Skoda Press Release Fabia Facelift official Details

[Breezy_Pete]

1 hour ago, AwaoffSki said:

More real world, just not with maybe 5 adults, a roof box on or trailer / caravan towed.

These would represent atypical conditions, not representative of the vast majority of real-world miles driven by most customers.

So why would you test in this configuration?

You mention this so often that you clearly believe they would be useful measurements, but I don't understand why.

All three of those conditions mentioned would yield different results in the real world, plus all the permutations of combinations of two of the three, and then all three combined; how many figures do you expect to be published?

Edited 8 March, 2018 by Wino

[Brogeur]

What a boring facelift 

[abaxas]

Mpg can be a nightmare as no-one really knows the conditions/where you are driving too.

Same journey with a different direction can show some mad differentials in mpg. When I drive to manchester I get high 60s on the way but high 50s on the way back. All due to me living 1000ft up so the extra climbing/lack of downhill on the way back uses more fuel.

So about 5-10 mpg difference for the same journey which is 120 miles in either direction.

Also I get more mpg in my wife's car than she does, even though we go about the same speed. I put this down to her still thinking the accelerator pedal is a digital not analog device.

 

[Ootohere]

Wino,  the Manufacturers will have test results on that, and Type Approval. and could release those to the relevant agencies, 

then they have many other test results.

 

The public do not need them, but no reason why not available as the worst figures should be available, 

then everything less is better, but many vehicles do produce their worst emissions and worst fuel consumption.

 

The 3 figures given currently and in the future if models with no passengers and no luggage might suit 2 seaters or motor cycles 

but taking the pith with 5,6,7 seaters that are used in cities with just a driver, or fully loaded sitting in traffic with Stop / Start inhibited 

A/C on and running a ICE engine not the Hybrid.

 

Simple., do the tests.

Do the tests at max revenue weight, the weight that VED is charged on. 

Edited 8 March, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[skodaTDI]

On 08/03/2018 at 06:56, SurreyJohn said:

 

Seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here, there is no active regen cycle with a GPF, petrol exhaust gas is hot enough for it to be a near continuous process.

As it happens passively there is no need for active monitoring equipment.

 

The amount of poke has nothing to do with exhaust gas leaving the car, except the turbo is effectively powered by exhaust gas flow.  However the engine output is more related to its mapping.   The same capacity engine is being offered with 4 power levels, so if you want to load it up and drive up hills don’t choose the weedy engine.

 

In my opinion these sort of engines work best when you use the relevant rev band, the DSG box is brilliant at this.  So specify it (and you automatically get the higher power).   Yes it costs more initially but saves fuel in real world.  Auto boxes now make up 40% (and rapidly rising) of new UK cars.  

 

As for the water pump, wasn’t their problem with a different engine altogether so not relevant to 1 litre tsi discussion.

 

If you really are obsessed with diesel engines in small cars buy one soon, they will endangered species soon.  It’s not just Skoda dropping them,  the new Toyota Auris launched at Geneva also has no diesel option.

 

.

 

I've already got a diesel engine in my Mk3.. and the DPF regen kills the fuel econony, which in my opinion makes it a completely pointless contraption..  hence why I mentioned poke, a DPF on a smaller engine would be even worse than the 105 TDI.. but if there's no active regen cycle on a PPF/GPF for petrols, what the hell is the point? everyone already has a cat.. that should be doing the trick.. if not, then scrap petrols as well.. the Mk1 TDI 1.9 with its PD engine has a far better real-world mpg than any of Skoda's current range models.. DPF/PPF/GPF whatever.. they have been a backwards step and just burned more fuel than be useful to the environment.. the VAG scandal proves this to be true.. hybrids should be the order of the day, all new petrol/diesel cars should be hybrids, full electrics don't have yet the range compared to a diesel.. and petrols are not as clean as what everyone likes to put about.. it's all a bit of farce really.

 

[SurreyJohn]

 

https://www.skoda-storyboard.com/en/models/meet-new-skoda-fabia-2/

 

The wheels (18 inch Vega) on the red Monte Carlo are crazy, imagine driving over a UK pothole with those.

 

Is that switch above the headlights control an auto parking switch ?

 

 

Edited 11 March, 2018 by SurreyJohn

[SC03OTT]

6 hours ago, SurreyJohn said:

 

https://www.skoda-storyboard.com/en/models/meet-new-skoda-fabia-2/

 

The wheels (18 inch Vega) on the red Monte Carlo are crazy, imagine driving over a UK pothole with those.

 

Is that switch above the headlights control an auto parking switch ?

 

 

 

I think it’s just a switch to activate the front parking sensors. 

[Leprejohn]

Does anyone know when this face lift model will be available to order, PCP deal on my current fabia runs out next year and I'm debating if to get an FR ibiza, polo GTI or stick with the newer facelift model. So undecided what to get.

[RickW]

It says here late 2018.

https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/2019-skoda-fabia-price-specs-release-date-3860

[SurreyJohn]

On 11/03/2018 at 23:22, Leprejohn said:

Does anyone know when this face lift model will be available to order, PCP deal on my current fabia runs out next year and I'm debating if to get an FR ibiza, polo GTI or stick with the newer facelift model. So undecided what to get.

 

Latest rumours are that orders for revised Fabia will open in July, with deliveries starting about November.  However seems to be lots of uncertainty.

 

Your alternative of FR Ibiza is subject to delays, about 18-22 weeks from when factory accepts the order.   The polo GTI introduction is also delayed from original plan of first deliveries in June

[Ootohere]

^^^?

Where are the rumours coming from, internet / social media from someone speaking to some salesperson someplace supposedly?

 

VW Group / Skoda, VW, SEAT, Audi have CEO's, Media Teams etc that could do press releases if they know when they will have WLTP results and can say when the vehicles will be produced and on sale with the emissions and fuel consumption test results and the VED bands known.

 

One vehicle showing so far with VW, the Up! GTI

http://volkswagen.co.uk/owners/wltp 

Edited 20 May, 2018 by Offski

[vc-10]

What I'm interested to see is what changes will be- for example, what does the Up GTI get on the WLTP test, compared to the real world, and what the 'NEDC derived' figures VW are showing off at the moment?

 

It's interesting to note how the fuel economy figures have been getting worse for a while now. For example, the Golf, Leon, and Octavia with the 1.6 TDI were all getting 74.3 mpg (and consequently £0 road tax) when the cars launched, but that's now dropped to 68.9 mpg. The new Polos with the TSI engine aren't dropping below 100 g/km of CO2, whereas that engine in the old Polo did in 110PS tune, which gets 107 g today. I think the manufacturers have realised that they can't keep scamming us all, and are rolling back the worst of the 'cheating' (well... testing in very favourable conditions!). 

[Ootohere]

Supplier Prevent holds Volkswagen’s feet to the fire.mhtml

In depth_ how carmakers performed in the first wave of real world tests - Unearthed.mhtml

New WLTP emissions test could force heavy discounts on unsold cars _ Autocar.mhtml

Edited 20 May, 2018 by Offski

[RJVB]

51 minutes ago, vc-10 said:

For example, the Golf, Leon, and Octavia with the 1.6 TDI were all getting 74.3 mpg [...] when the cars launched, but that's now dropped to 68.9 mpg. 

Live estimate for mine doesn't even get close to that:

[vc-10]

Well, yes. My Fabia officially gets 60.1 mpg... I'm averaging 45. Which I'm happy with, and is what I was expecting when I got the car. Given the kind of driving I do, 45 is pretty damn good actually! 

 

54.7 mpg is closer to 68.9 than 74.3 though 

[Ootohere]

There were never EU figures for vehicles outside a building driving in weather on a road with the passenger seats full or stuff in the boot.

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx 

 

There will not be any after September either.....

 

Edited 20 May, 2018 by Offski

[RJVB]

Oh, I'm quite content with the figure I'm getting too, esp. since the dash computer usually shows worse figures. (It's also part of why I'm not really planning to get the dieselgate recall applied as long as I can!)

 

The official figures are nice to compare the theoretical max among comparable new vehicles. The figures reported by the press are usually a good indication of the other opposite, but most of the time I use sites like Spritmonitor to get an idea of real-world consumptions.

Still, it would be nice if all manufacturers did as Peugeot, and publish their own real-world figures in addition to the official ones.

[Ootohere]

That is good.   The Government Authorities all along should have been getting all manufacturers real world test results from their testing as they went to Type Approval and before release to the public of vehicles.  The Manufacturers all have those figures.

PSA publishes real-world fuel consumption data for 1,000 Peugeot, Citroën and DS cars _ Media Groupe PSA.mhtml

[malcster]

http://www.skoda.ch/models/fabiafacelift

 

Configuration live from June 

[Guest]

On 08/03/2018 at 08:51, RJVB said:

 

That's more or less exactly the claim I read in an interview with an engineer working for one of the companies making the things. Simpler conception, cheaper components and a higher normal working temperatures. All factors that should add up to less problems and lesser maintenance costs.

 

 

They're no longer more expensive in maintenance? That'd surprise me, just as it would surprise me if they truly give fuel savings in real life nowadays, for everyone. Even the official ratings for the current Fabia range don't reflect that.

 

 

 

As Offski says, there are no additional service costs, in fact, nothing to do on them. Regarding the fuel economy, the 1.2TSI engines are noticeably more economical than there manual counterparts, and is reflected in the official figures also. Mine gives an extra 2.5 mpg in urban driving over the manual gearbox car according to those figures, but I get more than that in extra mpg real world driving. Across the board the dsg is superior over the manual version. The 1.0ltr TSI follows that trend also.

[RJVB]

A maintenance free complex mechanical system? Why do I find that hard to believe? Maybe to be taken at the same face value as the supposed 180k km or so we were supposed to get out of our distribution in the 1.6TDI?

 

I can easily see how one could get worse fuel economy with a manual over an automatic gearbox, and if I were spending all my driving time in cities and/or traffic jams I'd probably want an automatic too. But then I'd probably prefer having someone or something doing the driving for me too. Anywhere else ... not so much.