New Fabia 3.5

[vc-10]

I wonder if the 1.5 TSI Evo came in with the MY19 changes in May for the Kodiaq?

[Rooted]

No, Skoda can not say or will not say when it will be on sale and they can publish the Test Results on the Emissions / MPG's. *WLTP*

But then no surprise there, there is lots needing that by September.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/447931-is-karoq-co2-already-wltp 

Edited 22 April, 2018 by Offski

[SurreyJohn]

6 hours ago, Offski said:

Not likely on the 1.4TSI ACT as they will be discontinuing it in vehicles this year and order books already closed on it in the Kodiaq now.

No word yet on when the 1.5 TSI will be available to order in the Kodiaq.

 

There is a massive supply problem with the 1.5  demand in Europe is outstripping production.  There are stories of orders not being taken for Karoq, T-roc, Arona, Ibiza etc with 1.5 engines until further notice.  The waiting time threads in various forums are suggesting 4-6 month waits if you already have an order

 

 

[Rooted]

Which person at VW Group that you believe has told you about the massive supply problem,

rather than the not having enough engines / vehicles that they can sell after September that has WLTP testing. 

 

I bet they could turn out plenty Euro 6 vehicles with the current Co2 g/km and no GPF on the petrols, 

but that is not the issue.  

They need test results that can be re-tested and match the originals, there is the issue. 

No more Das Auto just Honesty. 

 

They can not produce or over produce vehicles that need First Registered by August and after that they can not sell in the EU and other World Regions.

Edited 22 April, 2018 by Offski

[vc-10]

Ahh that's a good point, I'd forgotten about those changes. I wonder if that has something to do with the stopping of sales of the Golf and Passat GTE models- they're relatively minor sellers overall, but would still need the same re-testing with comparatively little benefit, not to mention production backlogs being huge for them too.  

[Rooted]

Petrol 1.4TSI engines in those and totally 'implausible / irregular' Co2 g/km figures considering people might just run them on petrol.

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

Less cheating going to be possible and not just figures for comparisons and not real world related.

Sadly still vehicles will not be showing possible Co2 /g/km or fuel efficiency if the car had the seat filled with large / heavy adults and the luggage space filled with 

cases for those passengers and drivers. 

[RickW]

 

11 hours ago, ettlz said:

 

Looking at the 'official' torque curves the 1.0 beats the 1.2 throughout the 1500-4500 rpm range. But having driven both the 1.2 still feels quicker, especially at the lower revs. I had to rev the 1.0 higher for that nice turbo woosh.

 

The difference is most pronounced when accelerating from below 2000rpm in top gear: the 1.0 grumbles, where the 1.2 just gets on with it.

 

I didn't think the instantaneous consumption figures were significantly better in the 1.0.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 1.0 is still a very nice engine, remarkably smooth for a 3-cyl (smoother than my 1.2) in general, and a reasonable emissions-regs-targeting replacement for the 1.2. But I'm really hoping they'll put the 1.4 ACT TSI in the Fabia next year.

Thanks for the very interesting feedback.

[vc-10]

On 22/04/2018 at 17:12, Offski said:

Sadly still vehicles will not be showing possible Co2 /g/km or fuel efficiency if the car had the seat filled with large / heavy adults and the luggage space filled with 

cases for those passengers and drivers. 

 

Well, I think that's fair enough. There's always going to be discrepancy between how people drive, how much stuff they have with them, etc etc. You could regulate to have the tests done with 2 70kg people in the car or something, but you can never cover every single factor. It's a tool for comparison.

[Rooted]

You certainly can not cover everything.

& testing in a Temp Controlled building with no Optional Extras, and not a full tank of fuel and a light driver really tested nothing.

They said anyway it was for 'comparison',  comparing with others inside a building on a rolling road going no place!

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

 

But if you are going to test, 2, 4,5,6,7 seater passenger vehicles it is not rocket science to put say 100 kg dummies in each available seat and 100 kg in the luggage space and give that Co2 g/km / fuel use results as well as at the Kerb Weight results. 

 

Why test a 2 seater sports car with the same weight inside as you test a 7 seater?

 

Then someone knows what the high / low figures are.   The VED / Revenue weight is important and someone buying a People Carrier / SUV that seats 7 people might well carry 7 people.

Or in the case of a Fabia all 5 seats / seatbelts might be getting clunk clicked and that is the actual performance / efficiency figures that matter, 

a driver on their own can then maybe expect better efficiency.

 

 

Edited 25 April, 2018 by Offski

[globalste]

Whilst obviously not the same scale, aircraft manufacturers usually quote the following:

 

maximum range 

range with max fuel and mixed load

range with max payload

 

 

they also often quite for different configurations eg high density and low density.

 

it would be useful to have a fuel economy with one person and then say 2 adults and 2 children and 2 pieces of luggage, the 1.6CR suddenly struggles to get 60mpg with 2 adults and 2 heavy cases and a full tank of fuel.  On the flip side, my old A6 C7 Avant and my Discovery Sport have both been fully loaded and it makes next to no difference, even with bikes on the back of the Discovery.

[lawnmowerman]

Original Polo's braking with a full complement of passengers was frightening compared to braking solo! So a spread of figures for economy, braking etc would be helpful.

 

Bill