Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[greenline 11]

Greenline - I would be concerned if my 80+mpg capable car (IF you believe the figures) was only giving me 50+mpg.

Are you literally doing "old school" brim to brim calculations with the amount added, over the distance driven? Or relying on what the average screen on the computer says?

Average Screen 1 - signified by the circle with a line through it and a "1" in the corner gives trip average - it stays counting for 2 hours (IIRC) after you turn off, if you were to restart.

Average screen 2 - as above, but with a "2" - is accessed by pressing the button under the stalk. As I understand it, this is the average per tank, or for a longer duration (last 500 miles? anyone know definitively?).

Not wishing to suck eggs - I was confused by this. If you zero the trip, this zeros the trip meter, but only one average trip (no1 I think).

I back up what my computer tells me with pen and paper, when I can and am getting between 48 and 50mpg consistantly.

The average trip screen (no2) is telling about the same.

My driving environment is as follows:

Out of my estate (20-30mph)

A-road:

- 50 limit for 1 mile, 5th gear.

- 40 for a town (1/2 mile, big hill in and out too)

- de-restricted for 2 miles (somewhere in here the blue engine temp light extinguishes, unless it's really cold)

- 50 for 1/2 mile - watch for cats :-(

- de-restricted for 2 miles,

- country roads, including a town at 30 then almost single track for 3 miles, another big hill.

- Drop daughter at nursery.

- TOTAL 10 miles.

Turn around and repeat in reverse, as my work is 200m from my house.

Do the same in the evening.

Do that 5 days a week.

Occasional trips in evenings, usually no more than the above. Weekends can be short trips to the shops or whatever, or longer trips.

Fuel tank (45 litres), gives me 420 mlies or so, 48-50mpg.

I would get upset if someone told me that to get 66mpg, you need to do a trip of more than 10 miles, or drive at a constant 55mph, or whatever. I'm realistic, I won't get much better. I haven't done an in depth analysis, but I tried to drive that trip a few times without poking the accelerator more than it took to keep it running. The trip average screen clicked over 60mpg that time.

I find the trouble with the gearing and road type I cover, means that even if the average trip speed was 50mph, it's the bits going from 60 to 30, or less, accelerating, dragging up hills in traffic (so no dawdling) and generally keeping it "on boost" that seems to kill the economy - as indicated by the average meter or instant meter.

I have seen that effect dwindle if I drive it for further - I suppose it gets warm, acts more efficiently etc.

Would a Greenline be better? Maybe, but I disocunted the tiny 3 cylinder for my driving needs. Would a 75 or 90 BHP 1.6 CR get better - possibly. They have the same sort of torque figures and it seems to be the hilly bits that sap it, not the high speed drag where power comes into play more.

It just "feels" as if the car drops off the boil really easily around 55-65 mph and then labours in 5th to accelerate. This MUST sap economy, but equally, if in 4th, it screams to upshift - figuratively (engine sound) and literally (dash indicator).

I believe the gearing is out of sync (not a technical term - a PDIBKism) with the engine, almost overgeared in 5th, undergeared in 4th. A 6 spd box might fix that, but in my wife's Golf, the same engine and presumably gearbox, "feels" completely different, the result being the bigger car returns better economy.

Overall, this is helped by my wife's 160 mile commute twice a week, but in between she is only doing a 4 mile round trip, twice a day (school run). The long trip drags up the average.

I did the 160 mile trip for a work meeting recently (mine, not hers, places were close enough) in a Superb TDI (probably 1.9? 5spd) and that told me it had managed 52mpg, I was doing a steady indicated 80mph on the motorway (75 according to satnav) and sensible speeds in the twisty bits either side. My car did better on the same trip, but didn't like the motorway at indicated 75 and the Golf is fine - feeling solid and comfortable.

WEIRD.

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

The only way to get a true return on mpg is the old school brim to brim as the the computer average seems to be overly optimistic. Any slight aberration in the amounts put into the tank between each fill up is soon 'averaged' after three or four fills. It is rather like how Fuelly works, the more entries you make the more accurate the overall figure is.

Yes I am familiar with program 1 and program 2 on the car computer but if as in my experience the 'average' mpg is optimistic then I wouldn't feel safe trusting to well the trip mpg either.

Edited 4 February, 2013 by greenline 11

[PDIBK]

Yesterday I took it a bit easier on the trip (traffic enforced).

The trip average said 53.5mpg by the time I had done the 25 mile round trip.

This morning, the same journey said 48, but I was stuck behind a tractor for 3 miles and it was cold...

I was secretly hoping that the first service, with the oil change, would see me leap up to 55 mpg. But I guess that was just a dream...

[Guest]

Hi PDIBK, that's not too bad at 53.5mpg I'd have thought. Don't know what the topograhy is though. If you were on summer diesel with summer temps you would be seeing another 5-7mpg at least on that same run in the same traffic conditions I'm sure. What you may find useful, and I realise you prolly know this, but for the benfit of some others who may not be familiar with this technique, you could switch to your instant time mpg readout to see just how much difference there is in 4th and 5th gears at different speeds reference mpg's. Some while ago I got quite a suprise when out in a 90ps CR 1.6 when I found it was actually using much more fuel in 5th gear at 55mph than it was in 4th gear at that same speed. 4th gear gave another 4mpg's on the flat cruising over a 5 mile section of the M25 as the engine was turning so much easier without any strain. Wind conditions were neutral if I recall correctly. Although the engine was revving a bit higher it meant I could back off the throttle a tad which quickly showed up giving that extra fuel economy. Suprisingly, it's pretty much the same for my own 1422cc PD engine too. But hills certainly kill the economy if anyone lives in a rural area doing shorter trips with up and down bits, and especially if there is traffic about that slows and stops you periodically.

[MikeHart]

Just done an 80 mile round trip today in my 1.6 TDI CR 90 scout. Monitoring the trip using cruise control (safely) at 50 mph since most of the roads had this speed limit, the trip computer showed a return of 71.4 mpg. Its the style of driving folks!

Hello bazzabee. In my car, I've had the computer report all sorts of different mpgs. The problem is trying to find some commonality between the high and low to work out what the difference is. I've driven using the same style over a full tank and looked at each trip reading. Conditions pretty similar from day to day, with no great differences in traffic, stop, start etc. Anything with something really unusual, I've discarded that trip. The computer has reported anything from about 50mpg to just over 80mpg!! All the same driving style as I've been using recently, i.e. keep the revs low, stay at about 50-55mph. How can the return really be that different. Exactly the same journey as well, with no significant difference in conditions, weather or road.

This is the strange thing. I've come to the conclusion that either my car really is that variable, which suggests an intermittent fault to my mind, or the computer is telling complete lies. I've found and been able to prove the computer trip meter is deliberately set to average out the cost of a regen over the next 100-150 miles. This is utterly consistent and suggests to me it's a deliberate programming of the computer. If so, that's pretty poor. The trip meter is supposed to give you the mpg for the trip. Therefore, if the regen trip is only 40mpg and the next one 70mpg, so be it. That's the truth. Reporting the regen trip as really high mpg and then showing the next one as reduced and gradually climbing back up is nothing short of straight dishonesty.

I've, according to the computer, achieved great returns (I'd be happy with 70, let alone 80), but it's really random. If I could get this consistently, I'd be in heaven.

[MikeHart]

Well, I finished my current tank this morning, filled up and started running faster (65-70mph) and higher revs (1500+, often 2000+). OK on the way to work (only about half of this due to fillup location). On the way home, the computer reported 55mpg for the trip, but I was sort of expecting this. On my old driving style, it would normally report anywhere from low to high 60s. So, to a certain extent, expecting this, especially as it started a regen towards the end of the journey.

However, the really disturbing thing was the smell. Haven't noticed it for ages, although it used to smell a bit during regen. On this journey, I stopped at the end and as I opened the door, was overcome by an incredibly strong smell of burning rubber. Quite literally like you'd expect to get from putting a tyre on a bonfire. It was really quite overpowering. Checked under the bonnet and around the car, but couldn't see anything other than the high heat under the bonnet as expected. I got the impression the smell was coming out of the exhaust, but I can't be sure as the wind was blowing it around quite a lot. But, it was really, really strong.

One of the prime differences between that journey and my previous ones for a long time now, is the turbo would have been used a considerable amount more. I normally try and keep it below about 1500 to keep away from the turbo, which seems to be best for my car. Therefore, the turbo wouldn't be doing a lot and presumably wouldn't get too hot. However, on this journey, due to the higher speeds and revs, the turbo would presumably be much, much hotter. Would you expect to get this really hot, burning rubber smell? It was really, really strong. I've got a suspicion my issue might be turbo connected, so I'm wondering if the smell is actually connected to the turbo rather than the regen?

I'm going to drive the same tomorrow and will see if a regen occurs (don't think it finished) and whether the smell comes back or not. But, the smell really concerns me. To me, burning rubber is not a smell I want from a car.

[MikeHart]

Just another thought on my prior post. I guess it's possible the smell was from accumulated debris being burnt within the engine and pathways out. Driving it 'like an old woman' to get the best mpg is OK to a point, but we all know deposits can build up in the engine, especially places like the EGR value etc. Is it possible the smell was from these being burnt off or blown out in some way? I did notice when I first got it and for some considerable time afterwards that during a regen it would smell quite a lot, which was a bit rubbery. However, this latest smell was much more intense and from memory, much more of rubber rather than a general hot smell. It has been a while though.

[Guest]

Hello Mike, yes that is precisely what is happening regarding the smell from your car. When diesels are being driven at low revs most of the time, the engine and exhaust gradually becomes coated in unburned hydrocarbons and soot. This continues to build up and will eventually cause problems with the performance, mpg's will start to lower again, and the egr and the dpf will start to clog. So you are doing the right thing to drive it more energetically now and again. But the off shoot of this is the smell when you stop. You may have quite a bit of debris to burn off but the car will be all the better for it afterwards. It will take several higher speed drives I expect to get the engine and exhaust really hot which is a really good thing with diesels. I suspect your software is now a very hybrid version of a standard car, or the turbo charger pressure has been not only wound down, but engages at higher revs than a standard car. I strongly suspect that if you car was put back to standard it would now perform ok now it has really loosened up. Just my thoughts based upon some experiences of other customer cars in the past.

[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.

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

I have finally resolved my very low mpg returns on my Fabia Greenline 11 Diesel. I'm part exchanging it for a new Kia Rio 2 Diesel. My new car will be ready March 6th. I've never had more than 55 mpg out of the Fabia since new and driving it on a long journey yesterday was the last straw when my trip showed 50 mpg.

I've done my homework properly this time and their cars appear to match more closely the published figures on fuel returns so hope to gain another 25 mpg at least!

And yes, it is true, Kia give a SEVEN YEAR full guarantee on their new cars AND offer a fully comprehensive insurance package for one year for £99.

I bought the Fabia on a no VAT deal so the depreciation hasn't been too bad and coupled with a great exchange rate from the Kia dealer I am very happy to be going.

I hope to give you all some feedback after next month.

[Igloo Vindaloo]

I'd be interested to hear how you get on with the Rio.

It's still quite new and not so common as the Fabia, so there are only 9 users in Spritmonitor.

They average 4.90 l/100km, which is 58 MPG, but with a big range (4.06-5.96).

Please do come back and let us know.

[bazzabee]

Well, MikeHart, I'd just like to add some further info. Today, returned 67.5 mpg on a 44 mile trip with about 25 miles of these at 65 mph on busy motorway traffic.The engine was at running temp after having reset the trip computer to zero on a fill-up. Overall I've done 1300 miles from new (purchased last December) and on brim to brim have averaged 49.43 mpg. I'm not enthralled with this BUT I've done quite a few short journeys of about 4 miles each taking my elderly Aunt up to the shops/cafe or myself popping down to the gym - the engine never therefore warms up sufficiently and on the trip computer records an average of about 35 mpg for these trips. I'm hoping for a good return on longer runs in the future.

About regens, how do you know when the car is regenning and how often does it do it? Does it regen according to a sensor in the filter when a certain amount of carbon is present? I was very worried the first time after a long run on smelling the burning effect under the car and rang the dealer for an explanation. Never smelled a rubbery one however.

[MikeHart]

Hello Mike, yes that is precisely what is happening regarding the smell from your car. When diesels are being driven at low revs most of the time, the engine and exhaust gradually becomes coated in unburned hydrocarbons and soot. This continues to build up and will eventually cause problems with the performance, mpg's will start to lower again, and the egr and the dpf will start to clog. So you are doing the right thing to drive it more energetically now and again. But the off shoot of this is the smell when you stop. You may have quite a bit of debris to burn off but the car will be all the better for it afterwards. It will take several higher speed drives I expect to get the engine and exhaust really hot which is a really good thing with diesels. I suspect your software is now a very hybrid version of a standard car, or the turbo charger pressure has been not only wound down, but engages at higher revs than a standard car. I strongly suspect that if you car was put back to standard it would now perform ok now it has really loosened up. Just my thoughts based upon some experiences of other customer cars in the past.

Hello EstateMan,

To my knowledge, the software in my car is still the bog standard software. I'm not aware of any specific software changes to it. Of course, it does self-tune, so this will have been affected, but I was under the impression that it would re-adjust after a period of time in the new 'regime'? I won't just put one tank through it in this way, but several (maybe something like 2000 miles) to make sure the software re-adjusts. of course, the alternative is to have it reset and start from scratch again. Might be worth suggesting to the local Skoda dealer.

[MikeHart]

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

I have finally resolved my very low mpg returns on my Fabia Greenline 11 Diesel. I'm part exchanging it for a new Kia Rio 2 Diesel. My new car will be ready March 6th. I've never had more than 55 mpg out of the Fabia since new and driving it on a long journey yesterday was the last straw when my trip showed 50 mpg.

I've done my homework properly this time and their cars appear to match more closely the published figures on fuel returns so hope to gain another 25 mpg at least!

And yes, it is true, Kia give a SEVEN YEAR full guarantee on their new cars AND offer a fully comprehensive insurance package for one year for £99.

I bought the Fabia on a no VAT deal so the depreciation hasn't been too bad and coupled with a great exchange rate from the Kia dealer I am very happy to be going.

I hope to give you all some feedback after next month.

Kia Rio. Interesting choice. i must admit to know several people who have Ceeds and are very happy with them. Don't know anyone with a Rio though. Be interested to hear your experiences. The warranty is very long and people I've known say they keep very well to it. I haven't really looked, but the Rio seemed a bit smaller to me than a Fabia and I thought the Ceed would be more my size. Not looked at one in reality though. Be good to have your feedback and information on it. Might be worth a change myself!!

[MikeHart]

Well, MikeHart, I'd just like to add some further info. Today, returned 67.5 mpg on a 44 mile trip with about 25 miles of these at 65 mph on busy motorway traffic.The engine was at running temp after having reset the trip computer to zero on a fill-up. Overall I've done 1300 miles from new (purchased last December) and on brim to brim have averaged 49.43 mpg. I'm not enthralled with this BUT I've done quite a few short journeys of about 4 miles each taking my elderly Aunt up to the shops/cafe or myself popping down to the gym - the engine never therefore warms up sufficiently and on the trip computer records an average of about 35 mpg for these trips. I'm hoping for a good return on longer runs in the future.

About regens, how do you know when the car is regenning and how often does it do it? Does it regen according to a sensor in the filter when a certain amount of carbon is present? I was very worried the first time after a long run on smelling the burning effect under the car and rang the dealer for an explanation. Never smelled a rubbery one however.

Hello,

Regen is a little difficult to identify in the colder weather as the engine tends to have a higher idle turnover. During a regen, revs stay at about 1000. In general, when the car is warm, revs idle at about 750-800. However, in cold weather, this can remain higher, presumably due to the lower air temperature coming into the intake. My car would always shake during regen as well. A much better indicator!!

You're right about shorter journeys. They do tend to show much lower mpgs, although my car has reported (may not be reality, but what the computer says!!) a very wide range of figures. Anything from a low of about 35 to 60ish. I've had plenty of short journeys around 4 miles that show figures of certainly 50+ from cold. On the other hand, I've had the identical journey showing nearer 35-40. As I've said in earlier threads, the computer seems to be a random number generator. The fuel gauge has often contradicted it!!

This is part of my issue. Whilst I can get the average over a tank up by driving it very carefully and slowly, individual trips according to the computer show such variance, it defies belief. I'm rather of the opinion now that the computer is simply hopelessly inaccurate, but as its there, you rather want to be believe it!! If it's as bad as it seems, not sure what the point of fitting it is.

[Guest]

Well, MikeHart, I'd just like to add some further info. Today, returned 67.5 mpg on a 44 mile trip with about 25 miles of these at 65 mph on busy motorway traffic.The engine was at running temp after having reset the trip computer to zero on a fill-up. Overall I've done 1300 miles from new (purchased last December) and on brim to brim have averaged 49.43 mpg. I'm not enthralled with this BUT I've done quite a few short journeys of about 4 miles each taking my elderly Aunt up to the shops/cafe or myself popping down to the gym - the engine never therefore warms up sufficiently and on the trip computer records an average of about 35 mpg for these trips. I'm hoping for a good return on longer runs in the future.

About regens, how do you know when the car is regenning and how often does it do it? Does it regen according to a sensor in the filter when a certain amount of carbon is present? I was very worried the first time after a long run on smelling the burning effect under the car and rang the dealer for an explanation. Never smelled a rubbery one however.

Bazz, and that's on winter diesel too. So in spring on the same trip of 44 miles with similar traffic conditions you should better that by some way (71mpg at least), as temps will be higher and you'll be on summer diesel which gives a tad more fuel economy. Your engine will also be more loosened up and more powerful. Very good. Your car regens when the differential sensor in the DPF shows a pressure rise in the filter. It triggers the engine to heat the DPF by injecting very small amounts of extra diesel into the cylinders to keep the exhaust gases burning longer as they go into the exhaust. This clears the build up of soot in the DPF screens and turns it to ash. This ash then drops to the the bottom of the filter ash chamber where it stays for the life of the filter. If you drive fairly normally with regular above 2000rpm use, the DPF will regen passively without being triggered by the sensors and this saves fuel. It is virtually unnoticeable to most people as you drive.

[greenline 11]

I'd be interested to hear how you get on with the Rio.

It's still quite new and not so common as the Fabia, so there are only 9 users in Spritmonitor.

They average 4.90 l/100km, which is 58 MPG, but with a big range (4.06-5.96).

Please do come back and let us know.

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

As I've said elsewhere, I have owned over thirty cars in my lifetime and the Skoda Fabia Greenline Diesel is the first car for me not to better the published fuel returns. If we are to be conservative in our expectation then I should at least expect to hit the 83.1 mpg 'combined' claimed for this car even if once in a while but my returns are a MASSIVE shortfall of about 30 mpg and that is why I'm so disgruntled. Surely my returns should be far better than an equivalent petrol driven motor and here in the UK we pay a kings' ransom for our diesel!

Yes of course I will let you know how I get on with the new car and hope to hell I don't end up with egg all over my face again.

I don't pick the car up till March 6th so give me a week or two after that.

[Igloo Vindaloo]

My fuel computer reads on average 5% too optimistic compared to my brim-to-brim calculations.

That's a -0.22 error on a mean of 4.56 L/100km, but with a standard deviation of 0.76.

That's a +3MPG bias on a mean of 63MPG, but with a standard deviation of 10MPG.

In common language that means my fuel computer is an average of 3MPG too high and on 1/3 tanks the computer will be more than 10MPG further from the truth.

Subjectively, I have found it to give highly erratic readouts when doing the same journey in very similar conditions. So while it is fun and gives you some indication of the relative fuel consumption (i.e. driving faster costs you more fuel), I wouldn't trust it to speak my weight.

[Igloo Vindaloo]

As I've said elsewhere, I have owned over thirty cars in my lifetime and the Skoda Fabia Greenline Diesel is the first car for me not to better the published fuel returns. If we are to be conservative in our expectation then I should at least expect to hit the 83.1 mpg 'combined' claimed for this car even if once in a while but my returns are a MASSIVE shortfall of about 30 mpg and that is why I'm so disgruntled. Surely my returns should be far better than an equivalent petrol driven motor and here in the UK we pay a kings' ransom for our diesel!

I've only ran 10 cars, but this is the first I can't get close to the official figures. It is also the first one with a DPF - but not the first diesel by a long way.

[greenline 11]

Kia Rio. Interesting choice. i must admit to know several people who have Ceeds and are very happy with them. Don't know anyone with a Rio though. Be interested to hear your experiences. The warranty is very long and people I've known say they keep very well to it. I haven't really looked, but the Rio seemed a bit smaller to me than a Fabia and I thought the Ceed would be more my size. Not looked at one in reality though. Be good to have your feedback and information on it. Might be worth a change myself!!

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

There seems to be some merit in Estate Mans' contention, for some, that if we drive keeping our revs up at 2000 rpm say, then consumption will improve. The other day I drove to the Midlands from North East Wales using fast A roads, dual carriageways and motorways and keeping within speed limits at all times and using the technique of keeping revs up throughout my gear changing I actually dropped a further five miles to the gallon with an output for the journey of 50 mpg! I'd really had enough of bloody Skoda!! Do you know I was nearing those returns in a petrol Fiat 128 thirty years ago! That evening I done a deal over the phone and put a £500 deposit down on the Kia Rio.

Apparently the engine is a three pot affair as with the Fabia but slightly smaller at 1.1 though same output more or less at 74 HP. Claimed combined figure is far more conservative than the Fabia and is 76 mph. One guy claims he's hitting this figure [measuring brim to brim he assures] and many others are claiming high sixties and low seventies and climbing. Someone has said I may keep the new car till the end of its' life to break even but I do 20K miles a year and with fuel probably going up more in the near future, God bless our high prices, then I feel it will be a lot sooner than that. Plus the fact I will have a seven year full guarantee. I bought the Fabia under the no VAT scheme 18 months ago and the Kia dealer has given me a hell of a deal so I don't feel too hit in my pocket, in fact pretty pleased with myself. I have gone through Carquake if you are interested and looking for the deals and it is they who put me in touch with a dealer who had over two thousand pounds off the Kia price just for starters! I'm not here to plug Carquake but this is my second car through them and they really do seem to sniff out the deals. I haven't a clue what their fees are as all is taken care of by the dealer. In other words, whatever deal the dealer quotes you then that is it.

As I've said to Igloo in an earlier post, I hope to hell I don't end with egg on my face with the new car but I will definitely let you all know how I get on. Don't worry, I won't 'flog' the figures after all, that is why I'm going after my thoughts on Skoda the LIARS!

Pick the car up March 6th so give me a week or so after that and I'll post something back in the forum.

[greenline 11]

I've only ran 10 cars, but this is the first I can't get close to the official figures. It is also the first one with a DPF - but not the first diesel by a long way.

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

But there you have it in a nut shell ... your Fabia Greenline is the first car for you, where you also, can't get anywhere near the published figures, yet half the group have been screaming at me for weeks now the figures are merely subjective and I haven't got a clue how to drive anyway! I really don't think so, Skoda somehow, somewhere have managed to doctor their figures! Even an absolutely poor driver couldn't possibly 'waste' 30 miles to the gallon!

[Igloo Vindaloo]

... or more likely IMHO fitting a DPF destroys the efficiency of diesel engines in real world motoring, but not in the standard tests.

[Kiwibacon]

My thoughts on keeping the revs up/down.

If you need to accelerate, you need to do it with enough revs to keep the turbo working. 2000ish looks good according to the torque curve and BSFC map I posted earlier for this engine. I run the range 1700-2500 for acceleration in all my diesels and they are bigger and longer stroke than the 1.6.

If you are tootling along following traffic with very low load, then there's no need to stick to 2000rpm. Run the rpm that gives you a smoothly running engine. 1500rpm is likely fine. My three diesels run down to 1200rpm happily in these situations.

If you never go over 1500rpm then you will encounter all sorts of issues. I'm not surprised fuel economy isn't working out. The turbo vanes will likely be carboning themselves into one position. If you never go below 2000rpm then you will be spending more fuel to beat internal friction that's not always needed.

[Guest]

Greenline, the Kia's are a very good car from what I read about them. I have no experience of driving any of them or doing any tech work on one. And they look great! I understand they share common engine and gearbox units with sister company cars from Hyundia, another good make. Also much of the running gear is the same so you won't really go wrong. But you prolly know all that. The UK television show '5th Gear' failed to get anywhere near the EU quoted figures (note I did not say manufacturers figures which they are not!) for that car. Indeed when pushed hard it fell to 34-37mpg. But that was with three people in it and it was being somewhat thrashed! It was so underpowered it slowed down going up some hills apparently. It lacks some of the torque of the Fabia Greenline engine, but is non the less a good engine from what a Kia tech has told me. I have both a Kia and Hyundia garage just up the road from me and have often admired them, and more recently have noted a expotential jump in the quality of their products. Top Gear's presenters (for what that irritating programe is worth!) tell us that we will all be driving Korean cars in 5 years as they are so good. They might just be right!

[greenline 11]

Greenline, the Kia's are a very good car from what I read about them. I have no experience of driving any of them or doing any tech work on one. And they look great! I understand they share common engine and gearbox units with sister company cars from Hyundia, another good make. Also much of the running gear is the same so you won't really go wrong. But you prolly know all that. The UK television show '5th Gear' failed to get anywhere near the EU quoted figures (note I did not say manufacturers figures which they are not!) for that car. Indeed when pushed hard it fell to 34-37mpg. But that was with three people in it and it was being somewhat thrashed! It was so underpowered it slowed down going up some hills apparently. It lacks some of the torque of the Fabia Greenline engine, but is non the less a good engine from what a Kia tech has told me. I have both a Kia and Hyundia garage just up the road from me and have often admired them, and more recently have noted a expotential jump in the quality of their products. Top Gear's presenters (for what that irritating programe is worth!) tell us that we will all be driving Korean cars in 5 years as they are so good. They might just be right!

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

Hi Estateman,

I now have a small dilemma. Yesterday, out of the blue, Skoda phoned me and I wonder has someone been following my rather caustic comments about my diesel Greenline not achieving good mpg over the past weeks here in this forum?. I put my point of view over to them and invited me to wait a bit and see what can be done.

If you have read my posts, last week I had my car in again with the dealer because when on tickover my car engine sounds as if it is searching and not the regular rhythm one would expect. After having the car a day, the dealer informed me that as there were no fault codes then they hadn't a clue what was wrong though they acknowledged there must be something as their technician had heard and reported on the searching sounds himself. I left the garage with the fault still present.

Two hours later yesterday, I had a call from my dealer who wanted the car in again and this time they WILL give me a courtesy car as they plan to hold my car for two or three days while they investigate the problem more in depth. Last time I was with them, they suggested they would record the 'signature' of the engine and then download the details to VAG for a more in depth analysis.

Now you may wonder what exactly is my dilemma? As you know I have a £500 deposit on a Kia Rio, which I plan to pick up on March 6th! I've always advocated if this bloody car of mine would get off its arse and give me a few more miles to the gallon even if only the lowly urban figure supposed for this car, I would be happy to keep it as it is comfortable and stylish.

As it happens I haven't seen the car I'm buying and ALL negotiation has been done over the phone and emails. Apparently, under the Distance Selling Act, I can cancel the deal I have made with Kia and get my deposit back up till seven days from when I pick the new car up. Under the Act one does not have to give a reason, merely changed ones mind is suffice.

I would be delighted with Skoda if they found a fault to remedy if it genuinely gave me some half decent returns on my mpg. But at this moment I'm rather loathe to cancel the Kia contract if say, I'm still bitterly complaining about the poor mpg on the Fabia in two weeks time!

Views anyone?

[Guest]

Hello Greenline11, yes that's a dilemma! I can imagine how you feel too. I actually believe your car has a fault. As an ex-tech I can say it really isn't rocket science to tech on these delightful little 3 pot engines and I am finding it difficult to understand why there is a problem in finding a fault. It just needs someone committed to having a proper look. In my previoius life it was my job to do just that on any car that was perceived to have a problem, even if there were no fault codes. There is so much a dealer can do, but mostly it's unpaid work unless a fault is found. So I have some sympathy with the dealer if they simply cannot find anything in the normal way, but the fact you keep complaining tell me someone needs to do something to help you. They need their top man on this who will be trained to diagnose problems without the need to plug it in and watch a computer. I think it sounds as if Skoda are going to help if you make the right noises. I'm of the opinion it's your injection system at fault and maybe an injector that is malfunctioning. That can cause the searching sound you can hear. But it can be linked to other things. Good luck. I would prefer the extra power of the Greenline over the Rio any day but as I've said, the Rio is a great car and you really won't go wrong I reckon if you buy it.

[seboni121]

Wwwwww decisions decisions ? Give skoda a chance too rectify if they don't you can still go for the rio, however the matter of the deposit like you say 14 day cooling off is applicable so just cancel it