Bison

Hi again, I usually fill up quite soon after the light comes on, I get about 47 or 48 litres in and the mileage is on average I would say around 420 to 430 miles, this time I'm expecting slightly more miles as I've been on longish journeys and trying very hard to get the best mpg. I've been keeping to the speed limits and 60mph on the motorway, foot completely off as much as possible on a gradient and the lightest pressure on the accelerator pedal to keep momentum up. The handbook says it's a 55 litre tank. once it gets between 1/4 and 1/2 full the needle tends to drop quite quickly.

Hi Folks, I too check mileage when I fill up, I usually get about 400 to 450 miles before the fuel light goes on, I then fill it up and calculate the MPG, it has always been pretty close to what the maxidot says actually. I might delay the remap and have a look at the cam timing myself. Then if that's ok get a compression test done. Yes, I've cleaned the turbo vanes, the particulate filter, the inlet tract, etc etc Alan.

A good and valid point, I will.

Hi, According to the guy who checked the timing belt and all of the engine readings all of the cylinders were in balance and no sign of cylinder leakage, I did speak to him about it, he seems to think it's not out of the ordinary. The other thing is, I've done maybe 15 to 20K miles in the car, and it's been the same since I got it, no oil use, no water use and no increase in crank case compression. It's a valid point though. Would a head gasket leakage stay the same for 15k miles without showing some sign other than higher crank case compression?, I'm not sure it would. and wouldn't it start pumping oil out?, the engine is dry outside. I have read other owners opinions of their cars on this forum though, and I'm not the only person (it would seem) who is experiencing these problems, low power and high fuel consumption, (all relative, 40 odd mpg isn't bad, but it should be a lot better). It seems they are either capable of very good fuel consumption and reasonable power, or they are like mine, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground?. And as I said at the start of the post, my pal who bought it from new was always disappointed in the fuel consumption, he never got anywhere close to the stated MPG from day one. I do appreciate all these suggestions however folks, everything has been very helpful and thought provoking. Alan.

The brakes are all ok, I did think when I first got the car that there was a problem, but it has hill assist, I noticed on my slightly sloping drive the brakes would stick on for a second or two, aha I thought, but no, they are, according to the handbook, meant to do that. I've checked the VIN before on that site it says The service action for your affected VIN is already available. Please, do not hesitate to contact your service partner to complete this action. I take this to mean it hasn't been done. I'm just back from a drive to Portobello, the speedo reads fast, at indicated 55 it's doing 51. So trying very hard without the Cruise control, at indicated 60mph on the speedo, I managed an average of 41.7MPG on the maxidot, that did include some 30mph stuff in traffic, I noticed before I left the motorway it was 42.4mpg, then town work, then motorway again, a round trip of 54 miles, probably 8 of which was in traffic. Someone had a great thought, is the car set to US or Imperial gallons, I checked, imperial.

All of this brings me back to the original problem, why does my car get such a rubbish fuel consumption and why is it so gutless?. Nothing shows up in the fault codes and everything that can be checked on a lap top has been!. The car starts and runs very well (apart from the aforementioned observations), uses no oil, no water. Which is why I've delayed having it remapped. It is however possible that it has been messed around with when it has been in a garage in the past?, even though notes were left and messages passed on NOT to do anything. It's entirely possible that the fix has been done electronically but not physically, so when I look at the inlet etc, it seems it has not been done, Who knows?, the next step is a remap. I pay no attention to the shift light, if I did the car would go nowhere, if I don't keep it above 1500 or 1600rpm the car shudders like hell and just won't accelerate at all, if it drops below 50mph (1500rpm) even on the flat, I have to change down to accelerate.

WOW!, almost 75MPG!, that is truly amazing!. One of the reasons for driving the Yeti was the fuel consumption, but to say I'm disappointed is an understatement, however, it's still fairly economical, we were on the same road as you were on Thursday, coming up from Portpatrick to Livingston via Ayr and kilmarnock, with the cruise on at 60mpg, I achieved an all time record of 46.6MPG, very little wind. I'll most certainly try leaving the cruise off on the next longish journey, nothing ventured etc. I shall report back. The car is going in for a remap on Tuesday, so I will record the MPG with the cruise on the first tank full, then without on the second Blackbird, when I ride my motorcycle my pals ask me if I noticed the milk float behind me flashing it's lights to get past?, my pals have a well developed sense of humour! Alan.

Hi Toot, I beg to differ on the cruise control. In the mid to late 70's I was head research technician on the "electronic cruise control project" working for Eaton corporation in Battle Creek Michigan, I was working with Cadillac, Buick, Chevy, Ford and all of the big manufacturers in Detroit, as a matter of course we data logged many different performance characteristics on a set route on the I94, not just the cruise control, and also on a rolling road in the lab and at the Ford test track, which as I remember was in Dearborn?. We had a simulation program which was rigged to the accelerator pedal of the car being tested on the rolling road, and on the highway we had test drivers from all of the big companies driving for economy , we averaged out the manual input from the drivers on those particular vehicles, and also had a "standard" of all of the manual input from every car, regardless of the make, we always recorded a 3% to 5% better fuel consumption on every car tested using the cruise control, apart from the AMC pacers we had, they recorded only 2% to 3%, not the most efficient straight 6 motor. probably 80% or so of the cars were automatic, but we had a representative cross section of Auto V Manual based on sales. We data logged in every season, as the weather was so variable. All of the road tests and simulated tests observed the speed limits of the time. Nowadays I notice increased response times and almost no hysteresis to speak of, they are certainly more responsive, practically zero hunting. I realise it's difficult to equate a 1.6 diesel performance with a 6 litre V8, but we also used chevy vega's and ford pinto's (petrol) a lot as things were changing rapidly thanks to Ralph Nader and the oil crisis, they also were logged as being more efficient using the cruise, auto or manual. I had as a company car a Chevy Vega manual and travelled well over 100 miles a day commuting from Three Rivers, I would always get a better fuel consumption using the cruise, I put over 140,000 miles on that car. I also moonlighted on the Valve disabler project for Cadillac, and I can definitely say that was a disaster, and used more fuel, when it was working!. Which wasn't often. I believe the modern version doesn't have much success either? I can almost match the fuel consumption not using the cruise on the Yeti, but I'm usually at least 2mpg worse, and yes I know it's very sad recording all of these numbers, but hey, I enjoy doing it. We found that driver fatigue was a major factor however, because if it were possible to manually get a better fuel consumption than using the cruise control, over miles and time, tiredness would take it's toll and speed and smoothness would be much more variable, using more fuel, and of course the cruise control isn't subject to those variables Alan.

I wish!. If my wife drives it locally she gets 37mpg, at 60mph with the cruise control on doing a 120mile drive up to Aberdeen on motorway/dual carriagewayI get about 42 or 43mpg, I don't think I've ever seen 45mpg. The maxidot is fairly close to what I calculate when filling it up. From what I read though I'm not the only one recording this sort of fuel consumption, the figures vary wildly, I've read of many people getting the economy you get, and also others on par with my MPG?, which logic would dictate is a fault?, and not just in my car. I've had the car a while now, season or temperature makes no difference unfortunately.

37mpg to 43mpg imperial, and I drive like an old man, that is, stick to the speed limits, because I am an old man!. Most of the time I average around 41mpg on a tank full, as I remember I once averaged 43..8, the best I've had, as I remember.

Hi Folks, Well, nothing to be seen after having the car checked out, cam timing spot on, no fault codes, did a regen , DPF at 60%, turbo boost good, no overboost or underboost, EGR functioning normally, injectors and spray pattern good, nothing comes up, no fault codes, but the guy who did it said he did feel it was gutless, and it shudders badly until above 1500rpm, won't pull at all below that. It's booked in for a remap. I still feel the remap is likely to simply mask an existing problem, but not a sign of a fault code. For me the only thing that is suspicious is the high crankcase pressure when the breather pipe was off to clean the turbo vanes, which I might assume would point to an exhaust gas recirculation problem?, but, once again, that would show up a fault code. The car starts, idles, runs fine, it's just gutless and gets a rubbish fuel consumption (by comparison to what I read).

Hi again, My car is booked in on Thursday to have the cam belt timing checked, although the lad I spoke to said any mismatch between the cam sensor and the crank sensor would show up a fault code, does anyone know if this is this the case?. I still can't figure out why the crank case pressure would be so high?, the car doesn't use a drop of oil, no smoke of any colour. Thanks, Alan.

Would the cam belt not being timed properly show up any fault codes?. Alan.

Hi Folks, I thought it time to pick up this thread again, unfortunately not to report a fix, the car is still exactly the same, in fact perhaps worse. At 70mph on the motorway with the cruise control on, a slight hill will cause it to drop to 65mph or less, on a level ish motorway journey of perhaps 100 to 200 miles at 60mph with the cruise on I can get about 43mpg, if I drive without the cruise it's pretty much the same, I got 44mpg once!. it does around mid 30's on shorter journeys. Anything below 50 to 55 mph in top and I have to drop to 4th, it shudders like blazes, above 1500rpm it's better, at least the juddering is not so pronounced. The car starts on the button, idles fine, doesn't smell of diesel, and is gutless, when you rev it you do feel the turbo kick in quite well. As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I was cleaning the turbo vanes and had the crankcase breather disconnected, there was an awful lot of crankcase compression, however, the car doesn't use a drop of oil, and there's no smoke, either black or blue. All my previous endeavours have made no difference. I'm loath to have a remap done, because I feel there's a fault, and the remap is unlikely to correct that fault if it's mechanical or a sensor. No fault codes show. the fix has not been done, at least there's no physical sign of it having been done, and the previous owner ( my pal, who bought it new) has said on more than one occasion he stressed to the garage he did not want it done. I'm left thinking once again the cam belt timing could be out?, it has been replaced, but not by a Skoda garage. Would this cause my problems?, as said, it starts and idles perfectly though. Turbo waste gate sticking?, stuck? Any further suggestions from you clued up owners? Alan.

Mine faces towards the ground, is it worthwhile changing it to face towards the engine?. As I said, the throttle body/anti shudder valve was a little dirty, but not really too bad, and cleaning it made no difference. If I have time next week I'm going to check the timing on the cam belt, it was replaced maybe 9K ago, before I got the car, clutching at straws perhaps, but worth checking.