Fuel consumption

[jamos316]

Hi

 

Had my new fabia combi for over a week now driving short distances every day (work & home). Im monitoring the consumption levels and it has never dropped below 9l/100km, the advertised level is 4.6l/100km. I am aware that driving short distances does take up the consumption level but by 100%? I was thinking that I'd get around the 5l mark.

 

The engine is 1.0 dsg 110.

I have checked that the car is in drive mode and not sport. Also i am not driving at a high speed so revs are always around 1.5.

 

What do you think?

 

James

Edited 16 May, 2019 by jamos316

[edbostan]

If it is new than it takes a few thousand miles to reach optimum fuel consumption. When I picked up my new Roomster 1.2 tsi I had a 130 mile journey home which was all motorway and at a steady 50-60mph  the display showed 47mpg ( I realise you measure in litres). It gradually improved until it could do around 53mpg or more at those speeds. I suppose new engines are relatively tight and need the miles to loosen up. In the past it was called 'running in' but with modern oils and manufacturing tolerances it is not such an issue.

Edited 16 May, 2019 by edbostan

[jamos316]

1 minute ago, edbostan said:

If it is new than it takes a few thousand miles to reach optimum fuel consumption. When I picked up my new Roomster 1.2 tsi I had a 130 mile journey home which was all motorway and at a steady 50-60mph  the display showed 47mpg ( I realise you measure in litres). It gradually improved until it could do around 53mpg at those speeds. I suppose new engines are relatively tight and need the miles to loosen up. In the past it was called 'running in' but with modern oils and manufacturing tolerances it is not such an issue.

 

Ok but was the difference for you like 100% like it is for me? This really seems to much, do you agree?

[RicardoM]

@jamos316

You're driving too conservatory. The engine's sweet spot is at 3,000 rpm.

Other than that, you should check if the brakes don't stick or if there is a fuel leak.

Lastly, check if there is a fuel related computer error that may indicate the engine running rich (negative values for LTFT, misfire) due to bad injector(s), bad spark plug(s), bad coil.

[Gerrycan]

@jamos316 You have posted in the Octavia Mk3 section instead of the Fabia section.

Short journeys, although you  did not say how short, make a big difference to consumption.

 

The following graph is specific to the 1.4tsi Golf manual, but same principal applies to all vehicles.

 

For what it is worth I found the loan 1.0tsi manual Fabia I had for a week, amazingly good on consumption.

Try driving with display in 'instant consumption' to see what driving style works best.

Edited 16 May, 2019 by Gerrycan

[john999boy]

Thread moved.

[Ootohere]

There is no 'advertised fuel consumption' for real world as a driver might be using their car,

just WLTP and maybe even RDE, but then that requires driving at a WLTP regime, 

and a car 'Run in' / Driven in, so some Miles / KM on it, brakes with some wear, tyre pressures set etc.

 

No way is 3,000 rpm with a 1.0 TSI 110ps DSG a sweet spot that gives better economy IME.

If you want to be at 3,000 rpm with the DSG then that speed is not as economical as a bit slower.

 

Best run the car in and do brim to brim checks and see then what the actual fuel consumption is as you use it and not a 'professional driver doing a WLTP regime test'.

[jamos316]

2 minutes ago, Skoffski said:

There is no 'advertised fuel consumption' for real world as a driver might be using their car,

just WLTP and maybe even RDE, but then that requires driving at a WLTP regime, 

and a car 'Run in' / Driven in, so some Miles / KM on it, brakes with some wear, tyre pressures set etc.

 

No way is 3,000 rpm with a 1.0 TSI 110ps DSG a sweet spot that gives better economy IME.

If you want to be at 3,000 rpm with the DSG then that speed is not as economical as a bit slower.

 

Best run the car in and do brim to brim checks and see then what the actual fuel consumption is as you use it and not a 'professional driver doing a WLTP regime test'.

 

 

I mentioned 4.6l/100km as this is what was noted on the advert for the car. Not sure where they get this from but at a guess I would say from Skoda.

I am also guessing that this is the best case scenario however I still expected to get around this number... Maybe 5-5.5l/100km so my average of 9l/100km is way higher than I expected.

Speaking to other people that do roughly the same short distance driving as me with older cars but roughly the same size car with a similar engine and they never hit higher than 5.5l/100km.

[Ootohere]

What is the point of comparing with a Euro 5 or Euro 6 Emissions car if you got a new 1.0TSI with a GPF & DSG.?

That is apples and pairs.

 

We will only know what the Face Lift models with Euro 6 d-temp  WLTP Certification do once people have and drive those.

[SurreyJohn]

Didn't someone say in the past that for the first 1000 miles (might have been 1000km ?) the engine is programmed to behave differently as it is tight, can't remember what was said but it was something like idles 250rpm higher and the DSG works from a special programme rather than learning driving style.   There is actually something in the handbook about restricting revs for initial X miles

 

For the 1.0 it seems to loosen up considerably after 2000 miles

[jamos316]

13 minutes ago, SurreyJohn said:

Didn't someone say in the past that for the first 1000 miles (might have been 1000km ?) the engine is programmed to behave differently as it is tight, can't remember what was said but it was something like idles 250rpm higher and the DSG works from a special programme rather than learning driving style.   There is actually something in the handbook about restricting revs for initial X miles

 

For the 1.0 it seems to loosen up considerably after 2000 miles

I hope this is the case

[Benz3ne]

1 hour ago, Skoffski said:

We will only know what the Face Lift models with Euro 6 d-temp  WLTP Certification do once people have and drive those.

 

26 minutes ago, SurreyJohn said:

For the 1.0 it seems to loosen up considerably after 2000 miles

 

Mine at the last fill-up managed 50.19mpg over 40.76 miles. Covered 450 miles and there was approximately 3.24 litres left in the tank so theoretically another 35 and a bit miles... 485 miles from a tank, happy boy!

Looks like I'm on a better course than that again for this tank. Found that 65mph gets me better consumption on a dry, tepid day than 60mph, typically, given the hills and whatnot on the motorways near me.

Also found that plenty of acceleration up to speed then easing off at speed is getting me better consumption than babying up to speed.

 

At 3,130-odd miles (plus my 100+ mile round trip tomorrow) it has loosened up considerable.

 

95ps, 1.0 '19 with a 5sp Manual.

Edited 16 May, 2019 by Benz3ne

[TerFar]

If it helps, I achieve best around 5.9 l/100km (48mpg) on a decent journey. Around town doing short trips it only returns around 7l/100km (low 40 mpg).

It will improve a bit as the engine and gear box bed in, so it is a little early to state you have a problem. 

[GeneralPurpose]

9 hours ago, jamos316 said:

I hope this is the case

 

Jamos, don't worry about fuel economy during the engine break-in period. The engine cannot give anywhere near its best power or fuel economy at this time. Short trips especially in town are also not the best way to "run-in" a new car. Also, running any car in a largely town environment gives actually false reading of fuel consumption capability. If the car is to perform properly you really need to get the engine & it's oil up to very high temperatures to allow the break-in process to happen. This is best achieved on faster roads with lots of bends and hills. The engine must be "driven" with a variety of engine speeds and loads with constantly changing throttle settings. This will give the best run-in procedure. Let the gearbox change frequently, squirt the throttle often (but avoid full throttle as per your manuals run-in instructions) to allow the engine revs to rise and fall often. AVOID USING CRUISE CONTROL during the break-in period. You must avoid running the engine for long periods at fixed throttle settings, so use only your right foot to control speed. Occasionally use sport mode to allow the engine revs to climb further up the scale. This helps the bedding in process.

 

As you do all this, gradually you will notice the engine becoming more powerful and economical. However, on these smaller engines they do take time to loosen up and give best fuel economy...often not becoming really good until 3,000 to 5,000 miles has been covered. It just depends how you treat the engine initially as to how quickly it runs in.

 

Let us all know how your car is going as time goes by. And don't forget, the same car driven over identical routes at the same time of day with identical traffic situations BUT with TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE will often give different fuel consumption figures! So relax and let the car run-in.

[shyVRS245]

As someone who has managed over 60mpg in 3 petrol Skoda's in the last 4 years (Rapid Spaceback 1.2Tsi, Karoq 1.5Tsi, Superb 1.4Tsi) I feel qualified to agree with Gerrycan that short urban trips are indeed the worst journeys to expect decent economy. For example my current car has a lot of power yet I can still exceed the claimed Skoda combined figure but only using the car on the motorway and covering 43km on my commute. After 8km the car is only doing 26mpg but by the time I get to work this has risen to 42mpg or higher. I find around cruising at 2,000rpm in top gear to be the optimum point for good economy neither labouring the engine or pushing it too hard.

[Gerrycan]

19 hours ago, jamos316 said:

Hi

 

Had my new fabia combi for over a week now driving short distances every day (work & home). Im monitoring the consumption levels and it has never dropped below 9l/100km, the advertised level is 4.6l/100km. I am aware that driving short distances does take up the consumption level but by 100%? I was thinking that I'd get around the 5l mark.

 

The engine is 1.0 dsg 110.

I have checked that the car is in drive mode and not sport. Also i am not driving at a high speed so revs are always around 1.5.

 

What do you think?

 

James

A few points:

It does help us if you give us more information to work with, so what distance and typical speeds are you doing for your short journeys?

The average consumption on my manual 1.4tsi Octavia goes something like the graphs I posted so from a cold start (typically 15 to 20 deg Centigrade) through urban 60kph and 40kph zones with mini roundabouts every 200 to 400 metres for 2.5km, then more open 60 kph roads.

First 500 metres -14l/100

1km - 11L/100

2.5km - 8L/100

5km - 6.5L/100

10km - 5.3L/100

13km - 5.0L/100

Those figures can vary by 15/20% either way depending on start temperatures, traffic flow etc.

 

The NEDC consumption rate of 4.6L/100 you quoted for your dsg equipped Fabia is for the full 10km and I have to say that most automatic boxes including the DSG gamed that test and the new more rigorous WLTP test highlights the fact that manual boxes are generally more economical than auto boxes for drivers who are economy orientated.

 

If you are still unsatisfied with the consumption then it is either the way you drive 😞  or the car.

To test the car find a stretch of open flat highway with not too much traffic and with the engine fully warmed up set the cruise to say 80kph and the display to instant consumption and if you are consuming about 4L/100 or probably less, then there is nothing wrong with the car.

 

It is near summer in Sweden, if you think consumption is poor now on a short journey then you just wait to winter, unless you have some sort of pre-warmer system on the car, which will help.

 

[Timbo1987]

They definitely get better after a few thousand miles. Mine is on 17 thousand now and getting the best fuel economy so far I think. They aren't great for economy in heavy traffic but very good on faster flowing roads.

[jamos316]

Ok it seems I am worrying too much.

This is my 1st new car so im not aware of how it behaves. Also my 1st automatic.

 

Do automatics take more fuel than a petrol? I would say these engines are very good at gear shifting (probably better than me) so there's a chance it maybe better. Plus on the automatics you get 7 gears, I believe its only 5 & 6 on the manuals.

 

The last car I had was hyundai cw 1.6 crdi diesel 2010 model. I don't think it even had the dial where you can see the average fuel consumption so I could've been doing the same around 8-9l/100km. I also believe that it had a bigger fuel tank (55l) where the fabia has less (not sure of the size but I think someone here said around 45l).

 

I done a full fill up of petrol yesterday for the 1st time since I bought it so ill see how many kms i can get from it just when it hits the red area. In my old car i averaged around 700km with mixed driving.

So taking into account its smaller tank size I'll probably be happy if it hits 600km. Im not sure how to work that out.

 

 

16 hours ago, SurreyJohn said:

 

 

Edited 17 May, 2019 by jamos316

[Ootohere]

1.0 TSI DSG's with a GPF do not need to use more petrol than a 1.0 TSI manuals with a GPF. 

It will be about how you drive them and where you drive then but the DQ200 DSG's are pretty economic and basically anyone can hypermile (km) them

if they want to.

Edited 17 May, 2019 by Skoffski

[vc-10]

9 litres/100km works out at 31.4 mpg (Imperial). Honestly, that's expected for a brand new engine being used only in town. When the traffic is bad I get that sort of figure on short runs. Cold engines use a huge amount of fuel just heating up the metal of the engine. These newer engines are better than older engines for this, due to having less thermal mass (downsizing) and clever coolant systems, but any engine will suffer only being used on very short trips. 

 

My long term average on my Ibiza with the 115PS and a manual is around 47 mpg now (6 litres/100km). That quoted figure you gave sounds like the figures from the old testing protocol, which are at best misleading. 

[GeneralPurpose]

James, the dsg's are in fact often better on fuel economy than manual cars. Drivers often over rev small petrol turbocharged engines with manual gearboxes. Small petrol turbo engines are at their most efficient running at peak torque or just above. They like to be under pressure with the turbo working to provide the power with the engine revving low. That's why your car changes up through the gears really quickly to keep the revs down and give good fuel economy. It works!

[alan4856732]

11 hours ago, Estate Man said:

James, the dsg's are in fact often better on fuel economy than manual cars. Drivers often over rev small petrol turbocharged engines with manual gearboxes. Small petrol turbo engines are at their most efficient running at peak torque or just above. They like to be under pressure with the turbo working to provide the power with the engine revving low. That's why your car changes up through the gears really quickly to keep the revs down and give good fuel economy. It works!

 

I'm interested to see this.

 

I now drive around town at 30mph in 3rd with the engine about 2000rpm and the little "3->4" symbol nagging away at me!

I find if I follow it's advice and change to 4th, the revs drop to around 1400rpm and the engine seems to labour terribly, especially on any slight inclines, I hate it and get the feeling it's actually causing damage.

I've got no complaints about fuel economy - the computer usually reports around 51mpg.

 

What do you think?

[Ootohere]

Best ignore 'Gear change indicators' on manual cars. 

Unless the Software Engineer is in the car with you, knows how you drive and can alter the indicator to suit your location and circumstances.

Drive the way you want and change gear when your senses tell you you should, hearing and feeling...

[shyVRS245]

9 minutes ago, Skoffski said:

Best ignore 'Gear change indicators' on manual cars. 

Unless the Software Engineer is in the car with you, knows how you drive and can alter the indicator to suit your location and circumstances.

Drive the way you want and change gear when your senses tell you you should, hearing and feeling...

Agree my gear indicators tell me to change up from 4th to 5th in my manual car at 32mph when in a 30mph limit but I don't.

[shyVRS245]

23 minutes ago, alan4856732 said:

 

I'm interested to see this.

 

I now drive around town at 30mph in 3rd with the engine about 2000rpm and the little "3->4" symbol nagging away at me!

I find if I follow it's advice and change to 4th, the revs drop to around 1400rpm and the engine seems to labour terribly, especially on any slight inclines, I hate it and get the feeling it's actually causing damage.

I've got no complaints about fuel economy - the computer usually reports around 51mpg.

 

What do you think?

When I drive the wife's Karoq 1.5Tsi manual I have noticed if I drive it at 30mph in 4th all 4 cylinders are operating yet if I keep it in 3rd at the same speed with more rpm (above 1,400rpm) the ACT will ensure that only 2 cylinders are working and the ECO light comes on the dash. Whether I am actually saving any fuel is debatable but it is something I have noticed at different speeds.