I agree I got a massive 31.6 mpg last week (calculated)

My mates Octy vrs tsi does 40+.

Skoda are liars just like all the others now :(

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm now getting a massive 42 mpg, whoopie!!!! That's nowhere near the claimed mpg Skoda told me! There should be a law against being allowed to pluck figures out of the air and then sell cars to people based on these lies.

There probably will be at some point. There's a case going on against Fiat in Italy at the moment. The silly thing is, if all the manufacturers do it then what's the point in any of them doing it?

What does it mean "poor consumption" if you put post like this?

 

I'm now getting a massive 42 mpg, whoopie!!!

To be accurate we need to give all data needed...

eg. what engine has our car

1.2 tsi 105 bhp is supposed to get 52.3 mpg. I might sell the cure for old age tomorrow, seems like you can sell what you want and get away with it.

On the first day I picked the car up with 6 miles on the clock I saw mid 50,s and once 58 within the 1st week but I've never seen it again. That was only an instant reading. It doesn't matter how you drive with this engine you will never get a decent mpg. It's just totally appalling period.

Even the new Fabia with the new 16v 1.2 aren't getting official figures. Euro 5 & 6 what a joke!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.2 tsi 105 bhp is supposed to get 52.3 mpg. I might sell the cure for old age tomorrow, seems like you can sell what you want and get away with it.

mine got 39mpg from the first tank but loosened up after 2-3000 miles doing up to 52 indicated average in the summer. In reality that was about 49mpg.

It certainly improves after a few 1000 miles, if you drive like a granny, dont use A/C, Use the stopstart (if fitted), and have the narrow 15 inch tyres on it.

Mine has crept up from 38 to 42, I now drive it hard and fast, the fuel goes quickly whatever I do, it's basically crap, I'm stuck with it for years.

I've got the 1.2 86 and can get around 38-42 around town (once it has warmed up) and around 55 on a long journey (both indicated). To get good economy around town you have to rely on the good low-down torque that the turbo offers and change up fairly early, as well as anticipating the traffic so you don't end up having to scrub your momentum too much. I must admit I'm happy with the economy. The last two cars I've driven have had naturally aspirated 1.4 or 1.2 engines and the Skoda lump knocks spots off them for performance, refinement and economy. Obviously economy drops off when driven briskly, but I wouldn't expect anything less.

Mine has crept up from 38 to 42, I now drive it hard and fast, the fuel goes quickly whatever I do, it's basically crap, I'm stuck with it for years.

Same here. There is no reasoning with this engine. It just drinks full stop. Having 17,s just doesn't help and I bet they are heavy as is all Skoda alloys :(

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here. There is no reasoning with this engine. It just drinks full stop. Having 17,s just doesn't help and I bet they are heavy as is all Skoda alloys :(

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Be fascinated to know the CO/HC reading on the emissions of the 105 hp compared to the 86 hp and other thermodynamic parameters, it is a facinating issue which I would love to apply the motorsport techniques to.  My little 90 hp Renault engine in the Dacia dipped heavily to around 45 mpg on the Worcester to Southampton run but then it did have 4 people and a couple of hundred kilos of luggage.  Three cylinder (or less) and sub one litre appears the way to go, plus energy recovery, stop-start and hybrid seems the way forward b ut as to when the Skoda brand will get the 3 cylinder turbo which supposedly gives the 10-20 mpg (with ACT)  improvement I have not seen any details of.  Expect it might be a year or so.

There probably will be at some point. There's a case going on against Fiat in Italy at the moment. The silly thing is, if all the manufacturers do it then what's the point in any of them doing it?

 

It's not just the manufacturers.  Motoring media review new cars and trot out the official figures as if they're gospel.

 

I read the original Auto Express review of the Rapid yesterday, and they seemed slightly disappointed with the claimed 52 mpg from the 1.2  :think:

 

If they knew what it really did, would the review have been so fulsome in it's praise of the car?

Edited 2 August, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

It's not just the manufacturers.  Motoring media review new cars and trot out the official figures as if they're gospel.

 

I read the original Auto Express review of the Rapid yesterday, and they seemed slightly disappointed with the claimed 52 mpg from the 1.2  :think:

 

If they knew what it really did, would the review have been so fulsome in it's praise of the car?

 

When I have had a loan car I am pretty sure I get given the 86 hp and it goes damn well.  It only takes 20 hp or so to do 70 mph and so plenty left to pile it on.  seem to be able to do an indicated 90 up an incline and if the fuel consumption is a few MPG better then happy days.  Renault TCE 90 hp engine is also great, totally capable of 80 mph cruising and high geared in 5th, cannot remember if the gearbox mph/1000 revs in top on the 86 hp VAG but amazing how these modern small engines cope with quite high speeds, not like some of my early cars screaming at the National Speed Limit. Definitely out of their depth on the autobahns though.     

There's quite a lot of pull high up the Rev band on the 105 if you can keep the gear changes up there too it certainly flies. Shame about the brakes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's quite a lot of pull high up the Rev band on the 105 if you can keep the gear changes up there too it certainly flies. Shame about the brakes.

Agreed on both points. Have found the brakes to be average, still unclear if it's just poor quality factory pads or a wider shortcoming with the braking system.

Opted not to put the Ferrodo pads on at my oil change last month, but might revisit before the end of the summer as I don't fancy another winter with questionable stopping ability.

Refuelled earlier today - big downturn in MPG to 43.7 from 490 miles & 51 litres - been doing a lot of local driving (home to Tube station) since the office move which is killing my fuel economy. Last weekend's 200mile round trip to Coventry for Waxstock also failed to improve things. Also been using a lot of Tesco petrol lately (missus has been getting good amounts of Fuel Save points that I'm cashing in), so that might have also contributed to to poor economy.

...still unclear if it's just poor quality factory pads or a wider shortcoming with the braking system.

I don't thing it's breaking system issue...

Looks for me like pads quality... If you want to improove breakes change both discs and pads for good one...

I've got Brembo Max in...  :p

Agreed on both points. Have found the brakes to be average, still unclear if it's just poor quality factory pads or a wider shortcoming with the braking system.

Opted not to put the Ferrodo pads on at my oil change last month, but might revisit before the end of the summer as I don't fancy another winter with questionable stopping ability.

Refuelled earlier today - big downturn in MPG to 43.7 from 490 miles & 51 litres - been doing a lot of local driving (home to Tube station) since the office move which is killing my fuel economy. Last weekend's 200mile round trip to Coventry for Waxstock also failed to improve things. Also been using a lot of Tesco petrol lately (missus has been getting good amounts of Fuel Save points that I'm cashing in), so that might have also contributed to to poor economy.

 

Tesco diesel is certainly low quality based on several years experience.  Dont really know about their unleaded, but it definitely gives less mpg than Shell 95 octane.

Dont really know about their unleaded, but it definitely gives less mpg than Shell 95 octane.

Maybe it depends which Tesco petrol station you refuel... For me Tesco gives more mpg then Shell... 

Tesco diesel is certainly low quality based on several years experience. Dont really know about their unleaded, but it definitely gives less mpg than Shell 95 octane.

Yes Tesco diesel is crap. I used it in my Octavia and it was down on performance and mpg. I've always used Shell from now on. Mpg went right up with performance. Still using it for petrol now [emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whenever I used Tesco diesel in the Citroen the car always ran noticeably worse than normal.

While we all likely have conflicting experience of supermarket fuels, the only supermarket filling station I've found to be reasonably good on both petrol and diesel is Sainsburys. Can only assume there are fewer twigs in Sainsburys dinosaur juice.

I did hear they use Esso fuel but I doubt that's right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did hear they use Esso fuel but I doubt that's right.

Sainsbury's or Tesco?

bizarre mpg day.  

 

430 AM - 26 mile drive to work 42.8mpg.

430 PM - 26 mile drive home   58.6mpg.

 

Only 7 minutes slower as well.

it's average 50 mpg

bizarre mpg day.  

 

430 AM - 26 mile drive to work 42.8mpg.

430 PM - 26 mile drive home   58.6mpg.

 

Only 7 minutes slower as well.

 

You work long hours?

Sainsbury's or Tesco?

Well Tesco has taken over the shop on many Esso petrol stations and turned them into Express convenience stores, though the pumps still dispense Esso fuel supplies by Exxon. However, proper Tesco petrol stations (on the site of a Tesco Extra) dispense Tesco brand petrol that is sourced from Greenergy, a petrol and diesel distributor that Tesco owns just over 35% of.

Don't have any confirmed info about Sainsburys, but I've been told by people who are normally reliable on such matters that their petrol & diesel is supplied by BP (but not the same additive mix as actual BP branded fuel).

Sent from my iPhone 5S using Tapatalk, please excuse any typos.