Breezy_Pete

You need to work out, or find out which PR code your front brake system is. 1KS only refers to the rear. There appears to be 3 different options 280mm discs - PR=1ZF 288mm - PR=1ZE and 312mm PR=1LL or 1ZB At 122hp I doubt it's the last of those, so look at your calipers and see if they have a spring clip on the outside face (288 style) or not (280 style). See diagrams and part numbers of everything via this page: (view on computer not phone or you tend to lose vital columns in the table) wheels, brakes Octavia (OCT) [EUROPA 2010 year] (7zap.com)

Post no longer required.

Be careful when it comes to putting it back too. The seats are heavy, so it's not that easy to give them slight nudges to line up bolt hole perfectly with the captive nut. Get it starting at an un-noticed angle and cross-threading nightmares may follow rapidly.

Odometer data needn't/shouldn't be tweaked in the same way as the speedo display though, so probably reflects reality better (someone clever on this forum pointed this out, I forget who, sadly). Thus the calculation of mpg oughtn't to suffer the same bias. Google map distance data for a given exact journey can probably confirm or deny this aspect, for a car on standard wheels/tyres.

Please note that I'm not suggesting gaffer tape as a permanent fix. An accident investigator might have a field day with that.

Yeah, that looks pretty much the same as gaffer tape.

Gaffer tape is a better choice for a temporary repair/test, as the fibres stop it stretching so easily, that's why I suggested it for the OP's experiment.

Ah, I found the post with the logs; it was @Andysuew not bobsuew! Those logs are with start/stop switched off, but the system not nobbled.

Yep, I would disco the LIN connection of the BMS if I fitted a non-suitable battery to a start/stop car, I think, or even put a switch in it so I could selectively 'undisable' start/stop if I chose to. That should make the alt default to traditional fixed voltage charging.

It's going to seem like I'm constantly disagreeing with you for the sake of it, but that's not true. The BMS will increase the background charging voltage if it 'feels the need to'. I think there was evidence of this in some of the logs mentioned. Imagine an open country drive on an empty freeway where you might potentially go for hours and hours without needing to brake, or descend a hill, just plodding away. Australia, US etc. Is the battery management going to still rely on recuperative charging, and just let the battery run down until you stop? Doesn't seem likely. Can anyone remember the thread I'm thinking of. Aussie guy with a username something like bobsuew, maybe in an Octavia or Superb subforum?

The logs I saw (and am desperately trying to remember in which thread) showed voltage and current. The voltage spikes were always of similar magnitude, and the current spiked high in response but rapidly decayed down while the voltage was still at that value, IIRC, suggesting that it was voltage that was being controlled, with current just doing Ohm's lawy stuff as the load impedance changed. If the BMS were actively trying to coerce some given current from the alt, these things would be the other way round, I think? (Current would go up and stay at a fixed value while the voltage danced around as required to maintain it there).

Higher 'charge acceptance' and lower internal resistance seem like different ways of saying the same thing, probably. So your standard battery will simply not be subjected to as a high a charge current for a given alternator output voltage. And surely it's the charging current that causes overheating/boil-off if it's too high, not the voltage? From logs I've seen on this forum, the high-voltage (not that high in those logs, only 14.8V or so) spikes are very brief anyway (as you'd expect from their necessarily (usually) brief causation, braking/overrun conditions.) I suppose significant hill descents could produce longer high-voltage 'spikes' but may well be software time-limited anyway. Anyone reading monitor their system voltage while descending long hills? Which is one reason I doubt the truth of it. Another is that if you read that battery university page without due care and attention, you can get it backwards from there; it's not phrased very clearly. Could it just be people misquoting that page, creating an 'internet rumour'?

I was wrong about this, as I've just discovered while looking for something else in the MOT manual. Apparently, being worn down to the wear indicator, or below 1.5mm thickness is a fail. I presume that thickness doesn't include the backing plate?(!) 1. Brakes - MOT inspection manual: cars and passenger vehicles - Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) section 1.1.13.

Where's your info source for your first sentence, please?

Are you sure it isn't the other way round? This paragraph from batteryuniversity.com page on the subject suggests to me that it is the AGM type that would be vulnerable to damage if fitted in a car with conventional charging: "As with all gelled and sealed units, AGM batteries are sensitive to overcharging. A charge to 2.40V/cell (and higher) is fine; however, the float charge should be reduced to between 2.25 and 2.30V/cell (summer temperatures may require lower voltages). Automotive charging systems for flooded lead acid often have a fixed float voltage setting of 14.40V (2.40V/cell); a direct replacement with a sealed unit could overcharge the battery on a long drive."

Are you sure you're looking on the correct side of the car? The photo in your first post is passenger side of LHD, isn't it. So if your car is RHD it'll be on the opposite side.

Seems he had more clue than you though?

Don't think so. Presence of, but not thickness. And braking performance obviously.

10th digit looks like a 4, so a model year 2004 car, which means built before late May 2004, I think.

Confusing stuff. Maybe that side is the right window motor on a new regulator panel, and it's the driver's side motor that's mismatched and so has the cobbled-together wiring? Don't suppose you know the exact date the car was built? (Wondering if it's before the date of the driver's side module)

I'm struggling to read the date code on the motor, but I think it says 2002? No, it's March 04, right? 21st or 31st of. So predates the car. Does the wiring look hacked around?

Google Erwin Skoda. Register/log in. Go to Repair information under the Individual Vehicle information tab. Choose Fabia III Choose the one 'from August 2014' If you're logged in you'll see a button for 'Order flat rate'. Press it. You'll need to pay this 'flat rate' before you can download the pdf, but once you've done so, a Download button will appear when you navigate to there. Minimum is 1hr at 7Euro +Tax. Make the most of your hour by downloading anything else that you might find useful.

Yep; which is why spritmonitor/fuelly are much better guides to both fuel economy and environmental impact; whichever floats your boat.

Published CO2 figures may not correlate well, but real output does. When you burn hydrocarbon fuels you make CO2, H2O and very little else, after all.

For the Octavia, Mk1s were still built right up until 2011, despite the Mk2 coming out in 2004.