you have to take to consideration this fact, as soon as your refuel light comes on you have 12 litters of fuel left in tank, on T1 it is 12 litters it must be same on T2 and T3 so when you add 85 litters of diesel you have 12+85= 97 and those 3 litters can be temperature factor as if its hot you get less fuel as it expands and shrinks depending on the temp hope this makes some sense

 

Didn't the T3 have an 85 litre tank unless you had the Escape model with the 100 litre tank?

 

The Canadian brochure for the 2011 shows 85L. Based on my filling experiences my 2012 has 85L capacity.

 

The 2011 and 2012 had an 85l tank. 2013 and onward Canadian Models got 100l tanks if my memory is correct

 

2014. 100 liters also

 

So Coldogg probably has an 85 litre tank then?

 

Yes my 2012 Canadian model did

 

Thanx guys made me wounder with never getting close too 100l on full up and doing reading on line just didn't add up

It makes way better $ents

 

My 2013 TDI has a 100L tank and I am averaging between 8-8.5L/100km highway. Today I just did a 300km trip north with a tail wind and was burning 6.9L/100km. I've got 46,000km on her and she eats miles! I'd say I'd get approx 1200km to a tank with a tail wind or no wind.

 

Wondering if 100L tank is a direct swap ? Range in my 2012 VR6 is not so great, lots of hills around here.. May be cheaper to buy a tdi if all the drivetrain needs to be removed lol

 

Geez... VW decontented the fuel tank at one point. Sigh.

 

Seriously? Do you just love to complain about anything? How is increasing the fuel tank for 2013 and beyond "decontenting?"

 

Wow Black Grouse. Thank you for the background information. That helps to explain the situation a bit better. I was thinking what possible reasonable reason could they have to decrease the fuel tank other the to drop the second pump and costs.

I stopped following VW closely toward the end of the T2, just before the T3 came out.

 

Mercedes-Benz do their EU testing with very small standard tanks and offer the larger tank as a FoC option - every kilo/pound of weight reduction improves the consumption figures.

 

I've noticed that a lot of the European content (or not) is based on the tax systems. For instance, I understand the the big reason diesels are such a big thing is that the taxes in almost all countries reward efficiency more than horsepower.

 

In simplistic terms, most governments in European have sought to reduce air pollution by concentrating taxation on CO2 output - since CO2 output is directly proportional to fuel consumed, European buyers have focussed on fuel consumption which was always much lower on both turbo- and non-turbo diesels than non-turbo petrol/gasoline, although the gap has narrowed with the modern crop of turbo-petrol/gasoline with direct injection.

Although European fuel has reduced in price, due to the Saudi trade war with the USA, it's still very high due to taxation structures which use a fixed duty tax per litre of fuel plus a sales tax based on price - even if the oil companies gave fuel away for nothing, the UK price couldn't reduce below about 80% of where it is right now, because of the fuel taxation structure.

 

Consumption / CO2 optimization aside, don't you get 100 liters tank with T3 if you choose Terrain Tech / 4XMOTION?

I didn't know about the connection of fuel tank size to the parking heater, though... You get the second battery, but bigger tank... Cool!

 

Currently the UK Escape (4XMotion) model does get the larger tank but the SE and R-Line (4Motion) get 80 litres as standard.

I didn't think any current UK model got dual batteries, even as options - but I'm new to all this.

 

I hate my 85L tank, would rather have more range !

 

In my manual it says the 2012 could come with a 100 l or 85l.

 

Citations aren't necessary - the definitions of kerbweights for EU tests are publicly defined and available on the internet - try google but other search engines are available.

My adding up all the small weight savings, manufacturers are saving 200-400 kg on new models and that DOES have an effect on fuel consumption figures - not at steady speed maybe but during urban stop-start.

 

Citations aren't necessary - the definitions of kerbweights for EU tests are publicly defined and available on the internet - try google but other search engines are available.

My adding up all the small weight savings, manufacturers are saving 200-400 kg on new models and that DOES have an effect on fuel consumption figures - not at steady speed maybe but during urban stop-start.

We were talking about 1 THING "4 gallons" now your talking about the all inclusive ALL. So your backing down on the 28# being measurable in MPG?

Don't be obtuse: Yes 900# going to make a difference, that is a full car load of adults.

Your laws do not concern me. Also .5% of weight reduction of a 5000# vehicle IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE MEASURED for MPG savings. Margin of error is larger!

If that is the case, where are all the car MPG test jockeys? Do they need special equipment to operate the vehicle?

You just crushed my dreams. >

 

A documented modification to the Chevrolet Eco Cruze is to replace the fuel tank sender with one from a standard Cruze. It takes fuel capacity from 12.6 gallons to 15.6 gallons. Same fuel tank, but the former has a vent shutoff when it is 3 gallons short of full in order to improve fuel economy. Chevy also uses shorter flange welds on the Eco than the regular Cruze. It sounds stupid, but when it is added together, the Eco is 200# lighter than the standard car.

The current Golf has a smaller fuel tank (13.2 gallons) than the previous generation (14.5 gallons). They have the capability to fit a larger fuel tank and do so on the Golf R and 4-motion models since they need it to maintain a decent range.

The federal government estimates that a 100# drop in weight results in about a 1% fuel economy increase. I'm not a fan of using fuel tanks to achieve this weight reduction, but I understand why manufacturers are doing it.