1.6 TDi Cr fuel consumption

[R22JGB]

I see there is another thread about the same thing.

I have bought a SEAT Ibiza Sport 1.6TDi and am extremely disappointed with the fuel consumption. The car now has 5000 miles on it & the average consumption is less than 54 MPG, that is 18% and 12 MPG short of where it should be (65.7)

I have had the car back at the dealer and took with me documentary evidence that I can usually achieve the combined figure. I have spreadsheet data going back to 2002 and over 200,000 miles for my Picasso 2.0HDi, Fiesta 1.,6 TDCI and Passat 2.0 TDi, all three of the vehicles have been within a whisker of the manufacturers quoted combined figures.

My Ibiza is only 3 MPG better than the Passat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The dealer tells me he found no fault and under road test achieved 60MPG! he was unable to get close to the official figure!

I now will be writing to SEAT to officially complain about the poor consumption. I would also suggest those of you with poor consumption on the Fabia to hassle Skoda

The VW/SEAT/Skoda 1.6 TDi engine appears to struggle to achieve the quoted figures. I strongly suspect the cars used for their official tests were specially selected models!!!

Why not quote a more realistic figure? I'm sure it would save having a lot of disgruntled customers

[Richard K]

I took delivery of my new 105hp Estate in September. Started with a 1800 mile trip around France, which with a combination of 130kph cruising on the autoroutes and 90kph driving on main roads gave me 55.5mpg. This was worse than I got last year in my 02reg Octavia 110hp tdi. Back home, driving on various roads, but with no city driving it was slightly worse. Since my Octavia normally averages about 55 and the VRS I traded in gave 58 and could easily give over 60 with gentle driving, I was not impressed and sent it back to the dealers for a check. They found nothing wrong. I have checked the computer against fuel uplift and it is accurate. So I continued, driving for reasonable economy, and now with 4,800 miles on the clock the consumption is getting worse. I sent it back to the dealers again, they checked and again found nothing wrong. They consulted Skoda technical who came back and said that 55mpg is normal for this car. I had an fairly acrimonious conversation with Skoda UKs Customer Relations, who basically were not interested in doing anything. They said that you should not take any notice of the consumption figures in the brochure. My contention that, with the CO2 being much less than those for the Octavia and the Fabia VRS with the 1.9 engine, the car should be more economical than these, which it was not, was ignored. If I had known that it was not so economical I would have bought a second-hand Fabia Estate with the 1.9 engine and saved money both on the purchase and on fuel. The trouble with tight engines is that they can take for ever to loosen up. I once bought a second-hand Peugeot 205 diesel with 80000 miles on the clock. The engine was still tight and did not free up until it got to 105,000!

I am going to have a talk to Trading Standards this morning and see what they say about inaccuracies in the brochure. Bad luck on the dealers, who are selling the car in good faith

[xman]

I sent it back to the dealers again, they checked and again found nothing wrong. They consulted Skoda technical who came back and said that 55mpg is normal for this I had an fairly acrimonious conversation with Skoda UKs Customer Relations, who basically were not interested in doing anything. They said that you should not take any notice of the consumption figures in the brochure. My contention that, with the CO2 being much less than those for the Octavia and the Fabia VRS with the 1.9 engine, the car should be more economical than these, which it was not, was ignored.

This adds to an increasing body of evidence that the published CO2 / Fuel Consumption figures for the Fabia are little more than contrived/manipulated data cobbled by VW to meet its statutory requirement to reduce average CO2 emissions as laid down by Brussels and avoid massive penalties.

I come back to my 98 Alhambra 1.9Tdi that weighs 2 tonnes which regularly returns mid 50's and can be coaxed easily over 60mpg on real world journeys. My road tax is £205 and the closest equivalent suggest that its CO2 emissions should be 180+g/km. Are Skoda UK honestly going to say that a lightweight tiddler with a 109g/km rating should not be able to better this?

Estateman's constant rantings assurances are that things will get better when these engines loosen up, in that case I will only agree when I see the majority of owners are able to easily reach the combined figure with a significant number (the ECO warriors on the forum) being able to outdo the extra-urban figure.

[R22JGB]

7,000 miles on my car now, economy no better.

I wrote to SEAT UK told them of the problem and advised them I was considering rejecting the car as being unfit for purpose. In the letter I advised them the car had been back to the dealer who said there was no fault, I also attached documentary proof that I was able to achieve the combined figure in other cars.

I received an email back from them telling me all about different driving styles and how they had an affect on fuel consumption, also that I needed to book the car into the dealers. I responded on 10 November telling them they had not understood my letter as the car had already been to the dealers, I have since sent another email saying I have not had a response!

I wonder how long I will have to wait?

It is interesting to note MikeHart had a software upgrade on his car, so there is some scope for work to be done to try and improve economy.

In some respects I'm regretting buying a car with the VW/SEAT/Skoda 1.6TDi engine, perhaps i should have gone for a Citroen C3 with the Citroen/Peugeot/Ford engine. I know this can achieve the figures quoted.

Another pain is the DPF and the number of times it does a regen. 14 times that i'm aware of!!

Edited 22 November, 2010 by TSIDSG?

[Guest]

This adds to an increasing body of evidence that the published CO2 / Fuel Consumption figures for the Fabia are little more than contrived/manipulated data cobbled by VW to meet its statutory requirement to reduce average CO2 emissions as laid down by Brussels and avoid massive penalties.

I come back to my 98 Alhambra 1.9Tdi that weighs 2 tonnes which regularly returns mid 50's and can be coaxed easily over 60mpg on real world journeys. My road tax is £205 and the closest equivalent suggest that its CO2 emissions should be 180+g/km. Are Skoda UK honestly going to say that a lightweight tiddler with a 109g/km rating should not be able to better this?

Estateman's constant rantings assurances are that things will get better when these engines loosen up, in that case I will only agree when I see the majority of owners are able to easily reach the combined figure with a significant number (the ECO warriors on the forum) being able to outdo the extra-urban figure.

Xman...there are plenty of people ranting about fuel consumption on here, as you seem to indicate, not me. The facts are the facts which some either don't know or ignore. They also don't read their owners handbooks on the fuel consumption thingy. There are some people who have or think they have a problem. These are few with Skoda...and about 4 people on this Fabia site who believe they have a real beef. Don't compare the same 1.6cr engine in the VW's with the Skoda's, software may and almost certainly will be different. The overwhelming majority of people are very very happy with the fuel consumption achieved by their 1.6cr engines. If this was not the case dealers would be inundated with complaints and it would be all over the motoring press. Consumption and performance does get better on all engines as they do more miles. I personally know two people with these engines and they are getting 65mpg regularly in the Fabia estates (both 90bhp engines), both with in excess or 10k on the clock. To begin with both were only achieving high 40's and low to mid 50's. It took some time for both drivers to get used to the engines and learn to drive them for economy...AFTER RUNNING IN HAD FINISHED. They are both, like myself, ex-techs, and know the importance of not driving in an economic style whilst running in. That and the running in process was responsible for the higher fuel consumption to start with.

Most Skoda dealers are not getting any problems as I understand it, with no or very few complaints about fuel consumption. You cannot compare older engines/cars with differing technologies and engine sizes to the new state of the art cr engines. It's meaningless. Earlier engines were not hampered with Euro V. Don't forget too, driving style has the biggest effect on fuel consumption for any car and people need to adapt to the car they are driving to learn how best to drive it for best fuel consumption. Once bedded in, a process that shouldn't take longer than 10k for anyone and for some it will be much sooner depending how they drive it, these new state of the art engines will outperform and give much better fuel consumption than any of the cars you mention above and that has been proven by most new cr engine drivers. It's just a shame some on here are not for what ever reason getting what the majority get from their fuel. It'll be sorted I'm sure if it doesn't sort itself.

Richard, if an engine has not run in by 85,000 miles it's because it wasn't treated right to begin with. Probably driven too gently during the initial bedding in period. I've stripped engines in the workshop with 50,000 miles on the clock that have not run in because of this and it has been brought in with broken piston rings. This happens, amongst other things, because the bores become polished (glazed) and the engine oil cannot cling to the insides of the bores (there's no machine cross hatching left on the cylinder walls) and so the rings go improperly lubricated until they break due to heat and pressure. Prior to this happening the fuel consumption is usually reduced as compression is poor compared to an engine that has been run in correctly.

[Matty Le Swan]

Estate man - great, coherent information. Ta.

[Guest]

Hi Matty, how you doin mate?

Yeah, I can see a lot of people are worrying about this fuel thingy on the 1.6cr. But it's important to keep a grip of reality. I'm not saying all 1.6cr engines are running perfectly, it seems Mike H may have had a problem. Others too may have the wrong software or software needing a tweak, if so it will be done as more data flows back to Skoda. It's all perfectly normal when new models are introduced. It's always been the same. But from my contacts it doesn't seem there are many complaints about the Skoda engine compared to the number of people who have bought them. As Raisbeck will probably be able to tell you, in the world of aviation this happens all the time to engines, it did in the military on my rotary engines, basic as it was even then. Running in these engines properly, and it's the same for all modern diesel engines, is becoming much more important than it was a few years ago. To meet these very good fuel consumption figures everything about the engine and car has to be right, and that includes the way it's driven. These new shorter stroke diesels will outlast even the PD longer stroke units and give better fuel economy too but driving style will need to be a bit different and running in is a bit more crucial in my opinion as piston speed is reduced over the longer stroke models. No big deal if people read the handbook, and also note that Skoda don't actually claim your car will do any particular mpg figure because so much depends on how it's used and driven. It's the same for all manufacturers, car, motorcycles, trucks etc. As our good friend Raisbeck states in another thread, Skoda, like all manufacturers is forced by law to carry out these tests and it does so in full compliance with the law. The figures are however, only a guide.

FOOTNOTE: as a technician (Honda at the time) I remember someone complaining about their fuel consumption on An Accord diesel. The car checked out ok, no faults. But consumption was pretty bad. I went out with the driver to see how he was driving it. It turned out he was driving it in 5th gear much too early and rarely went over 50mph, much too slow for 5th. He was in effect driving up hill all the time as the engine was labouring at too lower revs, and it meant he was returning around 40mpg. All that was required was to educate him in driving style and not use 5th until 60mph and give the engine some revs. He can back sometime later and said all was well and he was getting much better fuel consumption now. He still never went over 50mph, but he never used 5th gear and was getting around 54mpg. He just needed some help in learning how to drive it. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone but it's something that can be a big influence on fuel usage.

Bests...

Edited 23 November, 2010 by Estate Man

[RandomSkodaperson]

I agree with the revs.

I have changed my driving style to stay in gear longer and getting a bit more mpg in doing so.

I used to try and change gear to early to keep the revs under 2000 but the car didn't like it. It just felt like the handbrake was on)

Now up to approx 50 mph it is still in 4th and it feels smooth . The mpg on the computer still increases but if I changed to 5th and laboured you can see the mpg dropping off. (I know it's just a computer with a rough idea but makes you think)

Followed a tip from Estate Man about how to run the engineand I think the car has responded to the driving style in a postive way

Edited 23 November, 2010 by RandomSkodaperson

[BDG]

FOOTNOTE: as a technician (Honda at the time) I remember someone complaining about their fuel consumption on An Accord diesel. The car checked out ok, no faults. But consumption was pretty bad. I went out with the driver to see how he was driving it. It turned out he was driving it in 5th gear much too early and rarely went over 50mph, much too slow for 5th. He was in effect driving up hill all the time as the engine was labouring at too lower revs, and it meant he was returning around 40mpg. All that was required was to educate him in driving style and not use 5th until 60mph and give the engine some revs. He can back sometime later and said all was well and he was getting much better fuel consumption now. He still never went over 50mph, but he never used 5th gear and was getting around 54mpg. He just needed some help in learning how to drive it. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone but it's something that can be a big influence on fuel usage.

Bests...

I do find that the gear change indicator is suggesting a higher gear at too low revs. with the result that the car is labouring in the suggested gear. I now ignore the gear indicator, as a result my consumption figure has improved, (fabia greenline II estate).

I have not driven diesel before this car and I am still adjusting to diesel motoring.

[raisbeck]

I do find that the gear change indicator is suggesting a higher gear at too low revs. with the result that the car is labouring in the suggested gear. I now ignore the gear indicator, as a result my consumption figure has improved, (fabia greenline II estate).

I have not driven diesel before this car and I am still adjusting to diesel motoring.

I dont have a gear recommendation on my Greenline and would ignore it if I did. That said you may find that as the engine runs in and loosens up the recommendation of gear may be more accurate. My PD TDI was a real chore to drive until it loosened up after 8000 miles. Now its a gem. Where it used to labour and vibrate a bit now its sweet as a nut (well sweet for a PD anyway).

The way mine drives now is significantly different to how it was when new. Much more free revving and the mpg is dramatically better.

I think the new cr has the same gearing for fifth as mine does, 2000 rpm is 70 mph. If I am under 60 I dont even use fifth. Its happiest and most economic between 1800 and 2200 rpm. The exception is when in town when the lower ok range is about 1500, usually in 3rd gear.

I read up on economic driving.Mostly common sense but combining this with relearning how to drive a Greenline diesel effectively can make a huge difference.

I can achieve the combined figure for my car fairly easily now. Didnt even come close to it when new. Running in and modifying the way I drive sorted it. Would a different make of car driven the same way be even better ? No idea but I get 20 mpg more than my old petrol 1.2 HTP Fabia used to get.

There are a few folks with CR Fabias on here who I believe have a very real issue. I wont insult their intelligence by declaring its all down to driving and running in. If anyone is at fault its the pathetic EU testing that gives such dubious figures. Lack of info on real world mpg and realistic running in times would help. A little dealer honesty on real world mpg perhaps. They had the same issue with the smart car diesel. Claimed figures were nowhere near real world for the average motorist. Its similar to the way no motorcycle manufacturer posts mpg figures. Everyone rides differently so the figures would be useless.

[impsville]

I dont have a gear recommendation on my Greenline and would ignore it if I did. That said you may find that as the engine runs in and loosens up the recommendation of gear may be more accurate. My PD TDI was a real chore to drive until it loosened up after 8000 miles. Now its a gem. Where it used to labour and vibrate a bit now its sweet as a nut (well sweet for a PD anyway).

The way mine drives now is significantly different to how it was when new. Much more free revving and the mpg is dramatically better.

I think the new cr has the same gearing for fifth as mine does, 2000 rpm is 70 mph. If I am under 60 I dont even use fifth. Its happiest and most economic between 1800 and 2200 rpm. The exception is when in town when the lower ok range is about 1500, usually in 3rd gear.

I read up on economic driving.Mostly common sense but combining this with relearning how to drive a Greenline diesel effectively can make a huge difference.

I can achieve the combined figure for my car fairly easily now. Didnt even come close to it when new. Running in and modifying the way I drive sorted it. Would a different make of car driven the same way be even better ? No idea but I get 20 mpg more than my old petrol 1.2 HTP Fabia used to get.

There are a few folks with CR Fabias on here who I believe have a very real issue. I wont insult their intelligence by declaring its all down to driving and running in. If anyone is at fault its the pathetic EU testing that gives such dubious figures. Lack of info on real world mpg and realistic running in times would help. A little dealer honesty on real world mpg perhaps. They had the same issue with the smart car diesel. Claimed figures were nowhere near real world for the average motorist. Its similar to the way no motorcycle manufacturer posts mpg figures. Everyone rides differently so the figures would be useless.

So just interesting reading on all the above,

Previous car was a Skoda Superb PD 1.9 130 which over the course of 192k averaged 52mpg, cant be unhappy with that.Previous car to that was a Smart Cdi 800cc the most i got from this before i played with the ECU and Turbo was 91mpg, however then even in this i wanted to go a little faster than it could managed so a new reworked Turbo and Custom Map resulted in almost 100bhp but a reduced MPG of 70mpg, however this could be happily achieved via pencil and paper method of working out after a Trip from Guildford to Hawick and back in a day at a speed of 80mph on the motorway, I would note i would never ever ever ever attempt this trip in a smart again, but needs must at the time..

Just Taken delivery of a New Octavia 1.6Cr Est, so after running in which should take not too long considering i travel 600 miles a week just to work, it will be interesting to see what sort of MPG i make, as my Journey is mostly Motoryway. so far just normal driving style, so mixture of speeds and engine loads, average is 60 over the course of a day to work and back, however on my way today i drove just at a steady 60-65 rather than the flow of the traffic, and i got 68MPG, car has covered just 766 miles thus far.

[Guest]

Impsville, WELCOME! Thats brilliant mpg. You won't be disappointed with the car I'm sure.

Just an update for you on the mpg thing. Due to some concern by several on here when the engine first came out in the Fabia's, and for reasons of my own, I have been following 13 owners of Fabia's and a couple of VW Polo owners who have kindly agreed to map their fuel usage, and driving conditions. This has been ongoing for almost 13 months (we are about to finish the process). I've lost contact with the Polo owners and a couple of Fabia owners but I can tell you that three people who were having problems with their fuel economy in the Fabia's very quickly found out their problem was the way they were driving it. Indeed, their dealers told them this would be the problem as the cars checked out perfectly. In one case I visited one of these owners and went out in his car with him and it was obvious it was his driving style that was at fault and not the car. The owners who couldn't seem to get good economy were all driving much too gently with very light throttle settings in the cruise (encouraging DPF regens using more fuel), and labouring the engines in too higher gears at other times, just like you might drive the older type diesels with long stroke engines. Once correcting their driving style there was a dramatic change in the cars performance, fuel economy and smoothness. But the point being, no one I have been monitoring is having any problem with fuel economy and all are very pleased. I can't say that for the people I have lost contact with but that's 9 Fabia owners, 3 of whom had problems initially and blamed the car who are now very very happy bunnies. All of this has been conducted unscientifically but is a good indicator.

[dcweather]

Interesting reading for someone who has just bought a 1 year old 12500 miles Octavia Elegance 1.6TDI CR. Drove 150 miles on M25 and A31 using the same style as with my 1.8 petrol Mazda. I tend to change to a higher gear very early on flat or downhill roads and it sounds like I might have to adapt, especially as the car seemed to accelerate towards the car in front of its own accord at times!! I've now read why this is and will have to adapt my style. Despite this i got 70.5 mpg on the way down and 62mpg with lights, wipers and aircon on most of the way back and just driving normally so I'm pretty happy.

[pinkpanther]

105 BHP CR in my Roomster (MY 2012) - Fuelly link below suggests I'm averaging 46.9 mpg over last 7606 miles. The best I have achieved so far is 52.2 mpg.

Car was "checked" by the dealer recently and they reported "no fault found".

It must be the way I'm driving it!