the "extra urban" figure represents (I'm quoting here from gov.uk):
Imperial extra-urban fuel consumption (mpg)
The extra-urban cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists roughly half steady speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph (120 km/h), average speed is 39 mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3 miles (7 km).


People tend, on long journeys, to do a higher average than 39mph, to take their vehicles up and down hills, and to move them against resistance through the air. For these reasons, the laboratory figures do not give realistic predictions (and that is why different methods are now to be introduced).

I have yet to do enough miles in my Kodiaq to get a feeling for what it will do, but on my last two Skodas (Roomster 1.4 diesel and Superb Greenline Estate) I could, on a patient journey, EXCEED the extra urban laboratory figures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
[original post edited as I felt it was straying off topic and was also too argumentative]

The OP was about what contributes to the poorer economy of the AWD vs the FWD.
My contribution to this thread was meant to read / be interpreted as:

Other than added kerb weight, I really don't know why a 4x4 consumes more than the FWD.
Please note that my Kodiaq is the same as yours and mine seems to do the mpg that the brochure claims. Assuming your brochure claims the same (your location is not mentioned) then you should expect figures along those lines too. Unless your foot is much heavier."

My tip would be; use the cruise control to improve your MPG whenever you can and stay within the speed limits (or go below if you have the patience).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
I have the 1.4 petrol 4x4 Manuel and if I choose to just nimble along at say 50-55 mph and I'm careful on the throttle I can get 37-42mpg

Yesterday I popped into town to do a few things, 10miles of mainly b and a roads I got 40 by the time I got home it was 38. That was on eco mode.

If I load the car with family, dog and luggage it's early 30's

We do do many miles in her do I'm happy with my engine choice.

You can change your order...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
iwarv said:
Other than added kerb weight, I really don't know why a 4x4 consumes more than the FWD.
The AWD system is an electro-mechanical clutch plate engagement system. Energy transfer over a clutch plate is never 100% efficient (e.g. heat loss, slip).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
MoominPapa said:
iwarv said:
Other than added kerb weight, I really don't know why a 4x4 consumes more than the FWD.
The AWD system is an electro-mechanical clutch plate engagement system. Energy transfer over a clutch plate is never 100% efficient (e.g. heat loss, slip).
But it's rarely engaged is it? I thought 4wd only kicked in when needed. In my case (if I had 4wd) probably a few seconds in every 100 miles or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Loving our Kodiaq. Got her on the 2nd September. One week later we took her to Scotland for 2weeks. Getting great MPG.
On the way up 60.8mpg 480mile trip . Over 1000mile when in Scotland getting between 54-61mpg and then 64.6mpg on the trip home.
Had a trip to Warwick in November and got my best mpg 69.7.
Car has now done over 4000 miles with long term mpg is 57.4mpg. Getting between 48-60 mpg going too and from work. Uses more in the cold weather. 150 TDI 4x4
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top