Avocet

Certainly a good thing for the global environment! Whether it's a good thing for us, depends on how much you wanted a high CO2-emitting car, I guess. Kodiaqs are high CO2 emitters...

I'm not sure they struggled any more than anyone else with WLTP? Remember, WLTP is only the drive cycle. The actual emissions limits (tailpipe emissions of chemicals like CO HC, NOx, and particulates, not CO2, which is separate) were set out in the various "Euro 6" regulations. It was all quite simple, with the limits changing for Euro 1 Euro2, 3, 4 and 5. But the VW scandal broke during Euro 6, so the EU Parliament gave the EU Commission a right kicking and told them to get a grip on it. The Commission responded by rushing-in several different versions of "Euro 6" (Euro 6a, 6b, and so on). Even worse, we had "Euro 6dTemp" and then "Euro 6d" - which is what we're on at present. The next one (we're told) will be Euro 7. It gets incredibly complex and I'd have to fire up my "work" laptop to find which changes went with which letters. I've a feeling WLTP came in with Euro 6d Temp and RDE but with fairly generous "conformity factors" (i.e. the manufacturers were allowed to exceed the regulated limits by a small "conformity factor" when tested on a real road, in recognition of the fact that such a test could never be as repeatable as in the lab). I think Euro 6d brought down the conformity factors. I hadn't heard anything about tuners tipping-off academics, but yeah, maybe that's true? I was under the impression that it was students in Virginia, looking at city air quality and comparing it to what it should theoretically have been for the traffic concentrations, if all the vehicles had been emitting according to the regs. They found a surprising disparity. However, as you say, it's not that important who broke the story! I don't really get how you can "conspire" to have a bigger AdBlue tank? They just needed bigger AdBlue tanks to meet the NOx requirements! VW could have done that too, but diesel isn't popular in the USA and the European manufacturers (especially VAG) had really pushed "clean diesel" technology very hard over there. They were just starting to get somewhere, when the regs changed to require AdBlue, and (at least in the story I heard), they were worried that American consumers wouldn't accept having to top up an AdBlue tank, so they tried to size it so that it would only need topping up during services. This meant having to reduce the dosing to make the contents of the tank last long enough. Unfortunately, reducing the AdBlue dosing, also meant that the cars emitted more NOx than they should have done. Accordingly, they came up with the idea of giving the car the required amount of AdBlue only when it was on a rolling road (using the steering angle sensor to work out that the car was being driven but not steered). However, none of that explains why they then decided to do the same thing in Europe! Certainly, over that period, my company cars were a series of 2 litre (150 horse) Sharans and it was very noticeable when they became compliant, because the AdBlue consumption practically doubled on the later cars! Skoda were using the same "cheat" for NOx and AdBlue consumption as the rest of VAG, I'm afraid. However, they might not have known it, because they buy the technology from VW, but even on their own website they admit they were: https://www.skoda.co.uk/owners/ea189-claim CO2 is a separate issue entirely. There was never a regulated limit for CO2 emissions "per car". It was only ever a fleet averaging requirement.

Yes, a great engine, also the Alfa twinspark engines. But was the Honda's valve timing under the control of the engine management system? I know the Alfa's wasn't, so there was nothing you could do with a "chip", "remap" or tuning box, that would alter the valve timing.

These are two completely separate bits of emissions legislation, though. Nobody was accusing VW of cheating on the CO2 reg. And yes, we now have a separate GB one that mirrors the EU one, but don't get me started on "Brexit dividends". We've shot ourselves in the foot quite nicely by doing that! Beforehand, there was one New Car CO2 Regulation for the whole of the EU, and manufacturers could average their fleet CO2 emissions over their entire sales across the EU. Now, they can do that across the EU but for the GB regs, they can only average their emissions across what they sell here. Unfortunately for us, the UK likes its higher performance, and heavier cars, so when we were in the EU, they could average their CO2 emissions with loads of little city cars and low CO2 emitters, sold in the Mediterranean and Eastern European countries to meet the targets. Now, many of them are going to be struggling to meet the same targets for GB-only. I therefore think they're going to start withdrawing some o the higher CO2 emitters from our market, whilst still being able to sell them in the EU.

Unless the car has variable valve timing that is under the control of the engine management system, you can only change ignition timing, not valve timing - which is what the cam swap would do. Yes, you can give them more fuel, but without a way of getting more air into them at the same time, they just run richer. Easy with a turbo, if the wastage is under the control of the ECU, but pretty hard to do with a well-sorted naturally aspirated engine.

Yes, of course you can get more power by making actual physical changes to the engine, such as you describe, but I thought we were talking about electronic changes only?

I think you might be confusing some of the test work? VW were cheating on the NEDC drive cycle tests (which were only done on a rolling road). The RDE tests were introduced as a direct result of the VW scandal, as a check to make sure the car delivered more or less the same results on a real road as it did on the rolling road, so that it would show up any VW-style defeat devices. The WLTP drive cycle was introduced because the NEDC drive cycle was (quite rightly) widely criticised as not being representative of how cars were driven in real life. The main drawback was that it was a "one-size fits all" drive cycle, so the accelerations in it had to be attainable by the lowest-powered cars on the market. You therefore ended up with your 1000cc "shopping trolleys" working quite hard to achieve it, and your Aston Martins practically doing it on a closed throttle. The WLTP now has three different drive cycles, depending on power-to-weight ratio. Naturally, no standardised test can ever be exactly representative of how any one particular owner drives their particular car, but I think the current regime is a million times better than what we had before. As far as I'm aware, it was a bunch of American academics who initially broke the VW story?

I've never tried such a box, but the internet is awash with claims for these sorts of devices. I work in the car industry and I know OEM emissions engineers who would sell their own mothers for an extra 3% - never mind 20% fuel economy and CO2 reduction! More power is easy with a forced induction engine. Give it more boost and more fuel and it will make more power. These box (and remap) suppliers often produce dyno graphs showing the extra power - and they might well be accurate. However, they tend to rely on customer testimonials for their claims on fuel consumption. They could go off and do the same emissions and fuel consumption tests that the car manufacturer would have to do for type approval, but strangely, they always seem to choose not to...

Strictly speaking, I wonder whether the sequence should in fact be: 1. Come to stop 2. Apply parking brake 3. release footbrake 4. put into "P"? I tend to find that on a slope, there's still usually a small amount of additional movement as the car settles on its rear springs once the footbrake is released.

I'm sure they could, if you asked them! It's a bit difficult on your own, unless you have axle stands, (or a second jack) because you need two wheels off the ground at once, really. Also, be careful, because some tyres are directional (they'll have an arrow moulded into the sidewall saying "rotation" and showing which way they're supposed to rotate when going forwards), which means that you can swap them front-to-rear and vice-versa, but only on the same side of the car. If you put a "left" one on the right hand side of the car, it'll be turning the wrong way.

I think SurreyJohn has covered most of it. To answer your earlier question, yes 3.1 Bar is 45 PSI: https://www.onlineconversion.com/pressure.htm I would agree with John, running them harder is probably going to be a false economy because they're likely to wear out the centre of the tyre before they wear the rest of the tread area, so you'll be throwing them away earlier, and they ain't cheap! Is yours a 4x4 version? If so, swapping the tyres round to even out the wear is even more important. We made (a pretty painful!) investment in a set of Winter tyres and I bought another set of second hand rims over a period of time on eBay, so we can swap them from one season to the other. I can certainly vouch for the improvement in cold weather grip - not just snow and ice, but even just in the wet as the temperature drops below about 3 or4 degree, I can feel an improvement in stopping and cornering ability. Supposedly, they start showing an improvement below about 7 degrees, but I can't say I've noticed it at those temperatures. We'll swap back to the "summer" ones at the end of this month. Beware, there's a lot of half-truth and misinformation about "winter" tyres. Some manufacturers sell "mud-and-snow" tyres, which are NOT the same thing! A true winter tyre will have a three-peaked mountain symbol with a snowflake in it: if they don't have that, they don't meet the legal requirements to be a winter tyre - regardless of what's written on the sidewall! Some all-season tyres can just about meet the winter tyre requirements, so they qualify for the symbol, others can't, so it's worth checking, and don't be fobbed off with any spiel about "mud & snow"! (That really only refers to the tread pattern). Lastly, don't be worried about tyres "bursting" if you run them at a higher pressure (obviously, within the limit marked on the sidewall)! under-inflated tyres are at greater risk of that. It's really only uneven wear that will be a problem.

Asbestos use was banned in brake pads over 20 years ago now. The modern, non-asbestos equivalents are much harder and more abrasive - not far off the hardness of the cast iron that the discs are made from. Add to that, the increasing weight of cars and their higher performance, and that gives discs and pads a much harder time than old cars used to. On top of that, brakes are highly safety-critical and rogue outfits know that everyone is talking about how quickly they wear out. It's a "perfect storm" for the consumer and a perfect scam for the unscrupulous!

Ours is on 19" rims (a 2014 150 horse, DSG 4x4 7 seater) and the OE space saver is a 145/85/18.

Ours had 6.4mm of material left at 28,000 miles when it was last serviced, if that helps?

Ours doesn't have the same gearbox as the OP's (It's a DQ500), but I wrote to Skoda Customer Services when our dealer was trying to persuade us it needed doing at 4 years (same situation as the OP - 2017 car but with very low miles). Their response is below: Re: ŠKODA KODIAQ – TMBMJ7NS0J******* Dear Mr ***** Thank you for your recent contact with ŠKODA Customer Services. I apologise for the delay in my response. I refer to your questions below which I have highlighted. a) which gearbox we have and; – The gearbox is a DQ500 (b) whether the DSG oil and filter change recommendation is time or mileage-based? – DSG oil and filter change is mileage based so it is required at 40,000miles I hope this information proves to be of use. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will be happy to assist you. Thank you for contacting ŠKODA UK. Kind regards **** **** Customer Relations Advisor ŠKODA UK | Selectapost 34 | Sheffield | S97 3FA Tel: 0333 0037504 [email protected] | www.skoda.co.uk | www.skoda-auto.c So that's conformation that this is mileage and not time-based.

I keep a log of true MPG (brim-to-brim) on our 2017, 150 bhp 4x DSG. Over the last year, it has averaged 41 MPG (about 43 according to its own computer). It's driven pretty gently in a rural area though, albeit with a fair few hills, but little traffic. That means a fair few runs at about 50 on single carriageways, between the trucks, which is probably a real "sweet spot" for a Bear. On motorway runs, that figure goes down - maybe 38, as the big frontal area crucifies it. Similarly, in stop-start traffic, its weight doesn't do it any favours! As Yogi says, that doesn't sound too bad. It does use a bit of oil - maybe 10,000 miles to the litre. However, with the various lockdowns, it doesn't do enough miles in a year to need topping up between services. That might change this year. No experience of re-mapping. I'm not a rabid "tree hugger", but don't like doing that on environmental grounds!

Yeah... I think removing the manual ignition advance lever from the centre of the steering wheel was when the rot really started to set in...

We want to fit a towbar, and had an ex-Skoda independent lined up to do the job, but he's now changed jobs and can no longer do it. Would anyone have any recommendations: (a) for a make of towbar and; (b) a fitter - ideally in North West Cumbria, but I appreciate that's a big ask. We'd be willing to travel to (say) Newcastle, Manchester or Liverpool - or indeed Glasgow. Ideally, I'd like something that didn't get in the field of view of the rear parking sensors. Mostly, it will only have a bike rack on it, or a small dinghy on an unbraked trailer, so I'm not too bothered that it hasn't had the cooling system mods. However, it would need the wiring and dedicated electronics. I'd happily have a go at the hardware myself, but don't have any equipment to "code" it to the car's software.

They are very heavy cars. I wonder if that might be part of the problem? Plus, I guess, if you had a binding rear brake, that won't help when it comes to wheelspin. Ours is the 4x4 and I have to say, I've never had a problem with traction on tarmac - even in the wet. Driving them fast will (because they're so heavy) give the front tyres a pretty had time, I imagine.

Very strange... Although the hill hold function uses all 4 brakes, so if you have one of them blanked-off, it should still work. Regarding the tyre wear, have you had the wheel alignment checked by someone you trust?

Wow! That's bad! I see you live on Lanzarote too? We replaced front tyres (Pirelli Scorpions) at about 24,000 miles. The rears are still original at 30,000. Is there something about the conditions n Lanzarote that makes the tyres wear faster, or have you had reasonable life out of the tyres on other cars? Rear caliper sounds odd too. When ours are on, they will lock the wheels.

Ask Skoda customer services for a copy of the car's "Certificate of Conformity". They're unique to the car and will list all the wheel and tyre combinations that were homologated for your car. (Bottom left on the image below, for our car).

Do you have an EU Certificate of Conformity with the car? You are legally entitled to a free one, if Skoda haven't issued one before (e.g. to a previous owner). It is the definitive legal document for that particular car (they are VIN-specific). Field 18.4 will tell you the maximum unbraked trailer weight that it has been type approved to tow.

I wonder if this is Skoda / VAG getting themselves prepared for the new Cybersecurity regulation?

Although for the first 100 years of the motor car's existence, we didn't seem to "need" either of them!😁