MikeHart

Be interesting to see what you get and your impressions.

Hello, I have done this in the past, and it didn't make a lot of difference. The really critical factor in my journey appears to be the dual-carriageway cruising, more specifically, the speed. However, as this correlates to a RPM and therefore to whether the turbo is operating or not........hence my idea its the turbo causing issues. After the current test, I might well retry this and see what happens. I think it should be better than my current 'keep the revs up' mode, but not as good as my 'normal' driving. I'll give it a go and see.

Well, to add more fuel to the fire!! My last tank of fuel on my previous driving style returned around 63mpg, brim to brim. That means driving like a granny, cruising at 50-55mph and keeping in the highest gear possible and the revs real low. Like 1000-1500 for the vast majority of the time. Also, accelerating from say 40-50mph in 5th. My first tank of fuel on my new driving style returned around 53mpg, brim to brim. That means keeping the revs high, 4th till about 50-60mph. Majority of the time with revs between 1500-200, although higher when accelerating. Accelerating from 40 to 60-65 for instance in 4th gear. Cruising speed, 60-70mph, averaging about 65mph. Now, according to the majority of people, this is all wrong. However, it does seem to correlate in some ways with Greenlines findings. Personally, the obvious difference is the use of the turbo. In the modified style, the turbo is used far more than in my previous style. To ensure it's not something about the ECU retuning to the new style and to allow for the removal of deposits etc., I'm going to run another tank through using the new style. Out of interest, I have a couple of questions that estateman or someone else might be able to answer. 1. What's the best fuel system cleaner for use with a DPF? Want to run one through and get rid of as many deposits as possible. 2. Does anyone know of a decent cheap interface and software between the cars 'bus' and a PC (laptop). I'd like to get some graphs of the various parameters whilst driving, especially the engine load one. Plenty on eBay, but I know some work better than others.

Hello Greenline, Your experience seems to correlate with mine, but I don't have the hunting, or at least, not that I've noticed. I've certainly noticed that on country roads, it's best to stay in the highest possible gear when slowing or staying steady (even 5th at 40mph) and only change down when accelerating. May be strange and applicable to my car, but I already believe I've got some sort of problem that Skoda are incapable/can't be bothered of fixing.

I think the answer is a bit of both. If you're accelerating, not straining the engine, being at low revs will save fuel, but if cruising at a steady speed (and comfortable for the engine), a high gear will use less fuel. If you're on a flat, high speed road, staying in the highest sensible gear should give the best results. If you're on windy country roads, the constant up and down in speed means a lower gear will do better.

The really strong burning smell was pretty much only for that one trip. I've had a bit of a smell a couple of times since, but nowhere near as strong. I think estatemans suggestion that its deposits burning off is probably correct. However, it does suggest there's a lot of deposits being left behind and the engine is burning far from clean. I'm going to put a cleaner through it tomorrow.

Hello, Regen is a little difficult to identify in the colder weather as the engine tends to have a higher idle turnover. During a regen, revs stay at about 1000. In general, when the car is warm, revs idle at about 750-800. However, in cold weather, this can remain higher, presumably due to the lower air temperature coming into the intake. My car would always shake during regen as well. A much better indicator!! You're right about shorter journeys. They do tend to show much lower mpgs, although my car has reported (may not be reality, but what the computer says!!) a very wide range of figures. Anything from a low of about 35 to 60ish. I've had plenty of short journeys around 4 miles that show figures of certainly 50+ from cold. On the other hand, I've had the identical journey showing nearer 35-40. As I've said in earlier threads, the computer seems to be a random number generator. The fuel gauge has often contradicted it!! This is part of my issue. Whilst I can get the average over a tank up by driving it very carefully and slowly, individual trips according to the computer show such variance, it defies belief. I'm rather of the opinion now that the computer is simply hopelessly inaccurate, but as its there, you rather want to be believe it!! If it's as bad as it seems, not sure what the point of fitting it is.

Kia Rio. Interesting choice. i must admit to know several people who have Ceeds and are very happy with them. Don't know anyone with a Rio though. Be interested to hear your experiences. The warranty is very long and people I've known say they keep very well to it. I haven't really looked, but the Rio seemed a bit smaller to me than a Fabia and I thought the Ceed would be more my size. Not looked at one in reality though. Be good to have your feedback and information on it. Might be worth a change myself!!

Hello EstateMan, To my knowledge, the software in my car is still the bog standard software. I'm not aware of any specific software changes to it. Of course, it does self-tune, so this will have been affected, but I was under the impression that it would re-adjust after a period of time in the new 'regime'? I won't just put one tank through it in this way, but several (maybe something like 2000 miles) to make sure the software re-adjusts. of course, the alternative is to have it reset and start from scratch again. Might be worth suggesting to the local Skoda dealer.

Just another thought on my prior post. I guess it's possible the smell was from accumulated debris being burnt within the engine and pathways out. Driving it 'like an old woman' to get the best mpg is OK to a point, but we all know deposits can build up in the engine, especially places like the EGR value etc. Is it possible the smell was from these being burnt off or blown out in some way? I did notice when I first got it and for some considerable time afterwards that during a regen it would smell quite a lot, which was a bit rubbery. However, this latest smell was much more intense and from memory, much more of rubber rather than a general hot smell. It has been a while though.

Well, I finished my current tank this morning, filled up and started running faster (65-70mph) and higher revs (1500+, often 2000+). OK on the way to work (only about half of this due to fillup location). On the way home, the computer reported 55mpg for the trip, but I was sort of expecting this. On my old driving style, it would normally report anywhere from low to high 60s. So, to a certain extent, expecting this, especially as it started a regen towards the end of the journey. However, the really disturbing thing was the smell. Haven't noticed it for ages, although it used to smell a bit during regen. On this journey, I stopped at the end and as I opened the door, was overcome by an incredibly strong smell of burning rubber. Quite literally like you'd expect to get from putting a tyre on a bonfire. It was really quite overpowering. Checked under the bonnet and around the car, but couldn't see anything other than the high heat under the bonnet as expected. I got the impression the smell was coming out of the exhaust, but I can't be sure as the wind was blowing it around quite a lot. But, it was really, really strong. One of the prime differences between that journey and my previous ones for a long time now, is the turbo would have been used a considerable amount more. I normally try and keep it below about 1500 to keep away from the turbo, which seems to be best for my car. Therefore, the turbo wouldn't be doing a lot and presumably wouldn't get too hot. However, on this journey, due to the higher speeds and revs, the turbo would presumably be much, much hotter. Would you expect to get this really hot, burning rubber smell? It was really, really strong. I've got a suspicion my issue might be turbo connected, so I'm wondering if the smell is actually connected to the turbo rather than the regen? I'm going to drive the same tomorrow and will see if a regen occurs (don't think it finished) and whether the smell comes back or not. But, the smell really concerns me. To me, burning rubber is not a smell I want from a car.

Hello bazzabee. In my car, I've had the computer report all sorts of different mpgs. The problem is trying to find some commonality between the high and low to work out what the difference is. I've driven using the same style over a full tank and looked at each trip reading. Conditions pretty similar from day to day, with no great differences in traffic, stop, start etc. Anything with something really unusual, I've discarded that trip. The computer has reported anything from about 50mpg to just over 80mpg!! All the same driving style as I've been using recently, i.e. keep the revs low, stay at about 50-55mph. How can the return really be that different. Exactly the same journey as well, with no significant difference in conditions, weather or road. This is the strange thing. I've come to the conclusion that either my car really is that variable, which suggests an intermittent fault to my mind, or the computer is telling complete lies. I've found and been able to prove the computer trip meter is deliberately set to average out the cost of a regen over the next 100-150 miles. This is utterly consistent and suggests to me it's a deliberate programming of the computer. If so, that's pretty poor. The trip meter is supposed to give you the mpg for the trip. Therefore, if the regen trip is only 40mpg and the next one 70mpg, so be it. That's the truth. Reporting the regen trip as really high mpg and then showing the next one as reduced and gradually climbing back up is nothing short of straight dishonesty. I've, according to the computer, achieved great returns (I'd be happy with 70, let alone 80), but it's really random. If I could get this consistently, I'd be in heaven.

Greenline 11. It's interesting what you're reporting. I have tried using higher revs in the past, but have found it to be no better, or more recently far worse. When I first started posting on this forum, I tried all sorts of driving styles and found the slow and steady route to give better results. Keeping the revs up as stated, did not help. Results were slightly lower, but probably within margin of error. More recently (albeit probably 10k miles ago now), I tried again, and the results were substantially lower. The number of people saying to keep the revs up makes me think this is the correct style of driving for this car. However, mine simply doesn't like it. Sounds like yours doesn't either. Your tickover being somewhat erratic is also something mine has on occasions. It's a real mixed bag and very difficult to predict. I've begun thinking its me, but sometimes the engine stays at 1000rpm long after it is warm and refuses to idle back at 750rpm. On other occasions, with almost identical conditions, it has no problem doing this. Also, before its warm, the rpm can be seen to waver between 750 and 1000 all over the place. To try and get some more information, I've decided to finish the current tank and then try keeping the revs up again and driving at faster speeds.....I might even try 70mph!! See what happens with the fuel economy. Got to admit, I suspect its going to plummet (has done in the past), but the extra looseness now might make a difference.

I know I'm pushing my luck here, but I'm going to put another reply to this topic. Firstly, please would everyone calm down. I've just read a load of the more recent postings and the insulting etc. going on is helping nobody. I can quite happily understand why some are annoyed at what they're getting, whilst some are very happy. I have a strong idea the Fabia (probably especially 1.6CR) is tuned to a very specific type of journey and does very well there (probably the EU tests...no surprise there). However, only some people have that type of journey and the figures drop off remarkably under other trip conditions. Secondly, let me state my position at the moment. Estateman is right in saying that I'm managing to get about 60 or just over to the gallon at the minute, which is roughly the same as my old car with almost identical consumption figures. So, on the face of it, happy days. However, there is one major difference. In the old car, I would drive at 70-80mph for much of the journey, which is largely dual carriageway, although it has a fair bit of twisty stuff for the first few files. In the Skoda, I HAVE to drive at 50-55mph top get these figures. Drive anything more and it doesn't drop off a bit; it falls off a cliff. At 70-80mph, I would be lucky, very lucky, to get even 50. So, whilst I can get the mpg, the conditions are actually very different and far more fuel efficient in the Skoda than my old Yaris. Can't remember what the maths is, but wind resistance goes up dramatically with increases in speed for instance, leading to lower fuel economy. At a constant 50-55mph, I suspect the Yaris would have got 70 or more. So, the Fabia is still really bad in comparison with a car tested against the same EU tests and getting the same (near enough) results. I also have a problem that after 40,000 miles, I have found the most efficient way of driving the car is very different to that talked about here. To achieve that 60mpg, I have to sit at 50-55mph in fifth gear and therefore below the turbo area. Should I be silly enough to drive in the turbo zone (as suggested here by those getting good mpg), the MPG again falls off a cliff. Seriously. It plummets. The shaking at regen has stopped and I'm not sure if that's new software, or simply the engine loosening up; I suspect the latter. The regen shake stopping was not particularly associated with a software upgrade, but simply distance and got gradually better over time, hence suggesting loosening. However, that is pretty recent, suggesting it took a hell of a long time to loosen up. Additionally, I have found the computer to be not just wrong, but basically a random number generator. It seems to have been programmed to actively lie around the regen for instance, hence the lower mpg after a regen (which simply isn't true). I suspect they simply don't want to admit how much fuel is wasted during the regen and therefore count this over the next few trips. However, as point of a trip meter is to reflect the conditions and situation for that trip, that is tantamount to deliberate lying. The recent cold and wet (not necessarily at the same time) weather has also uncovered some other interesting 'features'. I live in the south, so things didn't get too bad, but even so. In general, the snow and cold did not affect the mpg too much. It dopped a little, but that could easily be accounted for by the longer warm up time etc. However, when we got the wet weather, it dropped, very significantly and didn't recover till it dried up. I've had an idea about this for ages, but the recent weather seems to have proved it. My car (don't know about others) does not seem to get good mpg in the wet. No idea why. Finally. I think the issue with these cars is actually the incredibly variable results from, in my opinion, appalling quality control and customer care. The majority of cars seem to be good and deliver as close to the mpg figures quoted as any other manufacturer. Don't have an issue with that. However, I (and several others on here) seem to have cars that (certainly in my case) drive totally differently to everyone elses and simply do not return the mpg. Now, if Skoda took them in and fixed them, I wouldn't have a problem. You're always going to get a few faults (and this may be only a few), that's not the issue. The issue is that rather than accept some cars have a fault, Skoda just sit there and blame their customers all the time. Can't drive properly. It's your journey. etc.etc. I've had them all. Basically, if the computer doesn't say 'no', they aren't interested. Skoda (certainly UK) don't seem to have any diagnostic ability and as the numbers are small, presumably figure its better to insult and ignore them. It's really a customer service issue rather than a car issue. I and several others have faulty cars. Fine. No problem, just fix them. Oh, you won't.................. As my car seems to have a mpg problem when the turbo is used (seems to work OK though and gives the extra oomph when required :-)), I rather assume its something around the turbo. However, I paid them to know, rather than me having to try and sort it out. Not sure how I can though without changing the turbo (still might not be that though) and that seems prohibitively expensive. I have heard of someone with another car (not Skoda) who had a terrible problem with mpg when the turbo was used and after many months of investigation, the dealership and manufacturer found a tiny hold in the turbo. Changed the turbo and problem gone.

Just to update everyone on my situation as I started this (now very long) thread. I've managed to get my MPG between 60 and 65. I think some of this is the engine loosening and some how I'm driving. Anything over 55mph causes my MPG to plummet. So, I drive at 50-55MPH whenever possible, including on dual-carriageways etc. I've also noticed that accelerating quickly to speed and then easing off rather than gradual acceleration tends to result in better MPG in my car. Whilst many respondents here talk about keeping the revs up and keeping the turbo spinning, I've found that keeping the revs between about 1000 and 1500 and changing up quickly results in much better returns. In fact, getting the turbo spinning appears to drink fuel and result in low returns. My experience and experiments in my car seem to suggest it responds totally differently to those reporting good mpg. I have no idea of the reason, but I've tried all sorts of different driving styles etc. over many tanks and that's what I've found. For some reason, a small percentage of cars appear to drive completely differently and show poor mpg. Most are fine. I have no idea why, but I'm beginning to think it could be some sort of turbo fault or something around this area as the turbo spinning appears to eat fuel, whereas other people report this as reducing fuel consumption. All this leads me to think that Skoda (and probably all of VAG) have very poor quality control. The variance in their cars is very large and they appear to have some faulty cars (wildly different from the rest), which they blame on the driver rather than investigating and finding the real fault. Alternatively, they know the fault, but don't want to admit it. The way Skoda dealt with me was condescending and all about making excuses and blaming everything on the customer. I've got to keep using this car because of the money I have invested in it. But, I won't be buying another. Once bitten and all that.