Gerrycan

I have no experience with a PHEV type vehicle but based on experience with other vehicles (petrol, diesel, Toyota hybrid) I find the discussion really interesting but somewhat at odds with my expectations. Our old 1.4tsi Octavia estate on a long run, on flat roads, I've found consumption is adversely affected more by a strong headwind than a full load (guessing +350kg), and was getting just over 50 mpg with the large load at highway speeds. So I am surprised that an iV (which has far better aerodynamics than a mk3 estate), even when it is lugging a large empty battery around, is only reported to give mid 40's mpg returns. I'd also expect the occasional braking regen recuperation to allow some level of assistance from the hybrid system to improve consumption a bit. A hire diesel C'eed in the UK returned calculated 60mpg and 70mpg near full tank refills from a lot of touring using motorways. Far better than I got from my mk2 1.9pd by the way. A hire Toyota Corolla 1.8l hybrid sedan returned 65mpg with extensive touring in the Australian Northern Territory (speed limits up to 130kph). This has a really small NmH battery that it only uses half of its capacity anyway. The low performance atkinson engine is optimised for efficiency and the hybrid component fills in its weaknesses at lower speeds, but does not do so much at higher speeds. Add in the huge gearing range offered by the CVT gearbox and that all mostly explains how it is does so unusually well at high speed runs. I am interested in a PHEV but the only affordable ones here are Chinese and their ICE components are not particularly efficient at the best of times. The iV is not sold here, in fact the only lower priced mk4s on offer here only have the old 1.4tsi with an 8 speed Aisin torque converter box.

Very unusual for cars to show any rust in Adelaide (low humidity and rainfall) unless they are parked permanently outside next to the sea so a 10 year old I-Miev is unlikely to have that problem here. My primary concern with a 10 yo I-Miev would be what condition the battery is in, and how much to replace (someone in Western Australia is asking $2000 for a 2011 year battery with 70 km range when last used) Other than that a suitable urban runabout if you can get hold of one.

@wyx087, I have to agree with you about the importance of efficiency. Pre covid there a was biennial solar car race from Darwin to Adelaide where I occasionally went to view the 'cars' at the finish. Remarkable vehicles but no real practicality at all, a bit like Formula 1 cars. It is great that one of best of those competing teams has applied the lessons and tech into a demonstrably practical vehicle. Certainly would be great where I live in Adelaide Australia (about the same latitude as Southern Spain), so potentially lots of sun. One of the first EVs that was available here was the Mitsubishi i-Miev (2010), which was a small kei car with a small battery and relatively low range. It looked fairly futuristic for the time and semi-aero but I was appalled to learn that the drag coefficient was 0.38 which explained a lot why it was reported to be so inefficient on an out of town run. To demonstrate how bad that is my 2003 Toyota Echo has a claimed cd of 0.30 and that is with the drag from ICE radiators and a short stubby body. It is a real disappointment that so many manufacturers currently produce truly inefficient EVs and rely on big expensive batteries to achieve a usable range.

Don't need the photo, we believe you. There is little risk when the range left is close to distance left to travel as there is usually a few litres more in the tank when the gauge is showing as empty. More courage is required when the range left is zero and there is 50 miles to go but it is all pretty unnecessary when you can fill up and calculate from the refill amount what your consumption is like. I do like the convenience of the quick refuelling of ICE on our now infrequent longer journeys, but I don't like the rising fuel prices, I don't like it that most fuel comes from politically unstable areas which could limit our ability to refuel at all. And I'm feeling increasing guilt from the effects of burning fuel on the environment. I want an EV, but I do question what happens when say 10 cars are all fast charging at the same time at the same station, using the same amount of electricity as a thousand homes (that is a guess), then scale that up when EV sales increase. Electricity is itself subject to limited generation capacity and high demand, especially in winter. It is about time we all valued energy and conserved its use whatever its form. I'll be very happy if I can buy an EV with a relatively small battery that can achieve 10km/kwh at say 60 mph (100kph) with a range of 500km. Nothing available at the moment but the Merc EQS has proven it is possible.

Jerry can? Did someone call? I've wanted to get a 1000km out of a tank but have either been thwarted by strong headwinds or chickened out at about 900km but did not feel too bad about it as the distance was achieved with a four people and full of luggage and booze bought in Tasmania. Probably would have done it but wrong to include my UK guests in the experiment. 1.4tsi wagon is pretty economical

@26DIPP I was given the same advice on my business sponsored safe driving course. Higher tyre pressures were to stop the front tyre deforming under emergency braking conditions. Better fuel economy was just a bonus.

My limited recent experience on UK motorways is that they can carry an awful lot of traffic and often in very close proximity to each other, and means there is a lot of drafting going on, even if it is largely unintentional. I'll expect the the M42/M1 was carrying a lot more traffic than the M18/M180 so going onto the less busy roads left you out in the wind on your own so to speak and using more fuel. We got ridiculously good consumption in our hire Kia Ceed diesel with calculated refills of 70 mpg with extensive touring using UK motorways and having to drive a lot closer to the car in front at speed than I am used to in Australia. If I left my usual comfort distance then it was continual invitation for someone to slip in the gap, usually a BMW and usually without indicating and the M1 was restricted to 60 mph on the overhead gantries most of the time when we used it Incidentally your Fabia revs at 70 mph are similar to my Echo and reflects that of many other similar small and lower power NA manual cars. If you want to know how much fuel your car uses while idling then if you go into your display options and change it (temporarily) to metric L/100km then the display will probably show stationary idling consumption in L/hour. Australia is metric and on our 1.4tsi Octavia it is 0.5L/hour with no ancillaries (aircon, heated rear windows, heated mirrors etc) running but increases with greater loads I've thought of buying an after market fuel consumption display for my Echo which I put it off since I intended to get rid of the car when something major failed. However the thing just keeps on going, even the aircon has not been recharged in 19 years and still works well.

I have no experience with this engine so I had to look it up to get an idea of the specifications. The official figures (rounded) are city 39 mpg, urban 63 mpg, and combined 52 mpg. Power 60 or 70 bhp, torque 109 - 111 Nm (at 3000 rpm) and 0-60 between 14 and 16 seconds. From your consumption figures I'd say you are a little off what they could be, possibly giving away about 5 mpg? But the urban figures are usually la la land so if you getting around the combined figures on a run then that is not too bad. With the limited torque available I don't think a longer gear is really going to help much. On the plus side the torque comes in at relatively low revs for a small capacity NA engine so what does that 3k revs correspond to in speed in top gear? Max torque revs are usually where the engine is most efficient, although not necessarily where it is most economical. Unless you can get confirmation from someone that an extra and higher gear can get you quantifiably better economy, then it is difficult to justify the expense or effort. Sound advice from others about increasing your tyre pressures. I actually think that 30 psi is too low and 36 psi all round will make the ride a little firmer but you will actually feel the car roll along better. You can always fine tune pressure to your liking. Make sure the correct maintenance schedule is adhered to, take out any unnecessary weight you are carting around and look up the road to anticipate traffic and reduce unnecessary braking or accelerations. Done correctly it does not affect others and will make a significant improvement to consumption, especially in urban areas, but you don't seem to be doing to bad at the moment truth be told. The turbo Fabia are definitely more economical, I was very impressed by the loan 1.0tsi manual Fabia we had for a week. My wife drives our Octavia but my runabout is a 2003 Toyota Echo 1.3L manual which is quoted as having a little more performance and a slightly worse consumption than yours but my overall returns are similar to what you are quoting for different scenarios. The killer for me is the large number of short runs from cold starts that it does, but my monthly mileage is relatively low so the extra cost is bearable and I still spend more on local road tax and insurance than on fuel in a month. At least there is no further depreciation costs possible on mine

I've often commented on the lack of engine braking on my manual 2014 1.4tsi. It is not a problem where I live which is largely flat but when I do encounter a reasonably steep downhill (about 1 in 8 ) even 2nd gear revving its nuts off requires additional braking to remain under the speed limit. Every other vehicle I've owned whether diesel/petrol/manual/auto would be speed restricted happily in 3rd gear on the same hill. @sneal I was looking at getting a manual 1.5tsi Scala during Covid restrictions but couldn't get a test drive in one (DSG only) I asked a few times in different threads if anyone could give me an idea of the gearing in a manual 1.5tsi but never received a response. When you are in top gear (6th) what sort of revs are you pulling at 70mph? My 1.4tsi is about 2700 rpm which are relatively high revs but not a real problem as the engine is smooth and it even allows me to accelerate up that long downhill I mentioned in top gear as long as the engine is in the max torque zone ie over 1500rpm, which also suggest it is a bit undergeared.

I calculate from your original run figures that you used 53.6 litres of fuel. Did you refill with that amount? It is impressively more than the official 45 litre capacity. I'd be curious to know what your average speed was for the journey.

In my experience you can get better consumption in a manual than auto (DSG) and most times better than cruise control although it depends on the driver and road conditions. The DSG is an efficient box so differences are very small on the open road, less so in town. The problem with ACC is that your consumption will only be as good as the car in front allows. On a clear highway on the flat then it is as good as you are, probably better. I would not accelerate as 'fast as you can' for best economy but yes you want to be fairly positive to get into a high gear as soon as practical for the conditions.

The 1.0tsi engine is a good economical unit to start with, the Fabia is relatively light and the only downside is that its aerodynamics are ok but not great so higher speeds have a noticeable adverse effect on consumption. With only three small cylinders for lower friction, and direct fuel injection which reduces pumping losses of a throttle based engine at small openings. You can see this for yourself if you have the 'instant' consumption display showing during stationary idle (stop/start turned off) and it will only be showing 0.5L/hour consumption, maybe even less, which is very good. 'Pulse and glide' is actually repeatedly accelerating up to a given speed and then coasting to a lower speed and then reaccelerating/coasting. Extreme US hypermilers even have a kill switch on the engine during the coasting phase. Really not recommended practice on public roads with other traffic around. You can replicate this to a certain extent with the dsg auto in eco mode if it has the coast mode ( the engine ticks over) although you are far better off just following @KenONeill's recommendations. Some time back I had a loan Fabia 1.0tsi manual for a week and was very impressed by its economical operation despite the fact we were experiencing 40+ C temperatures so the air conditioner was working flat out all the time. Out of curiosity on a dead flat empty road I switched off the aircon and held 60kph in top gear on a minimal throttle and the instant display averaged 3.1L.100. It was too hot to muck about like that though and the aircon was turned on again. Still impressive though.

If you read the thread there are some answers to your questions. It was a Monte Carlo and only 16k when handed back so probably had original relatively sporty tyres for the type. He did add a few psi to the final and best attempt. He used all the hyper mile tricks including pulse and glide, and drafting where possible and safe. I suspect that he was doing (successive?) fairly long journeys out of rush hour periods to achieve his results because his average speed is pretty good. Pulse and glide techniques are not really possible on busy roads without inciting a potential road rage incident.

As you age then things generally don't work as well as they did but when I run I think my lungs struggle more than they should, which might just be due to normal ageing inelasticity .....but then again. My dad was a lifelong smoker, I have literally hundreds of photos of him handed down to me and I have never found one without a cigarette in mouth or hand. This means my mother was a passive smoker all through her pregnancy, I was a passive smoker through my whole childhood, as he smoked unremittingly in the car and house. My job as a child was to roll his cigarettes for him as he drove. Not to mention generally accepted smoking everywhere else, pubs, offices, restaurants etc., at least the underground had some smokeless carriages. But thinking on it is worse than that: I remember going to school in the London smog with all the smoke from coal fires (before the clean air act improved things) reducing visibility to about 3 metres. Leaded petrol for a considerable period of my time in the UK, especially when I was cycling up to my job in the City of London on a daily basis. Diesel lorries used to emit soot particles that looked like small black snow flakes. Nano particles be damned. Dust from asbestos brake pads. Good grief I used to change the shoes and disk pads myself, in the street, and blow out the dust! Our home heating progressed from an open fire with coal, to 'smokeless' fuels, back up from paraffin heaters (venting into the room), to eventually natural gas heaters (using the fire flue). Now turns out that gas cooking hobs (which I have always had) are also incredibly bad for your lungs. Perhaps I should just be grateful my lungs are as good as they currently are.

Thanks, obviously they have no shame Seriously, how is a fuel additive going to improve a new inlet manifold on a car with direct injection??

It might be an idea, when you get your car, to run it unmodified for a while just to ascertain true consumption and whether the available performance actually meets your needs anyway. I know that 150bhp does not seem much but with a diesel it is all about the torque and the 2.0tdi will have a heap more than your previous Octavia or current Kia and probably be a lot more tractable at lower revs than either. If you then choose to apply an ECU performance tune you have some basis for comparison

Despite it being our Antipodean winter here and predictably colder, wetter and windier I have got out a couple of times each week since the last post and the calve stiffness issue has subsided, thank goodness, as I hate the associated occasional midnight cramps. Today I posted my best time this year for my 7.25km run, by one second (it still counts) so fingers crossed I can keep up the routine going forward. Did not even have to rest up against the local pub's wall at the end of the run during recovery from the 'sprint finish', which is a far better look

So I just took the 1.4tsi in for its 8th annual service (all Australian Skoda have annual services presumably due to our varied and potentially arduous environment) and since it was topical I asked they did not apply any additives/cleaners during the service. The service guy responded they did not apply additives and never had, which surprised me a bit and had me doubting my memory, but maybe I was thinking of the former Skoda dealership franchise, or maybe a totally different manufacturer (age can do that to you). It begs the question that if that is the local Australian policy (which tends to reflect international policies) then are there actually any VW branded additives as Root says? My manual says: Fuel additives Unleaded petrol in accordance with the EN 228 standard meets all the conditions for a smooth-running engine. We therefore recommend that no fuel additives are used. This can result in considerable damage to parts of the engine or the exhaust system. And there are similar warnings against using additives for diesel fuel and the lubrication oil. Of course anyone can add what they want to their car just don't go crying to the manufacturers if something goes wrong because you were too lazy to read a manual and believe everything read on the internet.

The only detrimental factors that continuously running a tank down low to empty that I could think of is that the fuel pump in the tank relies on the fuel around it to keep it cool so the pump could overheat and the other is that running high pressure injectors without fuel is not what they were designed for. VW Group manuals do not recommend any additives to fuel but I have noticed that our Skoda retailers have charged me for putting 'cleaners' through the system during the annual service. I now make a point of telling them not to do it.

If you are in the market for a new vehicle then a PHEV is definitely worth considering, especially if you do a lot of local driving and you can easily charge at home and can afford the extra purchase price. Otherwise buy a 20 litre jerrycan for cheap peace of mind. Most fuel shortages are pretty short lived. The only inconvenience with the jerrycan approach is that you should renew the fuel in the jerrycan every couple of months, although I have gone longer without noticeable effects on the engine when eventually used.

Your previous point about where and what type of driving the car would be subjected to was the more important point on whether someone should even begin to look at a diesel. DPF and even PPF requirements are a problem if you are only into local urban shopping trips and school runs. Unfortunately EVs are relatively expensive, have long wait lists and/or just not available in Australia.

I think the problems are likely due to an accumulation of negative factors in recent years. The huge fines resulting from dieselgate, not to mention the resulting internal disruptions and loss of personnel due to purges and low moral. The enormous investments that have had to be made in EV design development and manufacture and associated battery tech and production. It's not that it's a recent thing either. Remember it took them an age to get their vehicles/engines accredited for WLTP standards due to lack of expertise/resources.

For various reasons (excuses) I am only running once a week so I'm doing my longer 7.25 km route to compensate a bit. As I've mentioned before I'm quite active at work so despite the longer intervals between runs the times are holding up quite well. However I noticed near the end of the run there was some muscular stiffness in the calves so lack of conditioning is going to catch up with me eventually if I don't get out more frequently. It confirms previous my previous experiences that running three times a week will generally yield improvements, two times a week will maintain performance and once a week is a path to slow(er) deterioration.

I agree that would be very disappointing, should be about 10mpg or more better depending on various factors. Assuming you don't have a stuff permanently on the roof rack, have checked tyre pressures, that brakes are not binding and the car is serviced regularly then I run out of useful suggestions that don't involve expensive expertise.

Your last two points are very valid. I'll have to watch again. Being follically challenged myself maybe I was too jealous of his head of hair to take him seriously