2016 SQ5 MPG - Question
11-04-2015, 11:43 AM
#1
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2016 SQ5 MPG - Question
Fellow SQ5'ers,
I am in month 2 of ownership (1500 mi) of my 2016 Lava Pearl SQ and love it. Power, handling etc... etc... is great. I don't mind the low mpg readings I am getting but do have a question. On a full tank, the computer shows 400 miles or so. As I drive, the average stays around there (range + miles driven) until I hit about 1/2 tank. It then goes on free fall and then the total (range+miles driven) falls to a 300-320 mile total before fill up. My driving style and conditions stay about the same (lots of in town driving - suburb not city). Do you guys see this? As another data point, since new, I am averaging (avg 1 on computer) 17.1 mpg.
Thoughts or comments?
Juan
I am in month 2 of ownership (1500 mi) of my 2016 Lava Pearl SQ and love it. Power, handling etc... etc... is great. I don't mind the low mpg readings I am getting but do have a question. On a full tank, the computer shows 400 miles or so. As I drive, the average stays around there (range + miles driven) until I hit about 1/2 tank. It then goes on free fall and then the total (range+miles driven) falls to a 300-320 mile total before fill up. My driving style and conditions stay about the same (lots of in town driving - suburb not city). Do you guys see this? As another data point, since new, I am averaging (avg 1 on computer) 17.1 mpg.
Thoughts or comments?
Juan
11-04-2015, 11:51 AM
#2
AudiWorld Expert
Ours is the regular Q5, but I notice similar behavior as well. It'll show 400+ miles right after fill-up, but we don't get anywhere close to that in reality.
Although technically, if you just took it easy on the hwy, and averaged say 24 mpg, you should easily be able to get 400+ miles out of a tank.
Although technically, if you just took it easy on the hwy, and averaged say 24 mpg, you should easily be able to get 400+ miles out of a tank.
Last edited by ex-quattro PETE; 11-04-2015 at 11:57 AM.
11-05-2015, 04:29 AM
#4
The fuel tank shape is probably asymmetrical, and the fuel level calculation assumes fuel level is dropping in a linear manner, when it's not.
2nd possibility, the computer uses engine performance to predict range the 1st 1/2 of the tank and uses the fuel strips sensor the 2nd half. OR the rolling average changes. WHY? Think about it, the predicted range remaining is less critical when you have 12+ gallons left. As you get more empty, accuracy becomes more useful. It also prevents the range from changing so dramatically right after fill up, as range would would fluctuate the most.
The more fuel you have, the longer of a rolling average you should use, the less fuel, you want a shorter rolling average. Thing about if you were driving 3000 miles across country. Early on, your average speed over a 30 minute period, isn't very relevant, you care more about you average speed over 3, 4 or 10 hours. But when you within 50 miles of your destination, your average speed over even 10 minute periods becomes more critical in terms of the percentage of time it influences compared to time remaining.
2nd possibility, the computer uses engine performance to predict range the 1st 1/2 of the tank and uses the fuel strips sensor the 2nd half. OR the rolling average changes. WHY? Think about it, the predicted range remaining is less critical when you have 12+ gallons left. As you get more empty, accuracy becomes more useful. It also prevents the range from changing so dramatically right after fill up, as range would would fluctuate the most.
The more fuel you have, the longer of a rolling average you should use, the less fuel, you want a shorter rolling average. Thing about if you were driving 3000 miles across country. Early on, your average speed over a 30 minute period, isn't very relevant, you care more about you average speed over 3, 4 or 10 hours. But when you within 50 miles of your destination, your average speed over even 10 minute periods becomes more critical in terms of the percentage of time it influences compared to time remaining.
11-05-2015, 05:54 AM
#5
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moto, I agree with you on that. However in every other car I have owned, (Audis, BMW, Mini, Ford etc..) it seemed a lot more "stable" if you know what I mean. What is interesting is a full tank, driving in the same manner on the same roads (I know, boring life with 3 kids with school and sports), everything seems stable through 1/2 tank and then it just drops like a rock. It is just an interesting quirk of the car. It actually shows rage of 400 (combined) through at least 3/4 tank or so (letting me think Ill get 450 miles +) when in fact I will struggle to get 300 miles out of it.
I guess I am not alone. I need to take it on a road trip hwy to see what it can do.
J
I guess I am not alone. I need to take it on a road trip hwy to see what it can do.
J
11-05-2015, 06:17 AM
#6
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a full tank of 94 octane, I get at least 600KM(372Miles) strictly in city driving, non agressive driving of course.
I've also acheived nearly 800km on a long rd trip.
No complaints considering this is no slouch in performance(when ya want it)
I've also acheived nearly 800km on a long rd trip.
No complaints considering this is no slouch in performance(when ya want it)
11-27-2015, 01:47 PM
#7
AudiWorld Expert
Just got back from a long hwy trip. Got 423 miles on a tank, and only about 18.2 gallons went in. This was primarily leisurely hwy cruising at 70-75 mph.
