These vehicles are WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure) type approved vehicles. More information is available at http://www.skoda.co.uk/owners/wltp-info. However, in line with Government guidance, to facilitate comparison between different models from different manufacturers and to accommodate the full transition to this new testing regime, we have displayed NEDC figures. These NEDC figures are the values for this vehicle used in registration and taxation documentation until further notice from the UK authorities. These NEDC figures have been derived from WLTP testing, and may not be equivalent to NEDC figures from NEDC testing, so comparisons may be unreliable. Fuel consumption and efficiency figures are provided for comparative purposes only and may not reflect ‘real world’ driving results. Choice of wheels and other options may affect fuel consumption and emissions data.

Edited 19 September, 20187 yr by skoda1982

So they may be the old NEDC (to aid comparison blah blah in 

line with government blah blah) or the new NEDC 2.0 (derived from WLTP blah blah) deliberately confusing waffle designed to make you say errm ok.....

On 17/09/2018 at 10:38, 33q said:

 

Whilst I accept your point on different elements of pollution, using higher fuel duty to raise taxes instead of VED seems fairer and just to me

That idea has been put forward in the past but is becoming even less likely with the move, albeit small at the moment, towards electric vehicles with the government at some point having to come up with a plan to replace the resulting reduction in revenue from fuel duty. Gawd help us!

 

15 minutes ago, VAGCF said:

That idea has been put forward in the past but is becoming even less likely with the move, albeit small at the moment, towards electric vehicles with the government at some point having to come up with a plan to replace the resulting reduction in revenue from fuel duty. Gawd help us!

 

Well we are only a short commute from being able to track every mile our vehicles travel and at what time of day and type of road and type of vehicle and weight etc. We will just get a bill once the number crunching has been done. 

 

So easy, so fair and so so easy to administer and collect and stop fraud.......I think not!!!!!

 

http://www.skoda.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/downloads/brochures/karoq_pricing_specs.pdf

 

Just as expected the new 0 - 62 mph from 150 tsi up from 8.4 to 8.9 sec and dsg from 8.6 to 9.0 sec.

The 1.0 tsi is listed same as before 10.6 sec.

Tdi 115 versions is now 11 and 11.1 sec and before 10.7 and 10.9

 

Edited 20 September, 20187 yr by Max48

based on less power or have they tweaked something else?

Edited 20 September, 20187 yr by rykard

9 minutes ago, rykard said:

based on less power or have they tweaked something else?

  I dont know, maybe added weight from the Gasoline particulate filters and exhaust system or is this the real numbers tested under wltp?

Edited 20 September, 20187 yr by Max48

0-100 kmh figures manufacturers give did not come from the Emissions Co2 g/km testing under the old system and not under RDE / WLTP.

 

As it is they are often just kidology with a VW or Audi with the same engine / gearbox and PS / Nm Torque but heavier than the Skoda or Seat showing 

as being quicker.

Happened with models for decades now.  Prestige (more expensive) cars can not appear slower.

GPF restricts exhaust flow, increases back pressure, said to reduce performance a bit but possibly increase economy, and reduce exhaust noise.

 

But I suspect, completely new engine management software to ensure NOx meets Euro 6d requirements when tested under WLTP.

 

They will have flipped the cheat bit permanently to zero in the ECU/DSG software, we trust.

 

And maybe tested it with real production tyres/pressures, proper oils and levels, no bits missing or modified, no micro hybrid tweaks or hacks and it has to have proper weight/loading.

seems a big difference.

"Svět Motorů" tested Fabia 1.0 with, and without OPF (GPF), and the differences are imo pretty big. Combined fuel economy is 0.4l/100km worse (5mpg I think).
It varies were you are driving. 50mph - 100mph was a lot slower as well. 

Hope 1.5 is not as affected, haven't seen a test yet.

I took the 1.5 tsi dsg for a test drive in mid april and ordered a Karoq a week later. The most irritaing for me is that the car i hope will be here in mid november is not the same car i ordered. 

The dealer did not tell me anything about Otto Particel Filter and that performance specs of the car would change. For me its a big dealbreaker that 0 - 62 mph now reach 9 seconds. 

This is from auto.idnes.cz testing fabia with OPF:

 

"Both offered versions of the turbo engine will offer solid dynamics and their acceleration parameters (10.8 resp. 9.6 seconds from 0 to 100 km / h) and maximum speeds (184 and 195 km / h) are more than sufficient for a four-meter car. It's just that they need to stretch out of idle before they show up in full strength. The small blight is also a certain dullness in the transition to rapid acceleration. However, both are subject to stringent emission limits, and it is likely to affect the cars of other brands"

 

https://auto.idnes.cz/skoda-fabia-c8f-/auto_testy.aspx?c=A180813_083401_auto_testy_Fdv

 

Here in Norway I can get a Seat Ateca Fr both 1.4 tsi and 2.0 tsi without OPF delivered in 6 days. Starting to serious wonder if i should go for the Seat Ateca Fr

Edited 21 September, 20187 yr by Max48

Those are not the actual 0-62 mph you might get driving the cars, that would be the worst in the worst situation, ie above sea level extremes of temperature, ie scorchio.

 

No point getting the MY18 models unless a bargain or the MY19 is going to be a long time until delivery IMO.

30 minutes ago, Offski said:

Those are not the actual 0-62 mph you might get driving the cars, that would be the worst in the worst situation, ie above sea level extremes of temperature, ie scorchio.

 

No point getting the MY18 models unless a bargain or the MY19 is going to be a long time until delivery IMO.

 

I agree that for customers buying the new car with this information in hand its ok but when i ordered the car i did it because of my test drive and reading/watching reviews of the car with the old performance specs. The fabia review with the new Otto Particular Filter seems to show that performance is slower and more dull than before the OPF.

'seems to show', 

 might be right, which reviews by who that have driven these cars with a GPF?   Any link to where i can read these reviews?

we ordered ours on the basis that our current CRV felt a little underpowered. The one we test drove felt a lot spritelier hence the order, but if the performance is stunted too much then where do we go? Have they disabled launch control on the dsg?

2 minutes ago, Offski said:

'seems to show', 

 might be right, which reviews by who that have driven these cars with a GPF?   Any link to where i can read these reviews?

https://auto.idnes.cz/skoda-fabia-c8f-/auto_testy.aspx?c=A180813_083401_auto_testy_Fdv

 

 

What does it say, is it that a Face Lift 1.0TSI with a GPF is not performing as well or as economically as a Pre Face lift the was more polluting?

4 minutes ago, Offski said:

What does it say, is it that a Face Lift 1.0TSI with a GPF is not performing as well or as economically as a Pre Face lift the was more polluting?

 

Just one review of course but tells you things like this: "It's just that they need to stretch out of idle before they show up in full strength. The small blight is also a certain dullness in the transition to rapid acceleration. However, both are subject to stringent emission limits, and it is likely to affect the cars of other brands"

Is that them comparing to the Pre Facelift that they drove before.

They are slugs IME that need revs and a DSG.  Buy a tiddler and get a tiddler, before the GPF the difference was Implausible / irregular Co2 g/km.  ie Cheated.

 

They are discontinuing 1.4 TSI's and increased to 1.5 TSI with the same 150 PS because there was going to be the need to have the Otto particulate filter / GPF.

 

Here is a Briskoda members Video of the Changes in looks with the facelift.

IMO looking at a Pre Face lift would have been 'Simply Clever' then driving the one available and then the new one.

Anyone should compare side by side, same tyres, pressures, fuel in the tank, cars run in.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/455432-skoda-fabia-monte-carlo-fl-2019

 

Edited 21 September, 20187 yr by Offski

11 minutes ago, Offski said:

Is that them comparing to the Pre Facelift that they drove before.

They are slugs IME that need revs and a DSG.  By a tiddler and get a tiddler, before the GPF the difference was Implausible / irregular Co2 g/km.  ie Cheated.

 

Its nothing i can do than just wait and see. This would not been a big deal if i could show up at the dealer and ask for a test drive in my Karoq 1.5 tsi dsg with the new specs but that is of course not possible since all this car is waiting for delivery on an old airfield in CZ. I know my car was build early in August 2018 so I should be one of the first to receive on of this car but I would certainly try to get a price reduction etc. because I was not informed about wltp at all when i ordered the car in april.

Edited 21 September, 20187 yr by Max48

To also include some numbers. 
Fabia 1.0 combi 
80 - 120kmh on 6 speed 
pre-facelift x facelift. 
16,1s           x     17,2

90kw            x      86kw

There was alos another test with weaker engines, and it was much worse. So Maybe 110kw 1.5TSi won't be as affected. 
We will see.

FIII 1.0 TSI OPF.pdf

When a 1.2 changed from the 1.2 TSI 105ps to a 1.2 110PS then they were not like for like. 

a 1.0TSI 110ps compared to a 110ps should be 110ps minimum, 

but if the Nm Torque changes, or the gear ratios etc then i expect there to be differences.

 

The Euro Emissions tests were rubbish, emissions were fiction, and might still be but the manufacturers have had to make changes, 

simple enough if you do not want WLTP approved vehicles do not get them.

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

 

Yeah but this time gear ratios are the same, it is just slower :/ 



And of course, torque is lower, especially in lower revs: 

(sorry for potato quality, will update later.)

Edited 21 September, 20187 yr by Cvak

Lost me, what has 70kW / 95ps to do with 81kW / 105ps ?