Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[PDIBK]

Crap...

CLOCK watch people...I would only ever watch CLOCKS!!! Anything else is much more dangerous, but CLOCK watching is bad for your sanity.

It even leads to typos...

[m collinson]

I too have got a brand new 1.6 CR tdi 90 hp and find the fuel consumption abysmal. I previously had a 1.9 Sdi for 11.5 years and 134000 miles , this one for 4 weeks and 1000 miles. The old one had the A/C on all the time and 60 mpg plus was easy to achieve. The new one without the A/C on struggles to get to 50 on the same runs. I think that there are 2 main problems causing this.

The gear ratios are too high; at 70 mph new one about 2000 rpm; old one 2500 rpm.

The other thing is that the throttle pedal only needs the slightest touch and fuel is used at an alarming rate. I realise that things may improve with some milage but I am far from impressed at the moment.

[Kiwibacon]

Fuel economy improves as engines wear. You get the best fuel economy some-time between everything being nice and loose and compression starting to drop. Generally past 200,000km cars are still gaining fuel economy, if everything else is kept in good working order.

Let it break in.

[pipsyp]

Jesus you think 50+mpg from a 1.6 TDi is bad, thats nothing. Try a vRS that "officially" is supposed to be able to average 45mpg.......ours has averaged 31 since we've had it with mixed driving. You have to really nanny it to see anything near 40. I cant remember the last time I cleared 300 miles before it needed filling up.

Edited 22 December, 2012 by pipsyp

[rotek]

Hello again,

Whilst I appreciate the need to have some sort of standardised test to try and prevent all the messing around that car companies would do otherwise, my main issue isn't the consumption difference from book per se, but that some companies expect engines to give their best mpg almost from new, whilst others (VW for instance it would appear), expect it to take a considerable period of time. I assume there's nothing particularly different about how VW make and engine and say Toyota, so I don't see why it should take a VW engine 10-20k miles to reach best mpg, whilst Toyota do it from day one. Maybe I just got lucky with the previous car. Others on here suggest VW engines are highly variable as the mpg from start seems to vary wildly.

Thanks,

Mike

Mike, just for info.

My consumption with the same engine(1.6 TDI 66kw) is 53 MPG.

I have around 3000 miles on the clock for now.

The same driving style and route with my old car (Marea 2001 year 1.9 JTD 81kw) the consumption was 47 MPG.

Pretty small difference if you know that there is 11 years of technology between the cars.

So I am not satisfied with my consumption. Was expecting around 63 MPG (also the dealer said this number).

by by

[greenline 11]

I've just bought a Skoda Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp and am getting appalling fuel consumption. I've read various entries on here about the mpg improving, but generally the people are starting within 50's mpg (normally middle to high) and going into the 60's and even, according to one post, the 70's. My story is slightly different. I am currently getting around 48mpg and with the cold weather, this appears to be decreasing slightly towards 45-46mpg. My car has about 1400 miles on the clock and the mpg has been consistent from the start at 48mpg. I understand that during running in, the car should gradually get a better mpg, but I'm starting from a much lower beginning than others on here and something like a 35% increase would be required to get to anything like a reasonable figure.

I should add at this point that I drive almost exclusively on dual-carriageways with some roundabouts and a small section of single-carriageway. In general, I'm looking for something around the combined figure.

Compared to my old car (a Toyota Yaris 1.4 D4D), the fuel economy is appalling. The Yaris had slightly worse economy figures (combined 64mpg) and always achieved between 60-65mpg on this journey, from brand new. This is a Euro III engine from a 10 year old (at least) design. Therefore, I was looking forward to getting something around the combined figure for the Fabia. If the Fabia achieved anywhere between 60 and 65mpg, I would have accepted it. However, the 48mpg is just so low. My wife also has a Ford Galaxy 2.0 TD 140bhp (new shape Mark III), a Euro IV engine and can achieve 50mpg with ease over the journey and that's a much bigger engine and much heavier car.

I'm currently in dispute with Skoda as the figure is ludicrously low and nobody can offer me anything near a credible reason why. Additionally, unless it improves, I'll be spending another £750 a year on diesel over my old Yaris. At the moment, the purchase looks like a mistake of epic proportions. If the car had started in the 50's (preferably middle to high), I would continue and see how it pans out, buoyed by the entries on here explaining how it goes up. However, as it hasn't even left the 40's at the moment, the rise required is enourmous.

Your comments and advice would be most welcome.

P.S.

In every other respect I think the car is great, but I simply can't afford to have something drinking this much diesel, especially with prices rising all the time.

Welcome to the club. I have complained bitterly for nearly a year and a half now about high fuel consumption on a Diesel Fabia Greenline with a mere 1.2 engine I've owned from new. Winter mpg is now down to 55 mpg. A disgraceful return! Skoda lied outright in my view and only wish the published returns for these cars was properly policed! I'ts costing me a fortune driving circa 20K per annum and gave up a diesel Punto which regularly gave me 80 to the gallon.

Skoda are liars!

[greenline 11]

Sorry Estate Man but you sound like a Skoda salesman.

MPG is why a lot of people buy these diesels. VW engines (including the Tsi )are not delivering on their fuel consumption promises.No point in buying an ECO car that burns 50% more fuel for the first two years of its life.........

I'm having similar issues with my humble Fabia 2 1,2 3 cyl 70bhp. Its still struggling to return urban figures after 6000 miles in mixed driving, when my Mk1 fabia would return combined figures easily. I don't find 33mpg acceptable when I can squeeze up to 60mpg out of my 2 tonne Alhambra. The idea was to buy a small cheap to run car!!

Couldn't agree with you more on all your comments!

[AdamJMK]

Coming up to the first 1000 miles on my car - Monte 1.6 TDI CR 105. Although it's an improvement on the last car I can say the average of between 46-47mpg isn't as great as I would want it to be. I have yet to get anywhere near the 67mpg from the brochure, and can't fathom out how to get near it. A full tank currently gets me about 450 miles, was expecting more....

That's been a mixture of town driving, motorway driving and some A road driving. Tonight driving from a friends back to mine (30 mile round journey) I struggled to get an average of 50mpg and that was doing 60-65mph on an empty dual carriageway - with cruise control activated.

I feel that the gearing is too long at times, instead of 5 gears spaced out as they are it could really do with a 6 speed box, and also taking into account if you change gears like the display tells you too then you tend to completely miss the power band and the car ends up feeling gutless with no acceleration whatsoever.

Friend had an earlier 1.9 TDi Fabia which was continually getting at least 55mpg on virtually every type of driving scenario.....

I'll give it a bit longer as I know the car has only small mileage on it, hopefully it will start to improve soon.

[seboni121]

As I've said before I had the same engine in my fabia 1.6crtdi 105 bhp and I've got the same engine in the golf, I had great mpg figures from the fabia but the golf for some reason gives slightly better maybe 3-5 mpg more, although I was getting easy over 60 mpg in both

[jopo]

I have not read all of the above posts,but have done some research into the poor mpg on my 1.6 TDI CR 90 PS Estatate

New October 2012, 800 miles on the clock. The Skoda trained engineer at the dealer's did a road test- no passengers; air con off; gently driven over 18 miles. Result 61 mpg.This compares with 78.5 Extra Urban claimed in the Sales Brochure. IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE FIGURES IN THE SALES BROCHURE !

Conversation with Skoda Support Team (an engineer - not the Sales person)

Explanation - Under the latest current EU Directives which gives the figures in the Brochure, the engine is tested in a car ON ROLLERS !! which means that no account is taken of wind resistance and tyre rolling resistance.

The only use for the claimed figures is that all current cars will have been tested in the same way, but none of the mpg figures apply to actual road conditions. I calculated that at 60mpg the Aerodynamic Drag (Cd of 0.3) is about 44 lb and the Tyre rolling resistance is about 8 Lb. Are we being ripped off as usual ?

John

[greenline 11]

I have not read all of the above posts,but have done some research into the poor mpg on my 1.6 TDI CR 90 PS Estatate

New October 2012, 800 miles on the clock. The Skoda trained engineer at the dealer's did a road test- no passengers; air con off; gently driven over 18 miles. Result 61 mpg.This compares with 78.5 Extra Urban claimed in the Sales Brochure. IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE FIGURES IN THE SALES BROCHURE !

Conversation with Skoda Support Team (an engineer - not the Sales person)

Explanation - Under the latest current EU Directives which gives the figures in the Brochure, the engine is tested in a car ON ROLLERS !! which means that no account is taken of wind resistance and tyre rolling resistance.

The only use for the claimed figures is that all current cars will have been tested in the same way, but none of the mpg figures apply to actual road conditions. I calculated that at 60mpg the Aerodynamic Drag (Cd of 0.3) is about 44 lb and the Tyre rolling resistance is about 8 Lb. Are we being ripped off as usual ?

John

Hi John,

I've said in another thread and will repeat here. I've owned nearly thirty cars in my lifetime on several marques and have ALWAYS had a better return on MPG on every single car! Last car serves as a good example, diesel Punto, with fiat claiming 72 mpg while I rarely got less than 80 mpg. Mileage was always checked several tankful to tankful.

Again I will repeat, Skoda are outright LIARS!!!

If I thought I could successfully sue them and recoup my costs then I would dearly love to haul the lying thieves through the courts. I bought my car based on their filthy lies and now costing me several hundreds of pounds more per annum to run this bloody tank!

Skoda diesel Greenline on a 61 plate.

Joe

[seboni121]

Hi joe sorry to hear your getting not so good fuelly, I must admit though the old pd engine was superior economically , we are going backwards IMO, I am happy with mine though

[greenline 11]

Hi joe sorry to hear your getting not so good fuelly, I must admit though the old pd engine was superior economically , we are going backwards IMO, I am happy with mine though

I actually love the cars' looks and comfort and 'extras' to play with but simply can't get my head around a car claimed to return Urban 68.9 - Extra Urban 94.2 - Combined 83.1 delivering a mere 55 mpg! More irony for me as 15 years ago I owned a 2 litre Peugeot 405 diesel without a turbo regularly giving me 60 mpg.

If we were to be conservative and base a return on say Skodas' Combined figure of 83.1, I'm nearly 30 miles to the gallon down on a car with an engine nearly half the size! Many posters have talked about driving technique and a lot contradictory I may say but I'd have to drive like a complete lunatic to 'lose' 30 miles for every gallon I put in the tank.

Nope! Skoda are outrageous liars and I would dearly love to nail their bum on a post for tricking us into buying cars that simply do not deliver!!

Edited 3 January, 2013 by greenline 11

[Grantson]

I got my 1.6 105 back in October and for the 1st week running 40 mile round trip to work it was getting 62,pg average on the run to work. then the traffic started to pick up back to normal, change of shift and school holidays ending etc meant i was suddenly getting 48 mpg :(

A long weekend in London gave me a chance to evaluate the car on a long motorway run where it did mid 50s cruising at around 70mph.

I was getting ****ed off that the MPG seemed to be continually getting lower.

I read some of the posts above about ignoring the shift light and keeping the revs close to 2k and noticed the economy starting to creep back up.

I just managed to get 68mpg on a short motorway blast which was into the 70s until the last mile or so which is a fairly steep hill

Given previous threads about the difference in performance between supermarket and branded fuel i was trying to stick to shell however due to getting 5p off a litre at tesco im currently running a tank of tesco diesel with a shot of Millers ecomax

[raisbeck]

I have a Greenline 1 with a PD engine. Summer 70 mpg is easy driving normally and 70 on motorways, mix of dual carriageway and a few towns. In winter this drops to low 60's. Still a bit shy of book figures but imho its really good economy. If I drive like a hippy in summer it will beat 80mpg.

The PD injection pressure is way above any of these new common rail engines and its also quite rattly. Smooth sounding diesel with a square power band clearly comes at a price. The aerodynamics of my car cant be so different from the GL2 so really its just the new CR engine that isnt as efficient as advertised.

Diesels used to be simple, high pressure external injection pumps, no EGR valves or DPF corks stuck in the exhaust. So much technology in them now to help trees breathe but does nothing for economy.

Skoda isnt the only manufacturer to exercise the figures or MPG test manipulation. They all do it. Fiat twinair is a typical example, doesn't come close to book figures. Until manufacturers put a car from the production line on a real road at set speeds with a proper load then I consider all advertised figures as pure bunk.

I have been fortunate, after over 65,000 miles my curent Fabia has saved a fortune in fuel compared to my old petrol HTP. I wont be buying any new VAG group diesel in the future though, unless they start making PD's again, fat chance.

[greenline 11]

I have a Greenline 1 with a PD engine. Summer 70 mpg is easy driving normally and 70 on motorways, mix of dual carriageway and a few towns. In winter this drops to low 60's. Still a bit shy of book figures but imho its really good economy. If I drive like a hippy in summer it will beat 80mpg.

The PD injection pressure is way above any of these new common rail engines and its also quite rattly. Smooth sounding diesel with a square power band clearly comes at a price. The aerodynamics of my car cant be so different from the GL2 so really its just the new CR engine that isnt as efficient as advertised.

Diesels used to be simple, high pressure external injection pumps, no EGR valves or DPF corks stuck in the exhaust. So much technology in them now to help trees breathe but does nothing for economy.

Skoda isnt the only manufacturer to exercise the figures or MPG test manipulation. They all do it. Fiat twinair is a typical example, doesn't come close to book figures. Until manufacturers put a car from the production line on a real road at set speeds with a proper load then I consider all advertised figures as pure bunk.

I have been fortunate, after over 65,000 miles my curent Fabia has saved a fortune in fuel compared to my old petrol HTP. I wont be buying any new VAG group diesel in the future though, unless they start making PD's again, fat chance.

If we take your more conservative figure of 70 mpg in your Greenline 1 and compare with my 55 mpg in my Greenline 11, where exactly is the 15 miles going in my car? If I'm using more fuel for the same miles then surely my emissions are up but Skoda say no so where the hell is the fuel going? I even get 0 rated road tax!

[raisbeck]

Just to clarify the slight typo. I get 70 mpg in the summer when driving at 70mph on a motorway. Steady speeds.

Yesterday 55 mile trip from Aldershot to Littlehampton mixed roads gave 64mpg. Have a Yeti today as the cars in for its cambelt change and service. Best i got out of that at steady 60 on dual carriageway was 42mpg indicated.....Its a petrol engine but no idea what capacity.

[raisbeck]

If we take your more conservative figure of 70 mpg in your Greenline 1 and compare with my 55 mpg in my Greenline 11, where exactly is the 15 miles going in my car? If I'm using more fuel for the same miles then surely my emissions are up but Skoda say no so where the hell is the fuel going? I even get 0 rated road tax!

My unqualified and best guess would be that the wasted fuel is partly due to the multiple injections per cycle that make your car so much smoother and quieter than mine, but not necessarily the most efficient use of fuel to make the thing go. Combined with a less atomised spray when compared to a unit injector (PD) that has higher injection pressures which 'may' make the burn less efficient. If its smoking more because its a less efficient burn you wont see it as the DPF collects all the crud.

Or the above is all balls so pay it no attention :no:

[greenline 11]

Just to clarify the slight typo. I get 70 mpg in the summer when driving at 70mph on a motorway. Steady speeds.

Yesterday 55 mile trip from Aldershot to Littlehampton mixed roads gave 64mpg. Have a Yeti today as the cars in for its cambelt change and service. Best i got out of that at steady 60 on dual carriageway was 42mpg indicated.....Its a petrol engine but no idea what capacity.

But if I take my Greenline 11 on the motorway driving at the speeds you indicate I'm still nowhere near your returns and knowing the Aldershot area [many years ago now] I doubt I would get a return of 50 mpg. By the way, for the sake of brevity as there are presumably many more people reading this, my Skoda agent has had the car in twice and found nothing whatsoever wrong.

I'll stick with my earlier premise, Skoda have lied through their teeth to sell these cars. Green my ass!!

[MikeHart]

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.

[GeneralPurpose]

I have not read all of the above posts,but have done some research into the poor mpg on my 1.6 TDI CR 90 PS Estatate

New October 2012, 800 miles on the clock. The Skoda trained engineer at the dealer's did a road test- no passengers; air con off; gently driven over 18 miles. Result 61 mpg.This compares with 78.5 Extra Urban claimed in the Sales Brochure. IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE FIGURES IN THE SALES BROCHURE !

Conversation with Skoda Support Team (an engineer - not the Sales person)

Explanation - Under the latest current EU Directives which gives the figures in the Brochure, the engine is tested in a car ON ROLLERS !! which means that no account is taken of wind resistance and tyre rolling resistance.

The only use for the claimed figures is that all current cars will have been tested in the same way, but none of the mpg figures apply to actual road conditions. I calculated that at 60mpg the Aerodynamic Drag (Cd of 0.3) is about 44 lb and the Tyre rolling resistance is about 8 Lb. Are we being ripped off as usual ?

John

Hi Jopo, may be a good idea to read through some of the earlier posts in this thread as you are missing some important information posted about this subject. I'll only say that at 800 miles you car is unable to give it's designed mpg figs as the engine is way too tight and the ecu is in learning mode until 3k. These engines take a long time to bed in and give anywhere near the service mpg you would like and the ecu learning must complete for the optimum to be reached in performance and mpg. Also driving style on these new engines is very very important. You cannot drive them like diesels of old. How do I know this? I have carried out some research on this engine many many months ago now and this included the co-operation of several posters in this thread and from the VW site who complained about fuel economy being bad. I visited four of the posters and examined their cars and driving styles. I am an ex-technician and at the time worked on engine development for a small company involving diesel engines and so I had an alteria motive to do this. It helped us all. Of the thirteen people I followed over a period of 12 months, it should have only been 9 months at the beginning but was extended due to some individual losing contact, all but one individual became totally happy with their fuel economy. All cars except one reached it's claimed figures. To achieve this all but one driver had to alter their driving technique, and all needed to put more miles on the car to loosen the engines. The one car that did not perform correctly needed a new ecu and was a Golf with the 1.6CRTDI engine in it. Afterwards the car performed fairly well, but still didn't reach it's advertised mpg, mainly I feel because the owner had messed up his running in and had stuck to very low speeds and not given the engine much work to do. As a result the engine remained tight and will never perform correctly.

As a reminder to all, the miles per gallon figures quoted in the brochures by Skoda ARE NOT SKODA figures. I have since witnessed the EU testing process happening at a well know european factory and it was carried out by the european commission agents within a special facility within the factory. Our own development engine was indeed tested in this way. So SKODA like other manufacturers are obliged by law to publish these figures and have no choice in what those figure are that are published. The EU tells them what the figures are that have been achieved and those are the one the manufacturer has to use. The cars are not special cars (although the manufacturers can practice the tests using different cars and features for their own research prior to testing) but cars taken at random of the production line. Wind and rolling resistance is taken into account as are temperatures and other such factors. All of the results are deemed achievable but some drivers will never get those figs while others will for a number of reasons. Just saying as there is a lot of misinformation about these tests.

Edit: it's worth remembering that we are all running winter diesel too at this time of the year. There is a small drop in calorific value due to some additives being used in the fuel but a main reason winter diesel causes a drop in fuel economy is that the additives cause a small change in the way the fuel burns. Couple that with the fact we all use more electrics and the engines take much longer to warm up in winter then you can see why our fuel economy in winter can drop by several mpg. I typically get around 5-7mpg less in winter normal driving. You must take that into account as in summer on the same run you will get more mpg's.

Edited 11 January, 2013 by Estate Man

[GeneralPurpose]

My unqualified and best guess would be that the wasted fuel is partly due to the multiple injections per cycle that make your car so much smoother and quieter than mine, but not necessarily the most efficient use of fuel to make the thing go. Combined with a less atomised spray when compared to a unit injector (PD) that has higher injection pressures which 'may' make the burn less efficient. If its smoking more because its a less efficient burn you wont see it as the DPF collects all the crud.

Or the above is all balls so pay it no attention :no:

Raisbeck there is much truth in what you say...and I don't mean the bit about balls!

Edited 11 January, 2013 by Estate Man

[FAB59]

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.

Amen to that! Unfortunately, I've learnt this the hard way too. At least I'm now out of warranty, so I can enjoy an otherwise great little car without having to deal with those useless dealers or SUK any more.

[GeneralPurpose]

Sorry to hear of your continuing disappointment Mike. I don't know where you hail from but it's a shame I couldn't include you in the study I undertook some while ago. I'd love to go over your car with my kit to see if I can find anything, but that's not very practical for me at the moment. I'm laid up with an injury at present which is keeping me off my feet for likely a few weeks. You've made some interesting observations though. One question: has anyone swapped over your ecu for a test period to see if that makes a difference? That was one of the things that a VW dealership did for one of the respondents on my study. It cured his problem pretty much. Although, all the others on my very unscientific study (13 in all) didn't have any problems with their cars that needed a mechanical or electrical remedy. Just a bit of extra miles on the clock and coaching in driving technique seemed to do it for them...which seems to prove in my mind that there isn't any intrinsic problem or conspiracy going on concerning this engine. In fact, I've followed up several others in this thread who like you complained intially of very poor fuel economy, and I found that most of them are returning good mpg's now. That didn't actually surprise me. Some but not all have reposted to that effect here and in other places on this site. If I were you I'd be going to an independent specialist who can check turbo sensors and make sure it's setup correctly. It sounds as if the turbo is not responding correctly, probably due to altered ecu or fuel mapping from earlier in your drive to get to the bottom of the problem. It's possible the turbo pressure has been cranked up too much or too little. I'd have all the engine sensors checked relating to the fueling and breathing of the engine first. I'll bet it just now needs setting up correctly and I bet if it was put back to it's original factory settings you'd get really good fuel economy. But that's just conjecture on my part...Good luck Mike and this has been and continues to be one of the most interesting threads of any site I've been on. Yeah...I know it's boring too to some of you guys, girls too!

[Hudson1]

This has been a very interesting thread, i have the 1.6CR but in the lower 75bhp version, i find my fuel economy just fine, i get about 470 (ish) miles from a tank before i need to fill up, i then fill up to the brim and only use the car to go backward and forward to work..... i may get it re-mapped in about a year when the warranty runs out, but that will depend on if the tuners have got the ecu cracked or not. I am sorry to hear some have had issues.