the new EU test involves accelerating to 130km/h and staying there, which is why a lot of small cars will probably go electric far faster than currently appreciated and why larger engines will re-appear. Can't remember when it  will become law, but it's not far away.

 

The Cd numbers and ratios are in the tech specs on Skoda's website. 

 

 - Bret

Yup I got the Cd values from the Octy and Fabia brochures. Although I've realise that the Octy figure has an extra 0 in it! Damn fat fingers... :-P

 

The Fabia is smaller- but it not massively so in frontal area. 0.325/0.298=1.0906 (IE, a Fabia with the same frontal area will have the drag of 1.0906 Octavias). Simplifying things massively, a box of the 2 cars' heights and widths are 2.947 m^2 for the Octavia and 2.872 m^2 for the Fabia. This is a lot closer ratio- 1.0259.

I was getting 66mpg out of my fabia 1.4tdi dsg so it was more fuel efficenct than my current octavia 1.6tdi dsg which is averaging 58 mpg.

just been informed that should be able to pick up in two weeks!

Did a trip out today to Tampere and back, that's mostly 80km/h limited. Strangely enough, though, the numbers weren't that much better than at 100. Not quite sure why, though it was wet and a couple of degrees colder....  still, it's nice to see the range not go down at all for the first 50kms

After refuel it was showing a tick over 900kms on one tank. 

 

 - Bret

I always found that driving in wet conditions increased rolling resistance. 

That is wet and not just damp.

I have had my 1.0 TSI DSG Combi for few weeks now. The consumpion seems to be pretty low at stable speeds and in good conditions but sensitive to conditions. Most of my driving is done in the city and the rest in the motorway so driving profile is pretty hard for any kind of car. Previous diesel cars have consumed 3-4 litres more than EU combined figure. First tank was 9,13 l/100km (31 mpg) calculated from the actual litres with the average speed of 26 km/h. The second tank seems to be about the same according to trip computer. The webasto is in daily use and office is only 3 km away from home. Even these figures feels acceptable because the car is pretty big and engine pulls surprisingly strong. It doesn't feel too small at all. My previus car had more power and torque, but also more weight.  

@JokeRo, based on your real world of (a real) winter, webasto and 3km commute then I'd say your returns are pretty darn good!

Be very interesting to hear when more clement weather comes around and you do some longer journeys.

My old Mk2 diesel was more consistent returning good consumption in adverse conditions, and I'd agree my Mk3 1.4ts consumption reduction is more apparent when there adverse factors (headwinds, hills, heavy loads, roof racks, or high speeds etc).

Stands to reason with the extra 10% calories per litre in diesel and higher compression ratios (efficiency) of the engine.

If there are a lot of short journeys involved then the diesel DPF can totally ruin average consumption.

Just under 5 hours until pick up! 

 

Anything I need to be on the look out for when picking up?

Picked it up yesterday. Very impressed so far. Quite different to my Citroën C4 diesel. Will need time to run it in. But got 53mpg on the 40 mile return trip from the dealership. 

 

Variable floor a little busy, miss the lack of steering wheel controls and was a wee bit loud (wind) when I hit 80mph. Apart from that looking forward to seeing what it is like as it beds in. 

I've had mine since November.

Winter conditions, studded tires and 2x daily webasto use renders a real life fuel consumption of about 7,5 l/100km or 38 MPG.

My daily commute is about 16 km one way. There's room for improvement, and I could probably be doing more eco-driving, but as for now I drive it normally. On longer trips, I usually go around 120 km/h, but now with the ACC i set it at a little over 110 km/h and that does a lot for consumption. The engine (and the whole car) is more quiet than my MY15, wich makes the wind noise at speeds over 100 km/h more prominent, but it's not too bad. Like I said, more quiet than the 1.2 TSI.

 

However, I feel engine vibrations in the gear stick more than in the previous car, I don't rememeber that from the test drive. Does anyone else feel it?

 

The variable floor is standard here in Sweden, and I really like it. It's good to have an extra space below the floor. It's a great place to put your bike rack when not in use, or the many, many shoes that my family needs on vacation. And, when you need to carry something big and theres juuust not enough room, you just drop the floor and get extra room. The rubber mat can go either on top of or under the lid.

Edited 6 February, 20179 yr by Riolux

500 odd miles in. Just returned the 125 mile journey from Peak District to Norfolk. Car stuffed to bursting woth clobber, two kids and my wife. 56.2mpg for the journey. 

 

Still adjusting to it after life with a 1.6TDI...Need ti shift up through gears alot sooner...very impressed so far. Coped very well on country lanes, can very capable of shifting on the open road. 

7500kms in and the last tank was patrolling the motorway to Helsinki and back and the airport. Filled Monday in Helsinki, then home, Tuesday Helsinki and back. Wednesday via Ikea and Thursday to the airport. That makes around 750kms on a tank - the light came on today. Average of 5.0l/100, with a lot of Webasto use and some seriously cold temperatures - down to -14 on Tuesday morning here. Lots of snow Wednesday was a nightmare to drive through - at times minimal visibility. 

 

I suspect with warmer weather I'll see some really nice numbers on the dial. It's loosening up nicely and I'm happy. A complete Hemnes sofabed will also fit in, if the passenger seat is tilted forward and as far forwards as it will go... 

 

Will do a consumption test again at some point soon.

 

 - Bret

5l/100 translates to 20km /l, so 12.3 miles per litre and around 56 UK mpg. That does *not* include webasto use, which was another 5l (the office is a known distance, as is the airport, so it's pretty simple to deduce that one). Webasto has been on for departures all four mornings this week at 0600, and I've generally left a few minutes before six.

Cruise is set where possible to an indicated 108km/h, which is an accurate 101km/h or so. Climate set to 21, A/C off, god only knows how much screenwash I've used... minimal high beam. Both front and rear fogs on pretty much all the way home on Wednesday.

 

Using cruise extensively Monday and Tuesday saw me back to 4.8 on the computer. Wednesday's weather screwed that up completely - even though it was slower?

Another finding: cruise will turn itself off if the car is slowed down too much, for example by snow or a patch of water. That was interesting and mildly unexpected. 

Front Assist sensor location is also stupid. It gets blocked with snow so easily!

 

 - Bret

 

 

Thanks for the extra details.

You must have rad my mind as  I was going to ask for a bit of clarification on webasto consumption and how that reflected.

You are doing really well so Spring results will be interesting and a bit of relief from the weather would be welcome you I imagine.

 

Conversely I am going for an early run before it gets too warm

 

 

yep, it's quite interesting, as without the webasto, the computer seems really quite accurate. I'll corroborate more when I can. I'm sure I put around 42l in earlier, and with the 750km / 5 per 100, that implies an extra 5l or so that hasn't been accounted for. Considering the cold, I don't find that too bad and actually realistic - I'm sure it's been on for a good hour or so in the mornings. 1l/h seems a little high, but doesn't surprise much, and I can't say how long the system has been running as it's just been set to "leave at 06:00".

 

I figure spring weather - so around 5-15C - and summer tyres with the slower limits should see me hit 4.5 on the Helsinki run, possibly 4.2. If it's too warm, the A/C will kill the numbers as it will have to work harder, but quantifying that effect will be close to impossible. When we're back to summer limits of 120km/h, I'd expect to see a tick over 5l/100 for the Helsinki run.

I doubt I'll see below 4, as I'm still using 16" OEM rims both in winter and summer. 4 would be 70 mpg, 4.2 is 66.

 

 - Bret

quick google implies a Petrol Webasto Thermo Top 4 drinks around 0.56l/h. 

 

 - Bret

... and confirmed. Done another 1000kms since then; speed and moisture / snow really do make a difference. From 4.7 in the dry to 5.0 and 5.2 depending on the weather. Though tonight on the way home with minimal traffic from the main road saw me hit 4.6. 104 on the tacho vs 109 also contributes, I'm sure; I was doing the slower speed for a bunch of the way home tonight.

Currently very happy with my car. It's done 1000km in the last week without a complaint and I'm doing >500 miles on a single tank. I can live with that.

 

 - Bret

Now up to >9500. With wind on the way back and lots of standing water in both directions on the trip up north over the weekend, I'm seeing a reported 5.0. I will re-prove that when possible. Strangely enough, the difference between 80km/h and 100km/h appears to be very, very little, which is a massive surprise to me. Much of the section above Jyväskylä has 80km/h limits and cameras, so I clicked a GPS 82 in... but still, it's not been as good as the 4.7 registered to Helsinki and back. Interesting. I was expecting at least a 10% difference between 80 and 100.....

 

Anyway, now have 2.5 / 2.3 bar in the winter tyres and today was >5C for the first time in months. But very dirty.

 

Pull has improved nicely, it's pretty good now to drop from 6 to 4 for an overtake at a tick under 80. Before you know it, you're at 120km/h... the car does seem to be afflicted badly by salt water ruining braking performance, but other than that - and I know about that now - I'm a happy driver.

 

 - Bret

Whichever way you look at it they are still exceptional figures for the conditions.

 

Agree that you should have got better figures at the lower speed.

I have noticed with my 1.4tsi is that at lower speeds in a higher gear (light throttle, low revs, no turbo and little load) that you have to be very light on the throttle to get very good returns. You can easily use 25% more fuel yet go no faster.

 

 

Fun to read about Octavia 1.0 TSI. I will get my new Octavia 2018 1,0 tsi with DSG7 of 7 weeks and it will be interesting to monitor the consumption of the new vehicle. I drive today an Octavia 1.6 TDI 2016 has gone very well and attracted little diesel. Written by Google Translate     https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/756137.html

Edited 19 March, 20179 yr by mso1000

Brettikivi,   A tip to get an account on  www.spritmonitor.de/en/search.html,  you get a little overview on consumption

 

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/search.html  

 

https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/0-All_manufactures/0-All_models.html?exactmodel=1,0 tsi&powerunit=2

 

Edited 19 March, 20179 yr by mso1000

so this morning I drove in again - the difference *according to the computer* between an indicated 104km/h and 108km/h is 0.3l/100km. That's significant - maybe some of that is due to lights, but it's quite a difference. 4.4 vs 4.7.

 

Will have to see if I can survive a trip home at 101 :/ Logic says that should be closer to 4.2. 

 

 - Bret

 

 

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 00:35, Gerrycan said:

Whichever way you look at it they are still exceptional figures for the conditions.

 

Agree that you should have got better figures at the lower speed.

I have noticed with my 1.4tsi is that at lower speeds in a higher gear (light throttle, low revs, no turbo and little load) that you have to be very light on the throttle to get very good returns. You can easily use 25% more fuel yet go no faster.

 

 

I notice that in 50mph motorway sections the mpg is better in 5th gear when cruising in a queue. As you say  6th gear sees the mpg plummeting  when the loud pedal is pressed.

Interesting, that would imply I shouldn't be trying sixth on the long 80km/h sections we have here. Will have to test next time I go up north.

 

@mso1000 - I'm aware of Spritmonitor, I just didn't want to use it

 

 - Bret