You do not need anyone to tell you if the car is capable of fixed vs variable nor rely on SUK propaganda (even if it is Master/Trained propaganda like with 4 year belt replacement con).

Just check the option codes in the log book for yourself, there will be QG0, QG1, or QG2 stamped there.

Option decoding:

QG0 - FIXED 10k (actually 9.3k, or 15000km) miles service interval

QG1 - VARIABLE service interval, long life, up to ~20k miles depending on oil wear, both oil and inspection done together

QG2 - FIXED 10k for oil and fixed 20k for service (actually 18.6k or 30000km) miles service interval, long life

Of course, anyone with VCDS or even without, includingthe dealer, can downgrade the car from QG1 variable to QG0 fixed service interval, but if you need to check if your car is capable of longlife servicing (has an extra oil sensor) then the car's log book should be your first port of call.

Edited 13 February, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Yeah, thanks Diesel - I went through the book and the owners manual looking for the sticker with the code and couldn't find what I was looking for.

Hence I rang the supplying dealer. No idea who I spoke to , but it wasn't just Janet on the front desk.

At the servicing dealer it was someone in servicing - yeah, they may spin the party dit and not have a clue, but I have today checked 5 websites (2 of which are car lease wesites, giving advice on car service intervals) - all state Fabias are on fixed 10k/12 month service plans.

The front of my service book says Variable - wait for the display indicator, couldn't find the sticker/stamp with the QG code.

It's done now and I'm happy enough to be on 10k/12month, peace of mind while it's a brand new car and in warranty etc.

Am I just a sheep, following the dreaded Skoda conspiracy? Maybe, but so far my independent thought has got me far enough to ask on here and there is still no definitive answer (although to me, the "official" word seems to be Fabias = fixed).

The sticker is in "service schedule" booklet, and another one is stuck in the boot under the carpet, usually in/around spare wheel well area. You can double check it there.

Edited 13 February, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Bad picture, but here is where the code shows in the service book.

Bottom left corner.

george

link below giving details of my GLII and code that says either fixed or variable

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/245293-greenline-ii-variable-service/page__hl__+variable%20+service#entry2882286

Usual daft question from a Blackline owner but is the Furby the same as the octy i.e. it can be on either variable or fixed, but the deciding factor is how you drive it/how many miles it does a year/ how long your average journeys are? Mines come set to vriable, but I'm on a fixed 12 months/10k service plan because I'm doing less than 10k a year.

Think what the golf is set to is a red herring in a way as we've got a Seat and that's fixed 12 months/10k with no variable option so the service regime seems to mbe fixed by the manufacturer and is not common across the VAG group for the same engines.

For the record, mine's a July12 vRS and on Variable. First service just shy of 19k a month ago.

Unlikely, although possible, that they know what servicing code is going on the car when they build the engine and fill it with oil....I was told that they all come with longlife oil in and thats all VAG engines...

I have finally resolved my very low mpg returns on my Fabia Greenline 11 Diesel. I'm part exchanging it for a new Kia Rio 2 Diesel. My new car will be ready March 6th. I've never had more than 55 mpg out of the Fabia since new and driving it on a long journey yesterday was the last straw when my trip showed 50 mpg.

I've done my homework properly this time and their cars appear to match more closely the published figures on fuel returns so hope to gain another 25 mpg at least!

You obviously missed that episode of Fifth Gear....

Good luck.

This roadtest was OK, but what got me excited was seeing one of my favourite roads outside of Scotland.

oft to Wales next month for a wee drive.

Next weeks snow driving in Scotland to enjoy first tho.

You do not need anyone to tell you if the car is capable of fixed vs variable nor rely on SUK propaganda (even if it is Master/Trained propaganda like with 4 year belt replacement con).

Just check the option codes in the log book for yourself, there will be QG0, QG1, or QG2 stamped there.

Option decoding:

QG0 - FIXED 10k (actually 9.3k, or 15000km) miles service interval

QG1 - VARIABLE service interval, long life, up to ~20k miles depending on oil wear, both oil and inspection done together

QG2 - FIXED 10k for oil and fixed 20k for service (actually 18.6k or 30000km) miles service interval, long life

Of course, anyone with VCDS or even without, includingthe dealer, can downgrade the car from QG1 variable to QG0 fixed service interval, but if you need to check if your car is capable of longlife servicing (has an extra oil sensor) then the car's log book should be your first port of call.

Servicing codes have changed for newer vehicles;

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/259799-service-codes-changed-and-monte-on-variable-servicing/

Regards,

TP

This roadtest was OK, but what got me excited was seeing one of my favourite roads outside of Scotland.

oft to Wales next month for a wee drive.

Next weeks snow driving in Scotland to enjoy first tho.

Video was done just down the road

Funny old thing fuel use. I had my first 1.2 petrol, 4 years ago. I was not expecting miracles, but it was Ok. I was driving 400 miles to work and back every weekend. I then ran into an elk. Elk dead, car seriously injured.

A small digression. My really expensive sun glasses were in the little folder near the mirror. The middle of the roof, was most of the way down to the dash, and glasses were folded in half. I wrote to Skoda saying how even then, the doors still worked. Hardly a straight panel on the car! Skoda kindly sent me a brand new pair. Very kind.

I was then "given" , a brand new 1,2. LIke chalk and cheese. Quieter, smoother, and more MPG. So quiet in fact, I found my self flat out in 3rd, thinking it was 5th, on a few occasions.

Fuel is amazing. I fill it up, 40 litres, and know have 900 kms to go. If I put on the air con I can see the consumption go up. If I drive manually, it gets better. I usually drive with cruise control.

So my average is better than 55MPG. I know if i drive carefully i can get a lot more, but frankly, spending 6 or 7 hours driving on Friday evening, is not conducive to taking it easy.

Skoda's certainly do it for me.

Sorry to ask but did you really expect to get anywhere near the official fuel figures? No one ever does, regardless of car and 55mpg really aint that bad...

I know I have mentioned this before but manufacturers figures are nonsense.

Normal driving never achieves them.

The test allows 50 seconds to get to 62mph, for instance; who on earth drives like that on public roads in normal traffic conditions.

55 mpg is great.

Tony

FYI.......

Feb 26 (Reuters) - Hyundai Motor Co has agreed in principle to settle several lawsuits from U.S. consumers who said they were duped by the automaker's misleading fuel economy claims, according to a filing made in federal court on Tuesday.

Hyundai's affiliate Kia Motors Corp, also being sued for overstating the fuel economy of some models, is evaluating whether to join the settlement, according to the filing.

Both companies are facing lawsuits after announcing in early November that they overstated the fuel economy performance on more than 1 million recently sold vehicles by at least one mile per gallon.

A settlement amount was not disclosed. Hyundai offered a lump sum payment option as part of its settlement proposal.

Lawyers for Hyundai and the plaintiff drivers said they plan to file more details on the settlement with the court. A hearing to discuss the accord and how to implement it is scheduled for Thursday morning.

The companies' admission came after a probe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which found errors in the mileage ratings of 13 Hyundai and Kia models from 2011 to 2013 model years.

Both companies agreed to compensate owners for the added fuel costs. Under the plan, customers will receive a debit card that will reimburse them for the difference in fuel economy, plus an extra 15 percent to acknowledge the inconvenience.

Edited 9 March, 201313 yr by lol

Is a 1.6 CR Roomster really 200kg lighter than a 2002 1.9 TDi Octavia?

FYI.......

Feb 26 (Reuters) - Hyundai Motor Co has agreed in principle to settle several lawsuits from U.S. consumers who said they were duped by the automaker's misleading fuel economy claims, according to a filing made in federal court on Tuesday.

Hyundai's affiliate Kia Motors Corp, also being sued for overstating the fuel economy of some models, is evaluating whether to join the settlement, according to the filing.

Both companies are facing lawsuits after announcing in early November that they overstated the fuel economy performance on more than 1 million recently sold vehicles by at least one mile per gallon.

A settlement amount was not disclosed. Hyundai offered a lump sum payment option as part of its settlement proposal.

Lawyers for Hyundai and the plaintiff drivers said they plan to file more details on the settlement with the court. A hearing to discuss the accord and how to implement it is scheduled for Thursday morning.

The companies' admission came after a probe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which found errors in the mileage ratings of 13 Hyundai and Kia models from 2011 to 2013 model years.

Both companies agreed to compensate owners for the added fuel costs. Under the plan, customers will receive a debit card that will reimburse them for the difference in fuel economy, plus an extra 15 percent to acknowledge the inconvenience.

Ah well probably get the card as well then ! "NOT"

The Hyundai issue was because they had labelled the cars with a lower number than the officially tested figure. Skoda are (technically) off the hook because it's not their fault consumers can't drive cars like the official testers in controlled conditions.

Edited 9 March, 201313 yr by OzFabia

The Hyundai issue was because they had labelled the cars with a lower number than the officially tested figure. Skoda are (technically) off the hook because it's not their fault consumers can't drive cars like the official testers in controlled conditions.

Who would buy a car to drive it in a laboratory on a rolling road? i am quite sure many of us could drive like the testers in their conditions.

But on the road you get the mpg that you want to achieve by altering the way you drive.

I have a couple of long journeys coming up and will be delighted with 38 mpg, which I consider outstanding for a £16,500 estate car with 180 hp and 0-60 under 7 secs. All considered, I don't think any estate car in the world can match that?

Tony

North Americans. (not Canadians) and even some in the UK get all mixed up reading MPG & Roadtests.

One example is on Toyota/Scion Forums.

Some are not switched on enough to know that a Gallon of petrol 'US' is less fuel than a Gallon Imperial.

You are getting near a 3/4 litre less. (3.78 litres in a US Gallon)

Same cars sometimes, different/less MPG when in the US of A.

*If you look at the 'Fuel Consumption Statement',

Foot of the linked page & you will find it.

Tested at the 'Unladen Weight'.*

Not so many drive vehicles at the Unladen Weight, when you do tho, makes a difference when going up and down hills. Or actually just outside *

george

But then we already knew this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-21759258

Am in N America at the mo and a gallon of petrol is roughly 3.60 dollars

Very cheap but they are getting shafted in other ways

Toll booths every few mile and there is one just outside N York which is 13 dollars every time you go through it!

Parking not cheap either,saw a place yesterday over a tenner for 30mins,although that was one of the dearer ones

Edited 14 March, 201313 yr by dazz600

I know I have mentioned this before but manufacturers figures are nonsense.

Normal driving never achieves them.

The test allows 50 seconds to get to 62mph, for instance; who on earth drives like that on public roads in normal traffic conditions.

55 mpg is great.

Tony

Yet, when I witnessed the actual tests being carried out at a well known european factory last year, the driver was following a very realistic driving map...very much like many of us actually would drive on our way to work or whatever. I could not fault the program. While many don't achieve the figures published in brochures, many DO actually achieve or come close the European Passenger Car fuel consumption figures. And as we have all discussed until we are blue in the face, some will never achieve those figures because of where they live, the topograhy, the length of journey, their driving style and speed they adopt, the state of the car, the amount of traffic they encounter, the weather conditions etc etc. It took me 45 seconds to get to 60mph this morning due to traffic on the dual carriage way, not unlike other mornings. All normal, and it can take much longer some mornings. Other times I might put my foot down and get there in around 13 seconds if there is a gap. But that doesn't do much for the fuel economy and I would not achieve the regular 61mpg I normally get on that regular run, incidentally the eu book figure for my vehicle. But I do see where you are coming from Tony. Incidentally, the performance of your VRs Estate is subliminal! There are great aren't they. I've got one to take to Leeds in a few days! Can't wait! I wonder what fuel economy it will give?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21759258

Yes, I've seen that report too. In testing, it doesn't actually work quite like that. The report is a not saying the official tests are carried out with taped body seams and over pressurised tyres. What happens in reality is the manufacturers carryout loads of tests on vehicles, to try out different engine mods and even minor body adjustments to see what difference it makes to the cars economy. That's partly how engines are developed and tested. This type of testing will include those mods mentioned plus many more sometimes. But for the actual official test itself the vehicles I saw being tested were completely standard and being observed by EU inspectors. It is allowed to increase the tyre pressures of cold tyres to the equivilant hot pressures for some of the testing as it's then fully replicates, or as near as is possible, the actual on road experience. Can the tests be made better so they satisfy everyone...NO! When we had steady 56mph testing, it was just the same mismatch then too. Everyone saying how unrealistic the test was and how manufacturers were duping us all. Nothing changes...just take the figure with a pinch of salt because many will never achieve then just as many actually do!

Yes, I've seen that report too. In testing, it doesn't actually work quite like that. The report is a not saying the official tests are carried out with taped body seams and over pressurised tyres. What happens in reality is the manufacturers carryout loads of tests on vehicles, to try out different engine mods and even minor body adjustments to see what difference it makes to the cars economy. That's partly how engines are developed and tested. This type of testing will include those mods mentioned plus many more sometimes. But for the actual official test itself the vehicles I saw being tested were completely standard and being observed by EU inspectors. It is allowed to increase the tyre pressures of cold tyres to the equivilant hot pressures for some of the testing as it's then fully replicates, or as near as is possible, the actual on road experience. Can the tests be made better so they satisfy everyone...NO! When we had steady 56mph testing, it was just the same mismatch then too. Everyone saying how unrealistic the test was and how manufacturers were duping us all. Nothing changes...just take the figure with a pinch of salt because many will never achieve then just as many actually do!

Ive never ever thought i would achieve the figures the manufacturer stated for fuel consumption.

I dont know how they achieve the figures but i do think they polish them somehow..

For my 1.2 TSI engine they state 5.2liters/100km mixed driving and 4.4liters/100km regular roads. My best ever achieved fuel consumption with my car is 5.4liters/100km but that time i was so gentle on the throttle all the time and never exceeded 100km/h.. I might be able to push it down to around 5.0liters/100km with summer tires and when the engine have been run in, but im NEVER going to get close to the stated figures.

But for me i knew that the stated figures by skoda should be considerd with a big grain of salt, just take the official figures and multiply it with 1.2 and you get your achievable fuel consumption..