Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[MikeHart]

Hi again Mike,

My ex-colleague who has a Fabia 90bhp Estate CR engined car initially was returning 46-48mpg. This is normal for this engine. If you drive it right and make sure it beds in correctly then the mpg just keeps going up and up. Also owners learn how best to drive this engine over time to give best mpg. The biggest mistake some drivers are making is taking high gears too early. This makes the engine work too hard and worsens fuel consumption. These 1.6cr engines need to rev a bit. Typically, these engines will gain around 8-10% more power in the first 10,000 miles if run in correctly (not pussyfooted around, and not run at constant speed on dual carriageways during the running in period) and gain much more in terms of fuel economy. Many of my friends work for Skoda and VW dealerships (I'm ex-motor tech myself), and they don't report any problems with the CR diesels. No DPF problems, except for one or two folk who don't do any miles and do only town work needing to give it the occasional blast. They work well and do a very good job. Some customers complain of low fuel consumption when compared to the EU quoted figures, but this rapidly improves. I don't quite see what your beef with manufacturers quoted fuel figures is. It's the same standard for everyone and does in fact give quite a realistic figure over and above the steady 56mph figure we used to get. It's very precise and is actually designed to give a much more realistic figure. However, at the end of the day it is only for guidance and everyone will get different figures. There are no guarantees. If your engine has only done 1400 or so miles, it hasn't even begun to bed in properly yet and it won't give it's best for some miles yet.

Hello Estate Man,

I hear everything your saying, but unfortunately it makes me think even more of a fundamental mistruth from Skoda, VW etc. If the car is going to increase in mpg like this over 10-20,000 miles minimum, then when sold they should tell you to have a couple of thousand pounds spare to pay for the extra fuel. If someone changes their car every 3 years and does 20,000 miles per year, this car will cost them money over other cars that achieve good mpg from day one. If told it would behave this way, I wouldn't have bought it. I would have a bought another Yaris that did the same, good mpg from day one till the day I got rid of it. Seems like Toyota actually know what the customer wants. I actually feel quite cheated by Skoda that they hide this information at sale.

Also, your comment about not running at constant speed on dual carriageways, I find really odd. Are you really suggesting I have to constantly change the speed of the car and maybe change between 4th and 5th gear all the time whilst driving on a dual carriageway or motorway?? I find that proposterous. How long for? 10,000 miles. As far as I'm concerned, if that's required, the car isn't fit for purpose. The whole point of a decent car is to get on a good road and sit there in the highest gear at 70mph. No other manufacturer I've come across has a problem achieving equivalent fuel consumption figures whilst allowing this. So, what's the benefit in the VW way?

On the matter of how manufacturers determine the mpg figures, I can add some personal information gained directly from the people who do it. An international engine design and testing company is just down the road and I know people who work there. I asked one to have a chat with the guys at work and get their opinion. Interestingly, they said some of the same things as yourself. However, one of their interesting comments was that mpg testing these days is a complete joke. Citing VW specifically, they said the cars used for testing aren't even road legal!! You have to use a specific fuel, a specific tyre, the tyres are heavily over pressured (this is what makes the car not road legal as it undriveable on the road and wouldn't pass a MOT) and finally, the tyres are filled with helium!! They tell me the mpg figures are complete fantasy and are far less accurate than 10 years ago. The rules were changed between my Yaris and the Fabia apparently. In short, the car configuration is something you or I will never come close to driving. It's a completely invented test. I guess this is because mpg is so important and a great competition point these days.

If what you're saying is true (and I do believe you), I feel Skoda (and all the VAG group) are fundamentally miss-representing the product. You can't quote an economy figure (even the fantasy figures they've got), knowing full well it stands no chance of getting even close for 10 or 20,000 miles. For the first x,000 miles, you can't even drive the car sensibly on a dual-carriageway!! If this information was made freely available at time of sale, their sales figures would plummet. It's just preposterous.

Sorry to sound so negative, but until the fuel economy improves to around 65mpg, I'm going to be spending another £750 a year on fuel. If I'd known, I would have bought another car from another manufacturer, so I feel really cheated. They can say what they like, but I can't afford this and from what you're saying, they knew it would happen.

[Black]

Estate Man - I have seen you state this bedding in argument a few times now. What is your basis for this argument? It is the complete opposite from any owners

Manual I have read on running in. I assumed the Engineers who designed the engine had a say in the guidelines.

[xman]

Engines are not the only problem - wide low profile Bridgestone tyres fitted on my car definitely contribute to poor fuel consumption. If, as an example, I pull up to a certain set of traffic lights in my Alhambra, release my brakes at 2 or 3 mph it will continue to roll on at low speed (and into the middle of the junction) unless I re-apply the brakes. If I release the brakes when stood still, the Alhambra will start to roll back. Not the fabia, I slow down to about 3 mph and I can lift the brake and the rolling resistance of those noisy Bridgestones stop the car no problem and keep it still without any further assistance.

First thing I will do when those tyres need changing is to fit Michelin Energy Savers. Problem again - the oddball 55 profile tyres are effing dear! Almost twice the price of the 60 profile tyres on my Mk1 Fabia!

I think one problem area is that 4 or 5 years ago, VW engines were factory filled with mineral or semi synth oil. Now they are filled with full synthetic long life oil (incidentally mine was barely filled to the minimum mark after PDI). Full synthetics are not the right oil for running an engine in.

I dont know the full story about type testing, but I suspect they take one fully run-in cherry picked car and a highly tweaked computer driven setup to carefully nurse it through the test sequence. I'm not sure but I bet they get a few goes and pick the best result. All manufacturers probably lie, but some lie more than others.

They should completely redesign these tests, but most importantly, the tests should be independently conducted, using several randomly selected real cars off the manufacturing line - no mods allowed - and each car should be subject to several tests to obtain an average/best/worst figure.

After all NCAP testing is independent - would you trust a manufacturer to tell you the crash worthiness of your car?

[raisbeck]

Engines are not the only problem - wide low profile Bridgestone tyres fitted on my car definitely contribute to poor fuel consumption. If, as an example, I pull up to a certain set of traffic lights in my Alhambra, release my brakes at 2 or 3 mph it will continue to roll on at low speed (and into the middle of the junction) unless I re-apply the brakes. If I release the brakes when stood still, the Alhambra will start to roll back. Not the fabia, I slow down to about 3 mph and I can lift the brake and the rolling resistance of those noisy Bridgestones stop the car no problem and keep it still without any further assistance.

First thing I will do when those tyres need changing is to fit Michelin Energy Savers. Problem again - the oddball 55 profile tyres are effing dear! Almost twice the price of the 60 profile tyres on my Mk1 Fabia!

Here is something I entirely agree with. My Greenline has 165 'narrower' tyres than a standard Fabia. They are also inflated a lot higher than you would normally expect (close to 38 psi on the front). I have never had a car that rolls on so much. I know engine drag has an affect depending on model but without fail, when going downhill with your foot off the acelerator I ALWAYS catch up to the car in front and have to brake. It is very noticeable. This car just doesnt like slowing down.

I would need to see some real proof that the low rolling resistance tyres are really as good as advertised (bit like mpg figures). My tyres are not low rolling resistance. They are Dunlop SP10A. They advertise these as having a wider sidewall bulge to protect alloy wheels......and yes they are pretty good at that. Its really just a narrower tyre with more air in it which makes the difference. On my old Fabia 1.2 HTP Silverline I used to inflate my 185 tyres beyond the book figures. This made a very real difference, about 2 mpg. It also handled bettter with more precise cornering. As with my Greenline you do get more road noise but I can live with that. Try it yourself. Just leave a sensible margin from the stated max pressure on the tyre. It also has the effect of evening up the wear on the tyres. The ride is of course a bit harder as well (comparing to my old Fabia and the missus Fabia MPI).

Manufacturers tend to give inflation figures based on road noise and comfort. In my Greenlines case they went for economy. I would bet that if these were the standard tyre on regular Fabias the pressures stated would be lower.

[Alan C]

I'm keen to get this running in sussed, as taking delivery of new 1.6CR in few weeks. The manual simply tells you to avoid more than 75% max revs and full throttle for the first 1000km. Then it rather cryptically says for next 500km increase power output gradually up to max revs - does that mean don't hit max revs till 1500km, or does it mean now start to rev the engine as fast as possible in each gear - but still without full throttle, ie increasing power gradually each time you accelerate?

As I understand from what estate man is saying, the new engine is built over-tight, and you want to deliberately wear the tolerances off components so they have the right clearances between them. Sound reasonable to do this with high revs but lightly loaded, so the wear is good and even. Does this make sense?

Alan

[Guest]

There is no secret to running in an engine, petrol or diesel. Just follow the handbook running in instructions. However, these instructions are often interpreted incorrectly by owners. Some believing you should run slowly or at constant speed, avoiding giving the engine any real work to do until you hit the 'magic' 1000 miles. Some believe you should give it the heavy right foot treatment right away (not good). The truth is somewhere in the middle. But just driving normally without extremes is good enough for most. Certainly avoid max revs until nearly 1000 miles. But increase both revs and workload gradually as the miles build up. During the initial running in period, the worst thing any engine, petrol or diesel can be subjected to is a constant speed drive on light throttle. This glazes the cylinder bores and rings and the engine will never give peak power or best economy. The gears should be 'over used' to start with to vary the engine speed. This is all standard running in stuff. My handbook tells me to do these things and my motorcycle handbooks to. Look online and it says the same. Talk to any tech and he will say the same. Mike, VW do not make overtight engines, all engines vary from different manufacturers but diesel are tighter than petrol for a number of reasons. VW make pretty much the best engines you can get for the money though. I like many others regularly get and exceed the manufacturers fuel figures. You will too. I think Mike you should be experimenting with your driving style as others in a similar position to yourself have corrected the problem with adjustments to their driving style. I don't know what speeds you are driving at either, but this is a big influence as you will know. With more miles your car will be fine, that's pretty much for sure.

Edited 23 October, 2010 by Estate Man

[MikeHart]

Mike, I've just spoken to Rob, my ex-colleague about his Fabia 90bhp. He tells me this...his fuel consumption was not brilliant to start with. However, as with all engines petrol or diesel, but particularly diesel, the fuel consumption improved considerably after a couple of thousand miles. He then found by adjusting his driving style to rev the engine a bit more that it actually gave him more miles per gallon. He avoided using 5 gear too much unless above 55mph, and this gave him about 3-4mpg's more he reckons. Previously, he was taking 5th at 50mph, too early. As time went on the engine loosened more and his fuel consumption further improved and he started to see 56-58mpg much more easily. But again he found that adjusting his driving style gave another 5mpg at this stage. Now with 12,000 miles on the clock it's brilliant. His personal best is 70mpg. Don't know what sort of drive that was on.

CONCLUSION: it's a combination of a very new engine that needs to bed in, and learning the driving style best for the engine that will give you very good mpg. As a ex-tech myself, what you are experiencing is quite normal I believe. The one factor I don't know is how you drive it, but the car will be fine I'm sure. Don't worry Mike. It'll be fine.

Hello Estate Man,

The few thousands miles sounds like the engine management system finishing it's self tune. According to my friends, this should happen before 3000 miles. If it does go up considerably at that point (and I mean another 5mpg at least), I'll be happy. Initially, I did go up early, partly because it would do it and partly because of that the manual says, which encourages this!! For the last 5-600 miles, I've started driving much harder. I don't go into 5th until about 55-60 or maybe higher and don't go into 4th until about 50-60 when negotiating roundabouts etc. Essentially, I'm cruising down the dual carriageway in 5th at 70-05 and using the roundabouts to work the engine reasonably hard. I have noticed on some journeys this seems to improve things, but it isn't consistent. This means I spend no more than about 6-8miles at 70 in 5th. The inconsistency is amazing. The same journey with the same driving style and the same amount of traffic (near enough) has varied anywhere between 43 and 55mpg according to the computer. Now, I know they're not that reliable, but they should be consistent at least, reading to reading. I can't find any pattern to what gives 43mpg and what gives 55mpg. The nearest I've got is the air temperature. The 43mpg was at about 0C, the the 55's around 12-14C. However, even this isn's consistent. It just seems random.

56-58mpg, whilst not as good as the Yaris would be OK. 20% on current would be very welcome. Measuring tank to tank, the figure has increased from top 47's to low 49's, but at that rate, it'll take ages to get anywhere sensible.

As I said before, it's partially an issue of honesty for me. Other cars simply don't do this. They return much the same from day 1. Probably gets slightly better over time initially, but doesn't start appalling and then after 10-20,000 finally get sensible. If they told me this up front, I could have made my decision, but they didn't. To put it into my business, if I sold a computer to you that performed like a dog initially, I would expect to get it back. I wouldn't expect to say 'wait 1-2years and it'll be OK'!! That's simply preposterous. If this is the way the engine is, they need to be honest up front and tell people. Then, people can take their view and buy the car or not. Their choice. At the moment, they are hiding very pertinent information from customers and in some ways giving themselves a bad name.

[MikeHart]

I cant really add much to this thread other than give my own experiences.

When new my Greenline gave on average 64 mpg on long steady run. I never really tried it around town as I never use it in that way. Its basically my weekday hack to work and back (100 miles a day). Ater running in for at least 8000 miles I get about 67-70 mpg when driving normally with the odd lead foot for overtaking. This is staying at 70...ish plus a bit for speedo error..... on fast dual carriageway for the most part with some A road and a couple of towns.

His CR mpg does sound a bit low. It will definitely improve but how much is hard to say as its an entirley new engine from my older PD Greenline.

Took me ages to really get to grips with the best way to drive this diesel. I was driving it with the revs too low initially. Its happiest at 1900 to 2200. I try to keep it there be it around town or on Motorway. Definitley improves the mpg and is a smoother engine note. I actually dont even use 5th unless I am going 55-60 on level ground

As for regen. Mine does it every other day consistently around 120 mile intervals. It takes about 5-10 mins to complete. Hard to describe but it sort of drives differently and you can hear a change in the exhaust note. its not loud,just very noticeable. MPG doesnt appear to change in any way other than a slight impovement when the regen has finished. My idle RPM is unchanged when its doing this.

Its easy to say stick with it, it will improve but they really should officially state the early poor mpg if things change so dramatically. Unless they can validate that you will get a significant change after x miles then I would agree you have a valid dispute.

I wish you all the best in resolving the issue, be it self curing or a replacement car if it doesnt impove.

Hello,

Many thanks for the reply. I agree this initially poor mpg should be stated up front, especially the time taken for it to improve. My concern is that if I am to do anything about this, it has to be soon. It's OK to say, just wait, but if it doesn't get better, a lot of my legal remedies disappear, so I'm then stuck. I'm thinking of making them an offer. Agree a mpg figure for me at a given mileage. If that doesn't appear, they have to buy it back at the original cost and refund my diesel difference. I don't expect them to accept this offer, but they're then in a cleft stick. If they don't accept, they obviously have no confidence in their product, if they do, I get the peace of mind.

Thanks,

Mike

[RandomSkodaperson]

Interesting thread.

I have had my Roomster CR 105 and just gone over a 1000 miles.

The average for mixed driving is just over 57mpg (not based on computer) At best I have acheved 64 on a long A road run stuck at 45-50 in 4th.

I can feel the car getting more responsive as the miles go on.

If I get anything over 50 mpg I'm chuffed compared to my last car (Saab 2.3 turbo aero - very fast but had the thirst to go with it) . £40 lasted over 540 miles! £40 in the Saab would last 220!

I prefer driving the Roomster /diesel combination. Lots of nice smooth power.

I used to have the Passat 130 PD estate and that always returned over 50mpg and pretty fast . The main difference compared to the cr engine was the pd would give lots of instant power then needed to change gear. The cr is much smoother in delivery.

couple of questions

the regen - does is smell like burning brake pads? Noticed this a few times.

Clutch - I can feel it starts to bite quite high up almost as soon as the I start to depress is this normal?

Hope your mpg sorts itself out.

[MikeHart]

Interesting thread.

I have had my Roomster CR 105 and just gone over a 1000 miles.

The average for mixed driving is just over 57mpg (not based on computer) At best I have acheved 64 on a long A road run stuck at 45-50 in 4th.

I can feel the car getting more responsive as the miles go on.

If I get anything over 50 mpg I'm chuffed compared to my last car (Saab 2.3 turbo aero - very fast but had the thirst to go with it) . £40 lasted over 540 miles! £40 in the Saab would last 220!

I prefer driving the Roomster /diesel combination. Lots of nice smooth power.

I used to have the Passat 130 PD estate and that always returned over 50mpg and pretty fast . The main difference compared to the cr engine was the pd would give lots of instant power then needed to change gear. The cr is much smoother in delivery.

couple of questions

the regen - does is smell like burning brake pads? Noticed this a few times.

Clutch - I can feel it starts to bite quite high up almost as soon as the I start to depress is this normal?

Hope your mpg sorts itself out.

Well, this is a double edged posting for me. On the one hand I'm glad you're getting the mpg you are, somthing I can only dream of. And you're around the same mileage as me. Sounds like there's a lot of difference in these and I've got a really bad one. I imagine anything would be better than the Saab for fuel economy. On the other hand, I'm really upset as someone with the same engine (OK, slight software difference to make 105bhp rather than 90bhp) is getting far better mpg than me. 57 I would like with and see what happens.

The first few regens in mine were terrible. Unfortunately, the distance to/from work seems just right to get the computer to try a regen and on several occasions the regen has still been going as I park. On one particular occasion, the facilities people at my office nearly called the fire brigade as they thought the car was on fire!! It was a really strong burning smell and very rubbery. Literally smelt like a burning tyre. However, more recently it seems to have lost a lot of the smell. I assume this is residues left from the build. However, look up VW Polo and DPF and you find some disturbing comments attached to reviews about the DPFs and these engines.

I've found the clutch really long compared to others I drive. It does bite quite high up. I think it's just a matter of getting used to it.

Good luck with the car and may you're mpg get even better.........:-( Sorry, just jealousy)

Mike

[DavidY]

I've just looked back at the MPG from my PD100 Fabia when it was brand new (calculated from brimming tank and recording mileage and fuel litres every time I fill it).

I was getting 55MPG across the 1st 4 tanks (in October), and it dipped to 54 by the end of November as it got colder (which reduces MPG in my experience- my graph of MPG always dips during the winter)

Now, 3 years later, cumulative MPG for the life of the car is 55.5. This represents lots of motorway miles from a long commute.

The performance of the car definitely got better as the engine loosened up, but the MPG in a new engine didn't seem to be much different to the MPG of one with many tens of thousands of miles on it.

Admittedly this is a PD not a CR, but are the factors which are specific to a new engine so different between the two?

[raisbeck]

Hello,

Many thanks for the reply. I agree this initially poor mpg should be stated up front, especially the time taken for it to improve. My concern is that if I am to do anything about this, it has to be soon. It's OK to say, just wait, but if it doesn't get better, a lot of my legal remedies disappear, so I'm then stuck. I'm thinking of making them an offer. Agree a mpg figure for me at a given mileage. If that doesn't appear, they have to buy it back at the original cost and refund my diesel difference. I don't expect them to accept this offer, but they're then in a cleft stick. If they don't accept, they obviously have no confidence in their product, if they do, I get the peace of mind.

Thanks,

Mike

I may be way off here but is it just possible your car has a faulty injector ? If the spray pattern is poor the economy will go way down. This will also give a poor quality burn which will clog your DPF quicker than is normal. You did describe having regens 3 out of 4 journeys. Maybe its worth checking out. I doubt this would show up on a VAG computer diagnostic.

I know the technology is different but when I inspect gas turbine engine injectors and find one with a poor spray pattern the carbon staining is masssively increased.

My car allthough a PD engine only regens every 120 or so miles.

[jason c]

My 105 tdi cr has similar figures, and mileage to your car Mike.

Im getting approx 10mpg less than my 5 year old 1.9 tdi pd, over the same journey. I hav'nt even reached the claimed urban figures on a long run (55mpg) but with my old engine i got better than the claimed 58.9 mpg comdined cycle, over 60mpg on a run.

In my old tdi pd i got approx 550 miles to a full tank, but on my new 105 cr get approx 450 to a tank.

Also the engine lacks low down power, and will not pick up if revs fall below 1500.(have stalled the car quiter a few times)

I dont think were alone with this economy issue ?

[vwcabriolet1971]

My 105 tdi cr has similar figures, and mileage to your car Mike.

Im getting approx 10mpg less than my 5 year old 1.9 tdi pd, over the same journey. I hav'nt even reached the claimed urban figures on a long run (55mpg) but with my old engine i got better than the claimed 58.9 mpg comdined cycle, over 60mpg on a run.

In my old tdi pd i got approx 550 miles to a full tank, but on my new 105 cr get approx 450 to a tank.

Also the engine lacks low down power, and will not pick up if revs fall below 1500.(have stalled the car quiter a few times)

I dont think were alone with this economy issue ?

Jason ,

Your experience closely mirror's my experience. I'm hoping that the fuel consumption on my MK 6 Golf significantly improves with mileage otherwise the whole reason for buy the 1.6 105bhp TDI was mistaken. I'm now glad that I bought the 1.9 PD TDI Octavia instead of the 1.6 CR engined version.

[raisbeck]

Jason ,

Your experience closely mirror's my experience. I'm hoping that the fuel consumption on my MK 6 Golf significantly improves with mileage otherwise the whole reason for buy the 1.6 105bhp TDI was mistaken. I'm now glad that I bought the 1.9 PD TDI Octavia instead of the 1.6 CR engined version.

Might be worth asking the same questions regarding economy in the Octavia Forum. I believe the CR engine has been used in the Octavia for a little while and its only the Fabia thats its new to.

[Guest]

Estate Man - I have seen you state this bedding in argument a few times now. What is your basis for this argument? It is the complete opposite from any owners

Manual I have read on running in. I assumed the Engineers who designed the engine had a say in the guidelines.

Hello Black, not quite sure what you mean by... "It is the complete opposite from any owners Manual I have read on running in". No disrespect meant, but I would guess you haven't read much on 'running in' an engine, and actually, why should you. It's not quite as important as it used to be 30 years ago, but it is still best to get it right if you want the engine to develop full power and give best economy. It's not secret information either, plenty out there. Granted, the owners manuals are not very detailed, but they all pretty much tell you the basics. I base my 'argument on the facts, and what the engine designers, manufacturers and engine scientists say (yes...there are actually engine scientists!). When I trained as a tech, this subject was covered in considerable depth, as it was essential for us to understand the process. In the workshop we could even tell the sort of treatment an owner had given his engine once it was stripped down. Just one look at the bores and pistons was a hugely accurate tell tale of how it had been driven in the early part of it's life.

[Timelord1.9Tdi]

Hello

Fuel economy has alot of factors in it, most of which have already been brought up in this post. However he drove his Yaris and got good economy from that car, logic will prevail here and tells me that you know how diesels like to be driven, so that is not in question here imho.

Fuel supplier can also have a huge effect as well, this may sound funny but through some 'Geeky' investigations I have no doubt all cars have a taste for different brands of fuel (Yes they are different though the base BS standards are adhered to there is still a huge difference in additives etc in the fuel, I worked for shell so i have some what insider knowledge on this.)

I use Tesco fuel for my 1.9TDI Mk2 fabia, if I use other brands it get a little huffy with me, I used some of the Shell Fuel Save fuel on my way to scotland and it really got the grumps after that fuel economy started to drop alot. Not saying it is a poor fuel, just the ECU does not like it.

Which brings me to my next point, are you continually modifing the way you drive your car?? ECU's have a somewhat adaptive programme, and with a new car it is looking to you for consistancy (Much like a child or a team you may be in charge of) Try being consistant in fuel brand and driving style, not saying it will work, but it may be a possibility. With luck the ECU will settle down and optimise fuel according to your driving style.

Another factor maybe Fuel Filter incorrectly inserted, EGR valve fault, Faulty DPF, inline fuel leakage (Probably not you would have noticed).... and oddly it may be a simple issue with your ECU programming, it maybe worth a look into getting skoda to check your actual copy of the programming to see if it needs a flash update or worst poss case needs a whole new ECU.

To be honest I would expect at least 50 to 55mpg for the first 10,000 miles this should then slip upto 55 to 60 gradually from there. I have approx 20 new 1.6TDi CR 105bhp golfs on my branches fleet and this is what i notice and expect from your vehicle, please note though the golf is heavier, it has a lot easier gear box then the fabia which sadly impede's the potential of the lower mass of the fabia. It basically cancel outs the mass advantage.

I would advise being consistant with fuel and driving method for about 1,000 miles if no joy I would go and see if the above few suggestions could be investigated, though random in this response, I hope something here has been usfull to you good sir.

regards

Timelord1.9TDi

PS The brochure always lies, my 1.9TDi is alledge to do something like 57.6mpg, I get 52.1mpg average based on Brim2Brim method, and my Computer me jig is 2.15% over optimistic. My trip to and around scotlnad got me 62.8 mpg my little 08 plate baby now has 31,000 miles on her. Anyhow take the brochure figure and times it by 0.88 this generally give a real world figure in your case 67.3 x 0.88 = 59.2mpg (Only after 10,000 miles done though) Say 55mpg until then

Edited 25 October, 2010 by Timelord1.9Tdi

[threadbear]

Done a brim to brim on my fabia CR 105 yesterday and am getting 50mpg but car has only done 839 miles......and that is short runs to the railway station for work. When using car for night shift which is 15 miles each way, the comsumption correspondingly goes up.

Edited 26 October, 2010 by threadbear

[Newera]

To cut down on diesel we tend to drive in a high gear with low revs keeping just off boost for pooching around but overtaking between 2k and 3k reves on burning the rubber on a few occasions. We tend to get between 50 mpg and 60 mpg on are vrs. The best, so far, being 61. Very little motorways more A & B roads between towns and driving in towns. Thrashing the motor will get you under 50 mpg. I suppose boy racer stuff all the time would get it down to about 47 or whatever. I have driven 306s gtis and Rallyes for past seven years so I now all about thrashing the motor for fun so take it from me our fuel consumption has more than halved!

[benwiddowson]

have you tried using a different brand of diesel, if say you've been filling up at morrisons, switch to shell or something for a few months to see if that helps.

[johnradburn]

Interested to read the debate on fuel consumption

I have a 1.9TDI Roomster with 23k miles which is doing consistently above 60 according to the computer, but just under if measured fill by fill. The family also own a Fabia 1.9 TDI with 90k miles on the clock, which consistently returns in the mid 50s. I would stress that both of us are light footed drivers.

From past experience, I have owned 2 x VW Bora, and a VW Jetta, all with PD engines and have found some variance with fuel economy whilst running in from new. One Bora started at around 48mpg and eventually levelled out at around 60mpg at 60k miles, the later one started at around 60mpg from new, and only improved slightly over time, so individual cars do vary

Oddly, the larger Jetta with a 2.0 140bhp unit started at almost 60mpg, and was consistently returning mid 60s when it was returned at the end of the lease.

Clearly the PDI unit is capable of good economy based on my experience, but I don't know whether this will have any baring on the new 1.6 common rail unit?

Hope this may help!

[raisbeck]

Greenline PD when new gave 85% of combined official figure (68.9)

After approx 8000 miles this improved to 97% of combined figure

Its always had Esso fuel with the odd exception.

Some of the improvement must be due to me learning how best to drive the car. I used to keep the rpm too low. Its at its most efficient in the main torque band which on mine is around 1800 to 2200. Still, it improved by 12%. I drive normally, dont boot it but keep up with the main traffic flow. On the flat at 75 mph the car readout hovers around the 70 mpg mark. In reality this gives about 65 mpg as the overead is about 5.

I would assume the published mpg figures for the CR have to subscribe to the same regs as those for my PD engine. There certainly was an improvement in mpg over time .Surely VAG must make the new engines to the same tolerances as the PD engine. The only major difference is the injection method. I did read that PD injection pressure is higher than CR so that may make a difference.

The mpg figures people are listing do seem a bit low for the CR compared to the published data. If you assume a 12 percent improvement after about 8000 miles as I found, does this make your mpg a little more acceptable ?

Extra urban official figure for mine is 83.1. I drove like a green party tree hugger as an experiment with the car really light. Best I could achieve was 74 (indicated 80 so took off 6). That was on moderate A roads around 50 mph for the most part. A very dull drive.

If I had to settle on an mpg which was the average for all my driving then I would say 67mpg is about right. This is 16 shy of the extra urban and 2 shy of the combined.

Brochure states fuel figures based on EU Directive 99/94.

[R22JGB]

Combined figure should be achievable, the extra urban is to my mind completely un achievable!

[Alan C]

Been reading more on the running in routine - and clearly not the same as the old days of "running in - please past" notices in back window. Seems that the main thing to get right is the wearing-in of the piston rings, which needs high pressure in the cylinder to force the rings out into the walls. I understand this needs 3000+rpm and load on the engine to get the turbo boost working - so the varying speed bit of breaking in is a way of increasing this pressure, and driving up a mountain would do too.

Then there's some very techy stuff about low-friction surfaces forming at contact points, which suggests that fairly soon the rings will glide up and down more easily - but if you didn't push them hard and wear them to fit the cylinder properly then there will be some bypass of the rings and they will then take ages to wear down and seal properly.

This does make me wonder if talk of "tight" engines loosening up is accurate? Maybe it actually describes an increase in compression as the rings fit better, and in fact means more power rather than less friction as time goes on?

[Fatbloke]

Been reading more on the running in routine - and clearly not the same as the old days of "running in - please past" notices in back window. Seems that the main thing to get right is the wearing-in of the piston rings, which needs high pressure in the cylinder to force the rings out into the walls. I understand this needs 3000+rpm and load on the engine to get the turbo boost working - so the varying speed bit of breaking in is a way of increasing this pressure, and driving up a mountain would do too.

Then there's some very techy stuff about low-friction surfaces forming at contact points, which suggests that fairly soon the rings will glide up and down more easily - but if you didn't push them hard and wear them to fit the cylinder properly then there will be some bypass of the rings and they will then take ages to wear down and seal properly.

This does make me wonder if talk of "tight" engines loosening up is accurate? Maybe it actually describes an increase in compression as the rings fit better, and in fact means more power rather than less friction as time goes on?

I think it is genuinely that new engines are tight, I read this article that actually relates to marine diesel engines (the problem discussed is actually to do with bore glazing etc. that due to the nature of the engines duty is a potentially bigger problem than in a car) It states that bores are machined from new to an optimum 'plateau' condition. Interesting reading http://coxengineering.co.uk/bore.aspx