Gerrycan

Now I'm searching with the correct '3b' suffix I am seeing evidence of the dual injection systems. Funnily enough it is rarely reported in the text but they are clearly shown in accompanying illustrations and Budack explanatory animations. Some VW marketing blurb also claim 1.4tsi (like) consumption levels for it, but while they are better than the previous 2.0tsi versions I am not sure they really match that claim. I am keen to hear from any EA 888 3B consumption conscious drivers out there who would like to report impressive returns to dissuade me from my current view though.

Here in Australia sales of manuals have been very low compared to autos for some years and manufacturers have responded by steadily reducing their availability. Skoda manual is only offered in the most basic, local base motor (1.0tsi) Fabia, and (1.4tsi) Octavia. Be a shame if lack of a manual for my chosen engine is the reason I leave Skoda.

I have little or no expertise in the field but reports from Briskoda members who have the DPF app monitors, is that a DPF regen requires a 550 deg C temp to burn off the collected soot particles. This temperature is way above normal operating temperatures unless you are towing a heavy caravan up a hill or full bore on an Autobahn which is why a diesel regen always requires the special injection of fuel to achieve a burn off. Again from what I have read, the GPF does not require this special injection because the normal operating temperatures of the petrol exhaust are sufficient to achieve a burn off, however that still means that the engine has to be run up to temperature for long enough to achieve this. Recently our Octavia 1.4tsi (2014 so no dpf) did a series of very short journeys (less than 2km) from cold with long stops in between so the engine never got near operating temperature. My wife came in after completing another such journey complaining that the engine was 'bubbling' and indeed it was from all the water trapped in the exhaust. It gave me an excuse to take it for a longer, more enthusiastic, run to fix the 'bubbling' but I dread to think what could have happened if a GPF was fitted and subjected to that sort of treatment for any length of time. The mythical old dear (beloved entity of 2nd hand car dealers) who only uses her car to go to church on Sundays had better buy an EV in future. Thought bubble: I wonder if there is a GPF monitoring app?

I don't think the Bolero from that era was capable of SATNAV. Mention it, you might get the full cost of repairs on your kerbed wheelset out of it

I think the new 190hp 2.0tsi 'only' has direct injection as opposed to the vRS and even the last 1.8tsi having dual direct and port injection?? If the above statement is true it seems that VW are moving from the dual injection option just as other manufacturers are introducing it (eg Ford Focus 1.5tsi three cylinder).

260NM from a 3 cylinder 1.0tsi. Is that just you torque-ing ….or was it measured on a dynamometer?

Leave it on bricks or they will steal the axle-stands

You don't say what the speed limit was so it is difficult to comment on consumption. The UK uses Imperial gallons (which are larger than US gallons) so you have to be careful which online converter you use, but 5.6L/100 is 50mpg (in imperial gallons). I found the 1.0tsi Fabia to be a really fun car to drive with far better handling and agility than I expected.

A few points: It does help us if you give us more information to work with, so what distance and typical speeds are you doing for your short journeys? The average consumption on my manual 1.4tsi Octavia goes something like the graphs I posted so from a cold start (typically 15 to 20 deg Centigrade) through urban 60kph and 40kph zones with mini roundabouts every 200 to 400 metres for 2.5km, then more open 60 kph roads. First 500 metres -14l/100 1km - 11L/100 2.5km - 8L/100 5km - 6.5L/100 10km - 5.3L/100 13km - 5.0L/100 Those figures can vary by 15/20% either way depending on start temperatures, traffic flow etc. The NEDC consumption rate of 4.6L/100 you quoted for your dsg equipped Fabia is for the full 10km and I have to say that most automatic boxes including the DSG gamed that test and the new more rigorous WLTP test highlights the fact that manual boxes are generally more economical than auto boxes for drivers who are economy orientated. If you are still unsatisfied with the consumption then it is either the way you drive 😞 or the car. To test the car find a stretch of open flat highway with not too much traffic and with the engine fully warmed up set the cruise to say 80kph and the display to instant consumption and if you are consuming about 4L/100 or probably less, then there is nothing wrong with the car. It is near summer in Sweden, if you think consumption is poor now on a short journey then you just wait to winter, unless you have some sort of pre-warmer system on the car, which will help.

@jamos316 You have posted in the Octavia Mk3 section instead of the Fabia section. Short journeys, although you did not say how short, make a big difference to consumption. The following graph is specific to the 1.4tsi Golf manual, but same principal applies to all vehicles. For what it is worth I found the loan 1.0tsi manual Fabia I had for a week, amazingly good on consumption. Try driving with display in 'instant consumption' to see what driving style works best.

Actually I am surprised it did as well as 40mpg with a flat battery. I'd suggest your friend was attracted to the tax benefits mentioned by 181ce and just drove it 'like a journalist' without really much thought of using the various modes to advantage.

Hybrids (Toyota) are now the mainstay of the taxi industry in Australia. There are no tax benefits here for driving a hybrid, they are chosen as they are much more economical than a pure ICE vehicle in the urban environment and they happen to be very reliable as well with some running up telephone numbers on the odometer with few if any issues. I will admit that the very mild 48volt systems being offered by VW with a mere 0.3L/100 improvement on WLTP tests seem pathetic.

Within the context of the NEDC test the 150mpg claim is probably reasonably accurate. I'd love to own one and find out if some of my theories regarding their strengths and weaknesses are right or not. One thing for sure is that a longer journey (beyond nominal battery range) needs a certain amount of planning to get the best overall consumption. Just jumping in and using up the battery capacity and then switching over to petrol engine (which most journalists seem to do) seems the worst possible way of running them.

Not forgetting the Mitsubishi fiasco, the more recent Subaru issues, and the fact that most (all?) the Japanese manufacturers were found to be cheating their local consumption tests despite the fact they were the most lenient in the world. I'm sure there are more but cannot be bothered to even Google them.

Nice job, but I'd be terrified of driving it down some of the 'traffic calmed' back streets around my way.

Nice! Is that the West Lakes roof carpark?

I've experience with only three diesels: Mk2 Octavia 1.9pd manual, no dpf- I thought it was a great car and engine, it was good for a consistent 55mpg on a run no matter how arduous the conditions. Hyundai Santa Fe 7 seater, 2.2L, AWD, 6 speed torque converter auto, no dpf - only about 42mpg on a run, really did not enjoy driving it and got rid of it after a only a year. Kia C'eed 1.6L, manual, with dpf - rented for a month in the UK, a nondescript drive except for the excellent consumption, most fills around 60mpg with a best fill of 70mpg. Compared to the Santa Fe, the Karoq is about 200/300kg lighter, has much lower aero drag (smaller frontal area and lower drag coefficient), a more efficient transmission so for Gregoir to only get a marginal improvement with his loan car is disappointing. Guess part of the problem for the Karoq is the burden of the new diesel emission standards.

@gregoir , so how did the Karoq compare to your Octavia?

My car does not have it but judging from past posts from those that do, it is a seemingly illogical and a needless distraction. Other threads have had screen shots from those with the facility displaying excellent real consumption getting poorer scores than those with worse consumption. It pretty much falls into the category of the 'economical' gear change display recommendations for manual drivers (which is on my car). I soon learnt to ignore it and get better results and a more enjoyable driving experience. That was true for my current 1.4tsi Octavia and rental 1.6L diesel manual Kia C'eed.

I am horrified at the consumption you got from a diesel for the journeys you described.

Nearly new model would have a 7 speed wet box but I think the 2 to 3 year old versions he is thinking of buying would be 6 speed. I'm not sure when they made the transition to 7 speed, but I'm sure there will be others along who do. The only thing that crops up regularly with the TDI models is the water pump failing. There is a sticky thread up top of the mk3 list on the topic.

Your Fabia would have had the 'dry' 7 speed box which initially did have major problems especially in hotter more humid countries until the specified lubricant was changed. Since then most of the issues relate to instances of premature clutch wear. The more powerful vRS Octavia have the wet 6 speed versions which actually have a good record.

I have been extolling the virtues of the 1.4tsi in this forum over my 5 years of ownership. Mine is the earlier version offering 'only' 140hp (103kw) but is has the same 250Nm of torque from low revs and allied with the circa 1300kg weight of the Octavia it offers more than enough performance for use on public roads and overtaking ability. A recent fully loaded up.motoring holiday around mountainous Tasmania included many dirt roads and performance was more than adequate. In fact the issue was more often lack of traction in first and second gears if there was slight dirt or dampness and that occasionally caught out both me and my wife out when we drove. No doubt the weight in the back was the main lack-of-traction factor. While the performance is similar to that on offer from a 2.5L NA engine the economy is a whole better.

Unlikely to be Skoda Belgium rejecting delivery of cars. The majority of complaints about the 1.5tsi are from manual transmission owners, the dsg equipped vehicles seem acceptable. More likely to be shortage of petrol engines, or disruptions from planning for mk4 and hybrid/phev/ev options, sunroof supply issues, or ongoing wltp verification issues. A lot of manufacturers have set now set up in the Czech and Slovak republics following VW initial succesful investments and I bet Skoda have lost a lot good people to them.

When I had a Fabia 1.0tsi manual courtesy car (definitely not a Monte Carlo) I also did a write up about it I liked the manual even though it only had the 5 speed. Now that the consumption tests have switched from NEDC I expect all new future manual box releases to be 6 speed as the old test procedure actually favoured 5 speed over 6 speed. Unless the WLTP standards are equally distorting. I certainly don't remember the idle being as high as 950rpm, I thought it was 750rpm and the idle consumption showing as 0.5L/hr (metric display). Stop/start worked ok with the manual box but I still turned it off as it was far too keen to stop at every single opportunity. Seriously, how much fuel is saved on each ten second or less stop at 0.5L/hr? Answer = stuff all! Fuel economy is my thing and I thought it was epic in that respect. In the right conditions I reckon I could give over 80mpg returns a serious scare. Great fun to drive and I think I would have to have serious medical issues before I would willingly turn to an auto/dsg box.