2 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

Gerry can the exact problem with the 1.0 is that it's torque band doesn't extend to low revs. On paper it has more torque than the preceding 1.2, but the useful band is above 2000 rpm so downshifting is the order of the day. The 1.2 would pull from anywhere over 1000 even though its peak figure was lower.

 

And about aero. your cd figure need to be multiplied by frontal area to get a valid comparison. The Octy and Carrot are possibly not as similar as you suggest.

While I have not driven the VW 1.0tsi I have driven the Ford version in a Focus estate and it had exactly the problem you described.

I can waft along with my 1.4tsi engine at 1200 rpm in manual 5th on the flat (urban speed limits) with indicated consumption around 3.5L/100 (Ignore whether that figure is accurate or not I'm just quoting it for reference purposes) and I can apply a tiny bit of throttle to lift indicated consumption to say 4L/100 and the speed will very slowly increase. Obviously more throttle, more acceleration and more consumption especially when the turbo starts contributing.

The Ford was incapable of doing that. At lower revs there was nothing, you had to apply lots of throttle for the turbo, or the speed just fell away. At low revs (1500 rpm or below) you either accelerated or decelerated but could not hold a steady speed.

To be fair to the Ford engine the problem was my not driving to its characteristics and strengths. I had similar issues with Kia 1.6d Ceed we hired in the UK last year, but keep the revs higher up in the appropriate band then consumption increased from mid 50's to high 60's mpg and significantly more sprightly.

 

You are right about cd and frontal area and that is going to make a significant dent above 70mph and/or into strong headwinds for the Karoq but at normal UK speeds I still cannot see how you get consumption as low as mid 30's.

 

@brettikivi consistently reports consumption with his 1.0tsi Octavia at Finnish summer motorway speeds that my 1.4tsi struggles to match at our  (Australian) 10kph lower speed limits. 

At steady motorway speeds the 1.0  is quiet and economic, unless you get a headwind or gradent - then it really suffers, I've never had a car so sensitive to external environmental factors as this. Urban use, with lots of stops and shifting through the gears is what really savages the mpg. Another poster on here is selling his 1.0 after 11 months because it's uneconomic for his city use.

On ‎22‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 12:56, Offski said:

They predicted great residuals and were wrong

Unfortunately residuals are bad for most cars. In the end, the car is only worth what the dealers offer you as trade in. An Edition Karoq will barely be worth more than a Karoq S once a dealer enters the reg and mileage into a computer.

 

1 hour ago, Gerrycan said:

The Ford was incapable of doing that. At lower revs there was nothing, you had to apply lots of throttle for the turbo, or the speed just fell away. At low revs (1500 rpm or below) you either accelerated or decelerated but could not hold a steady speed.

 

This is why I'm glad my Color Edition has cruise control. Without it, the car would have been utterly exhaustive to drive at a steady speed of 60-70mph on the motorway. Adaptive cruise control on my Karoq will make it even easier to maintain speeds on motorways.  

Agree. I was surprised just how tiring the lack of cruise control is on a recent return from holiday - thanks to Budget rental for supplying a Mini 7 without cruise for a 200 mile trip. I haven't had a rental car without it for 20 years.

Crassus,  residuals really are not what Dealers or Official Dealers are offering as a trade in, that is price to change etc, what allows ridiculous 'offers' and magazine / Parkers etc figures.

 

What a car loses is what that Dealer that sold you might give you in Cash Money if you sell the car back, or you get at auction or in a private sale.

That is the residual value.   Not some kidology of Manufacturers Contribution, Dealers Contribution, RRPs, Discounts and then them getting the car back in 2 or v3 years to sell.

Guaranteed future values are all about kidology.   They pile them high, get them flogged and get them back in to sell again with crazy 'Asking Prices' 

and try to say 'residuals are good'.

Cruise control IS a useful convenience but seriously aren't words like 'utterly exhaustive' and 'tiring' just a wee bit ...um....pathetic?  

First long'ish run, down to the smoke. Two up, loaded for a few days, very comfortable drive.

 

CC set on 68, revs 2300 ish, 49mpg for the run, long term 39. Very happy with that.

^^^ ?

What speed does GPS show with the CC set to 68mph?

    I find usually 72-73 mph on the CC has a car at 70 mph or just below.

4 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

Agree. I was surprised just how tiring the lack of cruise control is on a recent return from holiday - thanks to Budget rental for supplying a Mini 7 without cruise for a 200 mile trip. I haven't had a rental car without it for 20 years.

 

I think most of my previous cars had cruise control. Just something I never use. 

Having had the "benefit" of various driver aids on my previous car -  I seldom used these aids - I was happy to take the pared down SE L.

For me its a self driving car or nothing. If im driving anyway I may as well steer myself, brake, speed up, slow down, park, dip my headlights etc.

1 minute ago, Offski said:

^^^ ?

What speed does GPS show with the CC set to 68mph?

    I find usually 72-73 mph on the CC has a car at 70 mph or just below.

That.

 

I usually set CC at 1mph more than I want.

 

Can't speak to GPS as we run Android Auto and had the display "behind" other sources. The run was to DDs in Barnes, just over Hammersmith Bridge, nav not needed. I only have Waze on for hold ups etc.

1 hour ago, Michael G said:

First long'ish run, down to the smoke. Two up, loaded for a few days, very comfortable drive.

 

 By comparison, my "dirty" Diesel long term mix of many short and few long trips, 40 mpg and a 250 mile ride from one end of the country to t'other, average speed over the distance 69 mph, 53,5 mpg.

 

Two up with holiday luggage, approx 250 kg heavier, drag from Haldex coupling, so not too shabby.

Horses for courses. I've never had and would never have a diesel. When we towed a 1 metric tonne FC we had a 1.8 petrol Passat.

 

For our runs down to the Dordogne camping, fully loaded, a 1.2 Yeti. For our run across to Como to a concrete tent, another 1.2 Yeti.

 

IMHO, only one way this stuff will go. And it won't be diesel.

 

But I won't knock anyone elses choice. We buy what's best for our specific needs.

I Don´t expect to change Your mind about diesel, but we agree about the Yeti. 

5 hours ago, Offski said:

^^^ ?

What speed does GPS show with the CC set to 68mph?

    I find usually 72-73 mph on the CC has a car at 70 mph or just below.

I've found there's around a 2mph difference around 30mph creeping up to around 4mph at 75mph.

 

I had the same in my last car which was a Ford Focus. 

 

I've learnt from comparing with the GPS figure on Waze where the speedo should sit for certain speeds and its never failed me in endless average speed areas. 

15 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Cruise control IS a useful convenience but seriously aren't words like 'utterly exhaustive' and 'tiring' just a wee bit ...um....pathetic?  

 

Not really. At 60-70mph you need to keep the accelerator pressed far down to maintain speed. Dab the brake and you then have to accelerate hard to build speed back up. Cruise control negates the need to modulate speed using gas and brake. The rocker is easier. 

 

It's not a big surprise though as small engine shine at lower speeds and from cold, similar to how big engines perform best when warmed up at high speeds. 

 

I don't mind this as the Fabia is my second car that only does 3,000-4,000 miles per year and only does long motorway journeys once every three months. 

@Crassus . This is meant to be advice but it is going to come across as very rude.  I recommend you seek out an advanced driving instructor for some lessons.

I'm taking your first sentence at face value and your stated difficulty maintaining 60-70 mph  on UK motorways from having to constantly brake and accelerate....in a Fabia 1.2tsi. That is just not right, there has to be something wrong with your driving technique or maybe your car.

Do you use  cruise control so much that you have lost the ability to actually drive a car  without electronic assistance?

 

I do occasionally see a driver on Australian roads who seem to be performing a needless solo 'fandango' on brake and throttle in traffic while I'm behind them allowing a few extra metres and gliding serenely along. They have either just had poor training, or developed bad habits.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

@Crassus . This is meant to be advice but it is going to come across as very rude.  I recommend you seek out an advanced driving instructor for some lessons.

 

Don't worry about me. My driving is fine and economical. Never had issues with premature tyre or brake wear. My other half or other passengers don't complain and neither did my daughter regurgitate her milk when she was a baby.

 

I don't use cruise control as much when driving bigger engines as the gas pedal doesn't have to be pressed as far down. FYI, an automatic gearbox is also electronic assistance but there's nothing wrong with appreciating it's positive affects on heart rate and general well being when driving in heavy traffic.

Edited 24 July, 20187 yr by Crassus

It's worth considering the effect unnecessary braking can have on the flow of traffic on motorways... 

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/traffic-jams-what-causes-them/

19 hours ago, Michael G said:

 

Who took the picture? I know its not a motorcyclist selfie doing 189mph but it still looks like "without DCA".

 

 

Edited 24 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

5 minutes ago, camelspyyder said:

 

Who took the picture? I know its not a motorcyclist selfie doing 189mph but it still looks like "without DCA".

 

 

 

The wife on her S8. Then bt over to my Pixel 2XL phone after we've arrived at DDs.

 

The info tags should show that but I can't be arsed checking for someone who implies I'd take a pic of the dash on the M1 doing 68. 

No need to be so sensitive Michael. It was an honest question.

 

Most drivers travel one up and its a fairly face on image.

^^^ Most drive one Up!.   Only the ones that do obviously, many will drive family sized cars not one up.

 

Those being pleasured while driving i hope are not alone.... Or just with the family pet.

1 hour ago, camelspyyder said:

No need to be so sensitive Michael. It was an honest question.

 

Most drivers travel one up and its a fairly face on image.

 

Cant see the M1 either... it's possible (but unlikely) it could be in a 20 zone outside a school

 

 

 

Edited 24 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

Glasgow - Warrington and back. 2 up going down 5 up (kids + luggage) coming back - brim to brim 47mpg. 6th gear and cruise on most of the way. Not too shabby for a small engine. My previous Yeti (2.0L diesel) was around 43 - 45 over same route. Glad I bought mine earlier this year as I see the new ones are to have particle filters - one reason I dumped the diesel.