Anyone bettered 71.2MPG in a 1.9TDI Fabia hatch?

Friday night journey home (loaded up with gear in the boot as usual) was 169 miles. I started with 265 miles of fuel in the tank and ended with 165 miles of fuel. By that reckoning I saved 69 miles worth of fuel by driving home conservatively around the 65mph mark. Journey time was 2hrs 56mins - even negotiating the M6toll.

Extra Urban is about 68.9MPG according to Skoda. So how do we all fair?

It was as high as 72.4MPG on the trip computer but the final leg anti-clockwise on the M60 heading to J22 took it down a bit as it's all up hill. :(

Regards,

I had very high 60s going up north on the M5 once, but kept to 70 all the way, sometimes a bit lower - it was a real slow journey but got a very nice mpg. Also had steels on which helps compared to 17" alloys.

this is the highest I have been able to take a picture of so far, had approx 72mpg last year on the way back from york.

Why do 17" wheels make any difference... isn't the rolloing dia the same with 40 profile?

Yes , but the Alloys would be wider , hence more rolling resistance , and also have the weight closer to the edge of the wheel which further reduces economy.

Bit shocked to say that Mrs C.J. sqeezed 70.9 mpg out of the Fabia Vrs last week on our way to Angelsey! Granted she was following me pulling the 'shed on wheels' though.

Goes to prove the point that a remap certainly doesn't have a detrimental effect on fuel consumption ey!!

Bit shocked to say that Mrs C.J. sqeezed 70.9 mpg out of the Fabia Vrs last week on our way to Angelsey! Granted she was following me pulling the 'shed on wheels' though.

Goes to prove the point that a remap certainly doesn't have a detrimental effect on fuel consumption ey!!

Nope - my best mpg was with 150BHP and 14" steels, which have less rubber in contact with the road than 17" wheels. Less grip but good for motorway economy. This a good time to mention women can normally extract good mpg as they never drive quick...? Best not else I'll get a :slap: from Jane.

It does seem, that the Skoda TDi series, seem to be more efficient than VW's own TDi series. Does anyone know of anyone other cars which are as fuel efficient as Skoda's?

Given the price of diesel at the moment being around 81.9p/litre mark - I'm seeing a pretty good return for my money.

Regards,

Does anyone know of anyone other cars which are as fuel efficient as Skoda's?

Yes...I've done Manchester->Coventry return (374km) on about 10 litres of diesel...

Rob.

But yours weighs about 400kg :P

But yours weighs about 400kg :P

Well, with me + laptop in it about 800kg, but I take your point that it is quite a bit lighter than a Fabia...but I'm sure that alone wouldn't account for an extra 30mpg... :P

Rob.

Weight v performance and fuel consumption has been discussed in here before.

My AX gt weighs approx 750kg's, now I've removed as much as I'm allowed too.

It's only producing app 110 bhp as against the 177 from the Fabia. The Fabia weighs about 1200kg's I think?

The times between the 2 cars I am posting at Ty Croes are within 1 second of each other! :eek:

The power to weight ratio thing really counts then in my estimation.

Fuel consumption though in my case is a totally different equation! 25 mpg on avarage out of the AX in it's mildly tuned state.

Well' date=' with me + laptop in it about 800kg, but I take your point that it is quite a bit lighter than a Fabia...but I'm sure that alone wouldn't account for an extra 30mpg... :P

Rob.[/quote']True true, but I'm curious as to what tyre size the smart runs on. If they're something like 155s then that will account for a good bit of fuel consumption savings over a furby vRS with its 205 wide tyres (25% better, everything else being equal I think)

Apart from that power/weight ratio is a big factor. I "think" the boggo standard old fuddy duddy TDI weighs a smidge less than the vRS so all other things being equal, a TDI should be quicker on track than a vRS. (i think)

edit: I should say I'm not after a TDI/vRS battle today - too much to worry about than just that. :P

True true' date=' but I'm curious as to what tyre size the smart runs on. If they're something like 155s then that will account for a good bit of fuel consumption savings over a furby vRS with its 205 wide tyres (25% better, everything else being equal I think)

[/quote']

Standard tyre sizes are 145/65 R 15 (front) and 175/55 R 15 (rear).

On my old car , which was an 1800 cc petrol, I was getting about 35 mpg with the air con on , getting to and from work. This was over a variety of roads ( speed limits of 70 ,40 ,30 even 20 mph )

With the vRS I am getting in the region of about 52 mpg and this is saving me about

PS Why does the mpg indicator on the computer often jump about even when travelling at constant speed ?

Methinks you may have it set on the instant mpg - i.e the one that reads ---- when foot is lifted off the throttle, or in my case about 8mpg when on full throttle. Flick down one on the MFA to the average mpg over the trip (which also fluctautes a bit in the initial mile or two of any fresh journey)

If they're something like 155s then that will account for a good bit of fuel consumption savings over a furby vRS with its 205 wide tyres (25% better' date=' everything else being equal I think)

[/quote']

Ah, but then you also need to factor in the tread pattern of the tyres...

Rob.

I only noticed on our jaunt to the Peaks last week that my car does better MPG on a run if it's fully loaded than when it's emptier. We did plenty of driving around up there and I didn't get anywhere near the same economy once all the luggage had been taken out.

If you think about it, intertia and all that, the little bit of extra fuel needed to shift the heavier car up to (say) 70MPH is outweighed significantly by the inertia keeping it moving at 70MPH against wind resistance once you're "at speed" innit?

I guess lighter would be better MPG for stop/start driving around town, or giving it a bit of a thrash, but for a long cruise the heavier the better ... fill the tank (more weight) and stick a couple of beer kegs in the boot and see if you can beat 72

Edit: Oops - missed this bit CJ .. "Weight v performance and fuel consumption has been discussed in here before." .. soz hehe

Methinks you may have it set on the instant mpg - i.e the one that reads ---- when foot is lifted off the throttle, or in my case about 8mpg when on full throttle. Flick down one on the MFA to the average mpg over the trip (which also fluctautes a bit in the initial mile or two of any fresh journey)

You are probably right I did not realise how instant it was !!

Since adding my tuning box, the computer can easily see around 67mpg with normal round town driving. Unfortunately, I'm not disciplined enough to be able to cruise on the A roads and motorways, but always get over 50mpg, even caning it which is significantly more than I was getting pre-tuning box.

Will try and beat 72mpg tomorrow

Chris