Agree about the oil needing regular top ups even though our 27 month old car has now done 24,250 miles. It seems to use more fuel since the software update last year to cure the hiccups, I used to get between 55-60mpg fairly easily whereas now I'm getting 50-53mpg at best. Our engine is quiet unless you rev it out to annoy a Nissan Leaf driver away from the lights. Gearbox is still nice and tight and you're right that SEL and above are well specced for the price although as I stated not long ago our model has gone up £2,400 in price since we bought it in January 2018. Wife loves it although she has been working from home for the last 4 weeks so she is missing driving it (mainly for high seating position and easy access/exit).

Shy, I was just wondering about your recent poorer consumption, you must be disappointed, though 50+mpg isn't bad.  I had been setting myself a challenge to try to attain your earlier 60+mpg (commute) / 48mpg (overall) figures with my 1.0 DSG.  I've reported before that I got a display indicated 53mpg on two separate 75mph indicated motorway runs, probably with the wind behind me, but occasional accelerating way past 80, overtaking groups of slower vehicles.

 

Was thinking of soon trying a long distance 60mph run, just to see what I could get down to.  44mpg overall so far having done approx 6,000miles - doubt I'll be doing many more miles in the near future.

 

Hope they don't try to do software updates to my 1.0 at the next, or any service - it doesn't need them & running just fine (at least it was 4 weeks ago).

@croquemonsieur

When you hand a car in for a service and sign the sheet which gives them permission to do work, make sure you say and have it written on that paper.

No software updates that affect Engine Management to be carried out.

Permission to be saught.

?

Do you take advantage of 'Coasting function' when that suits your location / journey?

17 minutes ago, croquemonsieur said:

Shy, I was just wondering about your recent poorer consumption, you must be disappointed, though 50+mpg isn't bad.  I had been setting myself a challenge to try to attain your earlier 60+mpg (commute) / 48mpg (overall) figures with my 1.0 DSG.  I've reported before that I got a display indicated 53mpg on two separate 75mph indicated motorway runs, probably with the wind behind me, but occasional accelerating way past 80, overtaking groups of slower vehicles.

 

Was thinking of soon trying a long distance 60mph run, just to see what I could get down to.  44mpg overall so far having done approx 6,000miles - doubt I'll be doing many more miles in the near future.

 

Hope they don't try to do software updates to my 1.0 at the next, or any service - it doesn't need them & running just fine (at least it was 4 weeks ago).

Can't see it doing over 60mpg again must have been a very lean fuel/air mixture from the factory. Pushing more fuel into the engine has clearly resolved the hesitation with a cold engine and probably in reality pushed up emissions hopefully not too high to cause problems come M.O.T. time next January. Long term on the maxidot is 45.1mpg but wife's average speed is only 29mph compared to my recent 42mph average commute (due to lack of traffic).

Take advantage of MOT offers at Skoda or VW Group main dealers.

 

It was strange but not surprising and still is with 1.4 TSI Twinchargers where they can fail a test at Independent MOT stations but pass with no issue if tested at a Skoda Main Dealership.

 

I can see the same being true when it comes to 1.5 TSI vehicles. Just imaging a 3 year old car failing an emissions test at it's first MOT.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind Root, when I book the 1st service.  I did have have a successful mid-life sofweare upgrade on my previous 1.2 Yeti, that I think applied to the engine and the way it interacted with the DSG box.  It was running very well before, yet it emerged from the garage a little more responsive and economical (but I'll add my Karoq is even better).  The original brochure quoted bhp on my year was 105bhp, but late versions were shown as 110bhp - i did wonder whether the software change had upped my engine to 110bhp.

 

My Karoq is a fairly lowly 1.0 SE Tech DSG and as far as I know, doesn't have a coasting function, which I understand only comes with the more upmarket DSG versions, where you have the option of Eco, Normal or Sport driving styles.  My car does actually have an Eco/Normal/Sport setting option, but this only works on the Adaptive Cruise Control and I have mine set on Sport with a fairly close setting to vehicle in front (but not tailgating) - minimises tendency of the car to apply brakes unnecessarily (just as others have advised).  I haven't forgotten your somewhat earlier described 'semi-tailgating' way of getting really impressive motorway economy and hope one day to find a fairly fast moving Bristol - London coach on the M4 and do something similar.  Actually I should have further qualified my 53mpg figure - both times included a considerable distance nearer London on the M4 with 50mph speed limit, so, inevitably driving fairly close to the vehicle in front.

@croquemonsieur

I am not aware of engine management software updates that were applied to 1.2 TSI's.

There were 2 Software Service Campaigns for DQ200 DSG's as you had in the Yeti.

First in 2014 '34F7' on 2009-2012/13 DQ200's. and that was the change of oil from Synthetic to mineral and the new software,

then in 2017 campaign '34H5' a software update on DQ200's from 2013-2015. 

 

I have driven 1.0 TSI DSG's in SEAT Arona's that had 'Coasting Function' which you could select, i expected the Karoq to have as well.

On 18/04/2020 at 17:41, shyVRS245 said:

Thought I would carry out a mini experiment as I'm borrowing the wife's Karoq SEL 1.5TSi manual for 3 shifts this week and as I was a bit late leaving the house today realised I had to drive at 70mph on the M1 section of my commute (2,250rpm in 6th gear) and averaged 45mpg which is what her car does according to the maxidot long term computer. However yesterday keeping revs down to 2,000rpm on the motorway the car averaged over 52mpg which suggests SUV's and their poor aerodynamics really start to use fuel once the speed rises.

While I agree that SUV's usually have relatively poor drag coefficient values compared to more conventional passenger cars the official figures (claims) for the Karoq are a somewhere around 0.34 which is among the best for the type and not far behind the Octavia's estate's claimed 0.31.

If 2250 rpm equates to 70mph then 2000rpm should be around 62mph, so even allowing for speedo inaccuracy, to get 7 mpg difference for a circa 8 mph speed difference seems to suggest there is some other factors at play (??). Maybe you were not getting your normal drafting benefits at the faster speed with more overtaking?

 

I read the other day that the old Land Rover Defender cd was 0.64, I knew it was bad but jeez.

Some Old Land Rover Defenders (before 1983 they were never known as a Defender) both Petrol and Diesels can get as good MPG's are modern petrol or diesel SUV's or Small SUV's or Cross Overs though.

And no warning lights if sat in lockdown and the battery goes flat and requires a jump start.

(well as long as they do not get 'the three amigos' that is, which is a whole different bundle of wiring issue.)

 

 

Edited 19 April, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

1 minute ago, Gerrycan said:

While I agree that SUV's usually have relatively poor drag coefficient values compared to more conventional passenger cars the official figures (claims) for the Karoq are a somewhere around 0.34 which is among the best for the type and not far behind the Octavia's estate's claimed 0.31.

If 2250 rpm equates to 70mph then 2000rpm should be around 62mph, so even allowing for speedo inaccuracy, to get 7 mpg difference for a circa 8 mph speed difference seems to suggest there is some other factors at play (??). Maybe you were not getting your normal drafting benefits at the faster speed with more overtaking?

 

I read the other day that the old Land Rover Defender cd was 0.64, I knew it was bad but jeez.

True at 60mph was getting some benefit from drafting the HGV's but at 70mph you spend more time in the middle lane overtaking them. Just finished reading an article in Auto Express (issue 1,617) comparing 3 small SUV's and they don't mention CD but the most economical was the new Ford Puma with the 1.0 litre Ecoboost engine producing 123bhp (125PS) which managed 40.7mpg on test (weight 1,280kg), then Peugeot 2008 1.2 litre PureTech with 129bhp which managed 38.5mpg (1,192kg the lightest) and finally the Renault Captur 1.3 litre TCe with 128bhp that averaged 38.0mpg (1,234kg).

Drag coefficient figures expressed as CD may be good for marketting purposes but in the real world cannot be compared between anything other than identical vehicles (an estate or hatchback for instance) it needs to be multiplied by the frontal area giving a CDA figure which surprise surprise the manufacturers keep very quiet about.

 

An SUV is always going to consume more fuel at a given speed than an Estate or hatchback with the same powertrain.

 

In terms of fuel consumption and speed, once a vehicle is up to speed on a flat level road the engine is mainly fighting against wind resistance, ignoring the less significant variables the wind resistance rsies with the square of the velocity so driving at an average speed of 70mph on a motorway journey consumes 36% more power = fuel than at 60mph.

 

It is very easy to witness that difference on the relatively traffic free autoroutes where I live because once I have got to a cruisng speed of 60mph or 70 mph (under the limit posted limit of 130 kph) then as long as I keep a good eye ahead and in my mirrors for approaching vehicles and indicate to overtake in plenty of time I never get baulked, never have to slow down & speed up again.

Edited 19 April, 20206 yr by J.R.

@shyVRS245  Not seen the article but was that a Mild Hybrid Puma?

 

Skoda 1.0 TSI / DSG's will be Mild Hybrid as will 1.5 TSI's as they are not going to get away with emissions kidology they did with WLTP & RDE so need a new why to con the results for the RDE2 results.

 

1 75kg person in a 4,5,6 or 7 seater vehicle is very different from a bum in every seat and stuff in the boot.

WLTP / RDE2 should be carried out with vehicles at revenue / max gross weight.

Then that would give hope for drivers on their own to easily better figures without hypermiling techniques being necessary.

Edited 19 April, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

40 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

True at 60mph was getting some benefit from drafting the HGV's but at 70mph you spend more time in the middle lane overtaking them. Just finished reading an article in Auto Express (issue 1,617) comparing 3 small SUV's and they don't mention CD but the most economical was the new Ford Puma with the 1.0 litre Ecoboost engine producing 123bhp (125PS) which managed 40.7mpg on test (weight 1,280kg), then Peugeot 2008 1.2 litre PureTech with 129bhp which managed 38.5mpg (1,192kg the lightest) and finally the Renault Captur 1.3 litre TCe with 128bhp that averaged 38.0mpg (1,234kg).

My 1.4tsi Octavia estate would do an indicated 49mpg (5.7L/100) at 68 mph (110kph true speed)) and 2500rpm.

If I was doing 100 kph then I was 3 or 4 seconds behind an interstate semi ( with more in front of it so no point overtaking) and getting near 59 mpg (4.8L/100).

Goodness knows when I can next do a long journey. We have got a full tank in all vehicles and our local 91 Octane fuel (not used in the Octavia of course) has been as low as 55 cents a litre (28 pence). Sucks 😞 

 

I drove a 1.0tsi manual Focus in the UK a few years back and could not get it to show better than 45 mpg even when doing a constant roadwork mandated 50 mph. Mark you going at 70 mph was still around 45 mpg. Never really worked that out in the short time I used it.

Edited 19 April, 20206 yr by Gerrycan
wrong exchange rate

8 minutes ago, Roottootemblowinootsoot said:

@shyVRS245  Not seen the article but was that a Mild Hybrid Puma?

Correct the MHEV as Ford describe it and at £21,795 it's only £300 more than the normal Puma with the same 123bhp engine but emissions drop from 103 to 96g/km.Just  watching the benefits of drafting on a bicycle with a mad woman hitting 184mph at Bonneville Flats following a vehicle to reduce the air resistance that would normally limit her top speed. Very scary, imagine if she fell off the bike at that speed.

Edited 19 April, 20206 yr by shyVRS245
more info

Interesting how Skoda are using the old 1.4 TSI in their hybrids, rather than their latest 1.5 TSI.

 

Maybe they know too it's a bit crap?

My sister in law has a last model Focus 1.0 auto and they find it uses more petrol than their previous 1.6 auto Focus that they've retained (same body).  It's been noted here before the Ford 1.0 engine was developed more for performance than economy.  Neither are as economical as my Karoq (nor ride as well as even the Yeti, despite what reviews might say + engine is rougher & noisier).  The mpg may be partly her partner's jerky driving style - frankly uncomfortable too for passengers & maybe affects my assessment of the ride - I do notice though when say one wheel only goes over a big bump, the Focus does roll-rock very noticeably, but that's anti-roll bars for you - Karoq suffers too but less so - I'd love to try one of those upmarket cars, like some BMW 5s that have adaptive anti-roll bars, to see how much better is the ride.  (Apologies for off topic diversion.)

 

Judging by Ford's published mpg figures, the latest 1.0 Focus seems to have the same 3/2cyl engine and semi hybrid features as the Puma - so should have significantly better economy.

 

Looking at aero drag, that 36% power figure turned around = 26.5% less power needed at 60 than 70mph, so very crudely should get 26.4%  better economy.  I'm trying to think of a way of reliably but simply testing that out  - I think Karoq does 46-47mpg at a constant 70mph (hard to be sure), so that would be say 58mpg at 60mph - possible I suppose but doesn't seem too likely.

 

I'm interested in trains as well as cars and of course direct comparison is silly - anyhow, William Stanier streamlined some of his famous Coronation Pacific express locos, which could do well over 100mph, even in unstreamlined form.  However, he never thought that streamlining was of much benefit overall , but of course all that clanking away of pistons, valve gears and con rods matters alot maybe.  (He regarded it more as a styling exercise or just pandering to fashion, but I always  thought those locos looked way more elegant without streamlining.)

Root, my 1.2 Yeti definitely had a software update and I'm pretty sure to do with the engine/transmission.  Intitially only noticed it on my service receipt, but the garage forgot that I'd had this done and phoned me more than once in the following year, asking me to bring the car in again for the update.  I think I've binned the paperwork, otherwise I'd tell you more details.

This is my best run. Never thought i could go any lower than 4.5 l/100kilometers which became a regular consumption. This was a combined open road and cross city trip. There was lots of traffic since it was a very busy Monday.

Couple of overtakes and air con being used in intervals. Mostly light foot accelerations in towns and using engine braking for gliding before coming to a full stop.

 

No slip streaming and no hills, mostly level roads no downhills. Car is an SEL manual 1.5 TSI with a 24E patch for 'rooing. High octane premium gas and factory Hankook 17 inch tyres were at 2.5 bar pressure.

Perhaps it can go even lower than this 66 mpg stat. Ironically I was driving via Sport mode. Will try the same route with Eco mode next time I get the chance. Adaptive cruise control was on for 90 percent of the drive set to 80 kph (legal limit).

Edited 19 April, 20206 yr by Kole

UK SEL Karoq's have 18" alloys as standard with 215/50 tyres (ours has Michelin Primacy 3 still going well after 24,250 miles).

I think you'll find they are 225/50R18 on the SEL (at least they are on mine) which is a tricky size to find. My Bridgestones were replaced at around 23,800 miles.

8 minutes ago, Luckypants said:

I think you'll find they are 225/50R18 on the SEL (at least they are on mine) which is a tricky size to find. My Bridgestones were replaced at around 23,800 miles.

Our Karoq’s are as per the photo, for a 126g/km petrol manual 1.5TSi the diesel and 4WD models may have slightly wider tyres. Our car built November 2017 registered January 2018.

D'oh! Forgot mine is a the 4x4, 😋

 

1 minute ago, Luckypants said:

D'oh! Forgot mine is a the 4x4, 😋

 

That's ok it's to cope with the extra weight of the diesel engine and 4WD hardware. Our's is the economy Karoq.

13 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

UK SEL Karoq's have 18" alloys as standard with 215/50 tyres (ours has Michelin Primacy 3 still going well after 24,250 miles).

I switched to 17 inch alloys for more comfort :)

Also, with this consumption makes me think I definitely chose the right car since I was thinking of going for a CH-R Hybrid that was quite a bit more expensive.

 

15 minutes ago, Kole said:

I switched to 17 inch alloys for more comfort

Also, with this consumption makes me think I definitely chose the right car since I was thinking of going for a CH-R Hybrid that was quite a bit more expensive.

 

The Toyota looks nice, we have one in our car park, but I very much doubt it would get anywhere near your present consumption.