In summer conditions I was getting almost 45 mpg on a 25 mile B-road commute.

 

As conditions get colder that's heading for sub-40 though.

 

And I don't think those figures are too bad, taken in isolation.

 

Unfortunately the EU, Manufacturer (and their lying allies like AutoExpress) all perpetuate the myth the 105 will do a combined 56 mpg.

 

And that annoys me because it's clearly lies.

Edited 4 December, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

In summer conditions I was getting almost 45 mpg on a 25 mile B-road commute.

 

As conditions get colder that's heading for sub-40 though.

What car is that? The Toledo? What engine have you got?

1.2 /105 6 speed with stop/start

Edited 4 December, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

My 110 ps with 1000 miles on the clock is averaging 38 mpg which is similar to the 86ps I had before at this time of year.The 86ps engine averaged about 45 mph  in the summer and I would expect the 110 ps to be around that.

If it was me I wouldn't be happy with 38 v's the factory claim of mid 50's.

 

However they do loosen up quickly - I was dismayed with 37 from my first tankful but 5 fills later it had improved by a third!

 

Shame my new commute is on a thirstier route.

How far out can this be?

Range seems optimistic? If it genuinely does over 500 miles I'll be dead chuffed.

Mines a Greentech so has start/stop too

In the summer I've regularly got 510 miles before filling up.

 

From whats been written here the mpg indicator has differing accuracy from car to car.  Mine is 6% optimistic.

It can apparently be recalibrated with VCDS but not Carista or other cheap alternatives.

 

I saw a post recently complaining that the start/stop doesn't work with the climate control on. It does, but not if the screen demist symbol is lit up.

Edited 4 December, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

 

I saw a post recently complaining that the start/stop doesn't work with the climate control on. It does, but not if the screen demist symbol is lit up.

 

Think if its set to auto it should work, but any manual override disables S/S on some cars i have found.

So far I've left mine set to auto, stop start seems to work great.

If it was me I wouldn't be happy with 38 v's the factory claim of mid 50's.

 

However they do loosen up quickly - I was dismayed with 37 from my first tankful but 5 fills later it had improved by a third!

 

Shame my new commute is on a thirstier route.

Hi Camelspyyder.The point I was trying to make is that there seems very little difference between the fuel consumption of the older 86ps engine and the newer 110 ps.The 110 ps has stop start which the 86 ps did not.The 110ps is EU6 compliant and the 86 EU5.Strangley if you asked me now whilst the 110 ps engine is still tight I would say that the 86 ps had the edge on it for acceleration in everyday driving.However this may be an illusion as the new one has 6 gears against 5 for the old one.

The screen demist v's stop start is mentioned in the Skoda manual - but not the SEAT one!  

 

Took me months to get the answer to that one on here. SEAT dealers couldn't help.

 

It's the only climate mode that does this - so you don't fog up in traffic I guess.

 

 

 

And re EU5 and EU6 - the emissions standards posted on here during our long debate on it showed no difference for petrol engines - but there was a big change for diesels. So an EU5 compliant petrol is also EU6 compliant

 

 

On mpg - if you have a 25+ mile commute at A road speed with no stops, no aircon, and the narrower 15 inch tyres over 50mpg should be quite attainable. However, small engine big body cars are not easy to get up to the manufactures figures. AIrcon costs me about 3mpg, every T junction and re-accelerate to 50/60 costs another 1 mpg, Wider 215/40s cost about 3 mpg and winter temperatures probably costing 5mpg or more.  Adding all that up my current low 40's is about right compared to the factory 56+ I suppose.

 

I am glad I never got round to putting 18 inch wheels on - a diesel Rapid driver on here dropped 6 mpg by doing that alone. 

Edited 5 December, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

I too am on 215s although my commute is only 17 miles each way. I do a bit of town work during the working day too.

Watching the instantaneous mpg is surprising as to just how much fuel gets used on even gentle inclines and gentle acceleration. I think it might be better to get up to speed briskly to spend less time accelerating.

I need to stop worrying really as I'm stuck with it for the foreseeable lol.

Edited 5 December, 201510 yr by Tom_vRS

I switched off instantaneous mpg after it dropped to single figures during gentle acceleration up a slope from a T-junction.

 

I think it bottomed out at 6.9 mpg and I wasn't flooring it.

 

The average mpg readout can be set to:

 

1 - This journey average (resets to zero if car is switched off for 2 hours)

2 - Long term average (lasts for 5000km before reset I think?)

 

Setting 1 varies quite wildly so I leave it on 2.

Edited 5 December, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

Very interesting that both old EU5 and new EU6 petrol engines each comply with EU6.That begs the question as to why they replaced the old with the new.The differences appear to be 16 valves against 8 , slightly more power/torque and ,allegedly, slightly lower fuel consumption for the newer engines .

       Regarding 215 40 tyres increasing fuel consumption this may be the least of your worries.My 17 inch wheels with these tyres seem to be a magnet for kerbs to the extent that I have had Alloygator wheel rim protectors added.These have proven their worth twice in the last month.On the other hand perhaps the wife and I are just getting old and cannot drive competently anymore!!!!!

The track is the same with all the factory fit sizes Rob.  You would have clanged 15's or 16's just as easily.

 

Your new engine also has belt drive cams instead of chains.  The chain drive 1.2 has a poor reputation from it's early years so maybe that drove them back to belts.

The new TSI is a completely different engine from the look of it. Turbo is on the back instead of the front, 16v rather than 8v, belt not chain etc.

My 110 ps with 1000 miles on the clock is averaging 38 mpg which is similar to the 86ps I had before at this time of year.The 86ps engine averaged about 45 mph in the summer and I would expect the 110 ps to be around that.

My 110ps 1.2 Octavia is at 1800 miles averaging 45mpg. 12 mile round trip to work, some lanes then urban traffic.

Its dropped off now its got cold, was doing 50mpg.

My 105 manual non-stop start Sport will do 430 miles to a tank on average. I've seen 480 and 350 however depending on conditions, weather and how loosened up it was at the time. Mix of stop start 30mph stuff, extra urban and 80mph DC.

I find it drinks fuel if trying hard to maintain speed on cruise if I have a head wind - Desmond has demonstrated this theory well.

What sort of MPG are we talking with the 1.4 TDI 90 ?

Has anybody bought one?  Read a few reports about test drives on here.

 

The 1.6 TDI 105 on Fuelly is showing 58 to 61 mpg so that would be about right I reckon.

 

The 90 will have to work fairly hard to lug a Rapid about, wont it?

Edited 6 December, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

My 110ps 1.2 Octavia is at 1800 miles averaging 45mpg. 12 mile round trip to work, some lanes then urban traffic.

Its dropped off now its got cold, was doing 50mpg.

The wife normally drives my petrol 110ps Toledo and her journeys are invariably urban of 3 to 5 mile duration and hence perhaps the 38 mpg is not surprising at this time of year.I went for a journey of 30 miles yesterday on A roads and returned 55.6 mpg according to the display.

Edited 6 December, 201510 yr by Robbydazzler

Our TSI 105 has been steady becoming less fuel efficient since passing the 13k mark. Not sure as to why, can only think its to do with me using it less; since getting the V40 CC I've been using it for the commute to work far more than I ever did with the previous Fabia.

 

 

TP

Has anybody bought one?  Read a few reports about test drives on here.

 

The 1.6 TDI 105 on Fuelly is showing 58 to 61 mpg so that would be about right I reckon.

 

The 90 will have to work fairly hard to lug a Rapid about, wont it?

 

 

I guess its how you define "work fairly hard" as the 1.2TSI 90 produces Max.Performance(PS/rpm) 90 x 4,400 compared to say the 1.2 TSI 110 @ 110 x 4,600 where as the 1.4TDI  90 is 90 x 3,500 Max.Performance(PS/rpm)

 

1.2TSI 90 = Max.Torque(Nm/rpm) 160 /1,400-3,500

1.2 TSI 110 = Max.Torque(Nm/rpm) 175 /1400-4,000

1.4 TDI 90 = Max.Torque(Nm/rpm) 230 /1,750-2,500

Edited 6 December, 201510 yr by RickTT

Apples and pears.  Its clearly going to murder the petrol variants on mpg.

 

I mean't I don't expect the 90 to do much better mpg than the TDi105, because it'll be working harder all the time, & its been built to (apparently) pass stringent EU6 standards.

Edited 6 December, 201510 yr by camelspyyder