Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[R22JGB]

I'm sure these VW group cars would be much better off with a sixth gear to lower rpm at higher speeds. The diesel engines have more than enough torque to counteract wind resistance.

The gearing in fifth is about he same as 6th in a Passat. My 2.0 TDi Passat used to show 1750rpm at 60MPH in sixth gear. The Ibiza also does 1750rpm at 60mph but that is in fifth. What I do know is the Passat would drop down and pull away in 6th much easier than the Ibiza can in 5th gear.

[raisbeck]

I know it's the law, but DPFs are stupid, stupid things. Let alone having to do special journeys to clear them!!

I really do sympathise with your current situation. The DPF is as unwelcome an addition as catalytic converters were. Just one of those things we have to live with. However I wouldn't say all DPF regens are bad, on my Greenline the regen is almost a total non event. Its just a bit noisier for 5-10 mins. Never had the DPF light come on and never had to do any sort of 'special' journey to clear it. To be honest unless I knew the DPF was there I wouldn't associate the occasional noisier engine with a regen.

Its more likely that the 1.6 CR regen is unique in how 'irritating' it is. I do long journeys every day in mine so its equally possible that a regen would be a non event in a CR Fabia. Some of the efficiency loss you are experiencing may be down to the actual design, of note are the injection pressures. The PD engine has a very high injection pressure, certainly more than the CR and many technical sites have you believe that the higher the injection pressure the better the fuel atomisation leading to more power and greater efficiency.

When mine goes back in for its next service (wont be long, I am at 16500 miles now in just 9 months) I will ask to try out a 1.6 cr Fabia as a courtesy car. It would be interesting to compare over the same journey I do every day.

As regards rpm at 70. Mine does 2000 rpm at 70 mph. Seems we may have the same gearbox ?

[MikeHart]

I had the same altea as you reference sport 1.9tdi 105pd,lovely around corners cracking but on the open road terrible on the glutius maximus,mpg terrible my old octavia 1.9tdi was far superior to the altea in every way,bought a superb instead of it and I regularly get 54mpg,although the superb is superb its just to big for us as there is just me and the missus ,so we are going for the new fabia elegance with the 1.6cr tdi 105bhp with all the toys

Hello,

Don't wish to put a spanner in the works, but I believe there are enough people on this forum and elsewhere to suggest your old pre-Euro V Superb may well deliver better fuel economy than the new Euro V Fabia. The Euro V regulations and the requirements these make on the manufacturers seem to cause all sorts of issues with mpg. Owning a 90bhp TDI Fabia myself, I wouldn't buy another unless they can fix the one I've got first!! Any, they don't seem particularly interested in doing so, continually saying it will get better 'shortly' or 'after 5000 miles' (pick any number of miles).

Mike

[MikeHart]

The gearing in fifth is about he same as 6th in a Passat. My 2.0 TDi Passat used to show 1750rpm at 60MPH in sixth gear. The Ibiza also does 1750rpm at 60mph but that is in fifth. What I do know is the Passat would drop down and pull away in 6th much easier than the Ibiza can in 5th gear.

I guess that must be due to the bigger engine, but then the Passat would have weighed a lot more as well. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree and it's something else, but I do know something needs fixing here. The variation people are finding with some reporting good figures and others poor like me also suggests there's something different. This all suggests very poor quality control to me, otherwise, why do some engines/cars seem to work so much better than other supposedly identical cars?

[MikeHart]

I really do sympathise with your current situation. The DPF is as unwelcome an addition as catalytic converters were. Just one of those things we have to live with. However I wouldn't say all DPF regens are bad, on my Greenline the regen is almost a total non event. Its just a bit noisier for 5-10 mins. Never had the DPF light come on and never had to do any sort of 'special' journey to clear it. To be honest unless I knew the DPF was there I wouldn't associate the occasional noisier engine with a regen.

Its more likely that the 1.6 CR regen is unique in how 'irritating' it is. I do long journeys every day in mine so its equally possible that a regen would be a non event in a CR Fabia. Some of the efficiency loss you are experiencing may be down to the actual design, of note are the injection pressures. The PD engine has a very high injection pressure, certainly more than the CR and many technical sites have you believe that the higher the injection pressure the better the fuel atomisation leading to more power and greater efficiency.

When mine goes back in for its next service (wont be long, I am at 16500 miles now in just 9 months) I will ask to try out a 1.6 cr Fabia as a courtesy car. It would be interesting to compare over the same journey I do every day.

As regards rpm at 70. Mine does 2000 rpm at 70 mph. Seems we may have the same gearbox ?

I think there's a slight difference between a catalytic converter and a DPF. WIth a catalytic converter, the initial issues were around failure, but this would result in a MOT failure, not the car not working. It was effectively latent, albeit with cracking issues. The DPF is very active however. I don't get the light either and this is presumably because of the journeys I do. But, the DPF makes the car useless unless you regularly do 30-40mile journeys to clear it. Whilst a lot of people could get benefit on much shorter journeys from a diesel, the DPF makes it impractical to use for these journeys. The DPF won't work and then you have to do a special journey for 10-15minutes at 2000rpm completely wiping out the diesel benefit. My wifes diesel Galaxy will be the last diesel she has as she simply doesn't do these longer journeys. Plenty of shorter ones and it gives better mpg than a petrol on these, but the DPF will need clearing or end up blocked.

My issue with the regen is that it often occurs towards the end of my journey and is still in effect when I leave the dual carriageway. If I have to stop at the traffic lights or similar, the engine stays at 1000rpm and the tickover becomes so rough it shakes the car. Nothing wrong according to the dealership/Skoda. The mpg doesn't necessarily seem to be affected by the DPF regen itself, but before and after things seem to change. Interestingly, before a regen mpg normally climbs (all this according to the computer), but afterwards it drops. Also, the car seems to do higher mpgs when the tank is either full or towards empty, with the worst mpg being experienced during the mid area.

[raisbeck]

I think there's a slight difference between a catalytic converter and a DPF. WIth a catalytic converter, the initial issues were around failure, but this would result in a MOT failure, not the car not working. It was effectively latent, albeit with cracking issues. The DPF is very active however. I don't get the light either and this is presumably because of the journeys I do. But, the DPF makes the car useless unless you regularly do 30-40mile journeys to clear it. Whilst a lot of people could get benefit on much shorter journeys from a diesel, the DPF makes it impractical to use for these journeys. The DPF won't work and then you have to do a special journey for 10-15minutes at 2000rpm completely wiping out the diesel benefit. My wifes diesel Galaxy will be the last diesel she has as she simply doesn't do these longer journeys. Plenty of shorter ones and it gives better mpg than a petrol on these, but the DPF will need clearing or end up blocked.

My issue with the regen is that it often occurs towards the end of my journey and is still in effect when I leave the dual carriageway. If I have to stop at the traffic lights or similar, the engine stays at 1000rpm and the tickover becomes so rough it shakes the car. Nothing wrong according to the dealership/Skoda. The mpg doesn't necessarily seem to be affected by the DPF regen itself, but before and after things seem to change. Interestingly, before a regen mpg normally climbs (all this according to the computer), but afterwards it drops. Also, the car seems to do higher mpgs when the tank is either full or towards empty, with the worst mpg being experienced during the mid area.

I can see how cutting short the regen on a shorter run would mean having regens nearly every day until you can complete a complete regen cycle. Ruddy annoying. I researched the DPF design and function before I got my car just to be sure my journeys would be ok for it. The impression here is that Skoda crossed their fingers and hoped the CR DPF would be ok. They really need to educate people at point of sale regarding living with a DPF equipped car. It used to be people only bought diesels if they did the mileage...or just wanted a diesel. Now sadly you really do have to do long journeys or your going to end up extremely irritated with the regen.

My dealer was very careful to check how I would drive my car before I bought the Greenline. Did you get similar ?

I just cant imagine why the new engines are so variable in performance. Its not just the DPF, otherwise I wouldnt be getting near 70 mpg out of mine (in the summer....knock off about 8 mpg for cold weather). My mpg gets better as the car warms up, need to do nearly 8 miles before its stable and giving its best. If i did an 8 mile commute I expect my mpg would be down to about 50 at best.

I have had Fabias for years, this is my first diesel and I love it. The next would be a 1.6 CR diesel or the Greenline Diesel. The forum shows one new Greenline II owner with a knackered engine and some justifiably grumpy CR drivers on here. I may need to make my PD last as its the last diesel I will buy if this is the best Skoda can do. Maybe there are some engineering experts on here who can explain why the CR isnt as efficient as the PD.

[Dempsek]

I know some are saying they want to move to Ford etc.

Other makes may not be any better, for example:

Fiesta Ecoflex diesel book 76.3 real life 57.2 75% of book

Focus Ecoflex diesel book 74.2 real life 57.9 78% of book

Vaxhall Astra EcoFlex diesel book 62.8 real life 49.5 79% of book.

It's not just the VAG group where the difference in book and real life is large.

[AnotherGareth]

The gearing in fifth is about he same as 6th in a Passat. My 2.0 TDi Passat used to show 1750rpm at 60MPH in sixth gear. The Ibiza also does 1750rpm at 60mph but that is in fifth. What I do know is the Passat would drop down and pull away in 6th much easier than the Ibiza can in 5th gear.

Couple of thoughts ... but first a question: did the Passat have a PD engine?

The thoughts:

- the torque curve of a CR engine is different to that of a PD engine, with the CR engines we're discussing not having the low down torque of the PD engines so similar power engines would have differing abilities to accelerate from low revs.

- presumably a 2.0 engine is a lot more powerful and has much more torque than the 1.6, with a similar difference in behaviour to that for the PD / CR difference.

[MarginWalker]

I have had Fabias for years, this is my first diesel and I love it. The next would be a 1.6 CR diesel or the Greenline Diesel. The forum shows one new Greenline II owner with a knackered engine and some justifiably grumpy CR drivers on here. I may need to make my PD last as its the last diesel I will buy if this is the best Skoda can do. Maybe there are some engineering experts on here who can explain why the CR isnt as efficient as the PD.

After reading this thread and other negative bits and bobs about the 1.6 CR elsewhere, I'm also beginning to think that my 1.9 PD will be the last TDi I own. DPFs sound like a pain in the posterior and the CR design doesn't appear to offer the same fuel efficiency. I've never done a brim-to-brim test but thr trip computer never shows an overall mpg below 50, and close to 60 mpg is the norm for longer journeys. PD all the way then (must keep up those regular oil changes...)

[Guest]

Well, from the people I actually know who have the 1.6cr (90 & 105bhp) they are experiencing the normal book mpg figures and above those figures on occassions. Although ALL of them had trouble with achieving anywhere near the book figures in the first 3,000 miles and after that it was a steady improvement all the way (that's three people I actually know and see regularly two are good friends and ex-colleagues). With this thread in mind I questioned them all closely about their cars over the last couple of months especially concerning this fuel issue. Two of the owner are ex-motor technicians and one a housewife. This is what they ALL said.

1. The engines were very tight and didn't want to go much in the first 1,000 miles;

2. The engines don't like supermarket diesel;

3. The housewife (my mates wife) couldn't get more than 49mpg at anytime town or country driving. My two ex-colleagues reported only slightly better mpg for the first 2,000 miles in spite of the vehicles doing very different journeys etc;

4. At 3,000 miles the mpg improved by around 4-5mpg almost overnight probably due to ecu stopping learning program;

5. After 5,000 miles engines on all three cars were achieving regular 55-60mpg, and my two ex-colleagues now have 10k and 17k respectively on their engines and are achieving 65-70mpg quite often. My two ex-tech friends have to keep accurate records of their mpg's as they are reimbursed for their miles by their employer so the figs are accurate. Dont actually know what housewife mileage is at the moment but I think is near 6k and is getting very good mpg at 55-60 most of the time.

IMPORTANTLY: all three have said it required a different driving style to the diesel cars they have had in the past to get the best out of it (probably due to being a shorter stroke engine) and it was best to IGNORE the fuel economy lights on the dash as it cause them to change into higher gears much much too early and reduced the fuel economy. This last point is not intended to disrespect anyones driving style on this board, just saying what the drivers have all said. And I find it quite astounding that the housewife, a non technical car person also said that about the dash lights, and she too is getting very good mpg now.

Mike, if you reading this I very much sympathise with your poor mpg problem. You may have a fault, but I suspect not. Understandably, you complained vigorously to your garage but I fear you may have panicked your garage into acting unwisely in upgrading your ECU to a hybrid program. Obviously, I don't know what program they have loaded, but there is a good chance it may have reset your learning program and instead of finishing learning at 3k, it is still learning and as such won't return good mpg until that program has covered 3k. This in effect has worked against you. That's just my thoughts and you would need to question the garage that did the work to be sure. However, a much bigger pattern (not based upon just my three friends) is emerging of people with your difficulty to start with and then after the proper bedding in process, the learning process, and simply some good driving experience of the engine and plenty of miles, it all works out ok just like Skoda says it will. There are several VW forums that are reporting good mpg from these engines after initially much panic and poor mpg. I talked to my dealer about this very situation (the service manager who I know very well) and they have had a handful of people complain about mpg on this engine to start with, but she tells me not one of those people has now got a problem. And yes she is I'm quite certain not telling porkies! After achieving 5k they have all reported good mpg, no problems and nothing has been done to the engines apart from a diagnostic and visual inspection to make sure everything is ok and certainly no ecu upgrades.

I know this isn't your experience Mike, for whatever reasons, and me saying this probably doesn't help you feel any better about the car, but it's my belief...still, that your car will deliver albeit maybe slightly later than an unmodified car. Just keep posting Mike and good luck.

[MikeHart]

I can see how cutting short the regen on a shorter run would mean having regens nearly every day until you can complete a complete regen cycle. Ruddy annoying. I researched the DPF design and function before I got my car just to be sure my journeys would be ok for it. The impression here is that Skoda crossed their fingers and hoped the CR DPF would be ok. They really need to educate people at point of sale regarding living with a DPF equipped car. It used to be people only bought diesels if they did the mileage...or just wanted a diesel. Now sadly you really do have to do long journeys or your going to end up extremely irritated with the regen.

My dealer was very careful to check how I would drive my car before I bought the Greenline. Did you get similar ?

I just cant imagine why the new engines are so variable in performance. Its not just the DPF, otherwise I wouldnt be getting near 70 mpg out of mine (in the summer....knock off about 8 mpg for cold weather). My mpg gets better as the car warms up, need to do nearly 8 miles before its stable and giving its best. If i did an 8 mile commute I expect my mpg would be down to about 50 at best.

I have had Fabias for years, this is my first diesel and I love it. The next would be a 1.6 CR diesel or the Greenline Diesel. The forum shows one new Greenline II owner with a knackered engine and some justifiably grumpy CR drivers on here. I may need to make my PD last as its the last diesel I will buy if this is the best Skoda can do. Maybe there are some engineering experts on here who can explain why the CR isnt as efficient as the PD.

What you say is very interesting. The only check my dealer did was to say a diesel would be good for 30mile each way runs.........Never made any mention of the DPF or regen requirements etc. In fact, I didn't even realise mine had a DPF on it until I read the user manual!! I have to admit, I didn't actually think about it due to the runs I do which are natural diesel territory.

The engines appear to be very variable in performance between cars, but also within cars. Whilst my mpg has gone from 48 to 52mpg over the tanks (brim to brim), the computer figures vary wildly from journey to journey for what seem to be very similar journeys and conditions. For information, I've kept all the computer information for a few weeks now and it's in the table below.

Car M.P.G.,,,,,,,,,,

Date,Day,A.M./P.M.,Duration,Distance,Speed,DPF,Temp,Richard,M.P.G.,

02 November 2010,Tues,A.M.,,,,,,,57.7,

,,P.M.,,,,Yes,,,58.2,

03 November 2010,Wed,A.M.,,,,,,Yes,50.5,

,,P.M.,,,,,,Yes,54.9,

04 November 2010,Thurs,A.M.,,,,,,Yes,50.0,

,,P.M.,53,32,36,,15.5,Yes,58.4,

05 November 2010,Fri,A.M.,42,32,46,,15.5,,54.9,

,,PM.,68,36,31,,15.0,,62.7,

08 November 2010,Mon,A.M.,48,32,40,,6.5,Yes,55.1,

,,P.M.,49,32,40,,8.5,Yes,58.4,

09 November 2010,Tues,A.M.,50,32,39,Yes,8.5,,62.9,

,,P.M.,61,32,32,,8.5,,52.3,

10 November 2010,Wed,A.M.,49,32,39,,4.5,Yes,50.7,

,,P.M.,54,32,36,,4.5,Yes,55.4

11 November 2010,Thurs,A.M.,44,32,44,,9.5,Yes,55.6

,,PM.,50,32,38,,12.0,Yes,61.6

12 November 2010,Fri,A.M.,43,32,45,,12.0,Yes,52.0

,,PM.,63,32,30,,13.5,Yes,59.6

15 November 2010,Mon,A.M.,44,32,43,,4.0,,55.9

,,P.M.,43,32,45,,10.0,,57.8

16 November 2010,Tues,A.M.,,,,,,,

,,P.M.,,,,,,,

17 November 2010,Wed,A.M.,,,,,,,

,,P.M.,,,,,,,

18 November 2010,Thurs,A.M.,46,32,42,,9.5,Yes,52.0

,,PM.,57,32,34,,9.0,Yes,53.6

19 November 2010,Fri,A.M.,46,32,42,,3.0,Yes,54.9

,,PM.,59,32,33,,9.5,Yes,55.7

22 November 2010,Mon,A.M.,50,32,39,,7.5,Yes,54.7

,,P.M.,52,32,37,,7.0,Yes,57.9

23 November 2010,Tues,A.M.,44,32,44,,6.5,Yes,55.5

,,P.M.,56,32,34,,6.0,Yes,55.7

24 November 2010,Wed,A.M.,50,32,40,,1.5,Yes,53.4

,,P.M.,57,32,34,,3.0,Yes,50.8

25 November 2010,Thurs,A.M.,46,32,42,,0.5,Yes,50.3

,,PM.,61,32,32,,2.0,Yes,57.2

26 November 2010,Fri,A.M.,48,32,40,,-1.5,Yes,54.2

,,PM.,67,32,29,,0.5,Yes,54.3

06 December 2010,Mon,A.M.,53,32,36,Yes,-1.0,Yes,52.6

,,P.M.,55,32,35,,-1.0,Yes,52.2

07 December 2010,Tues,A.M.,50,32,38,,-1.0,Yes,49.7

,,P.M.,55,32,35,,1.0,Yes,56.3

08 December 2010,Wed,A.M.,53,32,37,,1.0,Yes,54.6

,,P.M.,60,32,32,,1.0,Yes,54.7

09 December 2010,Thurs,A.M.,50,32,39,,-1.0,Yes,54.3

,,PM.,57,32,33,,2.5,Yes,54.7

10 December 2010,Fri,A.M.,47,32,41,Yes,1.0,Yes,54.3

,,PM.,59,32,33,,5.5,Yes,52.7

13 December 2010,Mon,A.M.,49,32,39,,1.5,Yes,49.9

,,P.M.,49,32,39,,0.5,Yes,54.0

14 December 2010,Tues,A.M.,48,32,40,,4.5,Yes,55.5

,,P.M.,56,32,35,,2.5,Yes,58.2

15 December 2010,Wed,A.M.,47,33,43,,1.0,Yes,57.0

As I don't seem able to get the formatting right to display as a table, I've put it in comma delimited format. Cut and paste this into Excel and it should display in correct tabular format. Ignore the Richard column as this simply indicate my car sharer was along for the ride!! He's very keen to see the mpg go up as this lowers his payment!!

Bearing in mind the computer should (assuming we're talking integrated system here:-)) have access to all the engine management system information, these figures should be accurate, or at least consistently wrong. In fact, my computer (since the software upgrade) appears to have gone from on the money to about 3 or 4 mpg optimistic. However, the thing that confuses me is the variability for journeys with the same time, average speed, temperature etc. Don't understand it. I would expect them to be a lot closer.

I would certainly look to keep your current car at the moment and wait for issues with Euro V engines to be sorted out. From what's being posted, everyone seems to be having issues, but some more than others!!

Edited 15 December, 2010 by MikeHart

[MikeHart]

I know some are saying they want to move to Ford etc.

Other makes may not be any better, for example:

Fiesta Ecoflex diesel book 76.3 real life 57.2 75% of book

Focus Ecoflex diesel book 74.2 real life 57.9 78% of book

Vaxhall Astra EcoFlex diesel book 62.8 real life 49.5 79% of book.

It's not just the VAG group where the difference in book and real life is large.

Hello,

I'm sure you're right. Whatever the standard mpg tests are, they seem completely useless at providing the public with some idea of reality. I know the tests were changed some time ago, and if anything I suspect they've become less accurate. The interesting thing I've heard about Ecoflex cars is that they do tend to seriously underperform. The reason for this is peoples driving habits. Basically, the engines are normally really small and gutless for the size of car. Therefore, if you drive them really carefully, they will produce good results. However, most people simply don't have the patience to wait for the incredibly slow accelerationn and therefore start gunning the engine to try and get moving. The engine then performs abysmally due to the revs etc. The reality is that unless you're prepared to drive ultra-conservatively, the Ecoflex models often perform less well than the 'normal' models which have a bit more poke. Don't know if some of the Greenline drivers could comment?

[MikeHart]

Well, from the people I actually know who have the 1.6cr (90 & 105bhp) they are experiencing the normal book mpg figures and above those figures on occassions. Although ALL of them had trouble with achieving anywhere near the book figures in the first 3,000 miles and after that it was a steady improvement all the way (that's three people I actually know and see regularly two are good friends and ex-colleagues). With this thread in mind I questioned them all closely about their cars over the last couple of months especially concerning this fuel issue. Two of the owner are ex-motor technicians and one a housewife. This is what they ALL said.

1. The engines were very tight and didn't want to go much in the first 1,000 miles;

2. The engines don't like supermarket diesel;

3. The housewife (my mates wife) couldn't get more than 49mpg at anytime town or country driving. My two ex-colleagues reported only slightly better mpg for the first 2,000 miles in spite of the vehicles doing very different journeys etc;

4. At 3,000 miles the mpg improved by around 4-5mpg almost overnight probably due to ecu stopping learning program;

5. After 5,000 miles engines on all three cars were achieving regular 55-60mpg, and my two ex-colleagues now have 10k and 17k respectively on their engines and are achieving 65-70mpg quite often. My two ex-tech friends have to keep accurate records of their mpg's as they are reimbursed for their miles by their employer so the figs are accurate. Dont actually know what housewife mileage is at the moment but I think is near 6k and is getting very good mpg at 55-60 most of the time.

IMPORTANTLY: all three have said it required a different driving style to the diesel cars they have had in the past to get the best out of it (probably due to being a shorter stroke engine) and it was best to IGNORE the fuel economy lights on the dash as it cause them to change into higher gears much much too early and reduced the fuel economy. This last point is not intended to disrespect anyones driving style on this board, just saying what the drivers have all said. And I find it quite astounding that the housewife, a non technical car person also said that about the dash lights, and she too is getting very good mpg now.

Mike, if you reading this I very much sympathise with your poor mpg problem. You may have a fault, but I suspect not. Understandably, you complained vigorously to your garage but I fear you may have panicked your garage into acting unwisely in upgrading your ECU to a hybrid program. Obviously, I don't know what program they have loaded, but there is a good chance it may have reset your learning program and instead of finishing learning at 3k, it is still learning and as such won't return good mpg until that program has covered 3k. This in effect has worked against you. That's just my thoughts and you would need to question the garage that did the work to be sure. However, a much bigger pattern (not based upon just my three friends) is emerging of people with your difficulty to start with and then after the proper bedding in process, the learning process, and simply some good driving experience of the engine and plenty of miles, it all works out ok just like Skoda says it will. There are several VW forums that are reporting good mpg from these engines after initially much panic and poor mpg. I talked to my dealer about this very situation (the service manager who I know very well) and they have had a handful of people complain about mpg on this engine to start with, but she tells me not one of those people has now got a problem. And yes she is I'm quite certain not telling porkies! After achieving 5k they have all reported good mpg, no problems and nothing has been done to the engines apart from a diagnostic and visual inspection to make sure everything is ok and certainly no ecu upgrades.

I know this isn't your experience Mike, for whatever reasons, and me saying this probably doesn't help you feel any better about the car, but it's my belief...still, that your car will deliver albeit maybe slightly later than an unmodified car. Just keep posting Mike and good luck.

Hello again,

Many thanks for taking the time to ask these questions and post such a long reply. I do hope you're right, but this all comes back to honesty. If this is the case, Skoda (and other makes maybe) should actually state this up front. It would stop a lot of people being disappointed and would also stop a lot of complaints. As people generally dislike being fobbed off, their wait reply is not well liked when people already feel they have a problem. If this was stated up front, people would already know and would have accepted the situation before purchasing, stopping a lot of grief for everyone. Of course, I guess they don't want to do this as some other manufacturers won't do it and Skoda feel it would give them a selling disadvantage. Mind you, after a while, the honesty might work in their favour with people trusting their word a lot more and not believing the others.

When my software was upgraded, they said the engine management system would need to relearn the injectors, but it would take about 500 miles. They didn't mention the learning process restarting from scratch, so hopefully it shouldn't make any difference. I can understand why the engine management system might want to relearn as the program and variables it stores and uses could have changed considerably. However, I can't imagine it's practical to do this for software releases as 5000 miles is a long time for each!! I suspect the difference between the software revisions is pretty limited as only the same sensors are present and therefore the same data is available, only allowing for changes in interpretation. I also suspect the learning process is quite crude. Due to the rather hostile conditions in a car, the engine management systems are normally very low power systems with very restricted processing capabilities. Unfortunately, the chips etc. need hardening against various outside factors and hardened chips normally run many years behind the latest, of ten a decade or more.

I'll keep monitoring the system and report back and hopefully it will improve and I'll be singing their praises. I truly hope so. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hearing your interpretation of the data I've posted.

Many thanks,

Mike

[Guest]

Yep...totally agree with you Mike. Please do keep us all appraised with how things are going...hope it does all work out ok, I feel sure it will.

[raisbeck]

Hello,

I'm sure you're right. Whatever the standard mpg tests are, they seem completely useless at providing the public with some idea of reality. I know the tests were changed some time ago, and if anything I suspect they've become less accurate. The interesting thing I've heard about Ecoflex cars is that they do tend to seriously underperform. The reason for this is peoples driving habits. Basically, the engines are normally really small and gutless for the size of car. Therefore, if you drive them really carefully, they will produce good results. However, most people simply don't have the patience to wait for the incredibly slow accelerationn and therefore start gunning the engine to try and get moving. The engine then performs abysmally due to the revs etc. The reality is that unless you're prepared to drive ultra-conservatively, the Ecoflex models often perform less well than the 'normal' models which have a bit more poke. Don't know if some of the Greenline drivers could comment?

I am a Greenline 'one' driver if that counts....My car is really just a standard 1.4TDI with a DPF stuck on it.

Well ok not quite. Its got a much longer gearbox, modified engine management to bring the max torque in at lower rpm. Modified injector cams, partly I guess for the altered torque band and also to allow post injection for regen. Its got narrower wheels (165) and a few aerodynamic bits under the engine. Its a fraction lower as well. I have driven a standard 1.4TDI and its exactly the same as far as power and driveability. Reading other postings on mpg the Greenline gains about 5 to 7 mpg over the standard model.

I dont drive that carefully. I am no 'yoof' with a hoody and an over abundance of testosterone. I really just drive normally and get 65-70 mpg easily. Put on your hippy clothes and drive to the tree hugging event you can get near 80 mpg............but its sooo boring and I hate being overtaken by caravaners and horse boxes.

In all this cold weather my car regens a little more often. Its almost every day after around 100 mile intervals. Poorer efficiency in cold weather may well be clogging the old soot burner a little more than usual. I have varied my journey a little to use a more countrified route, its shorter and the engine is being worked less. If I use the main roads the higher revs and temps must keep the soot burner clearer for longer.

I have my fingers crossed for you Mike. Mine got a lot better over time, I hope yours does for your own sanity as well as Skodas reputation....

Edited 15 December, 2010 by raisbeck

[MikeHart]

I am a Greenline 'one' driver if that counts....My car is really just a standard 1.4TDI with a DPF stuck on it.

Well ok not quite. Its got a much longer gearbox, modified engine management to bring the max torque in at lower rpm. Modified injector cams, partly I guess for the altered torque band and also to allow post injection for regen. Its got narrower wheels (165) and a few aerodynamic bits under the engine. Its a fraction lower as well. I have driven a standard 1.4TDI and its exactly the same as far as power and driveability. Reading other postings on mpg the Greenline gains about 5 to 7 mpg over the standard model.

I dont drive that carefully. I am no 'yoof' with a hoody and an over abundance of testosterone. I really just drive normally and get 65-70 mpg easily. Put on your hippy clothes and drive to the tree hugging event you can get near 80 mpg............but its sooo boring and I hate being overtaken by caravaners and horse boxes.

In all this cold weather my car regens a little more often. Its almost every day after around 100 mile intervals. Poorer efficiency in cold weather may well be clogging the old soot burner a little more than usual. I have varied my journey a little to use a more countrified route, its shorter and the engine is being worked less. If I use the main roads the higher revs and temps must keep the soot burner clearer for longer.

I have my fingers crossed for you Mike. Mine got a lot better over time, I hope yours does for your own sanity as well as Skodas reputation....

Hello,

Hopefully you're right. I must admit, the journey home last night and the two today have shown (according to the computer) unusually high mpg, especially given the low temps and other conditions. Compared to similar journeys before, the mpg seems a lot better. Maybe it's on the way up!! You never know. The last couple of tanks during the really cold weather have shown 50mpg rather than the 52mpg achieved just before. Whilst lower, it might be this is less low than might be expected. I guess only time will tell :-)

Thanks,

Mike

[threadbear]

My partner and I have just returned from a couple of nights away in the Cotswolds driving up from Kent using the M20, M26, M25, M40 and A40/A44. I havent driven sedately, but just sensibly. The driving conditions at times have been horrendous.

My 1.6TDi CR 105 has consistently returned between 58-62 mpg which is much improved to what I was getting about a month ago when we went to Brighton and I struggled to get 50mpg driving in a similar style.

The car has now done about 2500 miles so things are starting to improve!! The car has performed very well. I have also noticed that the heater has become more efficient!! It was just on and off, now it works throughout the range of the dial.

Unfortunately I now have a black car as opposed to red!! Hopefully the weather will hold off so I can wield the jet wash on it before the next lot of white stuff arrives!! :'(

Incidentally when my car was doing 42mpg in the freezing the temperatures, it had Shell in the tank, the journey to the Cotswolds was on BP and I have filled up with Esso today which is similar to the BP.

Grahame

Edited 15 December, 2010 by threadbear

[R22JGB]

I know Estate Man says the economy gets better as the miles go on, but I'm not finding that. The car has now covered over 8K and consumption is no better. The car is back at the dealers tomorrow, if they do not rectify the problem, I'm seriously considering rejecting the car as unfit for purpose. I bought what was supposed to be an economical car.

Since 2002 and over the last 200,000 miles I have been able to achieve and usually better combined figures but not with this car! I drive economically and usually cruise at 60MPH.

I suspect I will be advised I did not run the car in correclty or I'm using too few revs, but to achieve good economy you need to keep the speed down.

DPF regens, the car has now done 21 that I know of, surely this is too many I've had the car for 15 weeks and covered 8K in that time so the car is getting used.

I check the consumption from full tank to full tank and have got:- 43.88 (car was not full when I got it) 52.11, 54.88, 61.26, 52.06, 53.28, 50.09, 53.79, 60.11 (car had been in dealers they must have put some fuel in) 52.62, 53.23, 50.56, 38.25 Thislast tankfull got a hiding due to the poor weather and stop start traffic in the snow. This gives an overall consumption of 50.97MPG!!!!!!!!! this is for a car in which I should be able to get 65mpg. So I'm seriously pi55ed off!

[MikeHart]

My partner and I have just returned from a couple of nights away in the Cotswolds driving up from Kent using the M20, M26, M25, M40 and A40/A44. I havent driven sedately, but just sensibly. The driving conditions at times have been horrendous.

My 1.6TDi CR 105 has consistently returned between 58-62 mpg which is much improved to what I was getting about a month ago when we went to Brighton and I struggled to get 50mpg driving in a similar style.

The car has now done about 2500 miles so things are starting to improve!! The car has performed very well. I have also noticed that the heater has become more efficient!! It was just on and off, now it works throughout the range of the dial.

Unfortunately I now have a black car as opposed to red!! Hopefully the weather will hold off so I can wield the jet wash on it before the next lot of white stuff arrives!! :'(

Incidentally when my car was doing 42mpg in the freezing the temperatures, it had Shell in the tank, the journey to the Cotswolds was on BP and I have filled up with Esso today which is similar to the BP.

Grahame

Hello Grahame,

When you give the mpg figures, are we talking figures from the computer and if so, how accurate do you find your computer? I know exactly what you mean about black cars. Mine started off white, but the number plates are pretty unreadable now due to the muck off the road!! I normally use supermarket fuel, but think I'll try some other stuff as well and see what difference (if any) it makes.

Thanks,

Mike

[MikeHart]

I know Estate Man says the economy gets better as the miles go on, but I'm not finding that. The car has now covered over 8K and consumption is no better. The car is back at the dealers tomorrow, if they do not rectify the problem, I'm seriously considering rejecting the car as unfit for purpose. I bought what was supposed to be an economical car.

Since 2002 and over the last 200,000 miles I have been able to achieve and usually better combined figures but not with this car! I drive economically and usually cruise at 60MPH.

I suspect I will be advised I did not run the car in correclty or I'm using too few revs, but to achieve good economy you need to keep the speed down.

DPF regens, the car has now done 21 that I know of, surely this is too many I've had the car for 15 weeks and covered 8K in that time so the car is getting used.

I check the consumption from full tank to full tank and have got:- 43.88 (car was not full when I got it) 52.11, 54.88, 61.26, 52.06, 53.28, 50.09, 53.79, 60.11 (car had been in dealers they must have put some fuel in) 52.62, 53.23, 50.56, 38.25 Thislast tankfull got a hiding due to the poor weather and stop start traffic in the snow. This gives an overall consumption of 50.97MPG!!!!!!!!! this is for a car in which I should be able to get 65mpg. So I'm seriously pi55ed off!

8k miles in 15 weeks!! You're really stacking up the miles........ 21 regens over 8k is much lower than mine. I would say I've had that and I'm only on 3800 miles. As to the consumption, you're getting pretty close to my figures. It seems to have settled around the 50-52mark, probably varying due to the temperature more than anything else. I have found the bad weather doesn't make a lot of difference, but then I am on the south coast, so it's affected us a lot less.

[R22JGB]

Dropped the car off at the dealers this morning, got to speak to the "Master Technician" himself so I could explain the problems, asked him to remove the DPF and throw it away!!.

He is suggesting the car should have a new ECU fitted to resolve the issues. I don't care what they change just as long as they rectify the problems.

[threadbear]

I did a check on the mileage and the fuel used and it balanced out at 54 mpg but I had done a weeks motoring around town prior to going to the Cotswolds. However the fuel consumption is definately improving with usage.

I know its not very technical! My Dads Golf Plus Bluemotion has been getting around 10mpg less due to the current tempertaures.

Regards

Grahame

[R22JGB]

Threadbear

I take it your Dad's Bluemotion is the 1.6TDi? What sort of economy has he been getting?

[Guest]

8k miles in 15 weeks!! You're really stacking up the miles........ 21 regens over 8k is much lower than mine. I would say I've had that and I'm only on 3800 miles. As to the consumption, you're getting pretty close to my figures. It seems to have settled around the 50-52mark, probably varying due to the temperature more than anything else. I have found the bad weather doesn't make a lot of difference, but then I am on the south coast, so it's affected us a lot less.

Hello Mike again...just noticed your post about mileage and stuff. My thoughts are that your car may be moving nearer to normality than you realise. At 3800 miles, for a modern diesel especially a VW unit, she is still very tight, even though the initial bedding in has taken place. Another 1200-1500 miles should make quite a difference. However, if you are currently getting 50-52mpg, then that's not far off what I would expect at this mileage of 3800, and with the winter diesel that is now in your tank. If it were 'instantly' the summer and you had summer diesel in the tank, your mpg would be better by around 4-6mpg giving you somewhere around 56-58mpg. I pretty much could guarantee that. So please please do keep posting on this so we can all see how you get on. Ta!

[xman]

she is still very tight, even though the initial bedding in has taken place.

You're not a part time pimp are you?

Slappers are the cheapest to run......