My Fabia II 1.6 tdi se (2010) has done 27,700 miles and the fuel consumption stabilised at about 8k miles. I made a spreadsheet logging the odo-miles against fuel put in and the type of journey. It does on long journeys at 70mph about 63mpg. If I increase the speed to 80-85 the consumption drops to about 56 mpg.  Around town the average seems to be about 48mpg.    Overall over 20k miles the average is 58.6mpg.  I'm not sure about the odometer reading:  I regularly do a 231 mile journey which is 162 miles motorway and 69 miles A-road.  Ford Mondeo said the mileage was 230; Audi A4 said 230; Rover SD1 229 .... Fabia II: 238 miles .... Google maps says 229 miles!  So I'm not really sure what either the real mileage is or the real mpg except that it's very good.

It's all interesting stuff this  I wonder just how aerodynamic the average car is and just what difference it makes model to model, bearing in mind the driving conditions we all have to adhere to on the roads?.

 

If you take the ultimate in aerodynamics for a car you would have to look at a Formula 1. That gives you some idea as to how far away the average family car is from 'slipping through the air'

 

I know car manufacturers claim wind tunnel engineering etc but there are some real barges out there and I wonder just how say a Ford Mondeo would compare to a Fabia. I just wonder at times, do we all get sucked into a theory the car manufacturers invent for us?

 

One thing we know for certain, the faster you go the more fuel you are going to burn and the little 3 pot engines, because the rev so much higher will lose economy much more quickly at high speed.

 

There is no doubt at all aerodynamics lower resistance to air and therefore you would expect that to have some effect on fuel economy. I just think you have to be munching a lot of motorway miles to really notice any real difference.

Not a Fabia but a Greenline II Octavia Estate but has the 1.6TDI (105) engine - best 89.9mpg - worst 55mpg  - average see signature. Mostly motorways (better mpg) rather than A and B roads (that's where the 55mpg was done). I get about 9 days commuting (74miles a day) out of a £65 tankful.

 

I like the engine and seems to pull well now it's well run in.

If you take the ultimate in aerodynamics for a car you would have to look at a Formula 1. That gives you some idea as to how far away the average family car is from 'slipping through the air'

 

Can't imagine anything WORSE than a F1 car - would think if you slipped it into neutral, it would decelerate faster than moderate braking in a Fabia!

All that downforce has to come from somewhere, and that has to be paid for in DRAG.

Sticking the wheels out in the fresh air wont help either . . 

I have moved from a 2005 Vauxhall vectra 1.9CDTi(120BHP) estate with 160k miles on the clock to a brand new Fabia 1.6TDi Monte Carlo.

 

I am a little dissapointed with the fuel consumption. I am getting about 52mpg out of it whilst I was getting 48mpg with the Vectra.

However the Monte is new and and needs to be loosened up a bit, plus I need to get used to the different way it drives (power curves and torque etc).

So I imagine it will get better with time.

 

Most of my driving is the motorway which isn't ideally suited to the little fabia. Whereas a motorway was where the Vectra was the happiest (it had 1 more gear than the Fabia).

Around town I get substantially better MPG from the Fabia than the Vectra.

 

So you gotta get a car that suits the type of driving you do.

As an example. One of the sales guys at work does 50k miles a year.

He is in the process of changing his work car and is using his second car, a big 3 year old Merc ML Diesel, whilst he is awaiting delivery of the new one.

This would sound like one of the worst cars to use for such high mileage but he is still getting over 50mpg out of it on a motorway as the car is barely breaking a sweat.

Admitidley as soon as he comes of the motorway slip road and into town the MPG is scary!

If you take the ultimate in aerodynamics for a car you would have to look at a Formula 1. That gives you some idea as to how far away the average family car is from 'slipping through the air'

 

Can't imagine anything WORSE than a F1 car - would think if you slipped it into neutral, it would decelerate faster than moderate braking in a Fabia!

All that downforce has to come from somewhere, and that has to be paid for in DRAG.

Sticking the wheels out in the fresh air wont help either . . 

I bow to your superior knowledge. Always assumed they balanced aerodynamics with down force.

My journey home from the wrinklies today... 45km at ave speed of 67kph, 5.5L/100km (about 51mpg). With a couple of 3/4 throttle squirts in there, and not trying to hypermile, I was happy with that. According to the computer I had a range of 600km when I left and 640km when I arrived home...

My journey home from the wrinklies today... 45km at ave speed of 67kph, 5.5L/100km (about 51mpg). With a couple of 3/4 throttle squirts in there, and not trying to hypermile, I was happy with that. According to the computer I had a range of 600km when I left and 640km when I arrived home...

 

Just shows your computer is working pretty well then

You would be able to drive 600 km the way you were driving previously but could get 640 km adopting your careful drive style from the 'wrinklies'