Ok, so after driving my new motor for nearly a year now, I'm impressed! The car is a 2017 SE hatch DSG model and is getting smoother, more powerful, and quieter. Best bit is the economy...it's amazing! On a run (50+miles) it'll do near 70mpg, yes, you read it right! If I don't go over 60mph the mpg just keeps improving and the best to date is 68.9mpg (indicated) after a 90 mile run on the dual carriageway (A14). Not saying I drive at 60mph everywhere normally, but it was worth trying as an exercise to see what transpired. Yes, I did tread lightly when accelerating most of the time and I allowed the DSG to just do it's fantastic thing without using sport mode or kicking down at anypoint.  On the other hand, I've travelled to Birmingham using the performance and cruising at indicated 75mph when safe (actual gps 73mph) and she's still returned 61mpg (indicated). I've checked the computer accuracy using pencil and paper method of refuelling several times a few months ago and it's more often than not spot on and when it's not it's just a 1-2% error compared to my analogue method. This may be accountable for by my fuelling up which can't alway be the same although I do brim it so I can just see the fuel and then rock the car to make sure there is no air in the tank. Incidentally, I don't brim it on normal occassions just when checking fuel economy. 

 

The quietness of the car is marvelous although I do have a creak from the dash on the passenger side on some days. This is temperature sensitive so it's not always there. I'll fix that in the new year. The actual engine is quiet all the time inside and out and is never short of power. The gearbox is smooth, quiet and very responsive to any requests for power or economy, really has to be one of the best auto's on the market. I find the handling and roadholding very good, as does my wife who drives it in often quite challenging conditions. Whether you have a full load of passengers or it's just me driving, it's fun. Bump thump is minimal compared to lots of other motors I've had and it's better than the Mk2 fabia in that respect. I use the speed limiter quite a lot and it's a really useful tool when there are speed cameras about. The ability to use sat nav from my mobile phone on the entertainment centre screen is another very useful thing to have. It works well. 

 

The finish on the car inside and out has remained perfect. We have carried out extensive renovations to our home this last year and our car has frequently been full of errr...rubbish! Back and forth to the tip fully loaded doesn't phase it. It hoovers out fine and looks brand new again afterwards. LIfting the bonnet, the engine and engine bay has remained near spotlessly clean. That's probably because I don't tramp up and down the motorways so much now as I'm retired. But the car does travel in some inclement weather condition with my wife at the wheel for 48 weeks of the year but she is mostly in a 50mph limit for the 10 mile run she has to do most days. 

 

So...in conclusion. Bloody brilliant car if you'll pardon my French!

Mrs G has the  SE-L version ( 15 plate )  as you say it's a really nice car to drive. Very economical and £20 road tax.  It's a dream to drive and the engine likes to be rev'ed

 

Cracking little motor, sits nicely at motorway speeds.

The wife's 1.2  110  manual SE-L combi 66 plate is very nice to drive and the MPG is impressive for a petrol. On Boxing day drove to my eldest daughters house, 3 up estate part full of gear, 65 miles with A roads, B roads and some motorway Over 50 mpg. 2 up on long motorway journeys we've achieved 56 mpg (actual on fill to fill). 

@Estate Man,

 

Your circa 70mpg (4L/100) while not exceeding 60 mph is viable with a well set up Fabia ( brakes not rubbing, good tyres set to pressure, dry roads etc) is a reasonable and repeatable claim.

 

I am going to take slight issue with the Birmingham trip though, not because you got 60 mpg ( I believe that) and not that you were not travelling at 73 mph when you could ( congratulations on having a pretty accurate speedo by the way, wish mine was as good), but I bet your average speed for the trip would have been about 60mph, maybe slightly lower(?)

Unless there are other factors like a strong tailwind, or slipstreaming opportunities, or major aero modifications to the vehicle, I don't think it is possible for a regular production petrol engined vehicle to manage 60 mpg (4.7L/100) over 70mph.

Edited 1 January, 20188 yr by Gerrycan

I had fancied an automatic for some time so took the plunge 2 years ago and got a pre reg hatchback with 19 miles on the clock.  Around £4k less than list price.  I like my 65 reg SEL DSG.  Very quiet, responsive and rattle free so far.  I found I was becoming too reliant on the speed limiter so have tried not to use it unless there is a particular need.  My only complaint is mpg.  I do mostly round town driving these days with the very occasional longer run.  I'm getting around 40mpg calculated manually brim to brim.  Way lower than Skoda's advertised mileage. 

6 hours ago, nbramwel said:

I had fancied an automatic for some time so took the plunge 2 years ago and got a pre reg hatchback with 19 miles on the clock.  Around £4k less than list price.  I like my 65 reg SEL DSG.  Very quiet, responsive and rattle free so far.  I found I was becoming too reliant on the speed limiter so have tried not to use it unless there is a particular need.  My only complaint is mpg.  I do mostly round town driving these days with the very occasional longer run.  I'm getting around 40mpg calculated manually brim to brim.  Way lower than Skoda's advertised mileage. 

Too many factors involved in around town driving for useful comment on whether your 40 mpg can be considered good or not. Off the top of my head I'd say in the current British winter it is probably quite good though.

The OP's (excellent) results are being achieved under good open road conditions but I suspect that like most of us the daily urban grind takes its toll on his consumption.

 

If you don't get reasonable returns on the open road then there could be something wrong. Tyre pressures, slight brake binding, spark plugs, anyone of the numerous sensors slightly malfunctioning etc. Not always easy to diagnose and dealers are rarely sympathetic to this sort of complaint.

 

We drive a different car (Octavia) with the familial similar 1.4tsi engine and on an open road run my wife and I will get similar results at similar speeds (50 to 60mpg). However around town I'll get up to 30% better economy than she does because we drive differently.

Our overall average is around 46mpg but the high number of short runs around town from cold (very short commute to work, shopping trips, elderly parent support runs and running air-con constantly in hot Australian summer) mean that most of the time we are lucky to get 40 mpg in our operating conditions.

Conversely in ideal conditions where I don't need air-con on and I have a longer urban run of over 10 km in not too heavy traffic then I can get as much as 70+mpg indicated return.

 

I have our Fuelly returns in my signature but you can only see and access it if you are viewing this with a PC and not a mobile.

Gerry, I have the low rolling resistance tyres on mine. They came as standard. Supposedly they give another 3.4 mpg on the dsg around town over the manual car with standard tyres but they make little difference the faster you go. So the official figs are 49.6 mpg around town on my car compared to 46.3 for the manual car (110ps) with the std tyres, and extra urban is 70.6 mpg for my dsg 110ps and 68.9 for the manual car with std tyres. For me the official figs are close to what the car gives us in everyday driving.

 

As I stated, I was cruising at indicated 75mph whenever safe to do so. For me to get to Birmingham it's a 170 mile trip (340 round trip) on nearly all dual carriageway and motorway roads. Some small amount of 'A' roads too so never really having to go that slow and no real traffic problems as I go out of peak traffic times. This all helps the fuel economy of course. So it wasn't that hard to get 61mpg. Of course my average speed would be lower than 75mph. But I didn't record that so don't know what it was. I would also point out that I squirted the car in sport mode a few times and hit 80mph for short periods (keeping up with traffic). Engine revs rarely exceeded 3750rpm though and most of the time the engine was turning at between 2200-2450rpm. At 70mph it's turning at 2250rpm, so nice and easy. I haven't carried out any testing on a Fabia for a constant speed fuel consumption at 70 mph but I wouldn't discount the possibility of 60mpg + under the right conditions but not sure if that could be done on public roads.

 

This fuel consumption thing is a very interesting one and has been done to death over and over on this forum. Rightly so too! At the end of the day if my car was used by someone else to drive exactly the same journey as me at the same time of day in the same weather conditions, they for sure would get a different fuel consumption figure. The driver is the biggest influence on fuel economy followed by the type of roads and traffic conditions. But you know all that.

 

Edit: forgot to say our general overall day to day urban consumption is between 47-52 mpg. My diesel 1422cc Fabia estate returned 54-56mpg under the exact same conditions. 

 

Edited 2 January, 20188 yr by Estate Man

7 hours ago, nbramwel said:

I had fancied an automatic for some time so took the plunge 2 years ago and got a pre reg hatchback with 19 miles on the clock.  Around £4k less than list price.  I like my 65 reg SEL DSG.  Very quiet, responsive and rattle free so far.  I found I was becoming too reliant on the speed limiter so have tried not to use it unless there is a particular need.  My only complaint is mpg.  I do mostly round town driving these days with the very occasional longer run.  I'm getting around 40mpg calculated manually brim to brim.  Way lower than Skoda's advertised mileage. 

 

Wow, what a bargain car! Nicely done sir. As Gerry says, town economy is very variable due to the errr....variables!

Gerry, your economy on your 1.4tsi is darn good. They are a nice engine.

I got a terrible 41.8mpg driving from South London to Wiltshire last night, in my TSI 90 with the manual. I think my tyre pressures *might* be off (I got in late last night, and it's raining, so I've not checked them yet!) but there was also a good headwind that was pushing the car around quite a bit. I was at 73 (indicated, as that's 70 according to GPS) and then upped it to 82 (indicated) once past the bit of the M3 with all the speed cameras. 

 

I have heard amazing things about the economy on the 1.4 TSI. The Octy has the advantage of being a bit more aerodynamic than the brick-like Fabia too, which helps, but the 1.4 TSI is apparently great in pretty much everything. 

The attached VW sourced speed/consumption graph is for a 1.4tsi (90kw) equipped manual Golf, which is a bit lighter and a bit more aerodynamic than an Octavia, but it seems to correspond closely to what I get from my slightly more powerful (103kw) engine. Well up to 110kph anyway.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the 1.2tsi in the Fabia would offer a similar consumption profile. The Fabia might not be quite so aero but it does have a smaller frontal area so overall drag difference might not differ as much you would think and the 7th gear on DSG is slightly longer than the 6th on a manual (2500rpm at 70mph).

 

The thing to note is the consumption potential at lower speeds.

 

 

Edited 2 January, 20188 yr by Gerrycan

10 hours ago, Estate Man said:

Gerry, your economy on your 1.4tsi is darn good. They are a nice engine.

Like you I think these small capacity turbo engines are something else with the consumption, performance and refinement they offer.

I'm interested in the consumption potential of the 1.0tsi but get the impression they do not offer the same tractability of the 1.2/1.4 family.

 

1 hour ago, vc-10 said:

I got a terrible 41.8mpg driving from South London to Wiltshire last night, in my TSI 90 with the manual. I think my tyre pressures *might* be off (I got in late last night, and it's raining, so I've not checked them yet!) but there was also a good headwind that was pushing the car around quite a bit. I was at 73 (indicated, as that's 70 according to GPS) and then upped it to 82 (indicated) once past the bit of the M3 with all the speed cameras. 

 

I have heard amazing things about the economy on the 1.4 TSI. The Octy has the advantage of being a bit more aerodynamic than the brick-like Fabia too, which helps, but the 1.4 TSI is apparently great in pretty much everything. 

A strong headwind and the higher rolling resistance of very wet roads make a really big difference to consumption.

I remember one occasion travelling in a large petrol engined SUV against a very strong headwind ( not even raining) and the effort of trying to maintain only 110 kph meant that the petrol gauge was going down at alarming speed before my eyes. I had to slow down to 80kph to retain enough fuel to get to the next town and petrol station.

 

When the strong wind is behind....then consumption Nirvana  

Edited 2 January, 20188 yr by Gerrycan

It wasn't actually that damp yesterday- going the other way on New Year's Eve on very wet roads gave me 47 mpg, which is what I'd expect at lower speeds, but with lots of water on the road. On a completely clear run with no wind and no rain, and tyres at the right pressure, I'd expect about 50-53 mpg with the speeds I was at coming back last night. 

 

The wind however was really strong, and is definitely the reason why the car drank so much fuel. 

I've found the tyre pressures make a big difference to our Fabia's mpg, running at the higher 'Econ' pressure seems to be worth 3-4 mpg.  

Same here. I normally run at the 'eco' pressures too, the ride is firmer but nothing too harsh and it's worth the tradeoff IMO.

3 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Like you I think these small capacity turbo engines are something else with the consumption, performance and refinement they offer.

I'm interested in the consumption potential of the 1.0tsi but get the impression they do not offer the same tractability of the 1.2/1.4 family.

 

A strong headwind and the higher rolling resistance of very wet roads make a really big difference to consumption.

I remember one occasion travelling in a large petrol engined SUV against a very strong headwind ( not even raining) and the effort of trying to maintain only 110 kph meant that the petrol gauge was going down at alarming speed before my eyes. I had to slow down to 80kph to retain enough fuel to get to the next town and petrol station.

 

When the strong wind is behind....then consumption Nirvana  

 

Absolutely spot on Gerry!  I had the chance to drive the 1.0 3 cylinder estate with dsg. Wow, yes it was very good. Very punchy with 200nm of torque (as opposed to 175nm on the 1.2tsi 110ps engine) and of course it still gives 110ps. I note it's not as quick on the 0-62 dash as my 1.2 TSI, taking 9.8 secs instead of 9.4 secs for my car. Not something to worry about and the extra torque more than makes up for that with the same superb driving experience that the 1.2TSI units give whether in 90 or 110ps format. Now fuel economy is something I can't comment on as I had the car for just half a day and drove just 30 miles in it. However, the trip computer seemed to be offering the same sort of economy figs that my 1.2 gives me but clearly we need to hear from folks who actually own that engine type.

 

3 hours ago, vc-10 said:

Same here. I normally run at the 'eco' pressures too, the ride is firmer but nothing too harsh and it's worth the tradeoff IMO.

 

Me too. I keep my eco tyres at 35 psi as per the book unless I have a big load. VC, what mileage does yours have on the clock now? You may get a significant improvement in economy as you do more miles. Another thing that I do is give the engine a good blast through the gears now and again after its warmed up to shake the carbon and dust off the inlet valves. Particularly the auto box cars like mine tend to pull very low revs in normal driving making keeping the engine clean more difficult. In fact when my wife is using the car it rarely revs above 1750 rpm all week. So using sport mode or selecting manual gears is essentially to letting the engine rev and keep clean. I also tend to use Shell fuel to help this process.

3 hours ago, thamestrader said:

I've found the tyre pressures make a big difference to our Fabia's mpg, running at the higher 'Econ' pressure seems to be worth 3-4 mpg.  

 

Spot on! 

22 hours ago, nbramwel said:

I had fancied an automatic for some time so took the plunge 2 years ago and got a pre reg hatchback with 19 miles on the clock.  Around £4k less than list price.  I like my 65 reg SEL DSG.  Very quiet, responsive and rattle free so far.  I found I was becoming too reliant on the speed limiter so have tried not to use it unless there is a particular need.  My only complaint is mpg.  I do mostly round town driving these days with the very occasional longer run.  I'm getting around 40mpg calculated manually brim to brim.  Way lower than Skoda's advertised mileage. 

 

I bet you wouldn't go back to a manual now eh!

Oh it's well run in now, it's a year and a half old and just over 16k miles!

 

My mpg is normally pretty good, especially considering that about 85% of my driving is around Manchester sitting stationary in traffic. Can't fault that aspect of the car at all, just with a strong headwind the car was never going to do well!

Yep, headwind does make a difference. You seem generally very pleased with yours and that's great.

3 hours ago, Estate Man said:

 

Absolutely spot on Gerry!  I had the chance to drive the 1.0 3 cylinder estate with dsg. Wow, yes it was very good. Very punchy with 200nm of torque (as opposed to 175nm on the 1.2tsi 110ps engine) and of course it still gives 110ps. I note it's not as quick on the 0-62 dash as my 1.2 TSI, taking 9.8 secs instead of 9.4 secs for my car. Not something to worry about and the extra torque more than makes up for that with the same superb driving experience that the 1.2TSI units give whether in 90 or 110ps format.

I'd like to point out that although the max torque in the 1.0 TSI is 200nm as opposed to 175nm on the 1.2 TSI, the rev band of the max torque is much narrower (2000-3500 on 1.0 and 1400-4000 on 1.2). Probably that's why the 1.0 is slower in 0-60mph. Max torque with lower revs also helps keeping the fuel economy in order when driving around the town.

 

I've got a 2017 1.2 TSI 110hp DSG hatch myself and I'm loving every minute of driving it. Lucky I decided to get the ACC, it works just perfect with the engine/transmission combo and is very very reliable with no errors. I'm just waiting to get rid of studded tires, still about 4 months to go with them here in Finland

^^^ 

Have you actually timed it 0-60 mph, or 0-62 mph / 100 kmh.  Because Official figures often mean little as the mpg shows.

1 hour ago, AwaoffSki said:

^^^ 

Have you actually timed it 0-60 mph, or 0-62 mph / 100 kmh.  Because Official figures often mean little as the mpg shows.

 

Interesting point AwaoffSki. Normally to get the factory 0-62 times you have to go mental to hit them and indeed, be practiced in the art. But I've found with the

brand generally, you can hit the times with relative ease. This is probably due to the rather understated power output figures that seem to adorn many vag engines. For example, my old fabia diesel 1422cc was rated at 80ps by the factory but on a well maintained Dyno repeatedly demonstrated 83ps and 198nm of torque at factory rpm. That's above the rated power and the motor was completely std. Same with my 105ps 1.6 auto. It actually put out 109.6ps and 177nm of torque at factory stated rpm, again well above the rated power output and the motor was std. The 110ps TSI motor in my neighbours car was dyno'ed at 115ps and 180 NM of torque at factory rpm's. His car was dyno'ed on a different machine to the one I used. These days I don't have such easy access to a Dyno but intend to do my current car later in the year.

I find it is because it is a Skoda, and there is the car as is, and not just showing figures that might upset some paying more money for a car costing more with the same drivetrain, and actually heavier. 

eg VW, SEAT, Audi...

Never show the cheaper option to be as quick or more economic with fuel use.  Implausible / Irregular Co2 / MPG's catch out VW Group so often.

Looking forward to some Real World Figures later in 2018.

Edited 2 January, 20188 yr by AwaoffSki

The ironic thing is that a low spec model will generally outperform a fully specced up model because it can be quite a lot lighter with the same powertrain.

Pano roofs, electric driven seats and tailgates, extra speakers, spare tyres and god knows what else will contribute heavily to cost, weight and perceived luxury but rarely to performance.

Edited 3 January, 20188 yr by Gerrycan