Gerrycan

I would have thought you were in the best position to answer that one yourself?

I remember a Skoda master technician who used to post here saying that it was important that spark plugs were orientated correctly in direct injection engines. So someone needs to know what they are doing when screwing them in rather than just screwing up

I had no idea my old signature was still viewable as I could not see it, and I had not put any entries in Fuelly for a few years now anyway. The average consumption per refueling (which I do calculate) is still about the same even though my wife does most of the driving in the car these days. Went in to view my account settings and the action of just viewing my signature appears to have deleted the Fuelly reference which is probably the right thing since it is such old data.

I think you will have resign yourself to the fact that the Fabia will not match the diesel consumption or performance for certain journeys. Have to say your reports for your vRS are better than the average reported for the type though.

@Alanhipperson25, we rented a 1.2 litre Vauxhall Corsa when we visited the UK last September and the long term consumption for the last 6k miles under previous rentals was 22mpg! We averaged about 60mpg over about 2k miles and that included some inner and outer urban London driving so I would not take any notice of your long term figures and follow the good advice of others and find out what you actually get. I find it hard to believe how anyone could get that bad consumption in a 1.2tsi Fabia unless: Towing a caravan, or racing at Brands Hatch, or only ever doing 2 mile journeys to the shops! Other threads comparing the 1.2tsi to the later 1.0tsi suggested that the latter was slightly more economical but the former was nicer to drive being smoother and offering better low rev torque. As already suggested checking the car's bits like the air filter, spark plugs, tyre pressures, and for binding brakes will not do any harm. Another possible thing to check is the units of measure selected for the display as there is a (very) remote possibility that smaller US gallons have been accidentally selected instead of larger Imperial gallons? Be interesting to hear the results of your investigations

I consider myself a fairly grounded person, not superstitious (touch wood), pragmatic and a believer in scientific principles.... and then something happens that seems at odds to expectations. My balls of my feet had been increasingly painful after a several high step count days at work interspersed with runs on my days off. I was not sure if it was a fracture, a neuroma, or my plantar fasciitis playing up but I was worried about whether I would actually make it to work the next day as I could barely hobble. The wife suggested I bathed my feet in a bowl of warm water with Epson Salts and had set it up before I could register my disbelief in its efficacy. So twenty minutes later I dried my feet and stood up.... and they felt a hell of lot better, and by the next morning were feeling completely normal. I do know it is an accepted treatment, or recovery procedure for some but since it is not proven that magnesium can be absorbed through skin I was quite sceptical. I still am but somehow it worked incredibly well on this occasion. I guess if it happens again I should just bathe the feet without the salts, for science

Around 2007 I had a hankering for a manual diesel estate as a company car. There were suddenly several imported options available as the local Australian diesel fuel requirements had improved to match the European standards. A test drive of a Mazda 6 2.2L with its 400Nm of torque proved to be a bit boisterous with torque steer and spinning the front wheels in third on a damp road was off-putting. Long story short I went for a 1.9pd mk2 Octavia with its 'mighty' 77kw/270Nm diesel donk. While it was slow off the line I never found it underpowered when moving, it could accelerate up a long 12% gradient in top gear while only sucking at 12L/100, so overtaking in top gear on the flat was a breeze. I rarely had to change gear on long journeys. The interesting thing is that after seven years I eventually sold it to a young couple replacing their WRX who lived in the Adelaide Hills and they rang me about a week after the purchase to say how delighted they were with the performance, economy and car in general, which was gratifying but totally unexpected considering their performance car.

Not a vRS but my Octavia estate measures 1.84 metres to the seat back in a usable position for a 178cm person.

I would have expected it to sail up in that gear so a high probability it is off-song. Good advice given for you to follow (as usual) from other Briskodians. Once you have followed the suggestions it might be an idea to find some single gear acceleration test times for say 50-70 (to avoid speeding infringements) that you can then see if you can match. That would give you a more scientific basis for determining where you are at. Diesels love the occasional thrashing to avoid glazing and reduce carbon build up.

What is the gradient of the hill? What speed in what gear?

While I have long had an interest in the topic of vehicle aerodynamics I have no real expertise or experience other than having followed a few online projects. Generally speaking it is quite hard to get any significant aero improvements on the basic modern vehicle shape unless you go to extremes like adding huge boat-tails, or covering the wheel arches. First of all you can congratulate yourself on having a pretty aerodynamic car in the first place. Sure it concedes a point or two to the sedans 0.30 drag coefficient but compared to most other estates it rates pretty well and certainly better than any SUV styled vehicle. I believe the Karoq is 0.34 and that is one of the best of its type. When I had an opportunity to look under a raised Octavia mk3 I was quite impressed by how smooth it was for the first three quarters then there is the aero ridge to 'throw' the air across the gap past the rear suspension where the underside smoothness becomes more compromised in my opinion. There is a small feature in the Octavia design that rankles for me and that is the transition from the windscreen to the roofline where there is a centimetre high ridge instead of a smooth contouring as on my 20 year old Toyota Echo (which also claims 0.30 drag coefficient). The 'ridge' collects a huge number of bugs after a fast evening country run and just does not seem right. There were little or no claims of aerodynamic improvements between the mk2 and mk3 Octavii but the mk4 is remarkable for a lower priced, mass produced ICE vehicle by claiming 0.24 to 0.26 for sedan and combi. The perfectly aerodynamic ŠKODA OCTAVIA - Škoda Storyboard (skoda-storyboard.com) Your post reminds me of a motoring magazine's experiment of attaching a large aluminium sheet underneath a Triumph TR4 (Yes I am THAT old) and claiming they increased the top speed by 10mph. So by all means experiment and I'd love to read a report from you.

You only have to press the selector knob for a couple of seconds to reset the current trip display so hardly arduous. If you are looking at the display at the end of the trip to check your stats you could do it then?

The 1.4tsi is has been widely fitted to any number of models across the VW group, except Porsche and Bugatti of course, and the cam belt is not recognised as being an issue if not replaced exactly per recommended schedules which vary considerably across the world's markets. I didn't get the nudge from my (Australian) dealer to replace mine until the seven year service and when I declined he indicated I wasn't the first to do so and I did not get the hard sell or any warnings of imminent doom and destruction. We have decided to keep the 1.4tsi, as there is no more attractive or affordable new option on the market, and will probably replace the belt next service. I Just have to decide whether I go with the dealer or a specialist independent. If you feel more comfortable changing the belt now then that is fine, but if it did not happen until a later service then don't lose any sleep over it, especially with the low mileage it has on the clock.

Your excellent consumption may have beaten the combined figures BUT they did not beat the (ridiculous) 1.5tsi extra-urban figure of 3.9L/100 or 72.43mpg.

I understand why you ask but, honestly, figures without context are almost meaningless. Got to have some idea of the driver and regular journey profile to make any sense of any figures. We are still dark age Euro 5 emission standard in Australia but I am assuming that AdBlue is mandatory in Europe and should be included as a related consumption factor? If you are doing a lot of long journeys then I think you are going to love your new car, and get good consumption.

5.6L/100 is 50mpg (Imperial British measurement) so 5.8L/100 is nearly 49mpg.

Experience tells me that plugs are perfectly safe at UK/Aus speed limits although I'd balk at continental speeds. Their main issue is that they can make their presence felt over time with different wear rates. We visited the UK last September and noted all the new housing developments and their characteristics.

That two week break soon passed and I returned to a heavy work schedule so back to averaging running only every five days or so. It is better than nothing, but I am hoping that some negotiated reduction of working days may allow more regular exercise in future. I eventually accessed my recent medical check-up and blood test results on-line and with figures in the expected ranges I assume that, since I had no follow up request from my GP, there was nothing to discuss. Good news and a tick for the benefits of sensible exercise and diet although I have always regarded it as 'significantly improving the odds' rather than any sort of guarantee of health or longevity.

There is a lot of urban renewal in Australia as many post-war bungalows, built on the "Aussie dream" larger block, are demolished and replaced with 2 or more, multi-story newbuilds. Consequently over the years I've had more than my share of being 'screwed' with relatively new tyres. I think the deeper tread makes them more susceptible to picking up screws casually scattered by the tradies. Cannot remember it happening at all in my 13 driving years in the UK. It is the reason I'd never buy a car without a some sort of spare as I have had to fit them so many times although only once in a very remote place, late at night, on a long weekend. The screw is well away from the sidewall so it will be plugged, otherwise yes it would have been a significantly more expensive new tyre.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo........!!!!!!

Earlier Octavia manual models had a process to reset the gear selection mechanism. Borrowed this video from the Skoda Octavia Guides

I'm sure you are right. The amount of tyre abuse and neglect I see on other cars with under inflated tyres or dangerously poor and uneven tread wear is frightening. I recognise that I am very 'careful' (miserly/mean) with money and it was my decision to run the tyres down to about 2.5mm tread. Wear was even across the old tyres and the wheel alignment showed little change from the last one 5 years before. I suspect the mild saw toothing had been created by wear in the unadjustable rear suspension. Regular tyre rotation, diagonal front to rear, compensated for the total wear but only restricted the saw-toothing and noise and did not remove it. The reason for my post was I had never experienced such a dramatic change in the overall 'feel' of a car by changing from worn but otherwise roadworthy tyres especially considering Michelin's exalted reputation. Of course tyre reviews are of brand new tyres and not when they are near end of life. I know this is totally subjective but I am very happy with the Continentals so far and it will be interesting to see how they play out over their life. Bear in mind that I can run a summer tyre all year here and so my comments on the tyres probably have little relevance to UK or European conditions.

Some background: Australian market so some variation as to what is available The only time I would put any demands on a tyre would be when I, or someone else, has made a mistake, so this is never going to be assessment of the sporting characteristics of a tyre. The car is was bought in 2014 and came fitted with Dunlop Sportsmaxx that lasted for 42,000 km and while I know they are not well regarded in the Forum, they provided us with a good ride, low noise and pretty reasonable handling characteristics until replacement. I did consider replacing with the same tyres but they were unusually expensive here and some Michelin Primacy were then competitively priced but for the first 100km I thought I had made a mistake as the steering felt peculiarly light and vague until the tyre newness wore off. I was reasonably happy but I was never really wowed as much as I thought I would be by their reputation from independent tests. The Michelins wore down to the bars after 48,000 km (90k km total) and needed replacing but the last 12k km or so they had developed a bit of saw toothing and were relatively noisy and the ride had deteriorated to the point I was wondering whether there were also suspension issues. The tyres were also showing a signs of minor cracking in the grooves so it was time for some more internet research for replacements. This time the only good deals I could find for tyres with good reviews were for Continental MaxContact MC6 (Thailand made), which is a brand I not considered before as they generally did not receive good comments on Briskoda. They were rated a close second to Michelin Primacy in independent tests but at an irresistibly low price so the online purchase was made. We have done a couple of thousand km with these tyres now and the ride, handling and road noise levels now seem as good as when the car was new and without the initial issues I had with the Primacy tyres. They also seem to be exhibiting similar low rolling resistance to the two previously fitted tyres so petrol consumption is still good. Being a 17 inch tyre they will obviously make a fair contribution to the suspension but I am very surprised at the noticeable difference between the worn tyres and replacements beyond just the noise. This is subjective I know but so far I am a very happy camper. I run at 37 psi pressures all round, which is a bit over the manufacturers recommendations but I have always done this. I cannot comment on wet weather handling for any tyre as a) we get relatively little rain in my part of Australia and b) when we do get a drizzle I tend to drive cautiously as the road surface is then very treacherous, even worse on a bicycle.

I'm always sympathetic with anyone experiencing worsening fuel consumption but I do wish more information was presented for those assisting. 'Almost overnight' but how long ago and for how many refills has the increased consumption been noted? Was it coincident with any event; servicing, new tyres, drop in temperature etc? How many km has the car done? What is the driving profile like? How many km each week? Typical journey length? Does the car get a reasonably frequent long journey for a diesel particulate filter to regenerate? Have you noted any indication that an attempted dpf regen has failed to complete? High revs/fan running/burning smell? What does 70km less distance covered represent in percentage terms. Do you note the 'since refuel' consumption when you refuel and is the worse consumption similar in percentage terms to the reduced distance covered? There will be other questions but these will provide some background.

A quick look on Motormouth suggests that 98 RON is available in a few roadhouses but my main concern would be the quality as you would have to consider that there would not be many high spec Euro cars doing that sort of journey so the fuel turnover would presumably be quite low and fuel does go 'off' over time. 95 RON would have similar lower sulphur content to 98 RON but is likely to have a bigger turnover so 95 RON with a bit of octane booster might be a better option? My 1.4tsi is less demanding than yours and happily runs on any brand of 95 RON, I have really not noticed any difference in performance or consumption and tend to buy whatever is cheapest when driving by a station. Yes my mk3 speedo is about 6% optimistic, my previous mk2 diesel was similar and an even earlier mk1 Santa Fe was as close to 10% optimistic without being actually illegal as it could be. All were bought as brand new cars. Since I did not have a gps with the Santa Fe it took me a while to figure out why I was always doing the last 50km on a long leg in the dark, during drought times and the roadsides infested with 'roos it was b****y dangerous! Funnily enough my 20 yo Echo town hack is the 'fastest' car I have owned since its speedo is only 2% optimistic . Really great that yours is so accurate. I guessing you should get 6.5l/100 on the 110kph sections so should allow a safe 700km between fills, but be warned, the first half of the tank is always 'bigger' than the second half if you go by the fuel level gauge. At half full mark I should only get 25 litres in the 50 litre tank but yup it takes 30 litres. I'd be useless in currently available EV out there, I would suffer so much from range anxiety. Must admit this thread is giving me a hankering to go touring...