J.R.

Yes, exactly what you described, it was the dual mass flywheel, there were no noises or vibration in the base state of tune (108hp) but the engine did not develop any power at higher revs and upchanges were made before 2K rpm, after the remap it revved to the red line but sounded really gnarly like the Tractor Pulling diesels before they exploded. My biggest problem was that the increased revs and probably turbo heat caused clutch hydraulic failure, I wasted a lot of time changing master cylinders and ending up having to bleed the clutch frequently at the side of the road before removing the gearbox to replace the slave cylinder, I replaced the clutch and DMF at the same time. Then big surprise, no more knocking and rattling at any point in the rev range or at any throttle opening. I think my partially worn DMF would have gone on for years (it had done 85K miles) but the extra torque and revs of the remap was too much for it. That you have gone back to the stock engine map and now have noise and vibration albeit reduced which was not there before makes me certain that your DMF is the culprit, after seeking info it appears the DMF's on the higher powered engines have a significantly reduced life. If mine starts getting knarly again at high revs I will know that its time to replace it again but also that I will be able to nurse it along by avoiding high revs.

Yours will if you raise the seat squabs before lowering the rear seat backs. You would if you took off your angry hat, - less weight on the sensors.

Yes, and then get back all his previous payments when he sold the vehicle.

Well it was certainly more descriptive and accurate than "fuel pressure to high pending". You seem to have made your mind up over the competence and knowledge of the forum contributors so I wish you luck finding your ideas elsewhere.

Nothing said about blown fuses.

A remap screws with the fuel computer accuracy, tuning boxes even more so, the Maxidot may show better MPG but the brim to brim fuel consumption calculations will contradict it. After 2 remaps I concur with the view it uses no more fuel than before unless I enjoy the extra power.

I would write back and ask them to reconsider their choice of words, they cannot speak of an offence being committed until either you have admitted to one or the courts have found you guilty of one. They cannot cancel an offence regardless of whether one was committed or not, they can cancel an NIP. "obvious inconvenience" infers that you have contacted them on this matter, if not then that is once again bad wording.

Well done, was it out of the blue or had you requested info/clarification from them or contested it?

I can only compare the 2.0 TDi CR engine in the Yeti with my BKC 105hp PD engine in the Octavia and with both also pre and post remapping. The 2.0 is a far smoother refined engine, no question about that, the 1.9 was a bit rattly at tickover and a bit growly under load and was much more growly after remapping but in a pleasant way. Both engines were underpowered in 105/108hp tune and responded well to the remapping I think both engines after remapping have similar power and torque curves but the instantaneous acceleration of the 2.0 is initially lacking when you put your foot down to overtake, the 1.9 was pretty much instant, in standard tune overtaking power was lacking in both vehicles but the 2.0 would lull you into a false sense of security, with the extra gear it felt very nippy on medium throttle making you think you had the grunt to overtake but it was not there, this did not happen to me on the 1.9. Fuel economy is probably similar when you take into account the frontal area and 4x4 system of the Yeti. I agree with Mike that nothing since my 1.9 TDi MK1 Octavia has been as good for refinement and economy.

I am surprised that there would be a narrower variofloor, I had one in the MK1 Octavia where all of the Elegance models and others had them as standard, therefore there were loads in the breakers yards, I modified MK1 variofloors to fit both my MK2 Octavia and the Yeti, on the former I had only the rear radius to alter, on the latter that and the length but even that was an exact fit using 2 out of the 3 sections, all 3 cars had exactly the same distance of 1m between the wheelarches and the variofloor width was the same on all of them. When looking at other Skodas like Roomsters I found they all had identical widths, is the Superb wider?

Are you certain that the controlled area does not extend beyond the roadworks? The only way to be sure would be to go and take photographs of the signage. Did the images you viewed have time stamps & do you know the distance between them? I can't say without knowing the times & distances but its likely that if your average speed between the two cameras was 58mph then you could not have been doing less than 50mph within the controlled section unless you exceeded 70mph outside of it. The most plausible explanation is that you are incorrect in your belief of the limits of the controlled zone, reduce speed limits often apply before the roadworks and lans closures start and may continue afterwards. As Skomaz has said you will need to challenge the NIP if you are confident you did not exceed the 50mph within the controlled section. Is there a margin allowed in the UK and is it expressed in the same way as it is in France ie 58 mph actually means 64mph recorded but dropped to 58 for the NIP?

You are not entitled to evidence at this stage, you have been invited to admit to an alleged offence, if you believe that you were not speeding then challenge it and in time their evidence or lack thereof will be revealed in court. If a serving Police officer on his day off or a member of the public were to report you for dangerous driving you would be invited to the Police station to give a statement, you would not be given access to evidence, there would only be a verbal statement. You have two choices, if you are sure of yourself then challenge it, they don't have to prove to you that you did it, only to the court if you challenge the NIP, you may have access to that before the court date in order to give you the opportunity to change your plea, I don't know how these things work but it would make sense to free up court time.

The Elephant in the room question which you steered clear of in your posting is "Are you saying that you did not exceed the authorised maximum speed during the section in question?" I do not understand your talk of the right and wrong photos, they are for identification purposes not evidencial, they are to jog your memory in case you were convinced you (or your car) were not there or in case your number plates have been cloned. You have recieved a Notice of Intended Prosecution, you are being invited to admit to the offence to avoid a court case and to accept a lower fine than the court would impose. If you did not exceed the limit then the NIP tells you what to do to challenge it, in my country you have to pay anyway and hope to win and get the extortion money refunded, if you dont the penalty imposed is much higher. I would speculate that the evidence presented in court would not be those photos, it may have no photographic element at all, it could just be a print-out of the times and locations the number plate was recorded and the calculated average speed, I see no legal reason why the photograph or photographs should have to be taken at the same locations unless you drive an Aston Martin DB5.

That makes sense, no ambiguity unlike what you had written which I appreciate was not intentional hence why I asked the question. As Varoom has pointed out they are on the make!

That would be an overly forgiving interpretation. I would say that Varoom is bang on the money, hats off to him for sniffing out the rat!

There was only one video on the page, looked to be simply an overview.

Very old computer. I wont lose any sleep over not knowing why, most IT things end up a cluster***k for me, I just thought it odd that someone living say in an upper floor flat without a smartphone (although that probably is an impossibility 🤣) could accept a software upgrade which rendered their VCDS inoperative.

I know from bitter experience of multiple mass transit equipment failures that soldered joints are brittle and will not withstand cyclic flexing, let alone on the wrong type of wire used in a very shonky door loop. However pragmatically I 100% agree with your proposed solution, using a longer linking wire would enable half the soldered joints to be made within the protected and accessible area within the door frame leaving just one soldered joint per wire within the door loop. Hell if I get a problem tomorrow I will be straight in their with a red butt crimp! I still feel guilty for scrapping my MK1 Octavia which had deadlocked all but the drivers door, I had not realised then that it was certainly broken door loop wiring and was chasing my tail trying to do Canbus comms testing without the required knowledge. In the 12 years I owned that super reliable vehicle I only used this forum once, had it been as flaky as its later replacements I would have gained the knowledge that I now have but needed then.

No its a USB dongle. It appears to say that it is successfully updated until you go to the vehicle and connect at which point it requests an internet connection to complete whetever it is supposed to have done.

You should not have been putting a resistor in its place. It sounds like either the sensor has failed or the earth return cable is broken/disconnected. No on reflection it has to be the former, putting in the resistor made the short to ground. As always the VCDS descriptions are rubbish, short to positive means not enough volt drop sensed for the sensor to be working, although were an additional 12v feed shorted to the one for the sensor the result would be the same, short to earth means too much volt drop, in this case your resistor. I believe that the sensor has failed open circuit.

What did the sticker actually say in French BAP33? I can read what you have written in several ways, the best being that the belt will need to be changed when the vehicle has done an additional 90000km = at 152000 kms, the worst being change again at 90000kms = after driving only 28000kms on this new belt we have fitted. Was the 90000kms printed on the sticker with a space for the current kilometrage to be written?

You asked for a way to carry loads without the bong going off, I gave you a very sensible solution, up to you whether you adopt it but please don't shoot the messenger. Neither my MK1 nor the MK2 Octavia had a flat loading area with the sat back folded forwards unless the squabs were first folded forwards to allow the back to drop enough. Both had variofloors. Maybe the MK3 is different but "pretty flat" is not flat flat which glass definitely needs and which would silence the bongs. I get the same with a bag of shopping on the passenger seat.

And are the breaks not within 2cms of the connector? - I dont know not having disassembled one. If that is the case then you do not have the room to splice in a section of wire without one of the brittle soldered joints being in the zone of maximum flexion. Also there simply isn't room to make multiple butt joints in that knotted bundle. I can count 9 damaged or broken wires with my poor vision. The kits are a great idea IMO and I will be buying a couple.

Lift the squabs up before folding the rears down to make a level loading platform? That way the seat squab sensors cannot register any weight. I have never deployed the rear seats any other way, my chauffeur pal that I bought my MK1 Octavia had driven it for 188000 miles and said his only complaint was the rear seats did not fold down flat, 5 seconds of me pushing and pulling showed him the error of his ways, he was not a happy bunny!

I would say so with the bonus of it is much cheaper than the Febi ones that I have seen. Its coming up even cheaper for me (£17.79 + £8.79 delivery) even cheaper in €uros on ebay.fr, try the listing number 254503198352 I am going to inspect mine tomorrow and probably order one or two as a precaution.