Hi george, yes...with you on that. Probably another thread required for that subject. But remember the figures, although they relate to Skoda cars in this instance, are not actual Skoda produced figures. The figures are produced by the EU agents for the EU Commissioner. Skoda take no part in the tests par se (unless they use there own test facility under the commissioners inspectors) but must publish the EU figures by law under the conditions of the EU. They cannot deviate from the figures and like all manufacturers have no choice in what those figures are. Skoda do not claim that their cars will achieve these figures, but in testing by the EU the figure were....whatever the brochure says. Some here are in fact libelling/defaming Skoda believing Skoda to be responsible for the production of the figures and that somehow there is some sort of conspiracy. Whether the figures are accurate or not is another matter, but if they are not it's actually not the fault of Skoda. They have to obey the law and it's the same of course for all manufacturers. I've seen the actual testing done and I've been involved in a small way in engine development and I can assure you there is considerable misunderstanding, confusion and misinformation in the press about how the tests are done and how the manufacturers go about the lead up to the tests with some believing manufacturers somehow produce cars with a design spec especially for the tests. That is utterly incorrect I assure you and would be counter productive for the manufacturer to do so. Interesting subject though.

I've just bought a Skoda Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp and am getting appalling fuel consumption. I've read various entries on here about the mpg improving, but generally the people are starting within 50's mpg (normally middle to high) and going into the 60's and even, according to one post, the 70's. My story is slightly different. I am currently getting around 48mpg and with the cold weather, this appears to be decreasing slightly towards 45-46mpg. My car has about 1400 miles on the clock and the mpg has been consistent from the start at 48mpg. I understand that during running in, the car should gradually get a better mpg, but I'm starting from a much lower beginning than others on here and something like a 35% increase would be required to get to anything like a reasonable figure.

I should add at this point that I drive almost exclusively on dual-carriageways with some roundabouts and a small section of single-carriageway. In general, I'm looking for something around the combined figure.

Compared to my old car (a Toyota Yaris 1.4 D4D), the fuel economy is appalling. The Yaris had slightly worse economy figures (combined 64mpg) and always achieved between 60-65mpg on this journey, from brand new. This is a Euro III engine from a 10 year old (at least) design. Therefore, I was looking forward to getting something around the combined figure for the Fabia. If the Fabia achieved anywhere between 60 and 65mpg, I would have accepted it. However, the 48mpg is just so low. My wife also has a Ford Galaxy 2.0 TD 140bhp (new shape Mark III), a Euro IV engine and can achieve 50mpg with ease over the journey and that's a much bigger engine and much heavier car.

I'm currently in dispute with Skoda as the figure is ludicrously low and nobody can offer me anything near a credible reason why. Additionally, unless it improves, I'll be spending another £750 a year on diesel over my old Yaris. At the moment, the purchase looks like a mistake of epic proportions. If the car had started in the 50's (preferably middle to high), I would continue and see how it pans out, buoyed by the entries on here explaining how it goes up. However, as it hasn't even left the 40's at the moment, the rise required is enourmous.

Your comments and advice would be most welcome.

P.S.

In every other respect I think the car is great, but I simply can't afford to have something drinking this much diesel, especially with prices rising all the time.

2012 Skoda Fabia MPG Reports | Fuelly

It would seem most of my fellow Fabia drivers haven't got a clue how to drive either.

Skoda are lying ******s!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There we go again, ran out of arguments, cannot comment on facts, personal attack it is then.

Incidentally, if you drive 1.9PD or 1.9IP at low rpm, you end up with vibration. A lot of shudder, just like when reading your posts . The ASV engine at least does not like to work below 1700rpm, no balancer shafts there. So your words are again pure nonsense.

Also, re my high speed driving, once again you are quoting things out of context (because I stated in another thread that I drive Mk1 2.5TDI Superb on autobahn a lot, and Roomster is the backup car now that Octy 1 is gone), just like your friends Estate Man and Kiwibacon do. Frankly, this is the thread about dodgy 1.6CR engine, so why won't you contribute something technical instead of personal attacks?

Finally, EstateMan, you still have not answered my question, just descended into off-topic drivel on libel etc , so here it is for you again:

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.

Care to answer that rather than change topic yet again? (not that I am having my hopes up)

Edited 29 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Ran out of arguments? Nope. Ran out of patience.

Seriously, stop polluting this forum with your endless drivel. You are ruining it.

2012 Skoda Fabia MPG Reports | Fuelly

It would seem most of my fellow Fabia drivers haven't got a clue how to drive either.

Skoda are lying ******s!!!!

Well, to please EstateMan, Kiwibacon, BossFox and the like, it is not just Skoda, everyone using EU fuel economy test and designing engine software just to pass the test with the best mark is. Not much consolation though after shelling out a £15k on a new car and learning you need 4k more on fuel over its ownership time.

Edited 29 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Ran out of arguments? Nope. Ran out of patience.

Seriously, stop polluting this forum with your endless drivel. You are ruining it.

Kiwibacon, you did it once, and you are doing it again. Please stop personal attacks, and contribute technically, or stop reading this thread altogether if you are bored with it.

They are only cars,

and if you have the knowledge to argue over their performance and economy, then surely you have the knowledge to go out and find one that suits your needs for economy and performance.

Shanks Pony, get on your bike, train or bus or buy cars you like. seems simple enough.

george

Kiwibacon' date=' you did it once, and you are doing it again. Please stop personal attacks, and contribute technically, or stop reading this thread altogether if you are bored with it. [/quote']

There is no personal attack in there. Just a plain, simple and 100% correct observation.

A personal attack would be, for example, calling you ugly and stupid. Which I did not do.

I was quite happy with this thread and to date I have pulled out the single biggest technical contribution (BSFC map), but it has been drowned out and completely ruined by your constant ranting.

No-one cares about your fuel consumption. Go away.

They are only cars,

and if you have the knowledge to argue over their performance and economy, then surely you have the knowledge to go out and find one that suits your needs for economy and performance.

Shanks Pony, get on your bike, train or bus or buy cars you like. seems simple enough.

george

Prior to purchase I did look into cars based on EU fuel economy figures, which, as I have stated, are pure nonsense even when you compare a Skoda to another Skoda.

Of course, it would be best to see ful economy on a real car, in realistic conditions. That would make sense if you could test drive a car for a week or so, I know they do this in Germany. However, back here in the UK, every demonstrator I got to drive had engine warmed up already. 1.6CR is really bad only when cold engine. In fact, since a few posts earlier there was an off-topic remark on my high speed driving in the Superb, I can tell you that 1.6CR at full load and about 3400rpm is very efficient, 33mpg at 116mph (in a Roomster!). But the 1.6CR when compared to older 1.9s is not efficient at all when cold and at part load, then it uses a ton of fuel. But you will never see the latter problem from EU urban cycle figures.

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

Ran out of arguments? Nope. Ran out of patience.

Seriously, stop polluting this forum with your endless drivel. You are ruining it.

There is no personal attack in there. Just a plain, simple and 100% correct observation.

A personal attack would be, for example, calling you ugly and stupid. Which I did not do.

I was quite happy with this thread and to date I have pulled out the single biggest technical contribution (BSFC map), but it has been drowned out and completely ruined by your constant ranting.

No-one cares about your fuel consumption. Go away.

No, you are definitely discussing technical issues here, Kiwibacon. I can see it clearly from these last few posts. You do not even own a 1.6CR, you live in a country where average temperature is a good 5degC -10degC higher than in UK/Europe, how do you feel able to discuss poor fuel consumption of a 1.6CR engine from cold? Only in theory? We already covered theory, it is called EU urban cycle fuel economy test figures and it does not work. Plus from Fabia fuelly and earlier posts here, it would seem other people have same issue with dodgy EU test results vs real life 1.6CR's thirst.

My ambient temperature locally is very different to ours today i would think.

Since November there have been 3 Cold Weather triggers for 7 days of 0 Degree Celsius here.

I can better the official Skoda figures in winter or summer ambient conditions,

EU Urban Cycle means nothing.

If you were 17 years old buying a car with no previous knowledge or experience i could understand your complaints.

People lie, Governments & Manufacturers/Companies lie, individuals lie,

life is like an Ashtray, full if Little doups.

george

Presuming this forum has an "ignore list" function somewhere.

The average temperature of a city I used to live in is 9 degrees C. Same as mainland europe apparently. Current location is about 11C average, weeks like this one push up the average.

Just in case anyone hasn't realised, a 1.9 PD engined Octavia is 200kg heavier than a 1.6 CR engined Roomster, and yet the Roomster uses 20% more fuel in town than said Octavia

According to ONE person anyway

I can better the official Skoda figures in winter or summer ambient conditions,

...

EU Urban Cycle means nothing.

If you were 17 years old buying a car with no previous knowledge or experience i could understand your complaints.

Your sig says vRS, it is a 1.4TSI petrol engine, glad to hear petrols still can live up to their values, but it's the DPFed 1.6CR we are talking about here. The comparison of engines based on EU fuel economy numbers used to be possible and reliable till a few years back. Even if in real life you never achieved the quoted numbers, engine that quoted less fuel in town used less fuel in town . But recent numbers departed too far from reality, you take a number from 2012 brochure, compare to 2002 brochure, and the newer, more thirsty 1.6CR engine looks better than the old 1.9. That is a step too far.

Presuming this forum has an "ignore list" function somewhere.

The average temperature of a city I used to live in is 9 degrees C. Same as mainland europe apparently. Current location is about 11C average, weeks like this one push up the average.

...but you do not drive 1,6CR, again you just took the bit you liked and ignored everything else. Let people who actually drive the 1.6CR and have a direct experience with it post here please. Noone forces you to read this thread.

Just in case anyone hasn't realised, a 1.9 PD engined Octavia is 200kg heavier than a 1.6 CR engined Roomster, and yet the Roomster uses 20% more fuel in town than said Octavia

According to ONE person anyway

It's been stated earlier, why won't you go and spam some other thread Brimma? 21166 posts in 4 years, and you also do not own a 1.6CR, nor drive it around town. At the very least, read posts from other people complaining about the same issue, and the Fabia fuelly quoted a few links back...

Edited 29 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Such Fun! (a nod to Miranda...)

GREENLINE - it reads as if you have much vehemence and anger in you...relax.

Skoda do not lie. THEY HAVE, BY LAW, TO PUBLISH THE EU FIGURES FOR THEIR VEHICLES. So, maybe (foil hats at the ready) it's the EU conspiring to get us all in shiny new cars, that pollute less, then get them more fuel duty in the course of their life...

Further, saying that 17 reports on "fuelly" (petrol and diesel) "proves" that all Fabias are thirsty is nonsense, in the same way that 97% of Max Factor users would recommmend it (from a survey of 97 users...wow, that's a statistical fact that is).

DieselV6 - your posts are similar in tune, in that you want an answer to the EU test question - as I said before, they won't change it, because it is and has been for 20 years (or whatever you said) standard. It allows comparison of figures to inform purchase choices. No manufacturer claims their vehicle would achieve the figure, as they would be open to the trade description business. If you choose to purchase based on the figures, without looking on here, or in magazines, or driving, to get a broader base of information, then you simply made a bad choice (in hindsight).

It's been stated earlier, why won't you go and spam some other thread Brimma? 21166 posts in 4 years, and you also do not own a 1.6CR, nor drive it around town. At the very least, read posts from other people complaining about the same issue, and the Fabia fuelly quoted a few links back...

To the contrary, I own a 2012 1.6 CR Fabia Elegance estate (you'd have realised that if you'd actually bothered to read my posts instead of stopping at my username and post count), so I am perfectly qualified to comment on it's performance and economy

It is indeed YOU who has spammed every thread possible to try to brainwash everyone into thinking the 1.6 CR is a heap of junk

I learnt a long while ago that you will not get anywhere near the quoted figures in certain circumstances - you read up, you chose your car - either live with it or sell it

It allows comparison of figures to inform purchase choices.

No they do not anymore, that is the issue. Urban cycle figures are a complete con.

Funnily enough, I agree with the rest of your post PDBIK (even with that in hindisght a 2.0CR Octy would have been better and same/less total cost over 10 years). Next time I will check fuel consumption on the forums first and take a first test drive in the morning to get a cold engine. I guess that 20 years of VW's 1.9 and 2.0 engines that consistently returned good fuel economy wherever they were used, spoiled myself and quite a few recent 1.6CR engine buyers into thinking newer engines will be at least as good in town driving.

However, if we are to seek advice on the forums, it is one more argument against the senseles bashing of anyone who dares to post about poor fuel economy. We need information, not whitewash here on Briskoda.

So here is my appeal again:

Posted Yesterday, 20:14

philhoward, on 28 January 2013 - 16:38, said:

So, dieselV6 - what do you want from us?

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

So as you can see, not much

It is indeed YOU who has spammed every thread possible to try to brainwash everyone into thinking the 1.6 CR is a heap of junk

I learnt a long while ago that you will not get anywhere near the quoted figures in certain circumstances - you read up, you chose your car - either live with it or sell it

You read up, you see 2012 fuel consumption figure better than 2002 fuel consumption figure and.... in real life opposite is true. Re spamming, I commented on 1.6CR on a few threads, yes, whenever it was mentioned how great engine it is. It is not bad to drive, except poor fuel consumption from cold, around town, and is better for Fabia sized cars than Roomster/New Octavia which are heavier. Inconvenient to VAG/Skoda salesmen perhaps, but true.

Edited 29 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Presuming this forum has an "ignore list" function somewhere.

Profile -> Edit my profile -> 'Ignore' preferences.

Ok got it...

In my world, none of the figures are actually real world figures, they are a 6st girl driving somewhere on a very still day, perfect everything... given that and no manufacturer is going to do the official test figure run 4 up with 200kgs of climbing gear in the boot, they must all be relative.

Ok so once the figures leave the printing press they are all relative lies to real world experience.

You as an adult need to decide what is therefore right or wrong. Heck I couldn't even get 40+ out of a hybrid, I was ringing it's neck over the Strines, see nothing in the real world is really ever the same, so as it's relative your findings are your own.

I can't use ignore so this is my way of saying got it...

Reality smack head, check, stop reaching for the tit for tat calling, school like antics, no one is going to be impressed that you called names first or last.

Discussion good, needless argument bad.

100.times do; puts "I must think how this post will help another human being"; end
if person.neck.wound("out")
person.neck.windIn()
end

As said previous v6 I've owned 2 ,1.6 crtdi 105 bhp engined vehicles one fabia elegance and one golf match which I drive now, the fabia was getting easy 60-65 mpg around here, very rural roads so a lot off gear changing and the golf is slightly better on fuel but not much, the mpg drops very much in winter but to be expected I gather, but once weather warms its mpg is touching 70 mpg both fabia and golf, so either you are driving it wrong ( apparently you've dismissed this theory) or you a problem of one sort or another hope this helps?, now I'm going too do what kiwi bacon is doing as we speak or type anyways

Always happy to help seboni I'm out

I've just bought a Skoda Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp and am getting appalling fuel consumption. I've read various entries on here about the mpg improving, but generally the people are starting within 50's mpg (normally middle to high) and going into the 60's and even, according to one post, the 70's. My story is slightly different. I am currently getting around 48mpg and with the cold weather, this appears to be decreasing slightly towards 45-46mpg. My car has about 1400 miles on the clock and the mpg has been consistent from the start at 48mpg. I understand that during running in, the car should gradually get a better mpg, but I'm starting from a much lower beginning than others on here and something like a 35% increase would be required to get to anything like a reasonable figure.

I should add at this point that I drive almost exclusively on dual-carriageways with some roundabouts and a small section of single-carriageway. In general, I'm looking for something around the combined figure.

....

If it's any consulation my MK6 Golf 1.6 TDI (105bhp) started out at about 48 mpg but slowly improved to the current 56mpg and it looks like its improving slightly with additional milaeage.The 1.6TDI engine in my experience is not as economical as the published test results indicate . Our 2010 Octavia 1.9TDI is more economical.

Seboni, just as the original poster in this thread, I never see the fantastic fuel economy numbers, I quoted also a statement from someone owning an 1.9 Octy and they also stated it was burning less fuel. Amazingly, I am not the only one experiencing this. Funnily enough, I also had a DPF sensor failure after 6 months of ownership.

The trouble is, Skoda does not care about poor fuel economy, if there is no error code in the ECU and the engine is not on fire, the car is perfect as far as they are concerned. Or in the words of so many whitewash posts in this thread, SUK attitude is "you must be driving it wrong"....Why are the 1.9 and 2.0 engines so easy to drive then?

Edited 29 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Are you sure they drop a dieselV6 in the Roomster by mistake?

Might be worth checking

One other tidbit on how the EU tests in urban cycle could take no DPF into account at all:

Just in case anyone hasn't realised, a 1.9 PD engined Octavia is 200kg heavier than a 1.6 CR engined Roomster, and yet the Roomster uses 20% more fuel in town than said Octavia

According to ONE person anyway

If it's any consulation my MK6 Golf 1.6 TDI (105bhp) started out at about 48 mpg but slowly improved to the current 56mpg and it looks like its improving slightly with additional milaeage.The 1.6TDI engine in my experience is not as economical as the published test results indicate . Our 2010 Octavia 1.9TDI is more economical.

Read the thread, actually the first page is enough.

Edited 29 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

That's the point dieselV6, it's not enough to read just the first post. You need to read all of them. And I think this is a good time to remind everyone that Mike Hart posted recently (as have others who posted earlier on in this thread that they were not too happy with mpg's) that he is getting good mpg's out of his car now, and our new troubled poster should actually read this thread properly. Albeit there is a qualification in Mikes last post that his mpg's drop off a bit if he goes at motorway speeds, but he is hitting the big figures. And Mike really did have mpg problems for some reason to start with, for reasons perhaps not clear. But a problem not encountered by most even if that's not apparent from this thread.

This is of course Mike's thread. It is now very long and there has been some fantastic information posted on here that I for one have found very informative personally and helpful in my work. There have been many contributors. It's raised a number of issues that we've all discussed and Mike Hart highlighted and followed through with some of these issues. At the time of Mikes initial post the 90ps versions where not that common in Fabia's so it's been a journey of discovery. I too followed through with a survey of my own on some of the 'troubled' cars, as some of you know and made some interesting observations that I've already posted about.

I for one thank Mike Hart for this thread and his honesty in posting his problems and findings and the many of you that have contributed, even dieselV6, as he is a decent guy I'm sure and he brings an errrr....interesting approach to getting information about his problem. Although somewhat too cross and fixated to see what he needs to see, I do wish him well.

Colin, this is just the best site man!

Edited 30 January, 201313 yr by Estate Man

That's the point dieselV6, it's not enough to read just the first post. You need to read all of them. And I think this is a good time to remind everyone that Mike Hart posted recently (as have others who posted earlier on in this thread that they were not too happy with mpg's) that he is getting good mpg's out of his car now, and our new troubled poster should actually read this thread properly. Albeit there is a qualification in Mikes last post that his mpg's drop off a bit if he goes at motorway speeds, but he is hitting the big figures. And Mike really did have mpg problems for some reason to start with, for reasons perhaps not clear. But a problem not encountered by most even if that's not apparent from this thread.

....

EstateMan, I did read the thread. and no, Mike is not happy at all with the 1.6CR, just happier, but still disappointed with mileage he gets.

I quote for you the 2 most recent posts from OP, highlighted the more interesting tidbits which are also my experience:

Please note that OP's car does motorway/out of town driving mostly, so he would be expecting numbers above 65mpg, given car's 78mpg extra urban cycle figure.

Also note that for Mike's Fabia 1.6CR 90bhp, brochure fuel economy numbers are 10% better than for my Roomster, on account of lighter/smaller car. So even the 60mpg he would be getting is very poor compared to brochure data, and I am sure most 1.9 Fabia owners would comfortably beat that figure out of town (again showing 1.6CR EU fuel economy numbers are contradicting reality).

Fabia 1.9CR90bhp Fuel consumption - Urban 55.4, Extra urban 78.5, Combined 67.3

Haven't contributed for some time, but as I started this thread, thought I'd provide an update. My 90bhp Fabia has now done 13,000 miles and the mpg has increased some, but still pretty poor (in my opinion). At 70mph, I can just scrape 50mpg, but it's tight. Drop to 55mph and drive really, really carefully and I can get a bit over 60mpg. In other words, the mpg has gone up about 5 at 70mph. I find this pretty damn disappointing. Add to this the recent failure of a temperature sensor in the DPF, which resulted in a warning light and continuous regen, I'm not very happy. The dealership were appalling and Skoda central (their help line) are absolutely useless. I might as well shouted at the wall.

Not sure where to go from here. Either the car is faulty (I suspect this, but they can't find anything), or the performance is so far from their figures, I feel it is total misrepresentation. However, as they're a car company, they can sell rubbish and seem immune to everything the rest of the world has to abide by. I have a mind to write to the British MD, but if the rest of the 'help' they offer is anything to go by, I suspect I won't even get a response.

I'm really disappointed by the car. It has proven to not do anything like the mpg they claim, has been unreliable and their service is rubbish. Wish I had my old Toyota Yaris back and if I could, I would go back and pay for a new head gasket. That was 60mpg all day every day no matter how I drove. I could do 70-80mph and it would return 60mpg.

Are others (I recall others from before) still as disappointed? Not sure what the resale value is now, but considering chopping the heap in.

Mike

Hello again. Well, interesting times once more. The car is achieving between55 and 58mpg at the moment, albeit not at 70mph. I've read the comments earlier about whether the test is at fault or my car isn't representative, but the issue I find most worrying is the DPF regeneration. If one is occuring and I need to slow down considerable because I hit traffic, the engine shakes something terrible and appears very close to stalling. Should this occur whilst in queued traffic, I'd venture it's even dangerous as the car can suddenly accelerate as the engine picks up a little trying to avoid stalling. At least, that's my interpretation, but speed control becomes 'interesting' with the engine revs fluctuating around and the shaking.

Skoda have investigated this, including their central people in Milton Keynes over an internet link and insist nothing is wrong. There are numerous postings all over the net of other people encountering this and someone who has replied to this thread has also encountered this. One person has even posted that the only 'fix' was to replace the DPF. A big and expensive job that I'm sure Skoda aren't about to do. Personally, I suspect there's something wrong with a sensor or similar, but Skoda are unable to do anything unless the computer sees a fault, and it doesn't.

I've already had a DPF temperature sensor fail (which was replaced under warrantly) and it looks like I'm about to pay another visit. All the interior fan settings with the exception of 4 don't work anymore. Looking online, it would appear the blower resistor (although I believe it actually contains several) has failed. Another job under warrantly. This is rapidly becoming the most unreliable car I've ever owned, with two repairs within 18 months of buying (23,000 miles) and I'm sure a latent problem with the engine somewhere.

Finally, whether it is 10x 1.6CR engines or all 1.6CR engines showing that problem, it does not matter much if it is the engine you paid full ticket price for and using fuel you paid for is the one that is affected and the seller washed up their hands of fixing the problem. Basically, I paid 25% over invoice price if you account for the extra fuel wasted over the life of the car. Buying 1.6CR is a lottery at best, at least I know now which engine I have permanently crossed off my purchase list.