dieselV6, again...do understand that Skoda are not lying to us with these EU mpg figures. The figures are NOT Skoda's. They have to publish them by law as given to them by the EU Commission.

...

dieselV6, I wish you lots of luck with this. I know you are having a hard time understanding all this stuff.

So, once again, I am stupid (aka "have a hard time understanding this"), I cannot drive, I bought the wrong car, and Skoda is not lying at all, because they are lying in the same way as every other manufacturer in the EU? Complete and utter whitewash, no matter how long your posts will become, Estate Man. Are you paid by VAG to write these posts?

Incidentally, I have paid for my 3 Skodas, bought new, with my own money. How many did you pay for? I have a feeling not many, otherwise the 20%+ discrepancy in fuel consumption would have bothered you a lot more.

Hard facts yet again

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI110 2002, quoted brochure town fuel consumption 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, real life consumption 6.2l/100km or 46mpg, weight in the configuration I used 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR105 2012, quoted brochure town fuel consumption 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, real life consumption 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, weight in the configuration I used 1250kg

On the face of brochure numbers, I should be expecting Roomster to burn less fuel than the 200kg heavier Octavia with (allegedly ) less efficient engine. I do not mean the actual 1.1l/km less, just less fuel at all consumed by Roomster when compared to old Octavia. In fact, Roomster's 1.6CR105 burns 10% more fuel than the Octavia's 1.9TDI110 around town.

The BS brochure fuel economy numbers vs actual numbers obtained are shown above, clearly demonstrating you cannot reliably compare even same fuel cars, from the same manufacturer, of similar power, and get an indicator of which one will use less fuel around town / in mixed driving. I.e. the EU urban/mixed cycle numbers are completely unrealistic nowadays, and car engines are now designed to pass the test with best mark, not to return good real life fuel economy.

Plus new 1.6CR diesels use 10%+ more fuel around town than the 1.9 did, while pretending to be using 20% less fuel on paper. It's an Eco-con.

Stop the whitewash please, and instead try to explain to private VAG / Skoda car buyers why they are being lied to in the brochure regarding urban cycle fuel economy, even when it is an EU mandated lie.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Diesel, it's like talking to a brick wall with you.

You are not being lied to about the figures, the car did obtain those figures during the test. Skoda or any other car manufacturer cannot give their figures any other way because they are not allowed So whether this test is accurate or not, it's not the manufacturers fault and there is nothing they can do about it.

The EU test is not supposed to give accurate numbers, but it is supposed to give car buyers a way to compare efficiency of cars from different manufacturers. Can you imagine the uproar if manufacturers used different tests to obtain their figures, and it was then realised that those figures meant nothing when comparing them between cars?

I paid for my SEAT, I am obtaining nowhere near the 'official' figure, but I did not expect to, because I understand the purpose of the EU test.

xreyuk, I am perfectly aware that Skoda cars did obtain the figures in the test. The point that is being completely missed is that the EU tests as they stand are completely useless and downright criminally fake when it comes to present data on urban driving fuel economy versus real life urban driving fuel economy. Engines are being designed to pass the test and nothing more, resulting in disastrous town use figures.

Brick wall? Please send me a cheque for £1500, just to cover the difference between what Roomster burns in town (on top what Octavia did) over the 10 years that I will use it, and I will quite happily stop complaining.

Make sure you send a similar cheque to every other 1.6CR engine buyer who expected to get similar (if not better) results to 1.9 out of it, based on the fact that 1.6CR's urban figure is 20% better than 1.9's was.

Note that if I expected same result as Roomster's brochure urban cycle figure, the cheque would have to be £2700. If I expected similar performance to Octavia 1.9 on that particular driving course (10% below urban figure), your cheque would rise to a whopping £4000. Note also Roomster's purchase price of £14.5k. The spurious extra fuel bill is a whopping 1/4th of it. The VAT-free offer does not sound so good anymore....

Still happy with paper fuel economy numbers?

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

xreyuk, I am perfectly aware that Skoda cars did obtain the figures in the test. The point that is being completely missed is that the EU tests as they stand are completely useless and downright criminally fake when it comes to present data on urban driving fuel economy versus real life urban driving fuel economy. Engines are being designed to pass the test and nothing more, resulting in disastrous town use figures.

Send the bill to the EU then...its their rules

Most people know the results are bunkum..

How does Stop/Start improve mpg on a motorway run? It doesn't - but according to the EU figures it theoretically does.

Send the bill to the EU then...its their rules

"... We were only following orders..." sounds familiar?

And another point I made: Skoda would've made more money out of me if they had shown more realistic figures, as I'd have factored in the extra fuel cost of the 1.6CR and gone for the 2.0CR and an Octy Estate instead. 2.0CR engine somehow escapes the "massive fuel consumption in town" curse, possibly because of longer stroke. I'd say the only winners out of current set of EU economy testing rules are oil companies.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Diesel. I feel your pain, but do agree with the guys above. Skoda are not going to give you the brochure with a post it on saying "by the way, you'll never get this figure, actually aim for xxMPG instead".

Economy figures in the real world differ massively, depending on use, road type, environment, load, fuel used, how you ran the engine in, etc etc.

I have seen some of the past posts on this, but can't remember if you've taken your car to the dealers and complained at poor economy, or if you've got past the magic running in spot I found with my car (about 5000 miles).

If all your driving is in town, perhaps the newer engines aren't so hot - I'd imagine the cycles they use on the EU tests don't give a good real world figure, nor would you expect to get good economy only driving around town.

I find my 1.6 CR TDI prefers to be around 2000 rpm, in whatever gear, to return the best economy. At low speeds, the engine almost hunts for rev (more like a petrol car) and economy suffers. Above 2000 rpm, the same thing.

The gearing on my Fabia, copuled to the journeys I make (all pretty repetitive, A road and country lanes) means I have a tough job getting anywhere near the 60+mpg quoted in EU figures by Skoda, but I regualrly get 50 mpg.

If I were to drive it around town all the time, I am unsure that I would get anywhere near that. I know my wife's Golf, with the same engine and stop-start, is completely different to drive and feels different in every gear, at every engine speed and easily bests the Fabia for economy - a bigger, heavier car, with the same drive train, but Stop-Start added. Her regular journey is 3 days a week, 8 miles a day on the school run and 2 days a week doing a 150 mile round trip from rural Hants/Wilts border to Bristol - A, B and Motorway, plus town/city traffic including rush hour. The Golf regularly return 60 mpg...

Diesel. I feel your pain, but do agree with the guys above. Skoda are not going to give you the brochure with a post it on saying "by the way, you'll never get this figure, actually aim for xxMPG instead".

Actually, I do believe that if VAG/Skoda did just that, they would get a lot more repeat custom. Some people would take petrol engines instead, some would still want a diesel, but customers would not feel duped and misled. It would skew sales quite considerably towards the 2.0CR, though.

But the reason why car manufacturers are unwilling to stick their necks out is that the current EU numbers are perfect to con owners of 5-10yr old diesel cars to go and buy new cars early, as on paper the fuel cost savings would be quite significant. 20% fuel saved at today's prices is noticable even for 10k miles/year drivers .

As a buyer, you find out that you actually use more fuel in the new car than with the older engine/car only at the point where your money is in manufacturer's pocket.

Diesel v6 just sell the friggin car and give us a break man eech ! Non of the figures supplied by manufactures are obtainable in the real world , accept it and move on buy yourself a P45

Selling the car bought new at dealership would mean losing even more money than on wasted fuel.

I can live with paper figures not matching real life, as long as these paper figures do not show that the worse engine (1.6CR) is somehow more economical in town than the well known 1.9 diesel. As it stands, you cannot even reliably compare a Skoda diesel engine to another Skoda diesel engine.

Hard facts again:

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI110 2002, quoted brochure town fuel consumption 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, real life consumption 6.2l/100km or 46mpg, weight in the configuration I used 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR105 2012, quoted brochure town fuel consumption 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, real life consumption 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, weight in the configuration I used 1250kg

So 1.9 in an Octavia beat the urban cycle figure in the driving I do, while 1.6CR in a Roomster undershoots its stated figure, and is actually 10% worse than the Octavia was. On paper, Roomster should've been a clear winner.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

The Octavia is a more aerodynamic vehicle , the roomster is more like a brick s4!te house so aerodynamics of a barn door

You seem to have misunderstood the EU cycles.

Urban does not mean 'in town' and extra urban does not mean 'motorway', from what I remember the urban cycle also includes larger raods, where as the extra urban is made up mostly of country roads. There are also plenty of definitions of in town. For example, I live in Southport, the way the roads are here (it's a small place) I'd expect 45 or so mpg. In Liverpool, a big city, I easily get 55mpg because the roads are bigger, longer and have less traffic lights/give way signs.

The Octavia is a more aerodynamic vehicle , the roomster is more like a brick s4!te house so aerodynamics of a barn door

...and that matters around town at low speeds how? given that Octavia is 200kg heavier than Roomster?

You seem to have misunderstood the EU cycles.

Whatever cycle name, 1.9 Octavia did produce 10% better numbers than its urban cycle figure. 1.6CR Roomster burns more fuel than Octy in town, and burns more than its urban cycle figure by 20%. On paper 1.6CR looks 20% better than 1.9, in real life it is 10% worse than 1.9. I'd say 30% discrepancy for this particular set of driving conditions means EU fuel economy numbers presenting newer and more thirsty engine as more economical are nothing but a con.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

...and that matters around town at low speeds how? given that that Octavia is 200kg heavier than Roomster?

My Leon is heavier than the Fabia, but more aerodynamic. I do better than many people.

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!

I'm pretty sure diesel hasn't realised how to interpret the eu fuel consumption figs. Pretty sure too he doesn't realise how driving 30 odd miles per week with a largely cold engine, intown, very badly affects his fuel economy. I get that from his slightly insulting pm's to me and what he is writing here. He isn't someone anyone can help! Shame really.

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!

And you've said it now wait for the court day for slander lol , liars ? Offended no its a forum " in one ear out the other "

I'm pretty sure diesel hasn't realised how to interpret the eu fuel consumption figs. Pretty sure too he doesn't realise how driving 30 odd miles per week with a largely cold engine, intown, very badly affects his fuel economy. I get that from his slightly insulting pm's to me and what he is writing here. He isn't someone anyone can help! Shame really.

Slightly insulting pm's :( FFS what's going on here, Estateman as you know, I for one find your posts enlightening and thoroughly find them absolutely spot on always, I never find your post anything but great so carry on with the good work, I agree some you can't help

Greenline - Skoda aren't liars. skoda publish the EU results. No, HAVE to publish the EU results.

Of course how a car performs and the economy it returns is down to a number of variables - you might, in North Wales, be driving all the time on farm tracks, at a particular speed and in a particular gear, no different to your last car perhaps. You might be doing 100% motorway miles. your driving style might not match how the car performs - I had to adjust mine from driving a 1.9 TDI Greenline Superb and 106 1.1 petrol to the Monte Carlo 1.6 CR - I drove it how I expected a diesel to drive and was getting 45mpg.

After 5000 miles, without paying any attention to running in the car in a particular way, the economy went to 50 mpg. I don't even try to get better, I get in and go. The roads I drive (A-roads, 50 and 60 limits, country lanes, potholed to bits) don't allow a steady 55mph or even 60mph cruise for more than a mile or two, with plenty of hills to climb too - so getting 50mpg, on my 10 mile each way trip, performed twice a day, is not as good as the quoted 66mpg (I'll take my drving to be "Combined"), but it's good enough.

If I drove like a numpty and caned it everywhere (I've tried...), I would still return over 45mpg. If I drove like my gran, changing up at 2000rpm, never going above 55mph, gentle braking etc etc, I doubt I'#d improve much on my economy, but I'd go stir crazy and cause traffic chaos.

MAYBE, just maybe, your car isn't suited for the journeys you do, the way you drive. Maybe the 1.9 wuold be better - dieselV6's previous car was a 1.9, but it was a 2002 car, so well run in and all that malarky.

To say driving style is irrelevant and to say SKoda are lying are both fallacies - but they are both only part of the issue. If you want to get a better economy read out, then you might have to changes some stuff, but probably not the car.

This is not a personal attack, I'm not saying you're clueless and it's all your fault, I have nothing to gain from trying to help you get better mpg - I don't owe Skoda anything, I'm just a 3 time Skoda diesel owner (2007 2.0 TDI 140 L&K Octy, 2009 1.9 Greenline Superb II, 2012 1.6 CR Monte Carlo) and other cars at the same time (rover 75 cDTi - really - Pug 106 1.1i, VW Golf Bluemotion 1.6 CR, Triumph 2500S). Before the skodas, I had some beasts - Jeep Grand Cherokee, Golf GTI (Mk3), Rover 45 (why did I do that to myself - turquoise too)...all were sheds to meet a need. the Skodas are the family cars, that I need to be reliable and cheap to run.

The Skodas have been the best to own (the Golf comes close, but is a bit staid), returning good MPG - not book MPG, but good. My wife gets 10mpg more than me, with the same engine in a bigger car - go figure that. Why? Driving style, type of roads, etc. The Pug gave me 45mpg, but was made of tin foil and scared me to drive with the kids in. the Rover felt like a barge and got 45mpg. So all different cars, different published figures, all getting the same sort of economy.

If you got a Greenline and expected to get 90mpg, without driving in a vacuum, at an unachievable road speed, then you'll be disappointed. BUT I would take it to the dealers and say - software update? Service (apparently first oil change helps)? My Dad did this with his TSI and his MPG increased slightly, so it could work for you too.

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!

Hi Greenline, if some one has a particulare view such as you do, that's fine. That's your view. But if someone come on the board asking for advice about a problem, at first only giving basic information and missing out the most important bit so we have to keep digging to find out the facts, and several people who have experience with this engine post with advice and information, and he ignores that advice and information and goes off in another direction and just simply isn't hearing anyone, that slightly different. We all accept diesel has a different mindset and he is cross about this (and I suspect many things in life!) then there isn't much one can do accept try to get through and do the best you can for him. Which in this case it seems pointless. The fact some of us are telling him to adapt his driving technique is completely relevant to his query. There are many techs on this site who will agree and many very knowledgeable posters too. Techs tell it like it is, that's there job and indeed was mine for a very long time. No one is being insulted and no one should take it that way. Sorry if you disagree. But have a good un!

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by Estate Man

...and yet more slander

Here are my PMs to Estate Man, I'll let you judge who is insulting:

"

Estate Man,

If you had started your posts with "Yes, the 1.6CR engines are rubbish when compared to old 1.9 in urban and mixed driving, yet the EU fuel economy test presents them as 20% better", and then offered advice how to get best fuel economy around town out of the 1.6CR nonsense, I would understand it and thank you for it.

Instead, you spend effort on defending the indefensible. 1.6CR does burn more fuel in town than 1.9 did. yet EU numbers for urban cycle suggest the opposite. Customers are being taken for a ride.

I was conned into buying a car I'd never buy if town economy figure was stated to be worse than 1.9.

And along the way you keep interweaving statements like " you must drive it wrong", "it is an isolated problem", "it is hard for you to understand", and so on, and so for. Patronising at best, offensive at worst.

"

And here is drivel from Estate Man, I highlighted the more interesting lines....

"

The problem is no one can get through to you. Why do you keep harping on about an obsolete car from x years ago? It's an interesting comparison but that's all it is. It's worlds apart from what we have to buy now. The 1.6cr engine does not need defending. It's about the best 1.6 diesel on the market as stated by just about every mag on the block and the many customers who buy it. It compares very very well with all the other modern diesels. But everything has changed and the fact you don't seem to know that indicates you simply haven't done your reseach, and you are just not prepared to listen. I don't know why you are posting in the Fabia section in the first instance. Would you not get a better response from that section. However, advising people on these matters professionally has been my job for the best part of 32 years as a senior tech and engineer working in main franchises. I can say catagorically that if you had bought the 2.0cr engined car you speak of, you would again be very surprised at just how bad the fuel economy is if used the same way as you use your Roomster. And for the umpteenth time, there lies the problem. It's not the car par se, it's the way you use it. Only it would be much worse with the 2.0cr. I had the 2.0cr Golf for a few weeks and it definetely doesn't like towns. Fuel consumption plummeted even when the engine was hot! So you are living in a dream world if you think that's the solution. It may have escaped your notice that pretty much everyone on here is getting very good fuel economy from their 1.6cr Fabia's. I know many of the individual on here who posted with the same complaints as you. To start with it wasn't so good for some and they have posted here about it. But with advice from this very good site and a variety of people, including me, they have pretty much all found out how to drive the car and how to best get good fuel economy out of it. Obviously, not eveyone is completely happy but most are. Those that fail to adapt don't succeed. It's the same for everyone. You will never get good fuel economy around town though if you continue to drive it like you do on such short cold trips and every other car on the market, petrol or diesel will fail miserably to satisfy you in that respect. No one, including you has been insulted. The fact you feel that way is unfortunate but you seem to have a very different take on things, and if I may say, a warped understanding of the whole concept of the subject we are talking about. I would strongly advise you let go of your fixation, open your mind and try some of the things you have been advised to do. I find some of your posts, as do some of my colleagues on this thread, insulting and mildy offensive. I've said all I'm going to say as you are completely unhelpable, if that's a word! The answer is in your own hands. Good luck.

"

And my polite response:

"

You mention you drove a lot of cars, you buy them privately, etc.

..And yet you seem to be OK with the fact that your newer diesel car burns more fuel than the old, heavier car did, despite brochure numbers stating exactly the opposite.

Care to answer that?

Statements such as "the 1.6Cr is best 1.6 engine around" mean little, they just mean all 1.6 engines are equally bad in town, with VW's 1.6CR being marginally better. Customers are still being conned into thinking their new replacement 1.6CR diesel will use less fuel than the old 1.9 did. Profit before ethics, I'd say.

"

and finally, EstateMan states on the forum:

"I'm pretty sure diesel hasn't realised how to interpret the eu fuel consumption figs. Pretty sure too he doesn't realise how driving 30 odd miles per week with a largely cold engine, intown, very badly affects his fuel economy. I get that from his slightly insulting pm's to me and what he is writing here. He isn't someone anyone can help! Shame really"

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.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

I see nothing but constructive advise given by Estateman but you seem to harangue at every opportunity ? , after all if you stretch an elastic band too much it snaps !

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by seboni121

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.

I see nothing but constructive advise given by Estateman but you seem to harangue at every opportunity ? , after all if you stretch an elastic band too much it snaps !

Perhaps you would care to answer the above instead? It seems extremely difficult to extract acknowledgement of the facts I stated from EstateMan.

Please bear in mind the numbers, repeated below, same driving course, same drivers. To clarify the "run in" nonsense, fuel consumption on Octy was stable after ca 1500 miles from new, and yes I did try the 1.6CR on both maxidot "drag the engine" and more sane rpm gear change points. The car does 2 cold 3m trips in the morning in town, and then frequently a couple longer trips in excess of 20m each, and of course occassional 100m-200m over weekend. No excess idling, and my fuel economy numbers are quoted for spring-autumn, they are ~5% worse in winter. The engine gets regular clean out of on the motorway just like my 1.9 did and 2.5 does.

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI110 2002, brochure urban cycle 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, real life 6.2l/100km or 46mpg, weight 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR105 2012, brochure urban cycle consumption 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, real life 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, weight 1250kg

Your new diesel uses more fuel. Did your 1.9 tdi from 2002 give that economy figure from day one, or did it take time to "bed in"?

Do the new engines give more of a damn about the environment? 1.6 CR is putting out 104 carbon thingies, 1.9 significantly more. Also the 1.9 isn't Euro 5.

So, foil hats on, the EU makes the regs, for emissions, publishes the test results for engines and in their labs the new engine is more economical and cleaner. Maybe the test of today is more complicated than that of 2002 for the 1.9. Will you be able to get the book figure? Nope. Will your we car get the mpg of your old car? Maybe not at first and with your driving style - like tuners find out, engines are set to run a particular way, maybe the 1.6 doesn't work as you need it to.

My advice? You see if you can change your driving style to get better economy - what would you lose?

Or

Put up with the figures. Getting riled by it isn't worth the hassle.

Manufacturers won't stop publishing mpg figures and won't tell you they're unachievable, but some people might try to offer advice to make the most of what you have.

As for your earlier post about extra fuel costs being up to £4000 over ten years, really? I'd be interested to see the workings out, but that alone should be enough to go to the dealer, as a valued customer, and ask if they can run a diagnostic check and offer any solutions to your poor economy.

To clarify the "run in" nonsense, fuel consumption on Octy was stable after ca 1500 miles from new, and yes I did try the 1.6CR on both maxidot "drag the engine" and more sane rpm gear change points. The car does 2 cold 3m trips in the morning in town, and then frequently a couple longer trips in excess of 20m each, and of course occassional 100m-200m over weekend. No excess idling, and my fuel economy numbers are quoted for spring-autumn, they are ~5% worse in winter. The engine gets regular clean out of on the motorway just like my 1.9 did and 2.5 does.

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI110 2002, brochure urban cycle 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, real life 6.2l/100km or 46mpg, weight 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR105 2012, brochure urban cycle consumption 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, real life 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, weight 1250kg

Your new diesel uses more fuel. Did your 1.9 tdi from 2002 give that economy figure from day one, or did it take time to "bed in"?

Do the new engines give more of a damn about the environment? 1.6 CR is putting out 104 carbon thingies, 1.9 significantly more. Also the 1.9 isn't Euro 5.

So, foil hats on, the EU makes the regs, for emissions, publishes the test results for engines and in their labs the new engine is more economical and cleaner. Maybe the test of today is more complicated than that of 2002 for the 1.9. Will you be able to get the book figure? Nope. Will your we car get the mpg of your old car? Maybe not at first and with your driving style - like tuners find out, engines are set to run a particular way, maybe the 1.6 doesn't work as you need it to.

....

As for your earlier post about extra fuel costs being up to £4000 over ten years, really? I'd be interested to see the workings out, but that alone should be enough to go to the dealer, as a valued customer, and ask if they can run a diagnostic check and offer any solutions to your poor economy.

Please read my earlier post, Octavia's fuel consumption figure was stable after 1500miles or so. EU fuel economy test has not changed significantly in the past 20+ years, NEDC: ECE R15 (1970) / EUDC (1990).

Re £4k lifetime extra costs, here it is, very simple really:

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI110 2002, brochure urban cycle 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, real life 6.2l/100km or 46mpg, weight 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR105 2012, brochure urban cycle consumption 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, real life 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, weight 1250kg

If Roomster's 1.6CR was also beating its urban cycle figure by 6.2l/6.8l = 0.9118, it would burn 0.9118*5.7l = 5.2l/100km

Roomster now burns 6.8l/100km, so I am paying extra £1.40*(6.8-5.2) = £2.24 per 100km. Assuming 10 years at 11k miles per year, or 110k miles / 177k km, The total cost of fuel due to misleading fuel economy figures in new engines is £2.24*177000/100 = £3965, or £4k approximately.

But as I had stated earlier, I'd have been happy with the current fuel consumption if only ECE tests stated the urban cycle number for 1.6CR is worse than urban cycle number for 1.9 was. As it stands, instead of expending effort on real life fuel savings, engine management software designers spend effort on getting absurd figures in ECE test. That is mainly what has changed compared to 10 or even 5 years ago. And in the meantime, customers are being duped into thinking they are to get overall more efficient cars.

Edited 28 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6