Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[Brimma]

Hurrah!

All the more for us who like it too

[dieselV6]

Hurrah!

All the more for us who like it too

Really? You seem to be much more proud of your 2.0CR, judging by your sig, and your mod list...Just like pretty much every single poster matching your tone and technical content, bar one Fiat owner.

Shame you hardly ever have anything technical to add, Brimma, just the wind up.

One really has to question the reason some posters are so persistent at ignoring/distorting the facts and taking the mickey out of anyone posting "not so good" but still factual information. Working for a VAG dealer, perhaps? Holding VAG shares? Health problems? Loneliness? Desire to feel "strong"? You name it, the possibilities are endless. If taking the mickey out of someone's misery makes your life better, by all means, please continue. One way or another, Briskoda will improve your life, though a technical discussion in lieu of another wind-up would be far more useful to most people (other than yourself and a few other equally "knowledgeable" souls)

[PDIBK]

Valid points DieselV6 - interesting to read the OPs update. My wife experienced the "shudder" in the Monte once, when the car was 3 days old. I was dreading what she would say next, as I imagined a totalled car (lucky covered by GAP insurance - that's for another thread though).

Luckily, the porblem has never repeated itself (although I did get the glow plug light on recently - which apparentl means go to a dealer ASAP. It didn't come back on when I returned to the car and restarted).

Is the car good - YES.

Is the engine good - YES.

Am I happy with the economy (50mpg -ish) - YES. Because I know I wouldn't get much better for the journeys I do and the way I drive).

Would I appreciate closer to the published EU figures - YES - who wouldn't?!?

BUT

I know the EU figures don't represent normal day to day driving. I know even if I did a 55mph, multi-hundred mile journey, hypermiling, I would not hope to see 68mpg. When relatively new, the Fabia took the PDIBK family to France, with a roof box and a week's worth of holiday kit - only a 600 mile or so trip, but even laden, with the drag, it delivered 50mpg. I didn't slouch, I didn't pay attention, just marvelled at the ability of this "supermini" to go on a family holiday (thanks to the delay in the Golf's delivery) and how well the car performed (compared to my Superb Greenline and Octy 2.0 PD TDI). Yes, there would have been more room in the Superb and the Octy would have been quicker and therefore perhaps more economical (using less of the potetial?), but the 1.6 CR is doing well.

There are undoubtedly issues with the engine - it doesn't perform, react, respond (however you want to classify it) like the 1.9 PD did/does.

Maybe, some people can't adapt - shold they have to? Maybe.

Maybe they shouldn't have to and should look to drive a "traditional" diesel.

Maybe the figures, in the case of the 1.6CR are just unachievable, unapproachable and certainly never bestable (is that a word?) like they are for other engines.

It isn't Skoda lying, there may be cases where they aren't doing what they should - complain harder - I would. Purely coming onto a forum and repeating that the EU test is bad, or Skoda are liars or their customer service is rubbish won't fix the problem (not you Diesel - anyone) - it will invite helpful responses, derision, scorn, belittlement. that's what forums are like.

I'm not out, because, to be frank, I like to think I have helped a little bit and that my experiences may be of use.

[MikeHart]

I know I'm pushing my luck here, but I'm going to put another reply to this topic.

Firstly, please would everyone calm down. I've just read a load of the more recent postings and the insulting etc. going on is helping nobody. I can quite happily understand why some are annoyed at what they're getting, whilst some are very happy. I have a strong idea the Fabia (probably especially 1.6CR) is tuned to a very specific type of journey and does very well there (probably the EU tests...no surprise there). However, only some people have that type of journey and the figures drop off remarkably under other trip conditions.

Secondly, let me state my position at the moment. Estateman is right in saying that I'm managing to get about 60 or just over to the gallon at the minute, which is roughly the same as my old car with almost identical consumption figures. So, on the face of it, happy days. However, there is one major difference. In the old car, I would drive at 70-80mph for much of the journey, which is largely dual carriageway, although it has a fair bit of twisty stuff for the first few files. In the Skoda, I HAVE to drive at 50-55mph top get these figures. Drive anything more and it doesn't drop off a bit; it falls off a cliff. At 70-80mph, I would be lucky, very lucky, to get even 50. So, whilst I can get the mpg, the conditions are actually very different and far more fuel efficient in the Skoda than my old Yaris. Can't remember what the maths is, but wind resistance goes up dramatically with increases in speed for instance, leading to lower fuel economy. At a constant 50-55mph, I suspect the Yaris would have got 70 or more. So, the Fabia is still really bad in comparison with a car tested against the same EU tests and getting the same (near enough) results.

I also have a problem that after 40,000 miles, I have found the most efficient way of driving the car is very different to that talked about here. To achieve that 60mpg, I have to sit at 50-55mph in fifth gear and therefore below the turbo area. Should I be silly enough to drive in the turbo zone (as suggested here by those getting good mpg), the MPG again falls off a cliff. Seriously. It plummets. The shaking at regen has stopped and I'm not sure if that's new software, or simply the engine loosening up; I suspect the latter. The regen shake stopping was not particularly associated with a software upgrade, but simply distance and got gradually better over time, hence suggesting loosening. However, that is pretty recent, suggesting it took a hell of a long time to loosen up.

Additionally, I have found the computer to be not just wrong, but basically a random number generator. It seems to have been programmed to actively lie around the regen for instance, hence the lower mpg after a regen (which simply isn't true). I suspect they simply don't want to admit how much fuel is wasted during the regen and therefore count this over the next few trips. However, as point of a trip meter is to reflect the conditions and situation for that trip, that is tantamount to deliberate lying.

The recent cold and wet (not necessarily at the same time) weather has also uncovered some other interesting 'features'. I live in the south, so things didn't get too bad, but even so. In general, the snow and cold did not affect the mpg too much. It dopped a little, but that could easily be accounted for by the longer warm up time etc. However, when we got the wet weather, it dropped, very significantly and didn't recover till it dried up. I've had an idea about this for ages, but the recent weather seems to have proved it. My car (don't know about others) does not seem to get good mpg in the wet. No idea why.

Finally. I think the issue with these cars is actually the incredibly variable results from, in my opinion, appalling quality control and customer care. The majority of cars seem to be good and deliver as close to the mpg figures quoted as any other manufacturer. Don't have an issue with that. However, I (and several others on here) seem to have cars that (certainly in my case) drive totally differently to everyone elses and simply do not return the mpg. Now, if Skoda took them in and fixed them, I wouldn't have a problem. You're always going to get a few faults (and this may be only a few), that's not the issue. The issue is that rather than accept some cars have a fault, Skoda just sit there and blame their customers all the time. Can't drive properly. It's your journey. etc.etc. I've had them all.

Basically, if the computer doesn't say 'no', they aren't interested. Skoda (certainly UK) don't seem to have any diagnostic ability and as the numbers are small, presumably figure its better to insult and ignore them. It's really a customer service issue rather than a car issue. I and several others have faulty cars. Fine. No problem, just fix them. Oh, you won't..................

As my car seems to have a mpg problem when the turbo is used (seems to work OK though and gives the extra oomph when required :-)), I rather assume its something around the turbo. However, I paid them to know, rather than me having to try and sort it out. Not sure how I can though without changing the turbo (still might not be that though) and that seems prohibitively expensive.

I have heard of someone with another car (not Skoda) who had a terrible problem with mpg when the turbo was used and after many months of investigation, the dealership and manufacturer found a tiny hold in the turbo. Changed the turbo and problem gone.

[Guest]

EstateMan, I did read the thread. and no, Mike is not happy at all with the 1.6CR, just happier, but still disappointed with mileage he gets.

I quote for you the 2 most recent posts from OP, highlighted the more interesting tidbits which are also my experience:

Please note that OP's car does motorway/out of town driving mostly, so he would be expecting numbers above 65mpg, given car's 78mpg extra urban cycle figure.

Also note that for Mike's Fabia 1.6CR 90bhp, brochure fuel economy numbers are 10% better than for my Roomster, on account of lighter/smaller car. So even the 60mpg he would be getting is very poor compared to brochure data, and I am sure most 1.9 Fabia owners would comfortably beat that figure out of town (again showing 1.6CR EU fuel economy numbers are contradicting reality).

Fabia 1.9CR90bhp Fuel consumption - Urban 55.4, Extra urban 78.5, Combined 67.3

Hi diesel, you missed Mike's last post so I've just put a part of it here for all to read. It's important to understand that Mike's car is a bit of a puzzle and I'm sure is not like most of the other complainants cars due to the nature of his problem. I haven't met Mike but he has become very knowledgeable. He may have had some fault with his car rather than an adaption problem and just a very tight engine (although a tight engine would maybe still have been a factor), and this has caused Skoda to alter so many settings on the car, including the ecu software, that it is now a hybrid car in that it is far from standard. But Mike has been great in as much as he has tried so many things and posted about it here. Had he had the usual adaption problems I feel he would have discovered this early on during his driving experiments, so this all points to him having had a fault with the car somewhere, in my opinion. But, his information is very useful. He is of course not completely happy, but his consumption figures are now in the 60-65mpg bracket due to him adapting his driving and the engine bedding in most likely. He has found a completely different driving technique is needed on his car to what is normally recommended on here. Probably due to the alterations carried out by Skoda. His consumption is much better now and what I would expect on his particular journey. It's unlikely anyone would get the EU cycle figure on his journey length, just as you will not. I will remind you that many of the early posters who initially were unhappy posters about mpg in this thread are now ok with their mpg. Later newer posters with new 1.6cr cars, and who are finding it hard to get good fuel economy find it hard to believe that it will all turn out ok to an acceptable mpg level if they read the posts and follow advice. But the evidence I have seen to date is that indeed that is the case. It doesn't happen overnight due to several factors but it usually turns out ok.This happy situation has come about because posters have conversed about the problem, asked for advice, and tried to follow advice given. It takes some longer to adapt than other too, if it's an adaption problem. And of course there are those that refuse to adapt and suffer because of it. I know some of the individuals on here and have seen some of them during my survey and examined a couple of their cars and their driving, which did need alterations to their technique to enable them to adapt to cars with this newer type of engine. They are ok with the mpg now the cars are bedded in and they have adapted their driving, the main cause of poor fuel economy of course. The other cause of problems is the way the car is used, and for what journeys etc etc. Quite a few do get very close to the EU guide figures now especially on a run.

Mike's last post below (part of):

Mike's Post No: 545 10th Jan 2013

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.

Edited: didn't see Mikes new post. Sorry Mike, nice to hear from you again!

Edited 30 January, 2013 by Estate Man

[xreyuk]

Mike - I'll agree about the wet weather. A slight amount of standing water in particular makes my mpg plummet (I'm talking tracks made by trucks in the motorway or any heavy rain on the motorway).

[Brimma]

Really? You seem to be much more proud of your 2.0CR, judging by your sig, and your mod list...Just like pretty much every single poster matching your tone and technical content, bar one Fiat owner.

Shame you hardly ever have anything technical to add, Brimma, just the wind up.

This may have something to do with the fact I've owned the 2.0 CR DSG vRS 170bhp (mapped to 205bhp) Octavia for over four years, and now treat it as my guilty pleasure - not really comparable to the 'cooking' 2.0 CR which I think you are referring to

The vRS couldn't hold a candle to my Fabia in terms of mpg around town

The Fabia was bought as an economical workhorse to keep the miles down on the vRS

My journey of 35 miles to work today in the Fabia produced a figure of 67.3mpg, which I'm more than happy with

You criticise my lack of technical input, when your technical input consists of exactly the same figures being regurgitated time after time after time, so it's about time you stepped down from this huge pedestal you've put yourself on

[daverapid]

OK, this is a different type of view from a mad old fool...

Reading topics like this make me really appreciate the fun, good times and economy of my old Estelle that I paid £8.00 for 5 years ago that I use virtually every day. I just get in, drive, enjoy and get there [and back!]. I don't need to spend hours calculating and complaining, I just drive and enjoy. No depreciation, virtually no running costs and every journey includes smiling, often laughing.

I appreciate that modern cars are better in almost every way. But I couldn't [and wouldn't] be doing with all the above malarchy!

Life really is too short.........

[dieselV6]

...I (and several others on here) seem to have cars that (certainly in my case) drive totally differently to everyone elses and simply do not return the mpg. Now, if Skoda took them in and fixed them, I wouldn't have a problem. You're always going to get a few faults (and this may be only a few), that's not the issue. The issue is that rather than accept some cars have a fault, Skoda just sit there and blame their customers all the time. Can't drive properly. It's your journey. etc.etc. I've had them all.

Basically, if the computer doesn't say 'no', they aren't interested. Skoda (certainly UK) don't seem to have any diagnostic ability and as the numbers are small, presumably figure its better to insult and ignore them. It's really a customer service issue rather than a car issue. I and several others have faulty cars. Fine. No problem, just fix them. Oh, you won't..................

+1 Many thanks for this post.

And regarding the various "helpful" comments from others about selling the car, remember, it is a new car purchase we are talking about here. Selling / pxing the car would lose more money than the total fuel wasted over the 10 years. Plus in view of the fact that I have numerous other build quality issues sorted out now, a lot of mods put in, and that the Roomie's design otherwise suits family use perfectly. I would much rather keep the car and have the engine sorted out.

You criticise my lack of technical input, when your technical input consists of exactly the same figures being regurgitated time after time after time....

I quote them every time someone repeatedly makes groundless that EU fuel economy numbers allow to compare cars in urban / mixed use, does not matter current range or old ones. The EU test numbers used to allow decent comparisons, that's how I myself ended with a 1.6CR now (and paid close to 15k for the doubtful priviledge), but no, EU numbers do not allow to compare cars for urban/mixed use anymore. The test needs changing.

Also, while 2.0CR may be less effcient than a fully working 1.6CR (which you are never guaranteed, see Mike's, mine, and others experience), some of us coming from 1.9IP/1.9PD background still see even the numbers you just posted (67.5mpg at 35mile trip) as achievable with a 1.9 engined Fabia without much hassle. If you compare paper fuel economy numbers for 1.9PD Fabia and 1.6CR Fabia, you will see that on paper your working 1.6CR should've been a lot more effcient, but in real life it barely matches the old 1.9. Frankly I am quite surprised so few people seem to have an issue with that, unless they are given company cars or only buy used cars. In the last 2 cases, the fake EU numbers are beneficial as they lower BIK tax liability and road tax.

Please do keep in mind some of us buy cars privately, and in absence of money tree in the garden we would like to keep them for 6-10 years at least. My Eco-friendliness might go as far as to not waste resources to have a new car made for me every 3-4 years, but does not extend to replacing an old car with a smaller/lighter one that still uses 10% more fuel than the old one.

VW mainstream engine development since 1.9 was focused initially on high rpm refinement (2.0PD, 16v) and then the emissions (2.0CR) and downsizing (1.4, 1.6CR) to get low CO2 test numbers. With real life efficiency and fuel economy being a side activity. And on the way there were also many reliability problems (2.0 oil pumps, old AdBlue based emission control, tandem pump failures, DPF sensor failures).

One other noticeable trend iin VW and others diesel engines is to lower compression ratio, currently standing at 16:1 for 1.6CR, was 19:1 for the 1.9. This makes getting more power out of turbocharged engine easier as it reduces peak cylinder pressure, but lower compression ratio also lowers effciency, most visible when turbocharger is not busy enough, ie at low load and low rpm. I suspect this is the other side of increased fuel consumption in town (DPF mentioned already).

When the turbo is spinning and the 1.6CR is close to full load at ~3.5k rpm, I have no complaints against 1.6CR whatsoever (8.5l/100km at electronically limited 190km/h is quite good in a Roomster). But the Roomie drives like that only for about 10% of its mileage, The rest of time the 1.6CR keeps asking for more fuel.

Edited 31 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Guest]

Mike - I'll agree about the wet weather. A slight amount of standing water in particular makes my mpg plummet (I'm talking tracks made by trucks in the motorway or any heavy rain on the motorway).

Yes indeed xrey, it sure does lower the mpg figure. I too have noticed it even on my 1422cc PD. It's the same for pretty much all engines when they take in wet/damp air. It affects the sensor in the airbox and the filter (making it slightly damp), reducing airflow so the other sensors in the closed loop system react by altering mixture control.

[seboni121]

Tadah there you go dieselv6 this is today 10* ouside, driving around angelsey rural roads and B roads ,so more like town driving not driving like a tit either just steady. It's not a fabia but a golf but same engine but 105bhp

That's on around 100 mile journey

[seboni121]

Not about tonight dieselv6 ?

[Kiwibacon]

I'd have thought the biggest effect of standing water is the increased rolling resistance. It takes a lot of energy to keep splashing water off the road. This extra energy comes from your fuel tank.

[seboni121]

Kiwi bacon as you can see by driving it properly its possible even in winter

[ClarkE_123]

Not wanting to add fuel to the flames here but.

I bought my 1.6 tdi cr (105) fabia in November.

I checked the trip computer before resetting it and the previous owner/dealer had averaged 57mpg over 600 miles.

I have now done 1700 miles and my average is ......... 45mpg.

Engine has done a total of 17k.

I don't expect headline figures, and i'm reasonably satisfied as a lot of the time it does 10mile runs. But i don't seem to get better than 55mpg even on a long steady run.

All in all i like the engine and the car

[seboni121]

Not wanting to add fuel to the flames here but.

I bought my 1.6 tdi cr (105) fabia in November.

I checked the trip computer before resetting it and the previous owner/dealer had averaged 57mpg over 600 miles.

I have now done 1700 miles and my average is ......... 45mpg.

Engine has done a total of 17k.

I don't expect headline figures, and i'm reasonably satisfied as a lot of the time it does 10mile runs. But i don't seem to get better than 55mpg even on a long steady run.

All in all i like the engine and the car

Your not driving it properly lol , here we go again

[ClarkE_123]

Your not driving it properly lol , here we go again

Ok so please save me from reading the previous 23 pages and give me a summary of what i'm doing wrong.........

Not really interested in moving further away from work though

I realise i won't be getting the best out of the car mpg wise due to the journeys i use the car for

Edit: i also wasn't complaining about the consumption

Edited 31 January, 2013 by ClarkE_123

[PDIBK]

My "commute" is a 20 mile round trip, twice a day, down crap roads no better than an RAC rally stage, which the Monte Carlo special edition doesn't like...

I get 50mpg. For the roads, I won't get better.

If you drive the CR like a diesel, it doesn't like it. If you drive it mor e like a petrol, it's better.

[seboni121]

PDIBK that's spot on Clarke i never had issues with either engine ( golf or fabia) don't put it up too 5 th before 55/60 mph even if the indicator says otherwise, don't get fixated with it like some have, put the best diesel you can in it, I start engine and leave for a few minutes before moving off but don't expect great mpg until its done a few miles, these engines take time too loosen up but most of all enjoy

[Guest]

Hi ClarkE, thanks for posting your information about yor car's fuel economy. This is Mike Harts thread as I'm sure you know but he is, like all of us finding it quite useful I'm sure. As you can see, there are lots of people very interested in this subject with lots of opinions and differing views. Me included. I'm ex-tech and have recently been working as a fuel injection and engine design engineer. My interest is from both a personal and professional viewpoint.

You illustrate an important point about your case. The previous owner was averaging more mpg's, quite a bit more it seems. As yet, you are not hitting those figures. Experience shows that you probably will get some improvement, but that will depend on the topography and roads you drive on and the sort of use you put the car to, compared to how it was previously used. Your own driving skills and the way you adapt to this engine is also of major importance with this car (more so than on previous cars) and one of the biggest influences actually. But you prolly know all that stuff and I don't want to sound as if I'm insulting your driving. I say that because I'm a bit matter of fact due to my job. I'm not intending to sound insulting in any way. But some more about driving in a moment. First make sure you are measuring your fuel economy correctly either with pencil and paper or trip computer. Zero your trip computer everytime you begin a journey if you remember as that will help you spot trends in your consumption figure and also help you learn what is good and bad in the way of driving her. You will notice that you won't hit the big mpg figures until your car has travelled 20 miles or more on any one journey, and that is normal. The longer the journey the better the fuel economy will get. Journeys of 12-15 miles do not produce the best fuel economy figures. Also don't forget we are on winter diesel now which knocks your economy down, along with the use of more electrical equipment. This may account for up to a 10% reduction in your overall economy at this time of year. I would add that I have high confidence in saying some of the things that I mention here because of extensive testing of this engine on the dyno and actually driving several vehicles with this engine fitted. We have one in the family too.

Now about driving the car. This has already been covered often within this thread but it doesn't hurt to keep mentioning it as not everyone reads all the posts. Seboni and PDIBK are very clued up on this engine as are many others. Some others in this thread have had some difficulty to start with adapting to this newer diesel engine. Mike Hart's car is a bit different to most as we believe he may have had/have a fault which is not the case for mostly everyone else. There is no doubt the 1.6cr requires a slightly different driving technique to earlier diesels if the best mpg's are to be had. Seboni's point in the thread above about the gear changes are particularly important. The reason for that is the fact it is a shorter stroke diesel engine which requires more revs than the older long stroke diesels such as the PD engine. Couple that with the fact that all cars now use much higher final drive gearing to help reduce emmissions and give good fuel economy. When the cars are new and the engines tight, the car needs plenty of work to do, in accordance with the running in instructions to get the engine bedded in and loosened. Pottering around on cruise control or driving too much in town just won't bed the engine in at all. So failure to do this correctly causes the engine to take a considerable period to loosen and give it's best power and mpg figure. However, the biggest problem is that the cars own gear change indicator lights on the dash often mislead newer drivers of this engine to change gear too early into the next high gear. This loads the engine too much and causes the engine to rev too low for any given gear and the consequence is that too much fuel is used. The engine is straining although sometimes it may not sound as if it is, it's hard to recognise the fact sometimes. Owners also believe that they HAVE to use 5th gear all the time to get best mpg's like in older diesel cars. When in fact the car is already designed with very high 4th gear with 5th gear being just a true overdrive for speed above 55-60mph. Many owners have found not using 5th gear at all until over 60mph for their type of driving is the best way to improve fuel economy, with some drivers such as my little sister using only 4th gear now for cruising on Suffolks urban country roads and getting a full 10mpg more since doing so! Previously she had followed the advice of the dash lights and was being mislead into changing up to 5th gear unnecessarily and the engine was straining. She now gets a regular 58-60mpg during the week as opposed to the previous 49-50mpg. Yes, it made that much difference! At weekends she goes to Birmingham and gets anwhere from 65-68mpg at motorway speeds and of course that's in 5th gear. But it will vary for everyone because of so many other factors.

ClarkE, it would be great if you could post back about your experiences over the next few weeks or so if you can. You case is an interesting one as it illustrate fairly clearly what many of us keep trying to get over to some individual about just how much mpg's can vary from driver to driver and why! For you, you are probably going to need to experiment with your driving technique and even the use of the car. Results won't come straight away, bear that in mind, along with everything else that's being said. Good luck and hope to hear from you.

[seboni121]

^here here excellent , I love this forum some truly awesome individuals that come back time after time regardless ,

[ClarkE_123]

Cheers gents. For you are most likely covering old ground for my benefit.

It was my intention to show that different results can be had from the same engine, in my case, myself and previous owner. Due to different driving styles and journey lengths (though i can't state what length of commute the previous owner was driving). My 10 mile journeys are A/B roads 40-60mph

I have been, and will continue, "experimenting" with how i drive the car. But it sounds like i need to forget about 5th gear and give that a go.

As i said before, i like the engine and wasn't complaining as given my use of the car i know i won't see the highest mpg figures. But then my last car returned an avge 26 mpg

[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.

.............................

Update on My Fabia Greenline 11 Diesel.

I've posted several times here about what I consider to be appalling returns on my fuel. Earlier last year I had a new EGR valve fitted and was told at the time, that should improve my MPG, it didn't! About a month ago the engine, on tickover, started to sound very irregular. Instead of the regular tock, tock, tock, tock, tock sound a diesel usually displays it sounded more purrr, purrr, purrr, purrr, I suppose if you like, as a cat purring, a sort of searching rhythmic noise.

Today it was in the garage for its fourth visit to do with low mpg and now the engine 'searching'. There were no fault codes to be pulled but the technician on the job did notice the engine searching though had no idea what was causing it. I have been invited to take the car away, yet again, but the dealer has said if the problem continues they will record the 'signature' of the engine and download it directly to Skoda, Germany to see if their more sophisticated programs can decide what is wrong. Why the **** they couldn't do that today I don't know so I'm back to square one.

Sorry I ever bought this pile of cack! but will keep you posted.

[seboni121]

Sorry greenline 11 ,, if your not happy take it back and get them to contact Germany, I would !

[greenline 11]

Hi seboni .... At least they have acknowledged their technician noticed the aberration and is now recorded on the data they hold for my car. It's a bit long winded and I feel sometimes they haven't a clue so simply wish I will go away. I WON'T.

I'll give a it few days or a week or so then I'll phone them and this time I will expect a courtesy car as an hour each way on a bus is as stressful as the bloody fault. )

By the way, the technique some of you have suggested in that I should keep the revs up no matter what gear I'm in, seems not to have made any difference whatsoever so coming down fast there really is something wrong with 'this' car or Skoda are involved somehow in jiggery pockery in having their returns look so good. Yes, yes I know what a lot of you are saying, that the figures are reached in an 'artificial' environ and has no tie with real life driving but this really is the very first car I've owned in my life [30 plus cars in all] where I never bettered the manufacturers published figures and in the Fabias' case by a hell of a lot down!

Thanks for all the advice to all mind!