Real Volkswagen Touran fuel consumption
Volkswagen Touran real fuel consumption by user reviews is approximately 15% higher compared to official consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 18% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 13% higher. Above consumption difference is the average for all Volkswagen Touran produced from 2003 to 2020. For Volkswagen Touran produced up to 2012 the difference in real fuel consumption by user reviews is on average +13%, while for those produced after 2012 it is on average +26%.
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
Average difference between user reported and stated consumption
All carmakers average fuel economy difference between advertised and user reported
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
2010
Volkswagen Touran 2010
Average real petrol consumption difference: +33% Average real diesel consumption difference: +21%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Volkswagen Touran versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.2Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.2 TSI MT | Petrol | 6.4 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km+16% |
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.4 TSI 140 HP MT | Petrol | 6.8 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km+21% |
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.4 TSI 140 HP AT | Petrol | 6.6 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km+20% |
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.4 TSI EcoFuel 150 HP MT | Petrol | 4.7 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km+51% |
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.4 TSI EcoFuel 150 HP AT | Petrol | 4.6 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km+59% |
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.4 TSI 170 HP AT | Petrol | 6.6 l/100km | |
| 1.6Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.6 TDI 90 HP MT | Diesel | 5.1 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km+16% |
| 1.6Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.6 TDI 105 HP AT | Diesel | 5.1 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km+24% |
| 1.6Volkswagen Touran 2010 1.6 TDI BlueMotion 105 HP MT | Diesel | 4.6 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km+30% |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2010 2.0 TDI 140 HP MT | Diesel | 5.3 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km+19% |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2010 2.0 TDI 140 HP AT | Diesel | 5.7 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km+16% |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2010 2.0 TDI 170 HP AT | Diesel | 5.7 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km+19% |
2006
Volkswagen Touran 2006
Average real petrol consumption difference: +12% Average real diesel consumption difference: +6%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Volkswagen Touran versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.4 16V TSI 140 HP MT | Petrol | 7.4 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km+9% |
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.4 16V TSI 140 HP AT | Petrol | 7.5 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km+8% |
| 1.4Volkswagen Touran 2007 1.4 16V TSI 170 HP AT | Petrol | 7.6 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km+25% |
| 1.6Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.6 MT | Petrol | 7.9 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km+6% |
| 1.9Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.9 TDI 90 HP MT | Diesel | 6.0 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km+8% |
| 1.9Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.9 TDI 105 HP MT | Diesel | 5.9 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km+8% |
| 1.9Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.9 TDI 105 HP AT | Diesel | 6.0 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km+22% |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2006 2.0 109 HP MT | Diesel | 8.6 l/100km | |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2006 2.0 TDI 140 HP MT | Diesel | 6.0 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km+13% |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2006 2.0 TDI 140 HP AT | Diesel | 6.5 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km+8% |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2006 2.0 TDI 170 HP MT | Diesel | 6.6 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km+3% |
| 2.0Volkswagen Touran 2006 2.0 TDI 170 HP AT | Diesel | 6.9 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km+7% |
2003
Volkswagen Touran 2003
Average real petrol consumption difference: +8% Average real diesel consumption difference: +11%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Volkswagen Touran versions are shown in the table below.
Real fuel consumption of other carmakers
The fuel consumption reported by users does not reflect the experience of all users, may be selective (depending on the driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the car and other circumstances) and should therefore not be taken as a representative indicator.