Real World MPG

[fabandy]

Yes, I think the gap is growing but then the bigger the numbers the bigger the deviation due to any factor (weather, tyres, a/c ...) will be in the real world compared to any 'scientific' test - ie difference between best/potential and worst. But smaller turbo engines are surely more sensitive to the loads placed on them and driving style. Also, diesels are definitely struggling with the new emissions limitations placed on them when compared to older units. With regard to the thread, I agree about service costs being important (and aerodynamics). If it is about total cost, I still think I would consider a nearly new Citigo/Mii for 6.5k, low insurance, tiny depreciation and 50-60mpg or new with free servicing at £69 per month. If you need better aerodynamics and cruise control, the Rapid 1.6tdi se is 12.5k pre-registered.

[fabandy]

PS that Fiat diesel engine in the Corsa is the same one I mentioned is in the Suzuki Swift.

[PDIBK]

DavidJWest - I have a Monte CR105.

 

Until this September, my daily commute was 45 miles or so, consisting of 2 return trips to my daughter's nursery.  Country lanes (almost farm tracks in fact), a bit of A-road (single carriageway). 

 

I did the journey for a year, so have experienced all weathers.  I didn't hang around, I wasn't hyper-miling.

 

My economy (actual, calculated) was 49-52 mpg over that period, with slight variations depending if a weekend journey changed stuff.  So I would get about 450-475 miles a tank.

 

I was happy with that, because of the roads I drove on, the style I drove etc.  I found that if I ignored economy and kept up with traffic, without letting the engine labour (and yes, change out of 5th if you drop below 1500rpm, change up at 2000rpm), that was when I crept up.

 

In the last few weeks, my daughter has joined her sister at school.  No more nightmare nursery run.  I'm never late for work any more and the suspension no longer has to endure tractor ruts, pot holes and stone embankments (that make up a third of the road for passing).

 

In that time, I am still on the first tank of fuel.  I have covered 395 miles (since the last week in August) and the computer tells me I have 95 miles left.  In theory, I will get 500 miles out of a tank.  So an improvement.

 

I KNOW that I had one particular journey, where I saw the computer drop its predicted range by 100 miles over a 30 mile journey, as I had to "press on".  It was a brilliant drive, fun and quick (but legal and safe).  The economy suffered by 5-10mpg - so what.

 

In short (I gathered the theme on this thread is rambling), the CR is a brilliant engine - responsive like a petrol (say 80% of a good petrol), yet economical like a diesel (say 90% of a traditional diesel).  Drive it normally (note - normal, not gentle, or 55mph on the motorway) and you can get close to the quoted 66.6mpg (for the Monte - 666??).  Drive it rapidly (like I imagine you would, and see written on here, a VRS) and you get 50+mpg.

 

That in my book is good - yes, you lose some economy over a Greenline (in theory), but you get some of the fun of a VRS.  If you weren't shopping for a screamer, then you'll be happy.

 

I compare the Monte to my (or my wife's) recent cars -

 

2012 Golf Bluemotion 1.6 CR TDI 105 - more fun, less economical by 5-10mpg, similar journeys.

1999 Peugeot 106 1.1i petrol - way more fun, doesn't feel like a tin foil box, 5-10mpg more economical, similar journeys.

2009 Skoda Superb II Greenline 1.9 TDI - half the size.  A bit more fun.  Different journeys.  Same economy (could NEVER get Superb below 53mpg).

1999 Rover 75 CDTi - felt like driving an armchair.  Fabia is WAY more fun and more economical.

2007 Skoda Octavia PD TDI 140 L&K Estate - about as fun, a bit smaller, never paid attention to the MPG, but it was probably 55+.

1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0 V6 - economy?  Only to buy it.  I left it in Germany.  the game used to be keeping the economy in double figures.

1998 VW Golf GTi - fun, cheap, probably did 35mpg.  Should have kept it.  Arival of a dog and our first born put paid to that!

1998 Rover 45 GSDi - I don't know why I did this.  And it was turquoise.  had a CD player and leather seats...

1998 Volvo S40 T4 - brilliant.  Probably got 30mpg once.  Sold it as I wasn't driving it and when I did, I munched the front tyres...  Another silly decision by me to sell...

[Guest]

I have recently purchased the 1.6 TDI Monte and have only covered 800 miles so far, my first tank returned me 53mpg combined (real figures) (OBC stated 49mpg) and that's obviously taking it easy as its new but I'm hoping it will improve, I don't ever think it it will return the 67mpg that they report which leaves me 14mpg short at the moment :-(, I have learned something new today from Estate Man's post (Thanks) regarding the short stroke engine and will be implementing the driving style changes asap.

 

Raymo, your fuel consumption for a new very tight engine is probably about right at the moment. If you are driving it right (following the book on running in, experimenting with revs, gears and loading etc) not going too gently with it,  it will improve rapidly as the engine loosens and you get used to the car. These 1.6cr engines are very very tight when new and it actually usually takes at least 5-10k depending how it's been run in before you get full power and full economy...yeah...I know, long time but in reality it will be very good well before then. Bear in mind diesel engines take much longer to run in than petrol engines. The reason for the discrepancy between the OBC and actual fuel consumption is due to the ECU being in learning mode. The learning mode carries on for approximately 3,000 miles. The ECU has a learning algorithm which watches how you drive the car (throttle and speeds, gears etc) and how you use it (length of journey, amount of idling how much soot builds up in the dpf) and tunes the engine induction accordingly. This optimises the engine power and fuel consumption. It's necessary for a number of reasons too complex to go into here but all new cars use this facility now. I suspect you will achieve the fuel economy you desire, just like many others. To begin with, my lil sis could only manage 49.5mpg with her 1.6cr. Again because she was engaging 5th gear like she used to on her Octavia diesel estate with the PD engine. Once she learned it had to be revved a bit more and 5th gear not used so early it completely changed the fuel economy and the engine loosened nicely in the first 5k. She is able to achieve very very good figures now with her best being 72mpg on a cross country run of over 90 miles BUT in 4th gear only. No use of 5th gear as the conditions were unsuitable to drive above 50-55mph most of the time. In fact she said engaging 5th gear actually made the trip computer plummet fuel economy wise at those speeds. Use the instant time readout to study the fuel economy for learning purposes. It's an eye opener. That's how she learned.

Edited 19 September, 2013 by Estate Man

[Heatl1e]

Sorry, pasted figures from excel but formatting went to hell and was unreadable.

Edited 19 September, 2013 by Heatl1e

[eccleshill]

My experience of the first 4000 miles with the 1.6TDi in 105PS tune, albeit in a Roomster.

 

For actual data see my fuelly - link in signature.

 

 

Following my earlier post, as well as a temperature sensitivity I have also noticed that prolonged use of a/c seems to hit the economy harder than with all of my earlier cars. So much so that I would actively turn off the a/c at the earliest opportunity. This is not something I have done before.
 

 

That echos my experience.  Air-con hits mpg like a brick wall - far more than any other car I have owned.  In my 2 Octavias (1.9TDi and 1.8TSi) I hardly ever turned off the a/c.  Not so in this car!

Limited experience shows it to be very weather/temperature sensitive.  My morning commute is 8miles - 2 miles stop-start (past 2 big schools) then 6 miles of free flowing 40/50/60mph A roads.  In the warm summer mornings the maxidot mpg for the journey varied between 60 and 70mpg.  But now, the kids are back at school so the stop-start section is much more stop and colder weather this week means that the maxidot barely makes it into the 50's - just 49mpg this morning.  Comparing maxidot with fuel usage shows it to be 4-5% optimistic.

[davidjwest]

Thanks again guys, all useful info.

 

A bit more info for those interested.

 

I've been doing high miles for the past 4 years or so, from 25k - 50k, the house move will put me around the 25-30k mark.

 

Previously owned a Mondeo 2.0 TDCi that I was averaging 54 MPG with using accurate calculations, OBC reckoned it was nearer 60 MPG so about 10% optimistic.  The Mondeo was a solid car, I paid £1,500 for an '04 plate in 2009 and it was a CAT D so another £1,500 to get it on the road.  It failed me in May when the fuel pump went with 203k on the clock, mechanic reckoned the injectors might have been damaged as the pump disintegrated and  there were bits of metal in the fuel so rather than spend up to £2k fixing a car of that age and mileage I got rid of it.

 

I was strapped for cash so I have been running a P Reg (1996) plate Pug 306 TD for almost four months, paid £500  for it, now done 6k in it averaging 54 MPG which is quite surprising.  I've paid £124 so far for new front pads and to replace a worn fuel overflow pipe.  

 

So I am pretty good at getting decent MPG from what I drive, I don't mind sticking at 60 MPH on the motorway as I know the mileage I do is going to cost a fortune in fuel so every bit saved is to the good.

 

The wife has a Renault Grand Scenic that's a 7 seater, bought before she knew me or I would have warned against it.  We need the 7 seats as we've 5 kids but it only returns 30-33 MPG when she drives it although  I can get 40-45 MPG out of it, partly as my commute is more motorway and less traffic.

 

Anyway, any more suggestions are welcome thanks.

[Truls84]

Meh

 

Got a Fabia 1.4 TDI Greenline and i usually get 50MPG when i drive aggressively and 65MPG when i drive "carefully".  So you can realistically look at those numbers.

 

The 1.2TDi will use almost 30% less than the 1.4TDI but has the same potential for power-delivery, or at least i believe so.

[lol-lol]

So if you can cope with light throttle and only load the car up lightly then the 1.6D can produce very good results.

 

If you load the car up, get a shimmy on sometimes, the 1.9D is a very good option nearly everyone seems to agree.

 

Octavia is nicer on the long runs due to its aerodynamic shape though I do like both.

 

Petrol models you can generally buy a year or so newer if buying second hand for the same money and the small and medium sized TSI can be brilliantly economic also.

 

The 1.4 TSI DSG Octy 3 looks a revelation to me but the 1.2 TSI DSG looks good too.   

[jme808]

I'm driving a 1.6 TDi (70) - 2011 scout estate.  The MPG according to the car is 45mpg most of the time, but I'm getting around 57mpg on average.  I drive light, and am on the motorway alot. 

 

Not sure if the armrest is standard on the fabia or not, but it makes a big difference to me on the motorway in terms of comfort.

[Another Newbie]

Just done London to Plymouth with indicated 67mpg.

SE 1.6 (105)

Three adults plus bags.

Speed 60-75 indicated, mostly about 65.

Four stops and a short stretch of stop-start traffic around Bristol.

Not sure yet how accurate the trip comp is, but am pleased with the sound of those numbers.

Edited 21 September, 2013 by Another Newbie

[lol-lol]

Just done London to Plymouth with indicated 67mpg.

SE 1.6 (105)

Three adults plus bags.

Speed 60-75 indicated, mostly about 65.

Four stops and a short stretch of stop-start traffic around Bristol.

Not sure yet how accurate the trip comp is, but am pleased with the sound of those numbers.

 

I think the average over-read on the fuel computer is around 5%, as it is with the speedometers, and depending how worn tyres are and if correctly inflated and the mileage measurement is probably around 2% over or under and fuel consumed by the injectors is of course super accurate. 

 

That said people have reckoned the fuel shown by the computer compared to actual put in could be at variance of 20%.  

 

There is of course a presumption that the diesel or petrol put in the at the garage is accurate and the fuel light, which is probably the most accurate measuring point other than draining the system and measuring the volume of the fuel.

 

How many miles do you get before the fuel light comes on?

 

I think that is 8.4 gallons so what ever that distance is, and you have just filled in using the fuel hose full engaged and until clicks off a few times, and have not used the venting method to add a few more litres then it should be quite close to actual.   

 

I get about 360 miles in both the Fabia VRS and HTP if I do not use venting, if I use venting I can get over 400 miles before fuel light comes on and that is not hanging about in VRS and doing mainly town driving in the HTP which is what is best at.

 

The fuel computer can be tweaked via VCD to introduce a correction factor if the user feels it is annoyingly inaccurate.

[jankph]

I think Estate man has a point in that mph depends om the driver more than the engine. It took me a while to realise that I can't drive my new GLII 1.2 TDI CR like my previous 1.4 TDI PD. The CR really likes high revs, e.g. it likes going uphill in 4th at 2000rpm much better than in 5th at 1200rpm, it still climbs, but it sounds like it's falling apart :( and once I learned to ignore the gear change indicator and rather listened to the engine, driving is much more fun, and my average mpg still stays around 70 no matter what.

[ItalianJob]

So if you can cope with light throttle and only load the car up lightly then the 1.6D can produce very good results.

 

If you load the car up, get a shimmy on sometimes, the 1.9D is a very good option nearly everyone seems to agree.

 

Octavia is nicer on the long runs due to its aerodynamic shape though I do like both.

 

Petrol models you can generally buy a year or so newer if buying second hand for the same money and the small and medium sized TSI can be brilliantly economic also.

 

The 1.4 TSI DSG Octy 3 looks a revelation to me but the 1.2 TSI DSG looks good too.   

 

I didn't know they did an Octy 3 1.4 with DSG, I've never been able to find it on the Skoda website - but found a few on AutoTrader?

That will be my next car, when I've saved a load of pennies!

[logiclee]

You also need to look at what type of driving you are doing.

 

We are on our third Fabia, we have had TDi, HTP and TSi, the one thing that hurts economy on the Fabia is high speed. The car is tall and not very aerodynamic, the difference between 65mph and 80mph is massive for fuel economy.

A saloon shape is usually better than a hatch, the Octy and Passat are more aerodynamic than the Fabia for instance.

 

At 65mph our 1.9TDi Fabia was 5mpg more economical than my Passat, at 80mph the Passat was 5mpg more economical than the Fabia.

 

If you are happy to limit your motorway speed then the Fabia can be a really economical car to run, but if you intend to use your car for high speed motorway work then a bigger diesel saloon might be a better option even if you have to buy used.

 

Cheers

Lee

[Ootohere]

We hear this often on Fabias, high narrow and not very aerodynamic, &  this hurting the economy.

 

In the real world a Fabia vRS does the better MPG at 70-80 mph than the lower a better looking and some think more aerodynamic Polo GTI or Seat Ibiza Cupra, same engine, same gearbox, almost the same other than body shape.

 

A vRS Estate does seem to get better economy than any of these 3 hatches, its probably the longer cleaner roof and how the turbulence behind is flowing better, causing less drag type thing,

and this is probably easiest seen where the rear hatch & window gets less dirty on dirty roads.

Not needing the rear wiper on in rain so often maybe gives a clue.

 

They sleaker VW & Seat are on slightly wider tyres tho and are maybe or maybe not heavier loaded, they are heavier unloaded, and weight up hills is what will kill economy as much as aerodynamics will, (when you put the skoda on the same tyres as the VW/Seat you get a change in MPG slightly over time, slight gearing change and the tyre width.)

 but with the same driver they are no more economic in fuel use because of their shape.

The outside ambient temperature and cool air getting into the engine might mean more to the economy, than the shape of the vehicle , important in warm weather where the efficiant running of an engine is n ot high, and colling an engine uses energy. air flow is free,

so that can be weather & temperature, or how good the big grill is at the front for cooling the radiator, intercooler or air intakes.

 

Greenlines get Underbody cladding panels to smooth things off and make more aerodynamic, and improve economy,

then fitted with pretty rubbish tyres that reduce friction with the road surface,

less fuel used due to less grip really, not very scientific.

Sportier cars might get lowered, smoothed underneath, better tyres, more grip, better cornering, basically more ground effect and traction,

possibly more fuel used, not necessarily less.

 

Real World is just that, what happens when you drive in the real world and all weathers.

not Theory or Official Figures from the manufacturer taken from a rolling road and on one car even if it has had some miles put on it before testing. Many of us know that consumption might improve after 8,000 miles on the engine not 1,800 or 3,000.

 

http://www.skoda.co.uk/fuel-consumption-statement

 

george

[logiclee]

We hear this often on Fabias, high narrow and not very aerodynamic, &  this hurting the economy.

 

 

Real World is just that, what happens when you drive in the real world and all weathers.

not Theory or Official Figures 

 

 

And that's what was posted real world actual figures from an actual owner of the vehicles concerned. The OP is looking at a diesel Fabia for economy, I doubt a vRS is even a consideration for him/her.

 

Cheers

Lee

[lol-lol]

The Fabia 2 VRS is presumably fairly optimum geared and I think it is interesting that the Fabia VRS, Octy 2 diesel VRS and Octy 2 1.8 TSI are all quoted as top speeds of 140 mph.  The Mk 1 Octy with 180 hp was quoted at 146 mph. 

 

The Fabia 2 therefore uses about 23 hp at 70 (aero drag being a cube rule) but the Octy 2s probably only using 20 hp at 70 mph. This applies if it is a HTP, TDI, TSI or VRS.

 

Relook at that at 80 mph which many cruise at on the motorway and the Fabia is using 36 hp but the Octavia only 30 hp and so it gets worse higher up.  

[Ootohere]

Were they ever actually tested,? true tests, VAG just usually make more Expensive faster or more economic dependent on type of vehicle,

rather than any truth to the figures published over the years.

If Track tested, are these the Gaffa Taped and Alternator belt removed tests. 

EG,

Even though i know from the thread that the OP is not looking at a VRS, just figures as so often shown. then repeated and re produced. Fiction quite often.

http://vrsworld.co.uk/skoda_vrs_specs.html

 

 

I understand the OP and whats being asked.. My post was about the poor aerodynamics that are often mentioned when a Fabia is discussed.

Basically if you can get a bigger car that weighs no more than the smaller car it might use the same fuel going up hill as down.

If you get a bit less drag from the tyres on the road you might even out the drag, from a less aerodynamic shape.

 

If the engine and gearing suit the way you drive speed and load carried, then the bigger or physically smaller car might be perfect.

 

Its just a case of driving and buying what suits, because unless someone elses needs are identicle

and location and trips are identical then nobody else knows what suits your needs, or the economy or lack of economy that you can achieve.

 

Roads and location, miles to be covered, & use as a family vehicle will often be the deciding factors on which engine or fuel type is best for anyone.

 

george

[logiclee]

The Fabia 2 VRS is presumably fairly optimum geared and I think it is interesting that the Fabia VRS, Octy 2 diesel VRS and Octy 2 1.8 TSI are all quoted as top speeds of 140 mph.  The Mk 1 Octy with 180 hp was quoted at 146 mph. 

 

The Fabia 2 therefore uses about 23 hp at 70 (aero drag being a cube rule) but the Octy 2s probably only using 20 hp at 70 mph. This applies if it is a HTP, TDI, TSI or VRS.

 

Relook at that at 80 mph which many cruise at on the motorway and the Fabia is using 36 hp but the Octavia only 30 hp and so it gets worse higher up.  

 

Yep that's quite interesting and I'd not really looked at it that way.

 

The Passat is a good quarter of a ton heavier than the vRS but with only 170bhp has a top speed of 141mph, that obviously has to be down to the aerodynamics.

 

Explains why I see the high speed economy figures I do when comparing Fabia's to my current Passat and my old Octavia.

 

The 1.9TDi Fabia was the most economical car we've ever owned below 65mph but the Octavia and Passat are more economical at 75mph+

 

Cheers

Lee

[Ootohere]

When my son and i do the same trip driving together Aberdeen to Edinburgh, or reverse,

140 miles, 30 miles single carriageway/mixed roads

and Dual & some Motorway, him in his 52 plate Passat Estate 1.9TDI and me in a vRS 1.4 TSI,

he gets over 45 MPG while i get 25 mpg if lucky.

I used to do the same trip often, nipping on in a 2009 Hyundai i30 1.6 TDI Auto and regularly got over 55 mpg.

 

george

[logiclee]

A 52 plate Passat? 11 years old technology and wear I suppose 45mpg isn't bad.

 

I have 2.0CR Passat DSG. My commute is nearly all motorway and I set cruise to 75-80mph depending on traffic and usually manage about 55mpg. Freezing weather drops that down a few mpg but it's pretty consistent. (Too much use of heated seats)

The manual Passat posts a much higher mpg figure but the ones I've had on loan haven't done much better.

Our TSi Fabia DSG on the same run does less than 40mpg at the same speeds but you can get nearer 50mpg on a slower ride out.

My Wife's BMW does mid 40's mpg at 80mph (8 speed box) but it's very variable, drive a bit more aggressively and you are down at 40mpg, drive for economy in ecopro mode and you can get close to 50mpg.

 

But all our Fabia's have followed the same pattern, a fairly steep dip in economy as you push above 70mph. Which is why I asked if the OP does a high speed motorway commute. Doing 50k a year I'd expect so.

 

Cheers

Lee

Edited 22 September, 2013 by logiclee

[Ootohere]

45mpg acheived is not driving for economy if i am only getting 25 mpg.

i can get 45+ mpg while driving to save money, i can sit happily at National speed limits & on Motorways getting 50 mpg,

the old VW gets over 55mpg easily.

 

Do your cars not get better actual economy on a trip running in a nice crisp day or night at 0-10 *oC, rather than on a warmer day of 18- 28*oC.? (if not using the likes of heated seats the whole trip)

Nice clean oxygen in the cool air, and an efficient running engine once up to temperature.

 

Old technology often works just fine.

Younger, sometimes brings more power, but fatter/heavier, and hence often no better economy.

Miles covered on the older car & wear might be just the same as on the newer car with the same mileage.

a £1000-£1500 VW Passat can be a good cheap buy once a Water Pump is changed for one not made with a chocolate impeller.

Less than a 3 or 4 months depreciation on a new VW these days.

Almost Free Motoring, just add fuel, then sell for what you bought it for or more.

 

george

[logiclee]

 

Do your cars not get better actual economy on a trip running in a nice crisp day or night at 0-10 *oC, rather than on a warmer day of 18- 28*oC.? (if not using the likes of heated seats the whole trip)

Nice clean oxygen in the cool air, and an efficient running engine once up to temperature.

 

george

 

Depends on length of run but on my 30 mile each way commute I tend to find cold weather hurts economy and that's probably due to warm up times, and added loads of heaters and lights. 

Below freezing a modern TDi can take over 10 miles for the oil to get up to temperature.

 

More power and better response though.

 

Cheers

Lee

[Edward757]

Hi all,

Just finished a couple of trips to Oxford so 120 miles each way.

The car is a greenline II with 30,000miles and its an estate.

I have always managed to exceed the stated extra urban figures for my cars for example my last car, a peugeot 406, stated 60.1 mpg and the best I got was 74.4mpg with the computer being pretty accurate against a brim check.

The fabia has proved to be a little harder!

The two trips were identical starting at 0500hrs although the first trip was 10 degrees and the second 16 degrees ambient temp.

Manual throttle control gave me 86mpg. This I found a little disappointing so I checked the tyre pressures and they were at 36psi. This I changed to 42psi, accepting marginal reduction in surface area in exchange for less rolling resistance.

The research also suggested instead of changing up at the very earliest opportunity, I should accelerate moderately up to about 2000rpm until cruise speed is reached.

The result was a shutdown mpg of 92.9 although it was 94.1 as I left the a34 and then a few roundabouts and reversing into a space cut it down.

This is pretty good but I really want to crack 100mpg. Gerhard plattner did 127mpg in one although there is thought that he was running 55psi or so! So more work needed but what a cracking little car.

The return leg, just now, was with ac on, cruise control, charging a flat phone and she still did 78mpg.

The car is on dunlops so perhaps when a change is needed a slightly more efficient tyre will allow 100mpg...