DPF gets a lot of bad press. Sadly Euro V is law. The car companies hate it but they have no choice in the matter. There currently exists no way to reduce particulate size other than a DPF. EGR valves only exist to reduce Nox. Thats a Euro IV and V law. All these new laws right or wrong make the diesel more complicated, thirsty and unreliable.

Never before have people had to consider their diesel purchase based on how they drive........sadly thats how it is now. If you dont do the miles dont get a diesel. It shouldnt have to be this way.......but it is.

Edited 15 November, 201015 yr by raisbeck

This is a really interesting tread.

I wonder if the dpf based diesels are better suited to rep cars so that the regen can be done on the longer runs?

I have been thinking about changing our old Merc Ml270 cdi for a Golf gt 2.0 140bhp (wife wants a bit more oomph ) I might hang on and see how things work out if these have cr engines. (could have been lucky in the Roomster)

I have the Roomster 1.6 105 CR tdi and have been really impressed with the mpg and the overall quality of the engine. Very smooth and returned 63mpg on a recent run. Today at 70 plenty of power for overtaking etc and seemed ok on fuel too. Is the Fabia different to the Roomster ? I know the co ratings are higher int he roomy)

I have noticed that if I run up to a roundabout in 3rd as soon as I lift off the brake/clutch I feel that surge. It feels a bit unsettling but changing down into 2 has sorted this . Perhaps I need to alter my driving style to the engine.

I wonder if the fuel consumption and other issues are on the lower powered engines? Must be the same engine just software is different?

One thing I have noticed moving back to a diesel is that it stinks compared to petrol but nice in a strange sort of way!

One thing I have noticed moving back to a diesel is that it stinks compared to petrol but nice in a strange sort of way!

You suddenly discover what the free disposable gloves and blue wipes are for in garages......

Its refreshing to hear from someone who likes the 1.6 CR

DPF gets a lot of bad press. Sadly Euro V is law. The car companies hate it but they have no choice in the matter. There currently exists no way to reduce particulate size other than a DPF. EGR valves only exist to reduce Nox. Thats a Euro IV and V law. All these new laws right or wrong make the diesel more complicated, thirsty and unreliable.

Never before have people had to consider their diesel purchase based on how they drive........sadly thats how it is now. If you dont do the miles dont get a diesel. It shouldnt have to be this way.......but it is.

Politicians again. Both elected and unelected :-) If they didn't get ferried around in cars purchased by the taxpayer, they might appreciate the effect of their laws.

You suddenly discover what the free disposable gloves and blue wipes are for in garages......

Its refreshing to hear from someone who likes the 1.6 CR

Hello raisbeck,

Don't get me wrong, I like the 1.6CR in many ways. Everything is absolutely fine except the mpg. Unfortunately, as I do 60-65miles per days, that's incredibly important to me and I'd rather loose some of the other for higher mpg.

Hello raisbeck,

Don't get me wrong, I like the 1.6CR in many ways. Everything is absolutely fine except the mpg. Unfortunately, as I do 60-65miles per days, that's incredibly important to me and I'd rather loose some of the other for higher mpg.

I suppose it depends on the reasons for buying one. If you like Diesels anyway and like the extra torque then its fine. If you buy based on fuel economy your going to be a bit annoyed. I would be. I bought mine for economy and it achieves that easily. Had I bought it for smoothness and refinement, well thats a different matter. Personally I like the rattle of a tractor so all is good.

If Estate Man is correct (he usually is) then despite the iffy start you should be seeing improvements very soon once it loosens up

I suppose it depends on the reasons for buying one. If you like Diesels anyway and like the extra torque then its fine. If you buy based on fuel economy your going to be a bit annoyed. I would be. I bought mine for economy and it achieves that easily. Had I bought it for smoothness and refinement, well thats a different matter. Personally I like the rattle of a tractor so all is good.

If Estate Man is correct (he usually is) then despite the iffy start you should be seeing improvements very soon once it loosens up

I hope you're right :-)

Not noticed any difference in my engine now it's got 6,700 mile on it!

Not noticed any difference in my engine now it's got 6,700 mile on it!

Well, say hello to Mr Cheerful :-)

Drving home from work yesterday evening along a reasonably fast A-road (A20 between Ashford and Newingreen) I achieved 56 mpg. Finding that staying in 4th until above 50 is good for achieving more acceptable fuel comsumptions on these engines. 5th gear is so long that the 1.6 labours too much and comsumption falls according to memory 1.

Regards

Grahame

Drving home from work yesterday evening along a reasonably fast A-road (A20 between Ashford and Newingreen) I achieved 56 mpg. Finding that staying in 4th until above 50 is good for achieving more acceptable fuel comsumptions on these engines. 5th gear is so long that the 1.6 labours too much and comsumption falls according to memory 1.

Regards

Grahame

Interesting. I'll give it a try tomorrow and see what happens. It's supposed to be a lot colder, so mpg should drop anyway. If it stays the same, maybe this is making a difference. Thanks for the info.

Very interesting thread.

I've had my 1.6CR TDI 105bhp Golf for 11 months and 18k miles. I complained about poor consumoption at the first service, they found nothign wrong.

My best mpg - 74.0, a 125 mile a road trip in light traffic at 52-54mph with the cruise on, and no more than 65mph on the 20 miles of dual carriageway.

My commute is 26 miles, pretty quiet dual carriageway - if i do 75mph then expect the display to show 50/52mpg, but if i slow to 66-67mpg then i can get 60-62mpg dependent upon traffic and temperature.

Since swapping to my winter tyresw (195/65/15), i'm geeting better mpg (2-3mpg) than on my summer wheels (225/45/17)

I get the surge of revs as the anti-stall kicks in. I've never had a dpf regen that i know of, perhaps just because i do decent sized trips.

VWs figures are measured on a rolling road in a lab, with little road resistance and now wind drag. All manufacturers do the same, you'll be hard pushed to get anythign like the quoted figures, but they are useful to compare btween prospectice purchases.

Comparison to a Yaris is pointless - the Golf, and i assume the Fabia too, weigh in order of 1.5 tonnes, have a bigger frontal area, higher gearing and will use more fuel.

The 1.6CR is no sporty engine, its designed for relatively gentle use. Yes it will rev to 4.5k rpm, and it'll accelerate to 70+ in 3rd, but that''s not the style its designed for.

The old 1.9TDI engines had a lot mor ein built torque due to bigger cc, and whilst relatively aggricultural, were more consistenet in economy across a whole range of driving styles. My old 90bhp 1.9 Mk3 Golf would do 48mpg even driving it like i stole it, but even miss daisy style would onyl get 60mpg.

I'm due a service again soon, so it'll be interesting to see if they do anythign this time round.

PS - i'm also running a DTUK tuning box, great performance improvement, but it fools the mfd economy readout something awful (its now out by 10% to brim to brim calcualtions).

Very interesting thread.

I've had my 1.6CR TDI 105bhp Golf for 11 months and 18k miles. I complained about poor consumoption at the first service, they found nothign wrong.

My best mpg - 74.0, a 125 mile a road trip in light traffic at 52-54mph with the cruise on, and no more than 65mph on the 20 miles of dual carriageway.

My commute is 26 miles, pretty quiet dual carriageway - if i do 75mph then expect the display to show 50/52mpg, but if i slow to 66-67mpg then i can get 60-62mpg dependent upon traffic and temperature.

Since swapping to my winter tyresw (195/65/15), i'm geeting better mpg (2-3mpg) than on my summer wheels (225/45/17)

I get the surge of revs as the anti-stall kicks in. I've never had a dpf regen that i know of, perhaps just because i do decent sized trips.

VWs figures are measured on a rolling road in a lab, with little road resistance and now wind drag. All manufacturers do the same, you'll be hard pushed to get anythign like the quoted figures, but they are useful to compare btween prospectice purchases.

Comparison to a Yaris is pointless - the Golf, and i assume the Fabia too, weigh in order of 1.5 tonnes, have a bigger frontal area, higher gearing and will use more fuel.

The 1.6CR is no sporty engine, its designed for relatively gentle use. Yes it will rev to 4.5k rpm, and it'll accelerate to 70+ in 3rd, but that''s not the style its designed for.

The old 1.9TDI engines had a lot mor ein built torque due to bigger cc, and whilst relatively aggricultural, were more consistenet in economy across a whole range of driving styles. My old 90bhp 1.9 Mk3 Golf would do 48mpg even driving it like i stole it, but even miss daisy style would onyl get 60mpg.

I'm due a service again soon, so it'll be interesting to see if they do anythign this time round.

PS - i'm also running a DTUK tuning box, great performance improvement, but it fools the mfd economy readout something awful (its now out by 10% to brim to brim calcualtions).

I really am beginning to concur completely. My car has now done 3000 miles and the best mpg I've had is 52. Given the performance figures they quote, this is abysmal. I don't care what happens in the future. I don't care if the engine lasts 200,000 miles. I don't care if things improve at 20,000 miles. I want decent mpg, the one they quote, now. I got it from my Toyota which delivered 60-65mpg day in, day out. Winter, summer, wet, dry, hot, cold. Nothing changed it. The engine went 100,000 miles without a single problem, only normal maintenance. Yes, the maintenance wasn't the cheapest in the world, but you can't have anything. All I can say is, I wish I'd bought a new Toyota Yaris. This is without doubt the worst purchasing decision I've ever made. Skoda have given a very good impression of not caring in the slightest. Their telephone help service and raising a case (!!), is the greatest waste of time in the world. They simply listen, act condascending and then ignore you forever. Same with emails. Never got a single response.

On top of this, the mpg seems to vary with absolutely no pattern. I've kept a list of the computer figures for each of my journeys to work over the last few weeks. I'm going to post them here. Journeys with the same time, average speed, temperature etc.etc. return utterly different mpgs. Why? Personally, I think they've got big problems with these engines. Don't know what, but they're rubbish. An engine that lasts 100,000 miles is pointless if its useless when driven. I'm utterly convinced there's something wrong with my engine. The totally random nature of the mpg figures suggests this. However, Skoda can't find anything.

To anyone thinking of buying one, if you're lucky you'll get one that does a decent mpg, but search the net and see all the reports from VW, Skoda and Seat users of the problems they're having. Then, don't buy..........

I've also been disapointed with my fuel consumption. I've got a 1.6cr tdi 105 estate. Over the last 5 or 6 tanks it has managed ~48mpg (calculated myself) each time. This is non-supermarket fuel btw. The car has now done ~3000 miles and is used mostly for a commute which is 17 miles each way. As the mpg hasn't improved at all as far as I can tell I'm assuming it's not going to get any better. Like many the fuel economy was one of the deciding factors in going for this car so it is a bit annoying. Haven't spoken to Skoda as I assume they won't be much help (could be wrong).

Oh well.

I really am beginning to concur completely. My car has now done 3000 miles and the best mpg I've had is 52. Given the performance figures they quote, this is abysmal. I don't care what happens in the future. I don't care if the engine lasts 200,000 miles. I don't care if things improve at 20,000 miles. I want decent mpg, the one they quote, now. I got it from my Toyota which delivered 60-65mpg day in, day out.

Hello Mike, I'm so sorry to hear that things don't seem to have improved in the way you wanted them to. Frankly the response you've had from Skoda UK seems pretty poor and I have to say rather uncharacteristic of them. Just a couple of things I would mention as a reminder really...don't forget if your car has now done only 3,000miles it is only now just finishing it's learning curve as to how you drive it. The ecu learns on ALL new cars now and the way it's treated in the first 1000miles is particularly important as to how the ecu continues to learn in the remaining couple of thousand miles up to 3k. Only from now on will you start to get that all important good economy starting to shine through. It will still take time and won't happen overnight but it will keep getting better and better as most owners are finding out. Secondly, I fear you would be very disappointed with the new Toyota Yaris diesel. My 1.6cr Fabia driving ex-colleague's wife has recently bought this model (1.4D-d4) and it can only just manage 55mpg after 4,000 miles for a combined run. Toyota claim over 67mpg on the combined run. The car has been checked and it is fine. They have been told it takes time to reach optimum power and fuel consumption. As an ex-technician my ex-colleague is aware of this and is confident it will do the figures claimed by the manufacturer, in much the same way his Fabia 1.6cr now achieves it's claimed figures (after 6,000miles). Personally, I would continue to use your car and feel quite confident it will be the car you want it to be with regard to fuel consumption. But you sound pretty peaved now, and all I'm saying is don't jump out of the frying pan into the fire. Cars have changed quite a bit now, you can forget about cars of old and the way they performed. There's no going back...euro V is everywhere now. Keep posting mate.

As I said in an earlier post our 2010 Skoda Tdi was poor on fuel 45mpg until it reached 6,000 miles and now it getting no less than 56-60mpg , a huge improvement so the OP should be a bit more patient and wait until his Fabia has a few more mile's on the clock .

As I said in an earlier post our 2010 Skoda Tdi was poor on fuel 45mpg until it reached 6,000 miles and now it getting no less than 56-60mpg , a huge improvement so the OP should be a bit more patient and wait until his Fabia has a few more mile's on the clock .

Hi Steven, yep...nice to hear from someone who is pleased and who has experienced the known norm for this engine in this vehicle. Your experience sounds identical to my two ex-colleagues and they are both very happy. Keep posting if you can about your fuel consumption figures as time goes by if you can. I expect it will continue to improve. Ta!

I have to say i've also noticed occasional vast differences in economy on my commute. I accept that on a wet day i consistently see a 1-2mpg drop , but one in ten journeys, conducted in largely the same manner (28 miles, 26 of it very lightly trafficked dual carirageway, cruise control set to the same speed) does seem to throw an oddball (lower) figure.

After 18k miles my apparent economy has improved, but in fairness i think this is down to my more leisurely driving style over the last 5-6k miles than any loosening or improvment in the engine. I've concluded that slowign up 5mph improves my overall mpg by about 3-4mpg, so on a roads i tend to keep to 55mph on the cruise and on my commute 67mph. Reasonably long journeys, and this restraint can get me almost 800miles from a tankful. Over on the vwaudiforum there is another Golf owner with the same car as myself and they consistently get 58-60mpg, but they admit to driving outside of the rush hour and being in no rush at all. When i queried my economy with my local vw dealer, they showed me their service managers car, which was used for virtually the same commute as me - if i believed internet forums that bigger engined 2.0 140bhp car should be doing 58mpg even when driven at 80mph, yet their car driven with reasonable restraint showed the long term average of 48.6mpg

It seems most mosdern cars are similarly affected by poor real world mpg - every car forum has a vast range of fuel figures for the same car, but different owners and driving styles. A quick look on www.fuelly.com shows the same degree of variation whether it be a Toyota Yaris or a Merc S class CDI.

If the OP is that adamant a new Yaris will meet the manufacturers claims then i suggest they get an extended test drive in one, and see what that reveals.

And for what its worht Skoda's customer service seems to have gone the way of the vw parent company.

It's also very noteworthy that the same car in a different drivers hands (and feet) can give a completely different fuel consumption figure even over the same journey. My wife consistently returns 5-6mpg less then me on the same regular 50mile journey that we have to do every week, done at the same time of day with the same load. Even when she drives at a similar speed to me. Over the last year it's always been the same, and I do not drive with economy particularly in mind. My observations are that she uses the gearbox differently to me, accelerating more heavily, and in higher gears than necessary. She cruises in 5th gear at lower speeds the engine sometimes doesn't like. She doesn't exactly labour the engine in 5th, but it works less hard at 65mph than 60mph in 5th I've told her and you can see the mpg improve at the higher speed. I've mentioned this to her!! Our divorce is now being discussed!!!!! But it does prove the thing about driving style being a really really important factor.

Edited 30 November, 201015 yr by Estate Man

Perhaps Skoda should give a discount or a reduced price if their vehicles are not able to reach optimum fuel consumption until 6000 miles have been covered.

Perhaps Skoda should give a discount or a reduced price if their vehicles are not able to reach optimum fuel consumption until 6000 miles have been covered.

The problem with real world MPG figures and car makers is whos real world figure:

The careful town driver who never exceeds 28mph, accelerates as quick as a snail.

The driver who drives to get the best fuel economy.

The I must get there as fast as I can, accelerates as fast as they can and travels as far above the limit as they can without getting caught.

The .......

Which car maker has the correct version of the real world driver.

You have to have a common testing standard that all of the manufactures have to use.

Reading this and other MPG threads it has become my view that the test needs changing.

The only way the test will be changed is if enough people complain to their MP and EuroMP about the variance in published and real world figures.

Dempsek, you've hit the nail right on the head. The driving style is THE major thing to get a grip of to get good mpg. And everyone thinks they are a normal driver with 10, 20, 30 40 years of driving experience. Yet everyone drives with sometime vastly differing techniques. Some dangerously fast, some slow, etc etc. So how could the EC tests be changed to give a realistic figure. In short, they can't, not to suit everyone. That's why a universal standard was adopted years ago that all the manufacturers have to use as a yardstick. It's just that though, a yardstick, a general guide. Some can achieve the figures, yet some never will even if they drove the same car as someone else who did make the figures on the same journey. We are all of differing abilities and all have different perceptions of what normal driving is, what economical driving is etc etc. Without trying too much I can easily achieve the figures that Skoda quote in my handbook. My wife struggles to do that in our car in some instances inspite of being a very good advanced driver with over 30years experience. My observation on this is that, ironically, she doesn't drive fast enough. Yes...whilst she doesn't actually labour the engine at anytime, she drives just a bit too slowly at times to keep the engine in it's 'sweet spot' and thus using more fuel in our case. For example, she will cruise in 5th at 60mph instead of at 65mph where the engine is much happier and actually does more miles per gallon.But I'm not complaining, she feels happy at 60mph and why not! Just saying that's all...

Edited 30 November, 201015 yr by Estate Man

Interesting point about a sweet spot - now have 1.6CR estate, and wondering how best to drive it! With my old, pre-turbo, diesel the high compression ratio meant higher resistance for higher revs - so always made sense to keep in highest gear comfortable. Now we have (I understand) lower compression ratio with turbo to increase the thermal efficiency of the combustion in a more versatile fashion. So I guess running the engine really gently so the turbo isn't doing anything means running a basically less efficient engine. Is there a point at low revs where the turbo isn't doing anything, hence the worse mpg at 60mph vs 65?

(also, just wondering, would this fuel-intensive style of driving also clog up your dpf more?) But in general should you rev a bit higher to engage the turbo, or at above 1500 revs, say, keep in low gear so the turbo has to work harder? I don't know - I reckon the person to ask is the guy Skoda pay to do the fuel economy test runs!

Meanwhile, in my car I have been trying not to look at the mpg - and instead change gear plenty to avoid labouring the engine, power up hills to help run in, etc. Did look at mp of course though - today, after mix of A road, motorway, and slow traffic in Bristol, all subzero, avg was 53mpg.

The problem with real world MPG figures and car makers is whos real world figure:

The careful town driver who never exceeds 28mph, accelerates as quick as a snail.

The driver who drives to get the best fuel economy.

The I must get there as fast as I can, accelerates as fast as they can and travels as far above the limit as they can without getting caught.

The .......

Which car maker has the correct version of the real world driver.

You have to have a common testing standard that all of the manufactures have to use.

Reading this and other MPG threads it has become my view that the test needs changing.

The only way the test will be changed is if enough people complain to their MP and EuroMP about the variance in published and real world figures.

In no way am I suggesting that MPG is measured other than by a common standard, just that the common standard be reviewed in line with changes to emmisons.

Or for example as part of the standard all car makers must use the same test but publish the results reflecting only 80% of the MPG tested, the greenline II would be urban 55 (68.9), combined 66 (83.1) Extra Urban 75 (94.2), there is enough real world data out there to look at an adjustment percentage.