Fabia 1.6 TDI CR 105ps Running issues and MPG Problems

[Jon Dimond]

They don't want to admit that there is a problem as they can't find one. It's basically become a big game of skirting the issue to be honest. Ours sounds like a tractor, you couldn't not notice.

 

I did get 65mpg out of it on the way back from Brum this afternoon, so it might be looking up, but it's still doesn't drive right. 

 

It'll be getting traded in ASAP. 

 

Hi Jon,

 

Did the garage actually drive both cars back to back, just as you did to be able to see the difference you are talking about?

(Your car and the one they loaned you)

 

If you can tell the difference, surely they can.

I know how disappointed you must feel when it's not as it should be.

I have now added my fuelly to my posts and you can see what pathetic consumption I get.

 

As you state: Drive it like my Nan.

 

I would still try to get the garage to test the 2 cars back to back, if they can't see/feel it then they sound like they are fleecing you.

Good Luck.

Pete.

[vwroadster]

Keep us updated if you do trade it in, especially with it's replacement.

Sorry it hasn't got any better for you Jon, I was rooting for you on this one.

[xman]

My limited experience of fabia diesels is they vary wildly from example to example.

 

My first taste was a mk1 1.4 tdi demonstrator and it was surprisingly quiet and fast, apart from the pregnant pause when you pressed the loud pedal at anything under 2000 rpm. Next example i drove (with a view to buying) sounded like a bag of old spanners at idle and a massey ferguson tractor when driving.

 

Although I love my 1.9 tdi Alhambra - I've had it 15 years now - every modern diesel I've driven since has left me underwhelmed. In the 2 years I had a 1.3cdti corsa (fiat multijet engine - engine of the year award), I learned to hate modern diesel tech and learned the hard and very expensive lesson that if the particular example you owned wasnt right, which mine definitely wasnt, that dealers just weren't able or interested in sorting it out.

 

I've not tried anything larger than 1.6 cr diesel skodas, but they don't inspire me enough to want one. The fear of expensive problems after the warranty period negates any economy benefits they might have. And whether my typical use suits a dpf - well.....

 

I used to be a stout diesel evangelist for over 20 years, then modern cr engines came along and shook my faith.

 

When I first tried the 1.2tsi in the octavia mk2, it was an eye opening revelation....

Edited 29 January, 2014 by xman

[DavidIF]

I can only speak from experience which is that even in the current cold weather we are experiencing I am averaging about 63mpg in a diesel MonteCarlo Tech.

I cannot accept what has been said about this engine being gruff and unrefined etc. I have experience of just about all of the modern VAG diesels over the last 15 years and must say that I find the current 1.6cr engine head and shoulders ahead of the earlier designs and indeed quieter than a recently driven SEAT Leon with a 2.0cr engine.

If I have one grippe it is that you seem to have to work at getting the economy rather than just driving a pd engined car which seem to be economical in pretty well all conditions. The only exception I have to this personally is 2 years spent with a SEAT Leon FR diesel(170bhp) which never seemed as economical as it should have been even when driven very carefully.

I can't say that I have very much experience of the modern small capacity turbo petrols other than a fairly extended test in a MonteCarlo Tech 1.2TSI with 105 bhp just before buying the current car. I have to say that despite the hype that seems to surround this powerplant I came away entirely underwhelmed by the experience of it. It felt gutless after the 105bhp diesel and not quite as refined as I'd been led to believe.

[Jon Dimond]

Well surprise surprise the car is back at Skoda yet again. It's just ticked over 40K miles. About 3 weeks ago it started to lose coolant somewhere. It was due a service anyway, so we booked it in and told them about the problem. They replaced the water pump as apparently it was leaking from there. We drove it 300 miles or so to France and the coolant light came on again. It took about a pint to refill to max. 

 

It's still useless and gutless and has now started to judder at certain times and at certain RPMS. Yesterday I started it up in the morning and drove it to an appointment. I'd done about 200 yards and was pulling away from a mini roundabout at about 15mph in 2nd. It just lost all power. I could put my foot to the floor and for about 30-45 seconds and about 500 meters absolutely nothing happened. It just refused to pick up. No warning lights came on.

 

They've plugged it in and yet again the OBD says that there is not a recorded fault. Apparently they have now stripped down the EGR valve and have found water in the system somewhere so they've referred it to Skoda technical. 

 

Now am I right in thinking that if there has been water in the EGR system, that it's almost certainly been going through the combustion process along with the exhaust gasses and the fuel/air? Surely this will have caused some damage to the bores, piston rings and possibly the DPF?

 

I'm really really annoyed with it all now. We've paid for a new car, so that we could have at least 3 years of trouble free motoring and we've had nothing of the sort. The dealer's only suggestion last time was that we spend more money with them to upgrade and they'll discount the new car to 'cost'.

[savaphil]

Sounds like you're having real issues Jon.

 

I have the 1.6 cr tdi 105 Fabia and have been completely underwhelmed by the MPG. If I am careful I get 50mpg on a journey almost identical to one described above (26 miles commute - each way - with a few hundred yeards of town followed by A roads, then dual carriageway with a couple of roundabouts and 2 miles of town driving at the end). This is crackers IMO. I would expect to get a few mpg less than the stated figures but 30-40% less? Especially annoying as I do so little town driving. I moved from a 2.0tdci Mondeo with 100,000 on the clock (and a bust DMF) which was easily getting 50mpg when I booted it everywhere into a 1.9 tid Saab 93 (also had clutch issues) into my Fabia Monte. Part of the deal with myself was that although it was a smaller vehicle, i'd be getting such great mpg I could warrant the monthly payments (didn't want to spend a £1000 on the Sabb or Mondy to have it break down another week later with a DPF or injectors issue).

In short I think the 1.6 CR TDi, as far as MPG goes, is pants! The brochure states that the Fabia Mk2 is equally comfortable on the motorway as it is around town yet motorway driving seems to kill the MPG even further. I don't suffer power loss or rough running as you do but I agree the MPG is not what a car this lightweight with the small of an engine should be returning. I too have mentioned this to my Skoda dealer but they say the same - no code = no issues!

On a side note, a friend has the same (?) engine in her Golf, had something done with the injectors (mechanically or via computer I don't know) but now gets over 70mpg.

 

I'm getting quite hacked off with having such a small car with such poor mpg performance. I don't mind the small car trade off with better mpg but I've had vans (Renault Traffic) return better mpg (shame about the injectors on those things).

 

I HATE CR engines. Give me my old Hilux any day! (poor MPG and pick ups are not practical but boy was it worth the mpg/rough by comparison running for the reliability)

 

Rant over.

 

It's in for it's 20,000 mile service next month so will be mentioning it once again to see if they have any further ideas (last time my tyre pressure was out by 1 psi so that was their answer for the cause!!!!)

[marcusthehat]

Gentlemen, having driven a bigger car, the Octavia, with the 1.6CR and DSG transmission for 65,000 miles.

The 1.6 CR is a proper wee peach of an engine, which does NOT require to be revved (simply per VW's coding of the DSG transmission software)

Got up to 68mpg on a run to Donegal Sat past, with over 65mpg still showing after a 60mph run home from Letterkenny.

Average speed over the 220 miles was 41mph, and we were 3 up.

Got over 60 and 63 MPG the previous 2 weekends on a similar run.

Astounding.

But jibbling about locally get high 40's low 50's.

It does require longer runs, to bring the engine up to temp(well 5 miles plus) and allow the economy to develop.

Short runs are a killer.

PS

What is this "DPF" I keep hearing about??

Marcus

[Jon Dimond]

Well it's having a new EGR valve fitted tomorrow after referral to Skoda Tech. Then further testing apparently.

[savaphil]

Keep us posted please Jon

[Jon Dimond]

Still at Skoda. . Being pressure tested apparently, then taken apart again to check for leaks. May get it back tomorrow...

[Jon Dimond]

STILL at Skoda. Still being pressure tested. They've had it over a week now. Getting bored.

[seboni121]

We have 2 cars here with the 1.6 tdi engine monte and golf , they both give us over 65mpg

[lol-lol]

The issue is the first 3 miles or so in reporting MPG.

 

Manufacturers figures do not include the start up phase (but probably should for a useful comparison).

 

Exclude the first 3 miles and then set the fuel consumption measuring and you will get thereabouts the manufacturers figures.

 

If we are doing short journeys ie less than 3 miles, we use the natuarally aspirated cars ie the HTP Fabia or the one litre GM car.  Warm in a mile gives 45-50 mpg even with these short distances.

 

Turbocharged cars, especially the larger engine mass diesels, take several miles to full warm up and give 100% of their Manufacturers figures, in the first 3 miles they will give about half of those figures depending on how cold the day is.

 

I get about or better than the manufacturers figures for MPG as my average journeys are 100 to 200 miles ie the starting phases is a small percentage of the overall journey.

 

Horses for courses.

[Jon Dimond]

Well apparently the results of whatever they were pressure testing were not good and it lost a bar of pressure overnight. I presume that they're doing a leak down compression test, but not sure. Sounds like its knackered to me.

[Jon Dimond]

Still at Skoda, cylinder head now off. Still reluctant to admit a fault. Cross now. Back in contact with Skoda UK. Going to e-mail MD later.

[Jon Dimond]

New cylinder head now.

No faults remember .

[Jon Dimond]

Skoda UK are seemingly trying to ignore me now. I've been trying to speak to them since yesterday lunchtime. They keep promising to call me back, but despite 4 phone calls to them I still haven't been able to speak to the person dealing with our case.

I e-mailed the Managing Director [email protected]. but have not received a response yet.

[Jon Dimond]

We got the car back today after all of it's warrant work. To me it seems to be the same gutless heap of junk it was before it went in. We're going to get it on a dyno early next week to see if it will show anything up. 

[lol-lol]

Sorry to hear of your continued woes with the car.

 

Rolling Road testing can give you some answers but also often raises many questions.

 

I did a work placement on a rolloing road site and sometimes the figures were so poor that the bosses would use a "times two" multiplier on the analogue instrumentation so the punter would think his vehicle is producing more HP/torque than actual so they woild go away happy. 

 

What is useful is know at what revs the actual peak power is produced.  With the Fabia 2 VRS the manufacturers engine output figures say 6200 prm but the rolling road say peak power occurs at about 5500.  This means it is not worth hanging on until over 6K on the standard engine, in the higher gears but to change at just over six K revs and let it haul from 5K-ish. 

 

The 1.6D, in its various outputs, is sold to be an economical low emission engine.  Typical of nearly all 4 cylinder diesel engines its design criteria is to do this.   If you look at virtually all petrol versus diesel models, and especially where the engines in that model range have same or similar power petrol/diesel variants, the petrol version for the same HP is about a second quicker to 60 mph ie 105 hp Fabia, petrol 10s to 60, diesel 11s to 60 mph.  The diesel is a little bit heavier but the inertia of the engine internals soak up much more power during acceleration.  

 

Your car may have a bit of a glitch, there can be some strange results.  Our 130 hp 1.9D would walk away from the 140 hp 2 litre diesel for example.

 

If they have done some top end work on the engine it will take a few thousand miles to bed in and therefore the dyno results may be disappointing.

 

I am looking for this engine in my next car but it will be paired with DSG box and then once run in it would be chipped to take it up to the 135 hp mark and torque up over 300 Nm.

 

VAG occasional do produce quick 4 cylinder diesels, such as the Ibiza Cupra ie 160 hp using the 1.9D and 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and some of the Golf platform GTDs are not too shabby.

 

If you want sparkling performance chip or move to a TSI. 99% of my journeys are sat at 70 mph on the motorways so hence seems sensible to move to something that uses a couple of thousands pounds less fuel per year and pays £35 or less road tax and the insurance is half too.  Horses for courses.

Edited 8 November, 2014 by lol-lol

[Jon Dimond]

I'm only taking it to the dyno to see if they can pinpoint a problem. I want to know what it's genuinely producing. I'm not at all interested in getting it chipped or anything of the sort.

[lol-lol]

I'm only taking it to the dyno to see if they can pinpoint a problem. I want to know what it's genuinely producing. I'm not at all interested in getting it chipped or anything of the sort.

you would need to measure a good one on that particular rolling road to get a benchmark. Good one might show 110 hp perhaps then compare to yours.

RR figures only really relevant as comparison IMO.

Edited 8 November, 2014 by lol-lol

[Jon Dimond]

They're a well established dyno operator who do loads of motorsport work etc. I'm pretty confident that they can give me a very good idea. I'll report back once it's been done.

[Jon Dimond]

Well the dyno results are in.

It made good power. 112bhp at the flywheel, however only 66.5 at the wheels which seems like quite a lot for transmission loss.

The torque came in at 190ft/lbs, but the dyno guy said it doesn't take into account the transmission losses. It didn't make good torque until about 1850rpm though, where Skoda say it should be from 1500.

He did say it felt quite flat lower down, but couldn't compare to another so wasn't sure if it was normal for this type of engine.

[Jon Dimond]

It's getting sold back to the dealer next week. Had enough, wasted too much time on it now. Cut losses and run.

[lol-lol]

Well the dyno results are in.   It made good power. 112bhp at the flywheel, however only 66.5 at the wheels which seems like quite a lot for transmission loss.  The torque came in at 190ft/lbs, but the dyno guy said it doesn't take into account the transmission losses. It didn't make good torque until about 1850rpm though, where Skoda say it should be from 1500.   He did say it felt quite flat lower down, but couldn't compare to another so wasn't sure if it was normal for this type of engine.

 

All sounds a bit odd.   Power at Flywheel is extrapolated from measure torque at rear wheels, then the "Torque*Pi*Revs/sec*2" and the then trasmission losses from the wind down cycle.

 

To loss 45 horsepower in transmission would require such loss that it would manifest itself in one or more of the comopents by way of heat or noise.  But 45 Hp is about 33 Kw ie nearly 17 two bar electric fires of energy.  The only component I can think of that deals with that much power are the brakes ie very badly binding.

 

Transmission losses would be no more than 15 hp for a conventional gearbox and drive system ie circa 10-15%.   I would summise from this logic that the engine is possibly only producing about 80 hp, which seems logical for the way you said the car felt.

 

Sorry you have given up on the Fabia and it does fill me with some worry as have in mind a 90 hp 1.6D DSG !        

Edited 11 November, 2014 by lol-lol