Yes everything was replaced. The tank sender and instrument cluster and wiring loom etc.I only let it click once and just rounded it up to the nearest pound. It came off the full mark at 32 miles and went down to three quarters after 66 miles. I went straight up the A35 to Southampton only stopping at one set of lights. Coming back I was held up frequently plus a bit of town driving in Bournemouth which dropped the fuel range down to 410 miles left. I'll see how far it goes until the fuel light is on this time.

My Astra used to fool me into thinking it was sipping fuel very frugally until it got to about a quarter of a tank (indicated), then it would plummet to empty in no time. The range would drop by about 10 miles for every 3 miles covered!

My Rapid Spaceback (1.2 86) average 55.9 mpg coming back from Cambridge to Northampton this afternoon, with a bit of town driving at both ends and the air con on. I'm very pleased with that

Hate to say my Toledo seems fine. Takes about 50-60 miles before the gauge ever moves off the full mark, then a slow fall to the empty mark. The Citigo was about the same but say 70-80 travelled before the gauge moved. However once the 1/4. tank mark was reached then it dropped fairly rapidly.

My Astra used to fool me into thinking it was sipping fuel very frugally until it got to about a quarter of a tank (indicated), then it would plummet to empty in no time. The range would drop by about 10 miles for every 3 miles covered!

My Rapid Spaceback (1.2 86) average 55.9 mpg coming back from Cambridge to Northampton this afternoon, with a bit of town driving at both ends and the air con on. I'm very pleased with that

 

Nice A road driving ( a bit of 40 mph road works)  totally optimum forced driving ie 55/60 mph.

 

Most petrol cars are at their best economy at this sort of pace, most diesels as well.

 

What we need is a much better aerodynamic car ie Cd around 0.2-0.25 to really get good fuel consumption at 75 mph.  (consumption usually about a third worse at this speed compared to the double nickel (55mph).

 

Cars also need to continue losing weight, something around half a tonne should be good but needs to be good in crosswinds of course.  At sea we use to carry ballast in bad weather or  variable aero surfaces.

 

Most small petrols have now dropped to three cylinder and will drop to two and then single cylinder over the next decade (see what a Moto3 engine can do!)

 

All do-able but we also need cars that are cheap to buy/run and Dacia have replaced Skoda in that area ie Auto-express cheapest car to run http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-reviews/62858/cheapest-cars-run (of a versatile size)....  

On the fast part of the fuel gauge drain now uh oh :(

Pathetic mileage so far.

 

that pic looks normal. 124 from a quarter tank. that 496 from the lot.

mine looked identical three quarters of the way to Gatwick yesterday.

maxidot was showing 53mpg average at that point mostly at 75 on motorways

I use to dream of .................................................................53 mpg.

 

 

https://youtu.be/8EI7p2p1QJI    

I haven't seen that mpg since my Citigo and Octavia diesel :(

Just hit a new high this morning - filled the tank on the way to work (having emptied the previous full tank), Fuelly reported 51.8mpg based on 547 miles of driving - my best actual mpg in this car.

(Fuelly has my best mpg logged at 53.8mpg, but that was an anomaly based on 8 miles of driving, coming off the back of a part fill-up).

I managed to get mine to show 66.4mpg last night on way home down the M6... I almost couldnt believe my eyes when I looked down. (Think there must be a lot of downhill back home :-)).

Remember, Average Consumption 1 is meaningless when trying to understand the actual mpg achieved.

Average Consumption 2, if reset tank-to-tank, is more useful but still seems to overstate economy by around 3-5mpg.

Did you do 547 miles on one tank full ?

Did you do 547 miles on one tank full ?

Yes - that was on one uninterrupted (i.e. no top-ups) full tank from full down to just after the refuel warning popped up on Maxidot. So there was still about 6-7 litres in the tank at the point of refuelling (I refuelled with 48 litres this morning).

I haven't seen that mpg since my Citigo and Octavia diesel :(

 

61 mpg on the computer for Worcester-Liverpool centre-Worcester.  

 

Terrible traffic on the way home and Liverpool city limit to centre bad else would have been around 65 mpg on the computer.

 

Doing nearly 70 mpg (computer) from Worcester to LIverpool city limits, lots of 50 mph road works, thank-you never-ending-road works.

 

Got range up to 800 miles, ie 80 miles in to journey, before turning off M6 toward Liverpool, head wind then cuts cruising MPG by a couple of MPG.

 

Suspect computer is about 5% optimistic like Speedo.   Glad I went for the Dacia rather than the Rapid/Toledo which was consdiering which was tempting with the £2K off, only one HTP Skoda left in the fleet now.

 

Let us hope Euro devaluing brings some cheaper cars and get back to the 2008 price ie £10K for a small/medium car and Skoda get the ACT engines that do 60 mpg and CO2 around 110 gm/Km!  

Just hit a new high this morning - filled the tank on the way to work (having emptied the previous full tank), Fuelly reported 51.8mpg based on 547 miles of driving - my best actual mpg in this car.

(Fuelly has my best mpg logged at 53.8mpg, but that was an anomaly based on 8 miles of driving, coming off the back of a part fill-up).

 

Doesn't fuelly use the US gallon which is 3.785 litres as opposed to the imperial gallon that we use of 4.546 litres or is there a way to adjust it?

 

On my last tank I managed 50.09 based on 551 miles of driving and filling to the first click of the pump as usual. That's with just over 4000 miles on the clock so I'm looking forward to seeing what I can get once it has a few more miles on it. It did include a trip to Aberdeen which was a 250 mile round trip

 

My highest has been 64mpg based on a 68 mile journey between home and Pitlochry

Doesn't fuelly use the US gallon which is 3.785 litres as opposed to the imperial gallon that we use of 4.546 litres or is there a way to adjust it?

On my last tank I managed 50.09 based on 551 miles of driving and filling to the first click of the pump as usual. That's with just over 4000 miles on the clock so I'm looking forward to seeing what I can get once it has a few more miles on it. It did include a trip to Aberdeen which was a 250 mile round trip

My highest has been 64mpg based on a 68 mile journey between home and Pitlochry

Fuelly supports both UK and US gallons, as well as the silly European metric nonsense. You just choose the metric you want in your account settings. My Fuelly account is set up to use the correct British gallon measurement, so my numbers are correct.

Also, I should add that for all of the miles on that tank I had the AC running as well, which on the 1.2 TSI makes a noticeable difference to engine load and idle revs.

I found that my fuel economy really improved once the car had done about 10,000 miles and had its first service. By that point it really loosened up and became easier to drive with a light foot on the pedal.

My 1.2 Rapids done 3400 miles so fully run in, 70% of my daily commute is motorway in 6th gear and im getting 40.7mpg. That's so far from Skodas advertised mpg it's disgracefully misleading and should not be allowed. I really like my Rapid but I'm very disappointed with Skoda!!!!!! Shame on you!!!!!!!!!

I totally agree with you there.The fuel consumption is total crap for a tiny 1.2 engine.It,ll never get better i,m sure.These engines are total sh!te and the new 1.2 engine is no better either.Skoda are liars just like all other manufacturers.

 

This is useless mileage and MPG :(

Roll on July next year.

I totally agree with you there.The fuel consumption is total crap for a tiny 1.2 engine.It,ll never get better i,m sure.These engines are total sh!te and the new 1.2 engine is no better either.Skoda are liars just like all other manufacturers.

This is useless mileage and MPG :(

Roll on July next year.

You should never have had it back. Your OCD and a Friday car were never going to get on. And to be fair it doesnt sound like you'd be happy with the 44/45mpg most get anyway.

If you dont like it...

Get rid and get happy.

I think the 1.2 is silky smooth, quick, economical. I thought your beloved Citigo motor was like a bucket of bolts in comparison on both the ones I drove.

Edited 19 June, 201511 yr by camelspyyder

61 mpg on the computer for Worcester-Liverpool centre-Worcester.

Terrible traffic on the way home and Liverpool city limit to centre bad else would have been around 65 mpg on the computer.

Doing nearly 70 mpg (computer) from Worcester to LIverpool city limits, lots of 50 mph road works, thank-you never-ending-road works.

Got range up to 800 miles, ie 80 miles in to journey, before turning off M6 toward Liverpool, head wind then cuts cruising MPG by a couple of MPG.

Suspect computer is about 5% optimistic like Speedo. Glad I went for the Dacia rather than the Rapid/Toledo which was consdiering which was tempting with the £2K off, only one HTP Skoda left in the fleet now.

Let us hope Euro devaluing brings some cheaper cars and get back to the 2008 price ie £10K for a small/medium car and Skoda get the ACT engines that do 60 mpg and CO2 around 110 gm/Km!

I cant match your running cost on the Dacia but I'm way under your 10k target with my new Ibiza - 9070 OTR

whats a HTP?

OK got it, an antique 3cyl that was never in the Rapid or Toledo?

Edited 19 June, 201511 yr by camelspyyder

I know i hate the damn thing.I,m bailing out at 50% next July i,ve decided.21 months of hell is long enough for me.Its a shame as this is the most terrible Skoda i,ve ever owned.They,re heading the wrong way now at over inflated prices and shoddy build quality.Everything went downhill after the MK2 Octavia :(

I thought they would have it back if it went wrong again?

Ignoring the badly installed stereo and suspension obviously.

Its due for its first service on 1st Sept then they will get the long list that will go with it.I doubt i,ll see it again for months lol.Its all gradually going wrong after 10 months old.

Eg: Now has voltage stability problem(lights dim then bright)

Rear wiper decides to stop anywhere on the back window.

Main beam always flashes when i indicate either way.

Throttle is all or nothing intermittently

Wrong springs fitted to the front

Fuel gauge going up and down like a yoyo.

Both N/S door speakers vibrate

I totally agree with you there.The fuel consumption is total crap for a tiny 1.2 engine.It,ll never get better i,m sure.These engines are total sh!te and the new 1.2 engine is no better either.Skoda are liars just like all other manufacturers.

 

This is useless mileage and MPG :(

Roll on July next year.

 

The problem with the 1.2 TSI is not that it is not too tiny it is actually too big ie too manny CCs.  VW-Audi Group has a 3 cylinder 1 litre turbo coming out, much much more efficent than the 1.2 TSI.

 

The 1.2 TSI was launched as a cheaply produced ie it is single cam rather than twin cam 1.4 TSI and was a low tech engine for the cheap engine of the market.  It would be reliable because it is low stressed but not very fuel efficient because it was a design of quite a few years ago.  VAG like the TSI, especially in Skoda, as it is cheap and reliable if not so fuel efficient.

 

When compared to Ford's ecoboost, GM's three cylinder turbo,  Fiat's twin air and the Renualt TCE (all three or two cylinder) the 1.2 TSI is an old design.  (Ford absolutely walked the awards).

http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/results.php?id=10

 

If you look at the 1 to 1.4 litre category athe the International Engine awards, a part from Citreon's new three cylinder engine, the engines are quite old as the development is in the 0.7 to 1 litre catercory for petrols.  Like my TCE engine it is capable of cruising at an indicated 80 mph, quitely and with a fuel consumption around 5-10 % better than a engine a third bigger.  Advantages of three cylinder over four explained well by video https://youtu.be/XNvRhWL1stQ .   Less CCs mean less friction, less weight and better fuel consumption. 

I cant match your running cost on the Dacia but I'm way under your 10k target with my new Ibiza - 9070 OTR       whats a HTP?   OK got it, an antique 3cyl that was never in the Rapid or Toledo?

 

The Sandero, Laureate spec, ie air con, satnav, media, phone, you can run for about 23 pence per mile  http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/car-stats/dacia-sandero-09tce-90-laureate/3177671/

 

The Logan, more equivelent to the Rapid, Toldeo, Ibiza ST, costs also about 23 ppm, with the Media-Nav media, phone, sat nav option.  That is about the lowest running cost for a car and makes for the potential for quite a bit of profit on the 45 ppm that most firms and the HM Treasury sanction for the first 10K and one of very few cars that get under the 25 ppm above 10K miles in a year reclaimable rate.

 

Sandero top spec can be had for under £9K, Logan for £10K.  Do not like the 15 inch wheels so some steel 16s, look incredibly like alloys can be had cheap.

 

HTP, great city car engine used in Ibiza, Fabia and Polo.  Alway needed a sixth gear to get the emmissions under 120 gm/km and it would pull it with peak torque a 3k revs. warms up quick. 45 mpg round town, not so good at 75 mph.  Used in Rapid in 75 hp form I think.