Sorry if this is a sill newb question but I have been trawling the net and not able to find an answer, or at least not one I trust before I contact the DVLA.
 
I have been driving a 2009 Fabia Estate of the 1390cc petrol variety for about 2.5 years and I have been puzzling over the tax band.
 
The DLVA have it listed as 154 g/km on the emissions which put it firmly in the higher (£180 per year) bracket. My experience of driving the car is that it is very frugal with petrol, consistently averaging 42-48mpg and frequently going over 50 on local (flat, non-motorway) journeys. This has pleased me but I was puzzled by the seemingly high 154 figure on the road tax.
 
The only quoted figure I could find was on wikepedia (yeah, quite) which suggests it should be 139:
 
1.4 MPI 63 kW 2007-2014 (EA111) 1390 ccm, I4, 16V, DOHC, MPI, naturally aspirated 63 kW (86 PS; 85 hp) at 5000 rpm 132 Nm. (97 lb•ft) at 3800 rpm 5-speed manual (MQ200), FWD 175 12.2 5.9 / 47.9 / 39.9 139
 

Am I looking at the right engine spec there? 
 
Should I be contesting the DVLA rating?
 
Thanks, and sorry if this sounds like a stupid newbee comment.
 
Oh, and I have heard it said on these boards that this engine should always be fed super unleaded, I was not aware of this when I bought the car (2nd hand) and have used a mixture but found the MPG to be almost identical with regular so it normally gets that, should I change this behaviour at once get the engine checked out thoroughly?
 
Andy

•  

Edited 1 July, 201511 yr by andyhurley

Welcome to the forum.

 

Is your car Euro 4 Emissions. (2009)  or Euro 5.

Your co2/g km is on your V5.

 

As to engines,

Take the 2009 on 1390 cc Euro 5,

1.4 TSI 132 kw - 136  in the Seat Ibiza from 2009. then the Fabia & VW Polo from 2010.

 

In the Seat & the Skoda it was Co2 148 g /km,  and in the VW Polo & then the A1 Co2 139g /km

Then a new Engine was fitted to all 4 cars, the VW & Audi stay as 139 g.  the Seat became 139 g,

The Skoda remained as 148 g same new engine as the Seat, fitted first in the Skoda, same Engine Management, and a lighter car.

 

Same thing with Roomsters in some models, 

& other Skoda compared to VW's. Audi's & Seats with Identical engines & Engine Management and sometines

the Skoda is Lighter, more economic and actually has less emissions.

 

Stop / Start is sometimes where VAG can do the EU Testing and get low emissions in tests and VWG

submit what they like to the Relevant People.

Vorsprung Durch Technik.

Edited 1 July, 201511 yr by goneoffSKi

Thanks for the comments.

 

Obviously it is the V5 that says 154 and that is what I am considering querying. All I know is it was first registered in August 2009 and says Fabia 2 on the back. How can I determine if it is Euro 4 or 5? Maybe I can look under the bonnet for something? That 154 figure doesn't seem to tie in with either of the engines you list which is what got me thinking there may have been an error at registration.

 

Maybe I should just quit fussing and just live with it - after all I am pretty happy with the car. I had it towing 850 kilos of sand/cement a week ago (spread across the rear axle and a trailer and, apart from the compression to the suspension, you would hardly know it was there.

What is the engine code?

 

(Should be on the car data sticker, possibly also on V5?)

 

This page shows it likely to be BXW judging by dates, which makes it EU4. You'll see on that page also that 95 RON minimum is the fuel recommendation.

 

Unfortunately, the wiki page you've quoted from seems to bracket the BXW code, EU4 engine, together with the CGGB code EU5 one, which almost certainly have different CO₂ figures, so they've probably written 139 which may be for the CGGB, but misapplied it to your engine too. Speculation really.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, things are beginning to fall into place. I will check what the data sticker says tonight but I am thinking maybe the 154 figure is correct after all - which is good as it will save me hassle. Also encouraging that I should probably not worry about putting 95 ron fuel in as that seems to be correct after all.

 

Thanks again for the comments guys, this place is great.