Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[xreyuk]

As far as I can tell from the manual my 1.6CR is not equipped with the DPF

Every CR engined car is fitted with one, it's an EU requirement.

[Grantson]

Every CR engined car is fitted with one, it's an EU requirement.

The Manual says:

Code 7GG,7MB or 7MG on the vehicle data sticker indicates that your vehicle is equipped with a diesel particle filter

checking my data sticker the code is 7MQ also i dont think ive ever seen the warning light on the dash for the regen running

[xreyuk]

The Manual says:

Code 7GG,7MB or 7MG on the vehicle data sticker indicates that your vehicle is equipped with a diesel particle filter

checking my data sticker the code is 7MQ also i dont think ive ever seen the warning light on the dash for the regen running

Every CR engine meets the Euro V emission standard. Part of the Euro V emission standard is to have a DPF installed. Manuals are quite often never updated. My Leon manual has all kinds of things that are wrong because they never update it.

I've never seen a warning light for my DPF, but you only see one if a DPF regeneration fails, not every time your car regenerates.

[Guest]

As it stands, manufacturers publish figures that while comparable in theory, have nothing to do with actual fuel consumption in real life.

Hi diesel, hope you are well and keeping warm. After our offboard chatting, it may be a good idea to update your posts about your Roomster fuel economy if you can regarding how the car is being used. It may give a misleading slant on this fuel economy thing otherwise and we want the site to be as accurate and truthful as possible. There is no doubt that it's the way you are using the car that is giving you low fuel economy in the town. The fact it has a DPF is of no relevance as you would get the same result with any diesel or petrol car. The fact you are happy with the normal driving fuel economy on the motorways is testament to the fact there is nothing wrong with your car. However, no one will get the EU figures under your driving conditions in a short journey town environment where the engine remains cold and very cool for the duration of the journey, whatever they drive. The EU figures are representative of what can be achieved, but do not take account of someone using their car like you do as the figures are for 'hot' engine driving, where most people spend their travelling time.

[seboni121]

I'm still getting 60mpg now in winter on rural roads

[Guest]

Hi seb, how you doin buddy? Yeah...that's pretty good for your type of roads I'm guessing. My lil sis is in Suffolk and she is getting 56-57mpg in her urban environment even now at this time of year. She is currently not doing much town driving though, it's all 'A' and 'B' roads in 4th gear on 10 mile cross country runs with the kids. She only uses 5th gear on the dual carriageways and motorways when she goes to Birmingham every month. She has had to adapt her driving to get the best out of it. Her Octy with the PD used to give similar figures but she could use 5th gear much more as the final drive ratio was lower. She gets around the 60mpg mark at the moment with the 1.6cr Fabia on the Birmingham run. In summer that figure seems to be 64-65mpg at steady motorway speeds.

[dieselV6]

Hi Estate Man

Most recent numbers? 6.8l/100km indicated, and 7.1l/100km actual (fill-up).

I noticed you drive a 1.4PD engine, not a CR, yet you seem to be determined to prove how 1.6CR is soooo efficient. Why won't you try driving it for yourself around town?

As I stated, I am happy with 1.6CR fuel economy out of town. In fact, I will go as far as stating that it probably is more efficient than 1.9 was at high loads. So far I went abroad once in a Roomster and despite its Popemobile shape it still used only 0.5l/100km more than the Octy used to do. That's at 190km/h. Ironically, as a backup cruising car, this engine suits me quite well although the car is a bit slow, I am more used to travel at 130mph+ across Germany.

What gets me is use of fuel around town and as I stated, driving it at higher revs does not really improve it for me. I'd say fuel use around town is a lot more than brochure data. Overall, the Roomster uses 10% more fuel than Mk1 Octy 1.9 did. Brochure indicates it should use less. Even if we call my driving TOWN driving only, Octavia 1.9 was supposed to return 41.5mpg in town driving, Roomster was supposed to return 49.6mpg. Yet Roomster still uses 10% more fuel than the Octavia did, and returns 35mpg. (and Octavia used over 10% less than its stated town driving figure.)

The car does 2 cold 3m trips in the morning in town, and then frequently a couple longer trips in excess of 20m each, and of course occassional 100m-200m over weekend. No excess idling, and my fuel economy numbers are quoted for spring-autumn, they are ~5% worse in winter (which again is strange as forecourt diesel is supposed to contain ~10% less energy in winter). The engine gets regular clean out of on the motorway just like my 1.9 did and 2.5 does.

I appreciate your trying to help, but I simply have tried most things you suggested already.

Bottom line is, I'd have bought 2.0CR had I known how much variable 1.6CR experience was, and how far it is from fuel economy data around town in real life use. 2.0CR simply does not seem to show these issues. Based on posted consistent figures from many people, I'd say a Mk2 2.0CR Octy would have worked out cheaper over 10 years than the 1.6CR Roomster in mixed use as described.

If you drive country roads/motorway, though, 1.6CR is likely to return reasonable fuel economy. Though it feels underpowered at these speeds, but that's just my opinion.

Edited 26 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[seboni121]

Hi seb, how you doin buddy? Yeah...that's pretty good for your type of roads I'm guessing. My lil sis is in Suffolk and she is getting 56-57mpg in her urban environment even now at this time of year. She is currently not doing much town driving though, it's all 'A' and 'B' roads in 4th gear on 10 mile cross country runs with the kids. She only uses 5th gear on the dual carriageways and motorways when she goes to Birmingham every month. She has had to adapt her driving to get the best out of it. Her Octy with the PD used to give similar figures but she could use 5th gear much more as the final drive ratio was lower. She gets around the 60mpg mark at the moment with the 1.6cr Fabia on the Birmingham run. In summer that figure seems to be 64-65mpg at steady motorway speeds.

Hi estateman all fine here how are u nice to see you on here I'm usually in 4 th around these roads never go 5 th as she just labours its best to tape over the gear selector IMO

[seboni121]

Hi Estate Man

Most recent numbers? 6.8l/100km indicated, and 7.1l/100km actual (fill-up).

I noticed you drive a 1.4PD engine, not a CR, yet you seem to be determined to prove how 1.6CR is soooo efficient. Why won't you try driving it for yourself around town?

As I stated, I am happy with 1.6CR fuel economy out of town. In fact, I will go as far as stating that it probably is more efficient than 1.9 was at high loads. So far I went abroad once in a Roomster and despite its Popemobile shape it still used only 0.5l/100km more than the Octy used to do. That's at 190km/h. Ironically, as a backup cruising car, this engine suits me quite well although the car is a bit slow, I am more used to travel at 130mph+ across Germany.

What gets me is use of fuel around town and as I stated, driving it at higher revs does not really improve it for me. I'd say fuel use around town is a lot more than brochure data. Overall, the Roomster uses 10% more fuel than Mk1 Octy 1.9 did. Brochure indicates it should use less. Even if we call my driving TOWN driving only, Octavia 1.9 was supposed to return 41.5mpg in town driving, Roomster was supposed to return 49.6mpg. Yet Roomster still uses 10% more fuel than the Octavia did, and returns 35mpg. (and Octavia used over 10% less than its stated town driving figure.)

The car does 2 cold 3m trips in the morning in town, and then frequently a couple longer trips in excess of 20m each, and of course occassional 100m-200m over weekend. No excess idling, and my fuel economy numbers are quoted for spring-autumn, they are ~5% worse in winter (which again is strange as forecourt diesel is supposed to contain ~10% less energy in winter). The engine gets regular clean out of on the motorway just like my 1.9 did and 2.5 does.

I appreciate your trying to help, but I simply have tried most things you suggested already.

Bottom line is, I'd have bought 2.0CR had I known how much variable 1.6CR experience was, and how far it is from fuel economy data around town in real life use. 2.0CR simply does not seem to show these issues. Based on posted consistent figures from many people, I'd say a Mk2 2.0CR Octy would have worked out cheaper over 10 years than the 1.6CR Roomster in mixed use as described.

If you drive country roads/motorway, though, 1.6CR is likely to return reasonable fuel economy. Though it feels underpowered at these speeds, but that's just my opinion.

I agree the cr2.0 engine might be a option all round, I should have bought the gtd but I'm happy with the 1.6, we will be moving to a very rural area soon and so we will need a small 4x4 so getting a sx4 , or a gtd with winters

[Guest]

Hello diesel, yes I do understand where you are coming from. For the record, as I have stated in earlier posts I do regularly drive the 1.6cr in all sorts of circumstances and the Golf Bluemotion 2.0cr too. both very economical cars. But I do own the 1422cc PD which is frankly an incredible motor. I'm also a big bike fan (the ones with engines that is!). However, I've found the 1.6cr can even better the normal day to day fuel economy of my 1422cc 80ps PD engine in the Fabia. I'm not trying to prove the 1.6cr engine is sooo....efficient! That's already been proven by most people that have them. Even you on a proper run. But read on!

As we discussed in our pm's, you just won't ever get good fuel economy in town doing a 3mile 'cold' trip twice in a morning. 6 virtually cold miles everyday will have a huge impact on your mpg readout especially in a town evironment, reducing your mpg's very significantly. Your expectations are completely unrealistic and cannot be related in any way to EU fuel economy test figures either. The fuel injection system will be pumping very rich fuel air into the engine at startup, only reducing that little by little so that by the time you have finished a 3 mile cold run in town where engine combustion temps are always going to be very low on a diesel compared to a petrol car (diesel engines run around 30% colder than a petrol engine even at full temp), your dpf, injectors and cylinders will be well clogged and you will have used an expotential amount of fuel for the miles driven. This will be compounded everyday when you do those trips. That's about 30 miles each week you are driving with a cold or virtually cold engine with the injection system on near full advance for much of those miles. That is why you fuel economy IN TOWN is so bad. Nothing you can do about it except take the bus. Even any petrol car you migh care to use would be the same or similar, failing to come close to any quoted figures. Your journey's are just too short. And it's no good keep comparing your new car with other or older cars saying they did this or they did that. That is worthy of note but is of no actual relevance. Everything has moved on. Your problem is not the car itself par se, it's the way you are using it. As such your allegations against motor manufacturers and the EU figures are completely without foundation. Sorry if this sounds a bit too matter of fact for anyone but that's how it is. I do have every sympathy for anyone in this position. But, a car is the second most expensive purchase for most, a house being the biggest. Buying a house we do our research to make sure it's suitable, in the right area etc etc, Yet, some simply don't research enough when buying a car and don't take the time to find out how best to use it and drive it. It's never been more important to do so now we have these new super efficient engines. But they are only efficient if you do your homework. They can be affected expotentially by something previously regarded as only a small thing.

[dieselV6]

Your expectations are completely unrealistic and cannot be related in any way to EU fuel economy test figures either. ght area etc etc,

How are they unrealistic expectations if I actually drove an Octavia with 1.9TDi engine for 6+ years earlier (60k+ miles) in the same use, perfectly happy with fuel economy?

Octavia's 1.9TDI was returning 10% below its stated town use figure. Roomster's 1.6CR is using 20% over its stated town use figure. Roomster is 200kg lighter than the Octavia was, yet uses 10% more fuel around town than Octavia did.

Look how many cars are being used for school run in the morning, then other things later in the day. I think you will find that if we go along with your thinking ("dealership advice" etc.), VAG/Skoda are trying to match customers to a dodgy engine, not engine performance to customer requirements. Customer requirements did not change much, they demanded a bit more efficient engines as fuel costs went up. What they got instead are 1.6CR engines that are efficient mostly out of town, only when fully warmed up, and still have frequent DPF sensor issues that require repairs.

Once again, the facts, as opposed to "not researching the car enough" whitewash:

Even if we call my driving TOWN driving only, Octavia 1.9 was supposed to return 41.5mpg in town driving, Roomster was supposed to return 49.6mpg. Yet Roomster still uses 10% more fuel than the Octavia did, and returns 35mpg. (and Octavia returned 46mpg, over 10% better than its stated town driving figure.)

The car does 2 cold 3m trips in the morning in town, and then frequently a couple longer trips in excess of 20m each, and of course occassional 100m-200m over weekend. No excess idling, and my fuel economy numbers are quoted for spring-autumn, they are ~5% worse in winter (which again is strange as forecourt diesel is supposed to contain ~10% less energy in winter). The engine gets regular clean out of on the motorway just like my 1.9 did and 2.5 does.

As I stated, I am happy with 1.6CR fuel economy out of town. In fact, I will go as far as stating that it probably is more efficient than 1.9 was at high loads. So far I went abroad once in a Roomster and despite its Popemobile shape it still used only 0.5l/100km more than the Octy used to do. That's at 190km/h. If you drive country roads/motorway, though, 1.6CR is likely to return reasonable fuel economy. Though it feels underpowered at these speeds, but that's just my opinion.

EU test does not test cold engines, it test engines from 25degC ambient onwards, without additional cooling due to wind/air drag, wind/air drag is only factored as an additional load. Average yearly temperature in Europe is 9 degC.

Edited 26 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[2ndskoda]

I do actually run a 1.6 CR90 (a replacement for an earlier 3 pot 1.4 TDI)

This now has 7800 on the clock. Whilst I share reservations about the DPF system, my MPG is not that bad.

The CR engine needs to be thoroughly hot before one can expect a reasonable MPG, and the current cold weather snap certainly does NOT help.

Estate man is absolutely correct when he says that driving style is the most influencial factor on the MPG figures. I would also agree with the poster who said that driving to the recommended gear indication (on dash readout) is the worst thing that one can do.

All manufacturers choose their ratios so that 3rd about town is the way to go. As soon as one gets into 4th the revs drop, and the loading on the engine is severe and unnecessary - which in turn does not help the dpf system to operate at its most efficient. A good old fashioned vacuum gauge would confirm this immediately. When my car is at full operating temp, driving in town returns a figure in the upper 40's. In the milder part of the past year - town driving showed a 50+.

I had to drive this CR90 a little differently to my earlier 3 pot Fabia, and soon found that a gentle application of the loud pedal, still got the full assistance of the turbo. Hope this is of help - stay with it, you will eventually get the desired result

Edited 26 January, 2013 by 2ndskoda

[philhoward]

I wouldn't normally bother to comment on such a thread but a couple of points of contribution..

Estate Man and dieselV6 are totally bang on. The EU set a test procedure, and hence manufacturers design their vehicles to do the best at these tests. You'd be daft as a manufacturer not to. Wind resistance IS most definitely factored in (I used to work with Chassis Dynos/Rolling Roads). These are also normally done in a climatically sealed chamber so that each vehicle tested gets tested to the same set of rules (temp, humidity etc). This was done incase manufacturers decided to choose which day/conditions suited their preferred test track for the official results.

That isn't to say the test isn't flawed - its purely representative of a typical EU scenario and most likely you will never come across those conditions in real life.

Use the mpg figures as a yardstick to compare cars, yes, but don't buy a car based on those figures being gospel. If you're worried about spending an extra £47.79 a year on fuel for one model over another, then I'm afraid life is too short - or don't buy a new car in the first place. Buy a nearly new one, and save yourself £1-3k in depreciation. Buy an ex-rental with a ready run-in engine. If (as is reported this morning) fuel is rising by 4p a litre in the next week, does that throw out all your calculations and its now cheaper to catch the bus/get taxis/rent a car for the odd times you really need one?

Skoda aren't liars regarding their expected economy figures - they did the test and published their results (if they were lying, the ASA amongst others would have their wedding tackle for breakfast).

:wall: :wall:

Edited 26 January, 2013 by philhoward

[seboni121]

Philhoward excellent must agree, I'm disappointed to hear however that fuel is rising by 4 p

[Guest]

How are they unrealistic expectations if I actually drove an Octavia with 1.9TDi engine for 6+ years earlier (60k+ miles) in the same use, perfectly happy with fuel economy?

Octavia's 1.9TDI was returning 10% below its stated town use figure. Roomster's 1.6CR is using 20% over its stated town use figure. Roomster is 200kg lighter than the Octavia was, yet uses 10% more fuel around town than Octavia did.

I mean no disrespect but you simply are not hearing what people are saying. If you make a statement like the one above, you simply don't understand anything anyone has said to you, and you simply haven't cottoned on to the fact the EU tests are for guidance/yardstick purposes only. It matters not that temperatures are different during testing to where the car is going to be used. It's of no relevance whatsoever. That's the point! EU tests are guidance only, and each of us will get different results. The EU results are not meant to be universally accepted as being 'actual' for everyone. It states this in your handbook to warn you, and online. In addition, there are so many variables such as how we all use the car, how we drive it, where we drive it, that each of us as drivers introduces into the driving equation that no tests will give a universal actual result. It's not possible. That is why the EU fuel test is a yardstick only, as Phil is saying. Your use of the car for your short cold trips is regarded as 'more extreme' use where fuel economy will suffer and that's why you get a poorer result when in town. You 6 year old Octy was lovely I'm sure, but it's different technology now. Everything has changed. Good luck!

[seboni121]

Dieselv6 there are several things you can do to help, run it on vpower lower soot build up also use bg244 every 10k, I do this and no regen problems, in regards your low mpg you'll never get the mpg around town , should have had a small petrol engine for this if you are having dpf problems that will be down to the way you drive it i.e like an old fart you've got too get it warm or you'll just keep blocking the dpf and this will make the car use a hell of a lot of fuel, around town if you get 35 mpg you'll be lucky IMO, personally for you a citigo or fabia petrol would be better, have you thought of a hybrid ?

[dieselV6]

Yet Roomster still uses 10% more fuel than the Octavia did, and returns 35mpg(US, correction sorry) 41.5mpg imp. (and Octavia used over 10% less than its stated town driving figure.)

First of all, a small correction to my own post, the actual and very consistent fuel economy number for my 1.6CR Roomster, when expressed in UK miles per gallon is 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, still way below 49.6mpg quoted in Roomster 1.6CR brochure. Apologies, selected US instead of Imperial in the calculator. The numbers in l/100km are correct, though.

Use the mpg figures as a yardstick to compare cars, yes, but don't buy a car based on those figures being gospel.

...

Skoda aren't liars regarding their expected economy figures - they did the test and published their results (if they were lying, the ASA amongst others would have their wedding tackle for breakfast).

OK, Let us then consider town driving, paper only fuel economy numbers only as per NEDC, and select 2 cars I know very well:

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI 2002, quoted town fuel consumption 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, weight in the configuration I used 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR 2012, quoted town fuel consumption 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, weight in the configuration I used 1250kg

Do you agree than on the face of these numbers, I should be expecting Roomster to burn less fuel than the 200kg heavier Octavia with (allegedly ) less efficient engine? I do not mean the actual 1.1l/km less, just less fuel at all consumed by Roomster when compared to old Octavia. I hope you do.

Now the actual, real-life fuel consumption numbers I got, clearly show Roomster is consistently burning 10% more fuel than the Octavia. Roomster 1.6CR105 at 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, Octavia 1.9TDI110 at 6.2l/100km or 46mpg

So here we are, comparing paper numbers and getting exactly opposite result to real life figures. The fact that Skoda/VAG lie to us in the same way as every other car manufacturer in Europe (because they do the same tests) does not change my fuel bill nor the fact that more truthful fuel economy numbers stated in the brochure would have made me choose a different car (and also a Skoda!). In fact I'd say it is the Skoda who lost initial money, as I would have bought a more expensive 2.0CR Octy had I known how poor 1.6CR was around town. And that is the point. It probably would be in the interest of car manufacturers themselves to publish fuel economy numbers obtained in more realistic testing than it is at present. That is unless of course, your entire group of brands sells an engine that is markedly worse than it's predecessor around town.

Edited 26 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[philhoward]

Nope, again I'm afraid you've taken in by your interpretation of the results, not the results proper.

There are no "town driving" results, only "Urban Cycle" and "Extra-Urban cycle". These are a rough guide to a possible urban (town/suburb/pick your own wording).

I can't find (with a quick google) the actual document, but its summarised pretty well here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

Have a good read and look and you soon realise you'd be hard pushed to duplicate it.

You'll also note it specifies which gear to use for the test, so the gearing difference between what the test says and what you drive in your Octy/Roomster will also affect consumption.

[philhoward]

Do you agree than on the face of these numbers, I should be expecting Roomster to burn less fuel than the 200kg heavier Octavia with (allegedly ) less efficient engine? I do not mean the actual 1.1l/km less, just less fuel at all consumed by Roomster when compared to old Octavia. I hope you do.

I would - but we're talking a brand new car with an engine that is still "bedding in" - modern engines don't give their best for the first 30 or 40,000 miles in my opinion - versus a 10 year old one thats well worn in (I assume). At the 40k mark, I'd hope that the Roomster would give better mpg than the Octavia.

Less efficient engine in the Octavia? Not sure about that one. One that produces (theoretically) more "nasties" than its newer counterpart? Probably. Efficiency is (in my book) how far it goes for an amount of fuel per kg of weight shifted. NOx and CO have little (if any) bearing on efficiency on that basis. Newer doesn't necessarily mean better; flip back to petrol and its been proven that fitting catalytic converters was a pointless and backwards exercise 20 years ago. Worse fuel consumption and their cleaning abilities didn't kick in until the average journey ended - hence making them worse in just about every sense.

Progress? Hmmm...

[dieselV6]

Octy 1.9 was within 95% of its lifetime consumption figure after just 1500 miles. Roomster has 8k miles now. It's rather hard to dispute the hard facts...

[philhoward]

In that case, I can only assume the Octavia is more suited to the style of town driving you do than the Roomster. Warm up time, maybe?

Edited 26 January, 2013 by philhoward

[dieselV6]

I can almost see VAG employees arguing that their calculations were 100% correct, it's just the inconvenient customer muppets (including me) who are so wrong to take figures published 10 years ago, figures published 1 year ago, and assume they will get a less costly to run car because new car figures are much better. When in fact what they get instead is 10% more expensive to run.

I am not trying to explain why 1.6CR uses so much fuel around town compared to 1.9 (though CR's parasitic losses and the DPF probably explain most of it).

I am merely pointing out that brochure fuel economy figures for urban cycle are pure nonsense and you cannot even compare diesel cars from the same manufacturer, not to mention different manufacturers.

Also, regarding urban/town/whatever name cycle, Octavia 1.9 was beating its urban cycle figure by 10%, so I'd say my driving is still town/country mix. Roomster undershoots its urban cycle figure by 20%, and what is really pathetic is that 200kg lighter 1.6CR Roomster uses 10% more fuel than the 1.9TDI Octavia did, same driving.

Edited 26 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[tupray]

Hi Folks , i have over the past hour read all the comments re the --- 1.6 cr dpf 90bhp engine ---- l have also looked on the Octavia forum looking for the same comments re the --- 1.6 cr dpf 105bhp engine --- l found none of the issues on there with regards to the re-gen problems , just wondering if the increase in bhp helps with re-gen ( as stated the 2.0 cr bhp seems not to have the re-gen problems , or am i talking rubbish

[Guest]

Hello tupray, no...you are not talking nonesense. In fact the 105ps engine does warm up very very slightly faster we found when doing dyno testing from the same cold start temps. It's almost negligible though and not significant. Although as you prolly know, diesels only warm up fast if they are given work to do. Unlike a petrol engine. That's another reason why town driving takes a diesel longer to warm up. You are right about the DPF's not giving any problems if the car is used and driven correctly. DPF's in cars have been around for at least 8 years that I'm aware of and around 15 years or more on commercials without problems.

dieselV6, again...do understand that Skoda are not lying to us with these EU mpg figures. The figures are NOT Skoda's. They have to publish them by law as given to them by the EU Commission. They actually have no say whatsoever in the matter about what the figures are for this yardstick excercise.

Now the main thing here is to realise there is nothing wrong with your car. That was the main thing most of us were concerned about, and why eveyone is trying to assist. However, the discussion has widened and you are asking about mpg's on a car that is 11 years old (and that had no DPF) that you previously owned, wondering why it cannot be equalled for mpg's by your new car. It was better and you expect your new smaller more advanced (and more capable overall) car to beat or match it for fuel economy. Well, here are a couple of things that may help your further understand.

Your 'old' Octavia car did not have the vast array of emmission control gear fitted or a DPF. That means in real terms you would have enjoyed more mpg as shown in the brochure than your new Roomster. Period! If you then advance forward to the Octavia with the 1.9PD engine WITH DPF you will see a vast difference in the economy figures. In fact you lose an average of around 6mpg overall according to the brochure figures. Now taking a look at the Fabia and Roomster with and without a DPF and the differential fuel figs are about the same with the DPF car doing significantly less mpg (6mpg less). The Fabia and Roomster cars without a DPF do more miles per gallon everywhere, and in excess of the Octavia with or without a DPF. My li'l sister had the 1.9PD Octavia Estate with and without a DPF and the figures were starkly differerent. The 1.9PD without the DPF almost equalled here new 1.6cr to begin with even under load. The one that did have the DPF used more fuel than her Fabia 1.6cr. That's very different to what you are saying and in line with what I would expect. But that difference is certainly down to the way the vehicles are being used. From my experience, it indicates to me that a: you may not yet have fully adapted to the driving technique needed to gain better mpg, and b: your very long 'cold' use of the 1.6cr is severly adversly affecting the fuel economy, just as I would expect of any car with a DPF used in that way. Unless you change your use of the car you cannot alter the fuel economy outcome. It's also worthy of note that if you used an Octavia 1.9PD with a DPF for your same cold drive, you would get a very very poor fuel economy from it. EVERYTHING has changed with the onset of these new technologies and made necessary by Euro 5, and 6 which is about to come in shortly. You cannot keep comparing old with new. It simply tells you everything has changed and a main reason diesel engined cars are in the process of being sidelined by all the big car makers until around 2019 when new technology and new rules will make them even more viable than now. Most are already dropping some diesels from their ranges and soon some manufacturers will drop diesels altogether in preference to the newer breed of high efficiency petrol engines that virtually equal diesel performance and mpg's.

dieselV6, I wish you lots of luck with this. I know you are having a hard time understanding all this stuff. Your questions are relevent and pertinent, but everyone is giving you good advice and it's well intended. From your posts you seem to have a particular mindset which you are entitled to of course, but libelling Skoda ain't a great idea. You, and maybe many others will be pleased to know I have nothing else to say on this subject! I'm mpg'ed out. PM me again if you have a need. Bye for now mate.

Edited 28 January, 2013 by Estate Man

[shrops_paul]

Reading this (not ALL 20 pages tho ) I think the moral of the story is to try and test drive a potential new car for a reasonable distance and reset the Maxidot average MPG before you set off. Drive a typical route for your lifestyle and check the MPG at the end.

When I was looking for my Fabia I was fortunate in that the dearer gave me the keys and I went off for 15 minutes and did just this to see what the average consumption would be with my driving style and type of roads & speeds.

I appreciate its not always possible depending on the location of the dealer etc. but if fuel economy is an important part of the decision then its worth the effort.