I had two HTP's , Fabia's , great around town, ok on the motorway if a little heavy on petrol .   On faster A roads it was not good at all it didn't like overtaking unless warned in writing . When we started having holidays in the north of Scotland I got the Rapid ; large boot,  enough go for an old chap and good fuel economy , I love it .

I had two HTP's , Fabia's , great around town, ok on the motorway if a little heavy on petrol .   On faster A roads it was not good at all it didn't like overtaking unless warned in writing . When we started having holidays in the north of Scotland I got the Rapid ; large boot,  enough go for an old chap and good fuel economy , I love it .

 

Fancied the one with the 1.4 TSI and the DSG box, the 7 speed DSG I think is absolutely wonder.  Performance and economy very impressive.

 

Have not tried the EDC ie the Renault DSG equivalent, sharper now in the Clio 220, shame it is now seven or even 8 speed which is the more usual number of auto-gearbox gear numbers now.

 

Discounts on Rapids, and Toledos were tempting.   There are doing 0% but no £2K discount any more it seems.    

Discounts should be enormous right now. Much of the existing stock has Euro 5 compliant engines, and will be unsaleable as new from 1 Sep. The Ibiza I just bought is Euro 5 - exactly 33% off RRP was the discount. Translate that to a good spec Rapid/Toledo and thats 6k off.

Fancied the one with the 1.4 TSI and the DSG box, the 7 speed DSG I think is absolutely wonder.  Performance and economy very impressive.

 

Have not tried the EDC ie the Renault DSG equivalent, sharper now in the Clio 220, shame it is now seven or even 8 speed which is the more usual number of auto-gearbox gear numbers now.

 

Discounts on Rapids, and Toledos were tempting.   There are doing 0% but no £2K discount any more it seems.    

1.4 TSI DSG is great to drive and had one for 1 1/2 years now. Just did trip to Penrith and back from Perth and averaged 53mpg at average cruise control speed of 69mph. Smooth and quiet on motorway and huge boot. Bike and loads of luggage on board.

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've just done a trip with mine, ok a shortish drive 50 mile round trip but all mainly A road and never above 45mph. I was sort of crawling along at certain times as I was trying not to get to my destination too early, meeting some of the family off the train at Matlock Bath. On the joiurney back I glanced at the average mpg, it read 60.8 at one point, it ended up being an average of 57 when I'd dropped everyone off and got back home. The range also said 155 miles when I started off, and when I got back said 160.

I've just done a trip with mine, on a shortish drive 50 mile round trip but all mainly A road and never above 45mph. I was sort of crawling along at certain times as I was trying not to get to my destination too early, meeting some of the family off the train at Matlock Bath. On the joiurney back I glanced at the average mpg, it read 60.8 at one point, it ended up being an average of 57 when I'd dropped everyone off and got back home. The range also said 155 miles when I started off, and when I got back said 160.

Unfortunately, the Maxidot data doesn't really help a driver to understand true fuel consumption on a journey-by-journey basis as it's always recalculating to provide a near real-time view based on the current prevailing driving style and conditions (which it is supposed to do). That, combined with the generally over-optimistic figures that Maxidot reports on mpg, range, average consumption 1 and average consumption 2, and current consumption - makes for a fairly confused view of what the car is actually achieving.

It's still not perfect, but full tank-to-full tank analysis based on miles driven and litres consumed, is a completely accurate overall figure. However, this approach (used by Fuelly etc) doesn't separate out motorway driving from local road driving, so a tank's worth of driving mostly on motorways - like my last tank - will always outstrip a tank's worth of driving mostly on motorways. It will never give you accurate data for each road type (or the impact of the terrain and conditions), just an amalgamation of everything into a baseline figure.

As for the real time mpg reading, I've often had that at over 120mpg. It can be massively thrown out by driving downhill, driving with the wind behind you etc. There's a stretch of road on the M40 coming out of High Wycombe towards London that is a steep, high-speed downhill run - it produces hilarious mpg data.

Unfortunately, the Maxidot data doesn't really help a driver to understand true fuel consumption on a journey-by-journey basis as it's always recalculating to provide a near real-time view based on the current prevailing driving style and conditions (which it is supposed to do). That, combined with the generally over-optimistic figures that Maxidot reports on mpg, range, average consumption 1 and average consumption 2, and current consumption - makes for a fairly confused view of what the car is actually achieving.   It's still not perfect, but full tank-to-full tank analysis based on miles driven and litres consumed, is a completely accurate overall figure. However, this approach (used by Fuelly etc) doesn't separate out motorway driving from local road driving, so a tank's worth of driving mostly on motorways - like my last tank - will always outstrip a tank's worth of driving mostly on motorways. It will never give you accurate data for each road type (or the impact of the terrain and conditions), just an amalgamation of everything into a baseline figure.   As for the real time mpg reading, I've often had that at over 120mpg. It can be massively thrown out by driving downhill, driving with the wind behind you etc. There's a stretch of road on the M40 coming out of High Wycombe towards London that is a steep, high-speed downhill run - it produces hilarious mpg data.

 

I think that hill is the is used on the starting sequence of "The vicar of Dibley" and yest it can do marvels to ones average mpg and calculated range.  The big argument, splits people on to two camps, is whether to free wheel/coast down there or not.  I am firmly in the Coasting camp, and the new DSG boxes do it automatically when economy setting selected.  Congestion is the enemy which is why I prefer driving in areas where there is less and avoid, by timing or routes, hot spot where there is congestion.

 

With techniques manufacturers can be achieved but it takes a lot of mental effort but has its own satisfying and financial rewards of course.     

Yes I agree with all that Chris a real check and the only true check is a brim the tank use and brim again and count the miles.

 

What I was comparing is Stormchasers evaluation of fuel usage and mpg. I know he has had problems, seems like they are still evident, with the recording/reading and or fuel gauge readings.

 

I think this little engine is perfect for what is is, my visits to the petrol station are still infrequent must add though I'm not a huge mile muncher.

There is a third "register" ie fuel consumption memory store as well as the two viewable by the user.  Would love to know what formula it uses.

 

Manufacturers should use led fuel gauges rather than analogue dial type, just dumb to use this type, used it in the Fabia 2 so why use in the Rapid or slightly later designs?

 

In the industry it is known the certain vehicles, sometimes known as Friday afternoon cars, have a fault in the loom which manifest in CAN bus which basically is unsolvable unless you removed all the wiring and replaced it which would cost as much as the car cost to make so they just string the owner along until they loose the will to complain.

 

As said the 1.2 TSI was an exercise in cost cutting, single cam, low cost manufacturing, offerings by all major manufacturers is now three cylinder 900 to 1200 cc for B and C sector cars is they are adequate and significantly more economical that 4 cylinder ones.  Skoda will get these in a year or three.     

Yes I agree with all that Chris a real check and the only true check is a brim the tank use and brim again and count the miles.

 

What I was comparing is Stormchasers evaluation of fuel usage and mpg. I know he has had problems, seems like they are still evident, with the recording/reading and or fuel gauge readings.

 

I think this little engine is perfect for what is is, my visits to the petrol station are still infrequent must add though I'm not a huge mile muncher.

Completely with you on the engine - I too am happy with it performance and economy-wise and I've come from a frugal (if ultimately unreliable) diesel.

With Stormchaser's car, I do think the best bet is to measure tank-to-tank to understand overall mpg, as well as looking at individual journeys and comparing both measures with what the analogue and digital gauges report. That car still doesn't seem right either way which is a great shame.

It's definitely not right I agree. I'm lucky if I'm going to see 300 miles to this tank full ( going by the odometer).

As said the 1.2 TSI was an exercise in cost cutting, single cam, low cost manufacturing, offerings by all major manufacturers is now three cylinder 900 to 1200 cc for B and C sector cars is they are adequate and significantly more economical that 4 cylinder ones. Skoda will get these in a year or three.

No doubt you're right, but the 1.2 TSI is a miracle of modern engineering compared to the normally aspirated 1.2 FIRE engine in my wife's Panda. I love the Panda - it's brilliant fun - but how I wish Fiat had an engine like the 1.2 TSI!

The Fiat engine is so old it could have been designed by Brunel! :-D Trying to wring Euro 6 performance out of the old lump has probably been a step too far. The 0.9 twin air has its fans, but the MPG figures have proven to be a work of fiction.

No doubt you're right, but the 1.2 TSI is a miracle of modern engineering compared to the normally aspirated 1.2 FIRE engine in my wife's Panda. I love the Panda - it's brilliant fun - but how I wish Fiat had an engine like the 1.2 TSI!

The Fiat engine is so old it could have been designed by Brunel! :-D Trying to wring Euro 6 performance out of the old lump has probably been a step too far. The 0.9 twin air has its fans, but the MPG figures have proven to be a work of fiction.

 

Engine technology is moving a t quite a rapid pace and it needs to spin out the fuel resources across the world's increasing population and to avoid the increasing punative taxaxation, VAT (@20% plus) particualrly which is aimed at people rather than companies.

 

Naturally aspirated (petrol) have their place, they are great at short city journeys of up to 3 miles as they warm up super quick.  They also could beneifit from direct injection and more gears but development in that direction seem to stall.

 

 The Fiat twin air, and Ford's all conquering Ecoboost and Renault's TCE can achive phenominal MPG ie 65 mpg plus, but they have to be driven with a light foot and kept in the golden area of 2.5k to 4k revs which requires a litlle more discipline.   I bet few of today's Skoda owners remember the original Rapid which had a green zone painted on the tacho to keep within of these sorst of revs !  

My car has 15" wheels - 185/60R15 - They don't look half as good as the alloys but economy seems very good.  Early days but got 58.9 mpg taking it easy collecting the car Eastbourne -> nr Crewe.  

The trip computer could be wildly out (I wouldn't know yet) but it all seems to be off to a good start. 

Edited 22 June, 201511 yr by picnmix

I thought that about my Rapid when I first got it but then it all went "Rapidly " downhill :(

My car has 15" wheels - 185/60R15 - They don't look half as good as the alloys but economy seems very good.  Early days but got 58.9 mpg taking it easy collecting the car Eastbourne -> nr Crewe.  

The trip computer could be wildly out (I wouldn't know yet) but it all seems to be off to a good start.

I've got 15inch alloys with 185/60/15 boots on mine - They don't look great (small and basic) but they help make the ride a little less crashy. As for the mpg you achieved, reality is probably more like 54-55 given the Maxidot's propensity for overstating economy. Still really good though.

Well impressed with what Sat-Nav can do to help fuel consumption.  I just asked the Media-Nav system in the car to do an ecorun from Worcester to Essex and it picked out a route which was country roads mainly ie A roads but seemed to skim towns edges like some gravity slingshot spacecraft and hence 60 mpg on the computer and miles to the tank looking like close to 700 miles.  Tactics use a few days ago in the Audi A6 record setting https://www.audi.co.uk/content/audi/about-audi/latest-news/audi-a6-ultra-goes-the-distance-and-sets-new-world-record.html

Poor fuel economy? Naaaa my lil 1.2 tsi seems to be getting better and better!!! 600 miles per tank is easy. It's even starting to surprise me now (Never thought I would ever in my lifetime see a petrol engine achieve this!) It is due for a service though which for some reason usually hurts the economy for a few months after!?!?!?

 

Edited 23 June, 201511 yr by WillJohnson

Poor fuel economy? Naaaa my lil 1.2 tsi seems to be getting better and better!!! 600 miles per tank is easy. It's even starting to surprise me now (Never thought I would ever in my lifetime see a petrol engine achieve this!) It is due for a service though which for some reason usually hurts the economy for a few months after!?!?!?

 

600 miles from a tank is really good, nice one. I'm assuming your driving is almost entirely motorways rather than local roads? Also, how low do you run your tank before refuelling in order to hit the 600 mile figure?

Don't forget, that pic is showing Average Consumption 1 - only relevant for current journey, not cumulative - for cumulative data you need to use Average Consumption 2 and reset it tank-to-tank (and remember that even doing that the figure it will show will be a bit over-optimistic).

Yep i dont pay too much attention to the figures tbh... If I can do 100 miles per £10 of Unleaded I always think i'm doing alrite! And I can with the Rapid! In terms of how far I run the tank to this week on Friday it will prob say 0 miles on it as I pull into the petrol station.... But..... My trip will be above 600 miles by then!

 

And yes this is nearly all motorway work (50 miles per day commute).

Edited 23 June, 201511 yr by WillJohnson

Yep i dont pay too much attention to the figures tbh... If I can do 100 miles per £10 of Unleaded I always think i'm doing alrite! And I can with the Rapid! In terms of how far I run the tank to this week on Friday it will prob say 0 miles on it as I pull into the petrol station.... But..... My trip will be above 600 miles by then!

Totally agree - 100 miles per tenner is a good benchmark and represents good value for money.

I'd also say we are on a par then mpg wise. My last full tank was 547 miles @ 51.8mpg, and it appears you were also in the 51-52mpg range with your last tank. However, I pulled in to refuel shortly after I got the refuel warning (so there was still about 7 litres of fuel and sludge in the tank). If i had kept going as long as you I would have been well into 600 miles+ travelled from that one tank as well. I won't run the car down as low as you though as I don't want to clog the fuel line with the gunk that forms at the bottom of the tank.

600 miles [emoji6] no chance. Is it the 86 bhp or the Greentech?

You'll never get that out of a 105[emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

86bhp version non greentech... I've done 600 miles on a tank many many times before :-)

 

I can understand people with the 105 disagreeing tho my dad has a skoda Yeti with that engine and hes getting 35mpg average which makes me chuckle!

 

I really am not sure I agree with the comment about the sludge at the bottom of the tank? One of the biggest myths about cars ever which has been debunked many times :-)

Obviously the 86bhp is a much better fuel efficient engine. Well done for that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

beginning to think I should have gone for the 85hp version, there's no way I'd get 600 miles out of mine, I refuel around 460-470 when the light comes on. That's 50 motorway miles commute in some queueing traffic and a pretty light right foot.