MPG

[Ootohere]

Overheating issue do you mean?

It should not be an issue to those that have had the Service Campaign carried out, or with engines that VW group ensured had Water Pumps or components fit for purpose.

Only time will tell if there are issues in the future, but then if there are VW will be their to own up to them. 

[Gerrycan]

On 14/10/2018 at 03:43, abaxas said:

You lot are amateurs....... Fabia Estate 1.4 TDI S 75....

 

Good figures....but not Gerhard Plattner good

[roo2609]

41 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

Good figures....but not Gerhard Plattner good

Amazing figures. It's just a shame Skoda has decided to stop making them.

[abaxas]

9 hours ago, roo2609 said:

Amazing figures. It's just a shame Skoda has decided to stop making them.

I'm impressed, but what impresses me more is when you do need to 'push on' it seams impossible to drive at less than 50mpg.

Also, I travel on Hartside pass twice a week and the car has more than enough oomph for that. A test where many cars have failed.

[vc-10]

Bit of a bump, but went down to Luton on Thursday. Drove mostly at the speed limit, and traffic was quite busy, especially coming back up to Manchester. Went down the M6/M1 route, came back M1/A50/M6 as there was an accident blocking the first few junctions of the M6 (yay for Google Maps telling me this and re-routing!)

 

Got 62.1 mpg on the way down (173 miles, average 51 mph), 57.2 mpg on the way back (171 miles, average 44 mph, much worse traffic), giving a return trip average of 59.3 mpg. I was pretty damn impressed with that! 

[FabiaGonzales]

On 19/01/2019 at 13:50, vc-10 said:

Bit of a bump, but went down to Luton on Thursday. Drove mostly at the speed limit, and traffic was quite busy, especially coming back up to Manchester. Went down the M6/M1 route, came back M1/A50/M6 as there was an accident blocking the first few junctions of the M6 (yay for Google Maps telling me this and re-routing!)

 

Got 62.1 mpg on the way down (173 miles, average 51 mph), 57.2 mpg on the way back (171 miles, average 44 mph, much worse traffic), giving a return trip average of 59.3 mpg. I was pretty damn impressed with that! 

 

Last weekend i managed 77 MPG from Sheffield to Hull up the M18/M62 by following a lorry! Started off with an estimated 160 miles range, got home after a 60 mile journey (by the trip meter) with a new estimate of 165 miles range, and the needle had barely moved!

Usually i manage about 40-50 MPG, depending on how heavy my foot feels on the day!

 

On a side note, i recently put Shell V-Power 99 into a pretty much empty tank. At first it felt a tiny bit sluggish but very smooth running (could be down to it just feeling way smoother), though there was noticably a little more pull, moreso in the lower revs.

Next empty tank i put some Tesco Momentum 99 in it, it felt rougher but still pulled the same as the Shell 99.

[GeneralPurpose]

We've tested 99 octane fuels in Skoda's and other small turbo charged engines and generally speaking 99 lowers the power output by around the 4-5% mark. That's because the ecu was not compensating fully for the longer burn cycle of 99 octane. The 1.2TSI ran best on 95 octane and fully reached it max power output. It did this on 97 octane too, but not with 98 or 99 octane. The higher octane fuels do give the impression of being a bit smoother because there is a slower flame propagation across the fuel charge. Frankly paying for 99 octane on these engine is a total waste of money. If you want extra cleaners go for 97 octane BP or some such quality fuel. You certainly won't get extra performance from the 98 or 99 and you may also get slightly lower mpg too. Just saying.

Edited 21 June, 2019 by GeneralPurpose

[FabiaGonzales]

38 minutes ago, GeneralPurpose said:

We've tested 99 octane fuels in Skoda's and other small turbo charged engines and generally speaking 99 lowers the power output by around the 4-5% mark. That's because the ecu was not compensating fully for the longer burn cycle of 99 octane. The 1.2TSI ran best on 95 octane and fully reached it max power output. It did this on 97 octane too, but not with 98 or 99 octane. The higher octane fuels do give the impression of being a bit smoother because there is a slower flame propagation across the fuel charge. Frankly paying for 99 octane on these engine is a total waste of money. If you want extra cleaners go for 97 octane BP or some such quality fuel. You certainly won't get extra performance from the 98 or 99 and you may also get slightly lower mpg too. Just saying.

 

The 99's did feel lacking in top end power but had just a little more lowdown. I wonder why there was a big difference in smoothness between the Tesco 99 and Shell's 99 though, must just be the additives.

 

I don't normally put much else in it beside whichever is cheapest near me. Usually morrisons or asda.

[Gerrycan]

On 21/06/2019 at 18:40, FabiaGonzales said:

 

The 99's did feel lacking in top end power but had just a little more lowdown. I wonder why there was a big difference in smoothness between the Tesco 99 and Shell's 99 though, must just be the additives.

 

I don't normally put much else in it beside whichever is cheapest near me. Usually morrisons or asda.

 

With the greatest respect to your 'seat of pants-o-meter' do you really think it is sensitive enough to detect roughness caused by different additives or very small power variations?

No new medical treatment is taken seriously unless the placebo/nocebo effect is accounted for in any associated studies. Humans are just too open to suggestion, or emotions or context to be relied on for reliable assessments of that kind.

I used to do a bit of flying  and in cloud you only believe what the instruments tell you, not what your senses suggest is happening,  and believe me an aircraft engine always sounds rougher when you venture away from land  

Edited 22 June, 2019 by Gerrycan

[sikejsudjek]

Shell v power seems to have good evidence of being able to clean the engine. They claim in tests a 60% reduction in grot from one tank of v power. Presumably you only need to put some in once in a while to get the benefit. V power also has additives that reduce friction which might be why it feels 'smoother'.

 

Isn't Sainsbury's super unleaded 97 ron ? The instruction manual for the 1.0 95 ps states a higher ron 'may' provide more power and mpg. Has anyone tested this engine yet ?

[GeneralPurpose]

Gerry, I think in normal driving you don't notice much difference, or any at all if running 99 in it. However, with 99 octane in the tank it is just noticeable to many folks that less power is produced at high revs. The dyno doesn't lie either. The Fabia engines don't like higher octane fuels. 95 or 97 does give max power though and it's best to stick to those. The roughness Gonzales notices is not uncommon. This is usually due to the extra cleaning additives in the higher octane fuels loosening the carbon and dissolving it in the combustion chambers. This can cause the engine to run a bit rough especially if the vehicle owner hasn't used a high octane fuel before. It often takes two tankfuls to do the job and the motor starts to run smoother again. But I'd say use 97 octane BP or Shell.

 

The other problem we all face with these direct injection engine is inlet valve carbonisation. No fuel whatsoever is ever inducted across the valve seats and therefore carbon can build up over time shortening the life of the engine. This happens quite quickly if owners use cheap petrol that don't have first grade cleaners and other detergents in them. You want your combustion to be as clean as possible to minimise the amount of carbon sticking to the inlet valve seat during valve overlap BTDC on exhaust stroke.High qualtiy fuels do this much better than the cheaper fuels that use second grade cleaners.

[GeneralPurpose]

3 minutes ago, sikejsudjek said:

Shell v power seems to have good evidence of being able to clean the engine. They claim in tests a 60% reduction in grot from one tank of v power. Presumably you only need to put some in once in a while to get the benefit. V power also has additives that reduce friction which might be why it feels 'smoother'.

 

Isn't Sainsbury's super unleaded 97 ron ? The instruction manual for the 1.0 95 ps states a higher ron 'may' provide more power and mpg. Has anyone tested this engine yet ?

 

Yes, I've tested one the dyno along with several other engine types. The results were largely the same across all types. 95ron and 97ron gave the best results and allowed the engine to reach full power at max revs. 98-99ron was disappointing because it lowered maximum power and showed a corresponding drop in mpg. This is because the ecu could not compensate for the slower burn of the higher octane rated fuels. The lesson is to use what the manual advises. There is no more stored energy in 99 octane than in 95. It's only how it burns that is different.

[Andy P]

I ran my previous octavia mk3 1.4 tsi on Tesco 99ron. It always seemed a little better and smoother. But in the 2 years of owning my fabia 1.2tsi it felt a little gutless at low revs on 99 Ron. But I carried on using it. Only recently I reverted back to using 95ron and the car picks up much better, plus my mpg has improved by about 5mpg on average. I'm definitely sticking with the recommended fuel from now on. 

[GeneralPurpose]

Hi Andy, yes you make an interesting point. And it's fairly typical of what we found. Aside from my job as a tech (which I am now retired from) I design and develop engines (& about to permanently retire from that too! yay!). Mostly these are for motorcycles, but I do crossover into car territory frequently. I've stripped all manor of engines after they have been running on 99octane for several thousands of miles only to find the exhaust valves very heavily carboned up and often burned badly too. The damage also affects the inlet valves too but to a lesser extent. The engines had never recovered from doing several thousands of miles on an octane rated fuel that was too high and not recommended. This damaged the engines. Replacing the valves and re-cutting the valve seats solved the problem but it's a very expensive job if you have to pay a garage to do it.

[vc-10]

Been very impressed with my 1.0 115PS 6-speed Ibiza. Drove down to my parents in Wiltshire on Sunday, back up yesterday. 59.1 mpg down, 55.3 back up (against a headwind). It's an excellent engine. 

[Gerrycan]

15 hours ago, GeneralPurpose said:

Hi Andy, yes you make an interesting point. And it's fairly typical of what we found. Aside from my job as a tech (which I am now retired from) I design and develop engines (& about to permanently retire from that too! yay!). Mostly these are for motorcycles, but I do crossover into car territory frequently. I've stripped all manor of engines after they have been running on 99octane for several thousands of miles only to find the exhaust valves very heavily carboned up and often burned badly too. The damage also affects the inlet valves too but to a lesser extent. The engines had never recovered from doing several thousands of miles on an octane rated fuel that was too high and not recommended. This damaged the engines. Replacing the valves and re-cutting the valve seats solved the problem but it's a very expensive job if you have to pay a garage to do it.

This is really interesting, largely because it goes against popular lore. This forum is riddled with claims of getting higher outputs on rolling roads just from using higher octane fuel, although to be fair they tend to be for the 2.0 tsi engines both standard and in various states of tune. Most people don't bother to put a standard Citigo/Fabia/Rapid on a dynamometer.

I have long held the belief that using higher octanes than necessary was just a waste in most vehicles for general driving and improved consumption, I was even prepared to concede that there may be very slightly better power, but I never even considered that it could cause actual damage. 

Reiterating a point I have made before, I drive a 2003 Toyota Echo (Yaris) 1.3L (NA and mpi) and the manual states with refreshing honesty that the engine is designed to run on Australian low standard 91 Octane fuel and there is absolutely no advantage in running a higher octane. I guess nearing 190k km on the clock with no work on the engine other than standard servicing and consumables that they were right. Even though it still returns good mpg and burns no oil I'd be surprised if there is not a fair amount of carbon build up.

[Bertie90]

1.6 tdi Maxidot shows average 71mpg but if you calculate it from full tank to empty it's more like 50mpg 😂

[sikejsudjek]

So does anyone know what the best fuels for keeping the tsi engines clean are, and the best for long term use and economy ?
 

Summarising the information I've found so far on this thread and online :

 

99 ron and not best for long term use :

V Power - very good at cleaning. Expensive but possibly the odd tank would clean without doing damage ? They claim one full tank cleans 60% of grot out of engine.

Tesco momentum, claims extra cleaning. Found a test report on it, cleaned some cars better, but others were more gunked up !

 

98 ron Esso super unleaded. Claims extra cleaning additives. Ron too high for general use ?

 

97 ron

BP Ultimate - claims good cleaning but expensive.

Sainsbury's super unleaded, no information I can find on additives, cheap. Anyone know what's in this fuel ? Has anyone found any benefit over branded 95 ron ?

 

95 ron

Branded unleaded - several claim cleaning additives but not as many as super unleaded. No idea how effective in cleaning

Supermarket fuels - rumoured to have less cleaning additives and sometimes lower mpg ?

 

I'm tempted to just run branded 95, although round here Sainsbury's super unleaded is cheaper. Unfortunately I have no idea what's in it, although I did find a claim it was low in ethanol.
 

Edited 29 June, 2019 by sikejsudjek

[GeneralPurpose]

Just use standard 95ron for regular use. That is what the car is designed to use. It's just as good as 97ron regarding performance in the Fabia. But if you put in 97ron BP it does definitely clean the engine better than their 95ron but performance should remain the same as for 95ron. If someone claims they get extra performance from using 97ron in their Fabia it is because the 97ron fuel has cleaned the injectors and fuel system, loosened and disolving carbon in the combustion chamber, and allowed the engine to produce it's designed power output which may have declined slightly after a long period of using 95ron. I'd point out that if someone hasn't dyno'ed their engine before and has just used 97ron in it, they will usually see a high power output than the manufacturers stated figures. This is not because of the 97ron, but just a normal result. All engines will normally produce a little more than the manufacturers figures especially after covering a good few thousands of miles. The 97ron just restores normal power output. My own Citroen 1.2 Puretech engine with 110ps at 5k revs, and 205nm of torque at 1500rpm actually puts out 114ps and 208nm of torque at 1520rpm. That was the average of 3 runs and all on 95ron.

 

As mentioned in an earlier post above, going too high with octane rating does lower performance and mpg on engines that are not designed specifically to run on it. So a tuned engine will often run better on higher octane fuels. They need the anti-knock slower burn of the higher octane to prevent engine damage. The ecu will be tweaked to get the best timing and fuelling for that engine and so will not suffer the engine carbon problems to valves, seats and cylinder head. In other words, the ignition timing and fuelling will compensate for the slower burn so that on the exhaust stroke the gases will be fully spent and not harm the engine. 

[GeneralPurpose]

On 28/06/2019 at 03:29, Gerrycan said:

This is really interesting, largely because it goes against popular lore. This forum is riddled with claims of getting higher outputs on rolling roads just from using higher octane fuel, although to be fair they tend to be for the 2.0 tsi engines both standard and in various states of tune. Most people don't bother to put a standard Citigo/Fabia/Rapid on a dynamometer.

I have long held the belief that using higher octanes than necessary was just a waste in most vehicles for general driving and improved consumption, I was even prepared to concede that there may be very slightly better power, but I never even considered that it could cause actual damage. 

Reiterating a point I have made before, I drive a 2003 Toyota Echo (Yaris) 1.3L (NA and mpi) and the manual states with refreshing honesty that the engine is designed to run on Australian low standard 91 Octane fuel and there is absolutely no advantage in running a higher octane. I guess nearing 190k km on the clock with no work on the engine other than standard servicing and consumables that they were right. Even though it still returns good mpg and burns no oil I'd be surprised if there is not a fair amount of carbon build up.

 

Yes Gerry, most family small cars won't cope with high octane fuels and still maintain performance and normal economy. Manufacturers will normally state what fuel to use and it's normally 95ron these days in Europe.  Some individuals claim this and that but it's for lots of reasons usually and not just fuel alone.  See my comments above. Definitely no advantage to using higher octane fuel than the car is designed for and definitely some disadvantages. Sounds like you are doing something 'right' concerning your Yaris. I had four of them for our staff some years ago and they were on the whole a brilliant little car.

[Gerrycan]

The Yaris was in the 'tender' care of my daughter and had missed at least  a couple of successive services when I rescued it.

Drove it 350km home and did not think it was going too bad but when I gave it a major service the oil was thick and the spark plugs had barely any electrode left. I was amazed it could even start.

The funny thing was even with new everything fitted it did not run significantly better than before.??

[sikejsudjek]

Only recently got my Fabia 1.0 tsi 95. Got 57 mpg on a 50 mile trip along twisty A roads and some motorway, which is pretty good as its only done a couple of hundred miles and isn't run in yet.

[Gerrycan]

15 hours ago, sikejsudjek said:

Only recently got my Fabia 1.0 tsi 95. Got 57 mpg on a 50 mile trip along twisty A roads and some motorway, which is pretty good as its only done a couple of hundred miles and isn't run in yet.

I know many will disagree with me, and you will probably be one, but I have not experienced any real consumption improvement after running in from any new car I've owned.

I like to get an early reference point with the displayed instant consumption at a couple of constant speeds on a flat open road with little or no traffic, or wind and preferably as close to 20 deg C as possible. On my previous 1.9pd mk2 (90k km) and my current 1.4tsi mk3 (58k km) I saw/see no difference when I replicate(d) the conditions.

However I do get a driving consumption improvement over time as I get used to the characteristics of the engine.

Excellent consumption by the way.

Edited 7 July, 2019 by Gerrycan

[sikejsudjek]

Had another run this time and got 60 mpg on half A roads and half motorway. How much difference does tyre pressure make ?

[GeneralPurpose]

Gerry, your comments above are interesting.

 

A few years ago me and my colleagues tested several NEW cars on the dyno at 250 miles, and then again at 2000 miles. I remember we did test some engines at 1000 miles also. The idea was to see how much power they produced at each stage. We found quite a variation in power outputs. The manufacturers make certain claims about power and torque and we were unofficially testing those figures for a project that was ongoing within our organisation. What we found was that whether it was a petrol or diesel engine, all the engines only just managed to produce the manufacturers power output figures at 250 miles, except one car mentioned below. Yet at 2000 miles all engines produced MORE power and torque than quoted by the manufacturers. In some instances this was only marginal by a couple of horse power but definitely up on the original 250 mile test. The tests took into account the calibration of the dyno, the temperature and humidity etc etc. It was average of three runs per car.

 

A interesting example of the power difference experienced was on a Ford Mondeo 2.0ltr petrol. This car produced just under the manufacturers quoted figures for hp and torque at 250 miles. Yet when tested at 2000 miles it was 12% up on power over the original reading! That was the exception as most cars produces in the region of 5-8% extra power over the 250 mile test reading.

 

The message here is therefore that most folks will notice not just a small increase in power output, but usually (if they don't use the extra power that much) extra fuel economy too. Diesel enginest take approximately twice as long to properly run in and conform though and may not give their best power and economy for 10k miles onwards. Increasingly that has applied to short stroke petrol engines too.