I bought this car last october and it seems to be drinking petrol for fun? Its going in for service this week so i thought id quiz the dealers about it but before i do does this sound right-

44mpg on a 70 mile run at 60mph on cruise control, should be up at 60ish i would have thought?

23-25mpg round the houses doing the school run etc, should be 30-35?

Average over all about 33mpg, not even close to whats quoted.

Car has 7k on the clock, apart from the odd bit of over taking I don't rag it in the slightest.

Welcome to the forum.

I think your MPG sounds about right for winter time.

Depends where you stay.

Cold starts in the morning so around 25 mpg for the first 5 miles.

Others with the same car will be able to say,

but you seem to be getting pretty much like a vRS does in the way of MPG.

(cruise control gives me a lower AVG MPG showing when used/tried on a route that i regularly drive just in 'D' & no CC on at the same speed.)

george

The 1.2 tsi dsg will never do 60mpg on a run - 50 tops.

As George says sounds about right for winter and not knowing your driving style/journeys and traffic.

Take the manufacturer figures with a pinch of salt!

Yeah I take them with a pinch of salt, 15-20% would be ok ish but 40% seems a bit much. I've aways been a citroen person and they always seem to be within 10% or so. I use a berlingo 1.6 van for my business and that averages just under 50mpg, citroen state 55mpg combined. We had a C3 airdream before this fabia and it did 58mpg over a year doing the same driving, citroen state 64mpg. I'm sure from those figures you can see the car doesn't get ragged

Looking round the forum it seems I'm not the only one who has poor MPG, like 30-40% or even more below what skoda claim?

Only went with the Fabia because the wife didn't like the new C3.

My 1.2 (105bhp) DSG Roomster is returning between 37 and 45 mpg, roughly 450 to 550 miles per tank. Usual range is closer to 450, with 550 miles being the best it has achieved on a long run. Ambient temperature certainly has an effect on mpg, lower the temp worse the mpg (things like idle speed kept higher for longer, whilst the engine heats up).

It needs pointing out that the Roomster tank is 55 litres compared to the Fabia @ 45 litres.

So possibly 2 gallons more fuel in the Roomster.

So obviously range per tank very different even if their were to be similar MPGs.

On an exactly the same run, carrying the same passengers and luggage i would be hoping the Lighter and possibly more aerodynamic Fabia would be more frugal on fuel.

(no idea what the 'official' Skoda Figures show on the MPG for these tho.)

george

I have a 86HP manual 1.2 TSI.

My lowest fuel consumption is about 52mpg. That was on a long run of 180miles driving 50-65mph.

My total average with my car since new is 38,7mpg.

http://www.fuelly.co...snowman89/fabia

But i bought the car early december so ive only been driving with winter tires and done alot of short runs which kills the fuel consumption.

So i dont think your fuel consumption seem to be that off.

Edited 19 February, 201313 yr by Snowman89

A touch low maybe and you will be lucky if you ever get better than the low 50's on the gentlest of runs but it will improve with a few more miles maybe when you get beyond ~10K

Based on the statistics of 110 real world users at SpritMonitor.de, the average consumption for 2010-2012 Fabia TSI 80-90bhp is 6.20 L/100km = 45.5 MPG(uk).

http://www.spritmoni...TSI&powerunit=3

Edited 20 February, 201313 yr by Igloo Vindaloo

Like Snowman I have a 86TSI but manage around 47 mpg on my daily commute of 30 miles each way which is part M25 but mostly 30 and 40 mph single carriageway urban roads but I don't experience too many hold ups

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/surreyalan/fabia

I have a 14k ish miles 1.2tsi105 dsg Roomster. last weekend I had a 400 mile round trip, 1st 200 miles, 3 adults and lot of kit for 150 miles, then 4 adults and more kit. It was a fast run, motorway for 150 miles, 50miles A roads.

Back run, same roads but kept at 70mph on motorway 2 adults no kit.

Outbound 38mpg on dash computer, back leg 47mpg on dash computer.

Snap, 1.2 TSI 105 DSG, 11500 miles. 33mpg in town and 45mpg on a run according to the Maxidot. 390 ish miles to a tank (mainly short runs, in and around North London).

To be honest a little disappointed, I did expect it to be a bit better - really thought that petrol technology would have improved. Been used to my diesels when I did drive more, my original 6Y Fabia PD100 TDI was a honey. My 2006 Honda 2.2 iCTDI would give me 10+ MPG more than the TSI and that was a much heavier and faster car.

This is starting to sound like the 1.6 CR bashing thread...let's see if we can get it to 22 pages (or whatever it was).

You're driving it wrong.

It's broken.

My favourite (and serious answer) - petrols these days are being squeezed - more power, from smaller engines, with less emissions = economy hasn't improved as much. It must be a holy trinity - from a like sized engine, if you increase power and reduce emissions, the economy won't increase (as in more MPG) to the same extent.

10 years ago only Nissan Micras and base model Fiestas were fitted with 1.2 petrols - they probably struggled to make 60bhp and chucked out 150g/km or whatever of emissions.

Now, cars the size of Octavias are being hauled around by 1.2 Turbos, chucking out what used to be seen on hot hatches (over 100bhp), while delivering low emissions and still delivering a reasonable economy figure.

For what it's worth, my old man has a 1.2 TSI DSG - he was a little disappointed (ok, a lot) that it didn't get near the quoted 52mpg (or whatever it is). I pointed out that Mum drives it 2 miles each way to work, 5 days a week, then at weekends it alternates from 5-10 miles one week, to 150 the next, with a 3 or 4 yearly trip of 400 miles. His best economy has been about 48mpg, worst (normal) is about 40.

I compare that to my Monte CR TDI and I get about 50mpg, whatever. But I haven't yet done a really long trip to try and get nearer 60mpg...

I just had this set-up in a courtesy Roomster.

Wow, what a pleasant surprise - surprisingly torquey and actually very impressive performance. BUT, I didn't see over 35mpg. Fair enough, it was a couple of short trips and the car was only a couple of thousand miles old but if economy is almost comparable to my VRS, I know which I'd rather have.

The ride comfort was so much nicer though, and still felt very sure footed on the bends, I'm not sure if I'd go the sporty set-up for a daily driver again... a punchy, but wafty cruiser might be my next criteria.

My leon 1.2tsi does about 38mpg average. Best being 42.7 over a whole tank.

Short journeys won't help at all. I use the maxidot as a comparative figure rather than gospel and can see the mpg for that trip rise as the trip increases. 20mpg for the first mile, 30mpg after 2 miles, 35mpg after 5 and 40mpg by the time I get there. This is a vRS, but even so...cruising at 75mph isn't using the boost, so its almost a bog standard 1.4 engine at that point.

Its the downsizing revolution - Ford do a Mondeo with a 1.0 engine now, don't forget. Colleague of mine has just bought a new Focus with the same engine and says its definitely faster and more economical than the 1.6 Fiesta it replaced.

You've got over 100bhp in a sporting hatch AND it can do 40+mpg as long as its over a 10 mile journey. For a petrol, that would be unheard of 10 years ago.

Not going down the road of the published figures....thats a slippery slope!

Car is in for service today, at a VW garage licensed by skoda, ive told them about the fuel economy and they have said it doesnt sound right at all compared to what they are seeing out of VWs with teh same engine.

I should point out that the car is not a VRS, if id have known the consumption was going to be the same or better i would have talked our lass into the VRS.

@philhoward - of course it's on boost at 75mph. You have a supercharger (low revs, eliminates lag) and a turbocharger (higher revs, increases power) - or am I barking up a different tree?

Disappointing low for me today - tank average of 45mpg for the last tank in my Monte 1.6 TDI...petrol looks more attractive by the fill up at 5-6p a litre cheaper.

Of course, knowing my luck, I'd change over and only get 30 mpg out of a petrol!

A VRS Twin Charger can be doing 75 mph with the supercharger working @ 2400 rpm. (45 mpg plus)

but not the Turbo Charger and as such doing a very good MPG figure.

(supercharger & turbo charger working from 2400 - 3500rpm, still doing 45 mpg plus at times, load, surface, weather allowing, then just turbo from 3500 rpm)

george

Supercharger only works when engaged (you can just about hear the click as the clutch engages). At 75mph, just cruising, (about 2500rpm) the turbo might well be spinning but not providing any boost, I'm sure.

I'm considering a trial swap with Dad's 105 TSI to see if I will get attrocious consumption.

Of course, if the VRS figures I've seen are anything to go by, I may well go the whole hog and swap to one of those! (at which point I'll have to get a bigger car...)

This cover the early Twinchargers before updates and as was fitted to the vRS in 2010 & the revised engine late 2012 so not very current, but enough to show how things are with the engines.

My earlier post was kind of simple or even inaccurate for performance but i was talking there about the supercharger for economic driving.

http://volkspage.net...ssp/SSP_359.pdf

george

Nice find, George - saved for some bedtime reading! I think (looking at the boost graphs), at motorway cruising, it will be in the "no appreciable boost" zone?

I saved the manual from a post made by 'newbie69', invaluable IMO.

Bit of an update, got it back from service at 1pm.

VW garage updated the software, apparently theres been a issue with the turbo pressure control, this software update should have been done by the skoda dealer that sold us their ex-demo vehicle!

Anyway it sat on the drive for a couple of hours then it went out for the school run, so the oil not freezing but not warm, 40.5mpg! Its been doing 25mpg beforehand.