I have read nearly every post on this now long thread and I'm appalled at the some of the personal criticisms. As another poster has pointed out, please don't tell me how to drive and please don't tell me I'm driving on the wrong 'type' of road or do I need to run my Greenline diesel Fabia in for the first 40,000 miles or hold the revs forever at 2,000 rpm or don't buy supermarket fuel. It's all nonsense!

Skoda say Urban 68.9, extra urban 94.2, combined 83.1. .... my car? NEVER more than 55 mpg

I don't particularly want to resign myself from this sometimes helpful group but will risk offending someone somewhere .....

SKODA ARE ******* LIARS!

I'm very sorry but it just needs to be said!

That's interesting.

Over the 20k miles from new my Fabia Greenline II averaged 72mpg (real terms, not the optimistic car figures) with a best over three tanks of 78mpg and a worst of 61mpg when I drove it as hard as I could to see how low I could get the MPG.

That's quite a big difference.

http://www.whatcar.com/truempg/my-true-mpg#

Try that , also as PDIBK has just said, also I've run the crtdi 1.6 and still doing so its done 12k mies now and fuelly is getting better every day , currently driving the golf but last year driving the fabia version before this the 1.9 tdi superb 2 which was awful on fuel as the engine was new ! , the cr needs to be driven more like a petrol its more linear in power delivery, its better engineered and tighter it will take at least 20/30 k miles to reach its full potential in mpg,which is basically what you've been told countless times IMO, eventually it will be achieving the mpg or near to it , however that depends on the environment, climate and driving style

Loop back to post #601, and please read again. Re driving, loop back even further to post #569 and earlier posts.

I do not dispute the "helpful" driving tips, merely the scale of improvement.

The real problem is that customers are duped into car purchases on the basis of numbers that state actually opposite to what you get in real life.

1.6CR is 10% less effcient around town than 1.9 in a sensible mixed driving course (sensible because Octy 1.9 did it for over 6 years / 60k-65k miles, and was beating urban cycle figure).

Yet the EU fuel economy numbers indicate that 1.6CR should be around 20% more efficient than 1.9 in the said mixed driving course.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I GIVE UP FFS

Got it. I overlapped your explanation of when your Octy became a unicorn that created its own fuel ;-)

BUT you're mixing your facts and getting in a tizwoz.

1) If your Roomster was 10% more efficient than the book said it would be, like your Octy was, you'd be chuffed to bits, so you're theroetically losing £4000 over 10 years.

2) You were lucky you're Octy was 10% more efficient, but to expect the Roomster to be the same is like asking for lotto numbers to come up twice.

3) If you do 11k a year by driving a couple of 3 mile trips and a couple of 20+ mile trips a week, with the odd 200 miler at the weekend, then fine, but I'd say it sounds like you're doing minimal mileage. Like 100 miles a week, max. Which is 5200 miles in a year, so you'd be losing £2k (ish). IF you're Roomster was 10% better than the quoted figure (see point 2).

4) If we argue that your Octy was a statictical anomoly and that it got book figures and that your Roomster delivers the same economy now, with the potential to do better, you're actually losing nothing! OR saving money compared to the Octavia.

5) Road tax for the Roomster is £20. Octavia would be £125? Maybe more. Add that in. Even more money saved.

So really, all you want is for Skoda UK, or even every motor manufacturer out there to state that achieving the EU figures is unlikely, or even that your Roomster's economy figures would be worse than the stated Octy ones?

I think they put small print (probably have to to avoid getting sued) about not every driver, car and situation being able to achieve the figures and they are a reprasentative figure for use in comparison?

I think that answers your problem.

I'm being flippant and a little sarcastic, but my bottom line is this: you can worry about not achieving the figures, or even not achieving figures like your beloved Octavia did.

OR you can enjoy the new car, which is presumably why you bought it, put the economy issue down as a niggle and crack on. nobody forced you to buy it, nobody promised it would be more economical, the figures suggested it would be on the identical tests, you just can't recreate those figures with either car. With one you got better (stealing money from Skoda in the process - can they ask for a refund or a thank you?) and the other you currently get worse.

First of all, get your facts right see post #623 again and correct your p.3 numbers. 11k miles per year is just 210 miles per week, 30m school run total, 150m on average on 20m+ runs, and on average 40m per week in longer drives (so e.g. 200m every 5 weeks). Mixed driving if anyone saw it.

So now it's the Octavia that's a "lucky car", PDBIK? Just do a search on this and every other forum on 1.9 engine fuel economy. I am sure you will find most if not all people were really "lucky" with this engine returning the fuel economy numbers I stated after 1k-2k miles from new.

In summary, post #630 is another (quoting things out of context) whitewash. In the meantime, myself and other people keep paying for the extra fuel...

What I want from manufacturers (or rather EU testers) is to

1. keep their rolling road test, just run it at 9degC, not 25degC, 9degC being average yearly temperature in Europe
   
2. provide airflow over engine and DPF exhaust system that is equivalent to average test speed in the given cycle, to make sure DPF fuel consumption and engine warmup time are correctly accounted for
   
3. make load/speed changes during the cycle a random variable with a prescribed distribution rather than the current well known sequence of rpms and gear changes.
   

These 3 measures will make cycle beating harder if not impossible, and will take into account the engine's inefficiency on the cold start, and the real life town use DPF's thirst for fuel.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

I know how good the 1.9 engine is - I had one in my Superb II. Yes it was a Greenline, but even that beast managed at least 50mpg in mixed driving.

I never looked at the official figures, but I probably got less than they stated (no surprise). I'd be really surprised to hear if all (or even most) 1.9 drivers got 10% better economy in Urban driving.

I agree with you on the tests, but why should they bother?

The point of the test is that it is standard, for all vehicles. It may not reflect reality, it may not factor in realities of driving that will be seen by the user (which arguably is the biggest change since its inception - DPF, stop-start, emissions controls etc etc).

What might be useful is if they could tell you how much on average, the EU figures differ from reality, or if every case for every user would be different (and presumably worse).

My Dad has had a similar issue to yours - he traded in his 1.9 TDI Fabia for a 1.2 TSI, after seeing the quoted figures of 60mpg for the TDI he had and the 52mpg or something for the TSI he now has. He can't get anywhere near it (I think his best is 48mpg on a really long run).

BUT

Mum drives 2 miles each way to work in it 5 days a week and it is used at weekends for the same journey to the shops, or 150 mile round trip to us once a month, or the 600 mile round trip to my brother. He has accepted that the TSI engine CANNOT get close to the EU figures unless he puts in the mileage - but what's he losing out on? 10mpg difference day to day compared to his TDI. 100 miles a tank (roughly 10 gallon tank). So an extra fill up in 5 compared to the TDI. I say he'll never get close and maybe the TDI was closer to optimal performance for how they drive it, the TSI not so close.

Instead he has a cleaner TSI engine, with DSG (so unfair to compare to his manual TDI). Apples and Oranges.

I agree with you on the tests, but why should they bother?

I am glad you agreed on the tests.

The point of the test is that it is standard, for all vehicles. It may not reflect reality, it may not factor in realities of driving that will be seen by the user (which arguably is the biggest change since its inception - DPF, stop-start, emissions controls etc etc).

What might be useful is if they could tell you how much on average, the EU figures differ from reality, or if every case for every user would be different (and presumably worse).

If the tests were ran exactly as I have just stated in #631, you would be able to see that real life fuel economy of modern engines in urban and mixed driving went down from the cars we used to have, not up. That is the inconvenient truth hidden by the current EU test numbers.

It bothers me, because in my particular case the fake EU urban cycle numbers did affect my choice of the car.

I have stated as early as #574 that actual fuel cost is not that much bother. But prior to buying the Roomster, I worked out total cost of car+fuel+tax for 1.6CR Roomster and for a 2.0CR Mk2 Octy of similar spec and ended up with Roomster 1.6CR coming on top by about £2k.

Where in fact due to 1.6CR's thirst, Mk2 Octy would likely have cost me the same in total over 10 years and be considerably faster in the 1-3 trips abroad a year that this particular car takes (as a backup to Mk1 Superb 2.5TDI motorway monster).

2.0CR does burn more fuel than EU numbers, but not anywhere near as much as the 1.6CR does, hence very few posts on "2.0CR poor fuel economy"

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

So, dieselV6 - what do you want from us?

Sympathy?

An Explanation?

Witnesses for a court case against (who exactly)?

Do you want the controlled test to be changed for a totally random one? In which case, use Auto Express/What Car's figures instead as they do "real driving".

Or have you just come here for a winge?

630-odd posts of which I've lost count how many times you've quoted the weights and (almost pointless) EU figures.

I'm out....

The fuel consumption testing scheme

This might interest one or two.

Bottom of the page says individual manufacturers can test their own cars. I bet Skoda done their own and have lied through their teeth!!

Earlier the information states that the figures aren't to be used for absolute targets but ARE a gauge to measure one car against another. So it would seem the poster 'diesel' is correct in his argument regarding the claimed mpg between two different engines.

On my previous diesel Punto Fiat claimed 72 mpg on the combined and I always got more than eighty to the gallon. and now driving virtually the same journeys and same mileages each year my claimed Fabia combined are 83.1 and I can never get more than 55 mpg.

Skoda are ******* liars!!!

So maybe you should reject the car under sales description act or somethin

I'd just like to say that it seems to me that of the 6 1.6 TDI variants, 75PS/90PS/105PS/hatch/estate - doesn't it seem odd that all have the same fuel test consumptions (even to the first decimal place) and CO2 emissions despite different engine powers, drag co-efficients and kerb weights. Were all six tested separately? Very odd indeed.

So, dieselV6 - what do you want from us?

...

Do you want the controlled test to be changed for a totally random one? In which case, use Auto Express/What Car's figures instead as they do "real driving".

Just that we agree EU tests are criminally useless to compare cars at this point, as they lead to results that are opposite to real life. Also that each new post on poor fuel economy in this thread is not greeted with repeated " you must be a poor driver, you haven't researched the car enough, it's hard for you to understand, wait for 3 million miles" etc. drivel.

So as you can see, not much

You do not need to change controlled test for a random one, all that is required is that the load changes happen at random point and in a random sequence. The "randomness" can still be quite easily specified so that test results are repeatable, but that will discourage designing software to pass a fixed sequence of rpm/gear changes. The key point is to lower the ambient temperature the tests are ran at, though, and provide representative air flow to cool engine/exhaust/DPF.

I find it far simpler to just base what the car is really going to do on the urban figure.

Job done and it didn't take 22 pages of discussion. :wonder:

Waits for the reply from someone who wants to get the last word in...

So maybe you should reject the car under sales description act or somethin

That is something I would dearly love to do but can you imagine the heaps of millions of Euros they would put to their defence against one soul in North Wales ****ed off because his car uses more fuel than a WW 11 Panzer! They would make mince meat of me in no time ... what we need is a fund made of Briskoda members paying say £200 a piece then go to war calling us all in as defendants ... Skoda would **** themselves and most probably cave in ... we would all be compensated and Skoda sales would drop in the short term then rocket when motorists discovered they really could depend on their reported 'returns' .. and of course, really improve the technology to get more miles per gallon!

I see you are in Shropshire ... if you work in Furrows, Os, then you can work on my car friday as it is is in for the fourth time [in 18 months] to 'discover' what is causing my low mpg ... this time the engine 'hunts' while ticking over, this will be interesting ... I'm at a stage when I'm seriously thinking of bunging a local CHAV fifty quid and torch the effing thing!! ... then I'll be back to Fiat for a punto ... 80+ miles to the gallon, yum, yum!!!!

I find it far simpler to just base what the car is really going to do on the urban figure.

Job done and it didn't take 22 pages of discussion. :wonder:

Waits for the reply from someone who wants to get the last word in...

Very good, I did the same with Octavia Mk1 and Superb Mk1, Octy did ~10% better, Superb does 15%-25% better than its urban figure

Too bad the 1.6CR piece of junk in the Roomster returns 20% worse than its urban figure :(

Clearly this record is broken. Can someone please throw it out and get us a new one that's more pleasant to listen to?

That is something I would dearly love to do but can you imagine the heaps of millions of Euros they would put to their defence against one soul in North Wales ****ed off because his car uses more fuel than a WW 11 Panzer! They would make mince meat of me in no time ... what we need is a fund made of Briskoda members paying say £200 a piece then go to war calling us all in as defendants ... Skoda would **** themselves and most probably cave in ... we would all be compensated and Skoda sales would drop in the short term then rocket when motorists discovered they really could depend on their reported 'returns' .. and of course, really improve the technology to get more miles per gallon!

I see you are in Shropshire ... if you work in Furrows, Os, then you can work on my car friday as it is is in for the fourth time [in 18 months] to 'discover' what is causing my low mpg ... this time the engine 'hunts' while ticking over, this will be interesting ... I'm at a stage when I'm seriously thinking of bunging a local CHAV fifty quid and torch the effing thing!! ... then I'll be back to Fiat for a punto ... 80+ miles to the gallon, yum, yum!!!!

Hello Greenline, if it's hunting there is something wrong and it's affecting the fuel economy. That's a fault not something wrong with the design or Skoda telling fibs. As you can see from the many posts in this thread you are quite wrong in your assertions about the Greenline not doing good mpg's. Most who own it are pretty happy with fuel economy. From memory the one I took to Wales last year did over 74mpg with just the two of us in it (Greenline 2), but it did have a heavy motorcycle engine in the back (GSX1000cc jobby!) which in my book is better than I expected for that drive. Your engine is clearly not performing. Where are you, If not too far away, can I help?

Very good, I did the same with Octavia Mk1 and Superb Mk1, Octy did ~10% better, Superb does 15%-25% better than its urban figure

Too bad the 1.6CR piece of junk in the Roomster returns 20% worse than its urban figure :(

Yet our 1.6CR Yeti with the same engine averages 55mpg, slightly better than the urban figure.

So have you got a dodgy engine, or not driving it in a manner the manufacturer expected for the vehicle.

Having seen many, many of your posts going on and on about the same thing I'd suggest the Roomster 1.6CR is not really designed for your high speed European jaunts.

Incidentally trying to drive the CR like the PD kills it' fuel economy, the 1.6 much breffer the turbo spinning at 1500rpm or more if power is needed. Otherwise the economy plummets.

I suggested this to a neighbour with a 1.6CR Fabia and three weeks later he told me his MPG had gone up by about 20%.

Now, I hope you won't think me to rude but I'll not be replying to you anymore if I can help it because I'm not sure you just get a kick out of getting a response or are just intend on spamming several section of the forum with the same old stuff and quite frankly I am bored of reading about it.

Fortunately this forum has a great feature where users can stop posts by certain people from even showing up, should they decide to use it.

Hello Greenline, if it's hunting there is something wrong and it's affecting the fuel economy. That's a fault not something wrong with the design or Skoda telling fibs. As you can see from the many posts in this thread you are quite wrong in your assertions about the Greenline not doing good mpg's. Most who own it are pretty happy with fuel economy. From memory the one I took to Wales last year did over 74mpg with just the two of us in it (Greenline 2), but it did have a heavy motorcycle engine in the back (GSX1000cc jobby!) which in my book is better than I expected for that drive. Your engine is clearly not performing. Where are you, If not too far away, can I help?

North Wales, Wrexham area but glad of your offer to help ..... had problems since new but nothing found at the dealers ... [email protected] .. hope our fellows don't mail bomb me

joe

On my previous diesel Punto Fiat claimed 72 mpg on the combined and I always got more than eighty to the gallon. and now driving virtually the same journeys and same mileages each year my claimed Fabia combined are 83.1 and I can never get more than 55 mpg.

Yet my Geenline II Fabia over 20k miles averaged 72mpg in real terms.

78mpg when driven economically and 61mpg when driven like a complete tool.

I suspect a fault with the car or a driver labouring the engine to much at low rpm, where it's very unefficient and throws fuel through the engine as the turbo is not spinning fast enough to give the required efficient performance.

I'd get it checked out, good luck with getting it sorted.

...and yet more slander

I am still waiting for your clear explanation of the fact that EU test numbers for new engines are better than the same EU test numbers for older engines, yet newer engines use more fuel around a realistic town/country driving mix where older engines were just fine. Cycle beating and poorly chosen test conditions, most notably too high ambient temp are the answer.

To a prospective buyer this is nothing but a con, we are being told that the car we are about to buy uses less fuel than the car we have now. And after purchase that new car costs us significant extra money in fuel.

Being selective again I see. It's libel actually! And that is what you've done to Skoda several times now and I feel may be the real reason you are on here! You've had your 'clear' explanation several times now from me and several others. Case closed. Bye!

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by Estate Man

North Wales, Wrexham area but glad of your offer to help ..... had problems since new but nothing found at the dealers ... [email protected] .. hope our fellows don't mail bomb me

joe

Keep me posted Greenline. I'm not actually that way but I may be able to offer some support. I'm injured at home and off work at the moment so can't get out for a few weeks. But if it drags on let me know and I'll see if there is anything I can do or suggest. I'm always interested in these sort of cases. You should be getting more mpg's if the car is right.

l

I see you are in Shropshire ... if you work in Furrows, Os, then you can work on my car friday as it is is in for the fourth time [in 18 months] to 'discover' what is causing my low mpg ... this time the engine 'hunts' while ticking over, this will be interesting ... I'm at a stage when I'm seriously thinking of bunging a local CHAV fifty quid and torch the effing thing!! ... then I'll be back to Fiat for a punto ... 80+ miles to the gallon, yum, yum!!!!

sorry, I don't work at furrows or Skoda. I'll have a look at your car tho if you want? Lol. I can check oil ( fabia vrs owner) and fill windscreen wash.

re 'Libel', 'Slander' or 'Defamation', (no law of Libel in Scotland)

it would be interesting to see VAG/Skoda or any other Car Manufacturer take someone to court for Libel over them saying the 'MPG' figures are inaccurate and have no basis in fact on a vehicle being driven on a real road..

That is a can of worms that they will not want opened in a court i feel.

VAG/Skoda would have to prove that the persons statements were False. (untrue)

That would be very difficult to show i think.

george