Temperature readings and indications 100% normal and to be expected.

 

Regarding the air mass parameters, yet again its the slapdash way that VCDS has been written, so many units are wrongly expressed, inappropriate or just plain wrong, trying to find the oil ash mass for my DPF is a good example, its shown as a volume, by chance once when scrolling through the thousands of unused parameters at the end of the list I actually found the one for oil ash mass and it had the value, it should have been with the main grouping of the DPF parameters.

 

If you dont have a fault code for MAS or MAP improbable value then you dont have a problem.

Hi Folks,

I thought it time to pick up this thread again, unfortunately not to report a fix, the car is still exactly the same, in fact perhaps worse. At 70mph on the motorway with the cruise control on, a slight hill will cause it to drop to 65mph or less, on a level ish motorway journey of perhaps 100 to 200 miles at 60mph with the cruise on I can get about 43mpg, if I drive without the cruise it's pretty much the same, I got 44mpg once!. it does around mid 30's on shorter journeys. Anything below 50 to 55 mph in  top and I have to drop to 4th, it shudders like blazes, above 1500rpm  it's better, at least the juddering is not so pronounced. The car starts on the button, idles fine, doesn't smell of diesel, and is gutless, when you rev it you do feel the turbo kick in quite well. As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I was cleaning the turbo vanes and had the crankcase breather disconnected, there was an awful lot of crankcase compression, however, the car doesn't use a drop of oil, and there's no smoke, either black or blue. All my previous endeavours have made no difference. I'm loath to have a remap done, because I feel there's a fault, and the remap is unlikely to correct that fault if it's mechanical or a sensor. No fault codes show. the fix has not been done, at least there's no physical sign of it having been done, and the previous owner  ( my pal, who bought it new) has said on more than one occasion he stressed to the garage he did not want it done.

I'm left thinking once again the cam belt timing could be out?, it has been replaced, but not by a Skoda garage. Would this cause my problems?, as said, it starts and idles perfectly though.

Turbo waste gate sticking?, stuck?

Any further suggestions from you clued up owners?

Alan.

Would the cam belt not being timed properly show up any fault codes?.

Alan.

Not normally, but after all you have said, I would have the timing  at least checked out.

That way it eliminates that as a problem.

You have checked that you have no brake binding anywhere?

On our 2Ltr, we never drive under 1500rpm, it doesn't like it. (apart from crawling along)

 

I would also suggest you speak to a re-map specialist.

 

Last long run750 miles from memory was 60mpg. (but my memory is shot) 🤣

 

(If I recall, the VW fix... on the 1.6D they replaced the injectors & air flow meter....)

Edited 10 January, 20233 yr by Carlodiesel
edit

1 hour ago, Carlodiesel said:

(If I recall, the VW fix... on the 1.6D they replaced the injectors & air flow meter....)

That is what they said at the beginning  but with the price of the 1.6TDI Greenline injectors costing more than solid gold the only thing it got was a flow smoothing device in the inlet just after the throttle body and the "FIX". Neither of which my car got but I had to leave notes on the dash each time I took it in to make sure they did not "accidentality" install it.

Edited 10 January, 20233 yr by Urrell

You should definitely be checking the cam timing at this stage.

 

Over the years I have bought 2 vehicles that drove OK on the test drive but after a while I could not help but have the feeling that they were not giving their best, the throttle response was just that bit off, I drove everywhere flat ot in those days and never checked fuel consumption so there were no flags in that respect.

 

A clue would have been that both cars had either had a cam belt change or a head gasket done just before selling, sellers with something to hide will always give you a fairy tale about why they are selling the vehicle.

 

In both cases on inspection the timing marks aligned between two tooth pitches, that is to say the mechanic was faced with a 50/50 choice, I was sure that the engines were not giving their best so moved the belt one tooth leaving the timing marks once again misaligned but in the other way, it was probably due to a build up of tolerances or perhaps a cylinder head being skimmed, I have often been faced with the same when rebuilding twin cam engines.

 

Anyway in both case as soon as the engine started I knew immediately that my hunch was right, they both picked up revs like a race engine and the drive was much more spirited, the pick up wont be the same on a diesel but I'm sure as soon as you drive you will feel the difference.

 

The upper belt covers are easy to remove on these engines so you should go for it!

 

Don't be too hard on yourself if it does turn out to be that!

Hi

 

Last April I suggested the cam timing might be 1 tooth out.  Until you can get this properly checked, I don't think its worth looking at anything else.  I agree with J.R., don't rely on the marks as it's not completely unknown for engine parts to be machined with errors.  Ideally the motion of the valves should be compared with the motion of the pistons.

 

The Yeti crank pulley has something like 26 teeth, so 1 tooth is about 14 degrees of crank rotation - a significant amount.

 

My experience with this on a petrol engine (1 tooth error made by a so called specialist garage) is that it killed power at both ends of the rev range.  They could not be persuaded that they had made a mistake.  Later did the job properly myself and the car was transformed.

Hi again,

My car is booked in on Thursday to have the cam belt timing checked, although the lad I spoke to said any mismatch between the cam sensor and the crank sensor would show up a fault code, does anyone know if this is this the case?. I still can't figure out why the crank case pressure would be so high?, the car doesn't use a drop of oil, no smoke of any colour.

Thanks,

Alan.

Hi Folks,

Well, nothing to be seen after having the car checked out, cam timing spot on, no fault codes, did a regen , DPF at 60%, turbo boost good, no overboost or underboost,  EGR functioning normally, injectors and spray pattern good, nothing comes up, no fault codes, but the guy who did it said he did feel it was gutless, and it shudders badly until above 1500rpm, won't pull at all below that.

It's booked in for a remap.

I still feel the remap is likely to simply mask an existing problem, but not a sign of a fault code. For me the only thing that is suspicious is the high crankcase pressure when the breather pipe was off to clean the turbo vanes, which I might assume would point to an exhaust gas recirculation problem?, but, once again, that would show up a fault code.

The car starts, idles, runs fine, it's just gutless and gets a rubbish fuel consumption (by comparison to what I read).

?

What miles per litre or MPG does it get when doing journeys of over 10 miles or so when the engine is getting up to temp? 

37mpg to 43mpg imperial, and I drive like an old man, that is, stick to the speed limits, because I am an old man!. Most of the time I average around 41mpg on a tank full, as I remember I once averaged  43..8, the best I've had, as I remember.

I get about 58mpg mostly lately on local journeys.
On a 26 mile run every other Sunday it does 65 - 70 mpg.

It has been a milder winter in Scotland but still a winter.

Hopefully once the weather is warmer the fuel economy will be better again. 

I wish!.

If my wife drives it locally she gets 37mpg, at 60mph with the cruise control on doing a 120mile drive up to Aberdeen on motorway/dual carriagewayI get about 42 or 43mpg, I don't think I've ever seen 45mpg. The maxidot is fairly close to what I calculate when filling it up. 

From what I read though I'm not the only one recording this sort of fuel consumption, the figures vary wildly, I've read of many people getting the economy you get, and also others on par with my MPG?, which logic would dictate is a fault?, and not just in my car.

I've had the car a while now, season or temperature makes no difference unfortunately.

Using Cruise Control is not helping your economy on the A90 in either direction. Or anyplace else. 

I know from driving it for over 40 years.  I better Cruise Control by using the accelerator my self on any route. 

Hi Toot,

I beg to differ on the cruise control. In the mid to late 70's I was head research technician on the "electronic cruise control project" working for Eaton corporation in Battle Creek Michigan, I was working with Cadillac, Buick, Chevy, Ford and all of the big manufacturers in Detroit, as a matter of course we data logged many different performance characteristics on a set route on the I94, not just the cruise control,  and also on a rolling road in the lab and at the Ford test track, which as I remember was in Dearborn?.  We had a simulation program which was rigged to the accelerator pedal of the car being tested on the rolling road, and on the highway we had test drivers from all of the big companies driving for economy , we averaged out the manual input from the drivers on those particular vehicles, and also had a "standard" of all of the manual input from every car, regardless of the make, we always recorded a 3% to 5% better fuel consumption on every car tested using the cruise control, apart from the AMC pacers we had, they recorded only 2% to 3%, not the most efficient straight 6 motor. probably 80% or so of the cars were automatic, but we had a representative cross section of Auto V Manual based on sales. We data logged in every season, as the weather was so variable. All of the road tests and simulated tests observed the speed limits of the time. Nowadays I notice increased response times and almost no hysteresis to speak of, they are certainly more responsive, practically zero hunting. I realise it's difficult to equate a 1.6 diesel performance with a 6 litre V8, but we also used chevy vega's and ford pinto's (petrol) a lot as things were changing rapidly thanks to Ralph Nader and the oil crisis, they also were logged as being more efficient using the cruise, auto or manual.

I had as a company car a Chevy Vega manual and travelled well over 100 miles a day commuting from Three Rivers, I would always get a better fuel consumption using the cruise, I put over 140,000 miles on that car.

I also moonlighted on the Valve disabler project for Cadillac, and I can definitely say that was a disaster, and used more fuel, when it was working!. Which wasn't often. I believe the modern version doesn't have much success  either?

I can almost match the fuel consumption not using the cruise on the Yeti, but I'm usually at least 2mpg worse, and yes I know it's very sad recording all of these numbers, but hey, I enjoy doing it. We found that driver fatigue was a major factor however, because if it were possible to manually get a better fuel consumption than using the cruise control, over miles and time, tiredness would take it's toll and speed  and smoothness would be much more variable, using more fuel, and of course the cruise control isn't subject to those variables

Alan.

On 12/02/2023 at 22:30, Urrell said:

I get about 58mpg mostly lately on local journeys.
On a 26 mile run every other Sunday it does 65 - 70 mpg.

 

I get MUCH worse economy figures than that with my 1.6tdi, do you draught buses and HGV's, or have pedals fitted ?  

Interesting, if it were better 50 years ago then it will be even better better today, computers have come on leaps and bounds but drivers havn't, worse still so many are lacking the stimulation leaving the car to dip headlights, drive within its lane, look for speed limit signs and adjust speed, switch on lights & wipers, automatic reverse parking etc etc they are probably far worse than 50 years ago if they ever actually have to take proper control of  a vehicle.

 

I find driving slowly for economy (which I do 99% of the time) on long journeys makes me tired, using cruise control even more so, I don't have it on this vehicle and dont really miss it, it may though have prevented me getting some of the 5 camera speeding tickets in the last 18 months driving unfamiliar roads at night with frequent sections of 70kph limit instead of 80kph.

 

 

@Bison  I know the efficiency or fuel consumption or range of everything i ever drive by the time i have filled the tank twice because that is my interest and also i pay for the fuel or now electricity.

I have done since i was 16 and had to get about on mopeds. I know which routes use less fuel or take less effort from having cycled many of them as well.

 

The new VW Models & other manufacturers have GPS, have 'coasting' function and can see what is coming and lift off the accelerator before a bend, a down or up slope.

There is ACC and lane keep assist and much more going on. 

 

As i said, i can drive the routes at the same speeds / time and use less fuel than with Cruise Control on and that applies now just as much driving an EV. 

This is about real cars on real roads in real weather, nothing to do with Rolling Roads and manufacturers and kidology that got us to the World Wide Harmonised Testing / WLTP which is not Real World or even Whole World it is kidology.

 

'21 plate Golf in picture'. 

I was driving this Golf 2.0 TDI SCR 115ps 7 Speed DSG for 6 days last year and getting well over 60 miles per gallon was easy at motorway speed and i did over 70 mpg for a couple of tank fills and that was with me driving the car and using the gear shifter / paddles and driving in Sport and lifting off and coasting.  

The car in Cruise control just kept to sometimes scary speeds into corners if CC was on. 

 

The Hybrids moved stuff on, but the latest VW Diesels have the likes of an Octavia or Superb getting amazing economy. 

 

 

The indicated MPG was the drive home from collecting the car and i got to know what it was like on back country roads i drive every day then i filled up and tried to see what economy i could get, Forfar - Aberdeen airport, to Edinburgh airport or Glasgow airport and to Ayr & Turnberry while i had the car and it was amazing and this is lots of average speed camera routes.  Using Cruise Control used more fuel.

That is real world in a fuel sipper. 

 

No physical buttons was a PITA, almost impossible to find the touch areas in the dark, and like as slug in D moving off from 1st to 2nd where the power dies so needs put in S to get away from junctions.

The Stop / Start was perfect as was lane keep assist. 

Edited 19 February, 20233 yr by toot

10 hours ago, b1ackb1rd said:

 

I get MUCH worse economy figures than that with my 1.6tdi, do you draught buses and HGV's, or have pedals fitted ?  

70mpg even 84 mpg I can only reach when driving 30 mph all day long. But that is not real world. 60-70 mph equals  50mpg to 54 mpg. 
edit: using cc all the time.

Edited 19 February, 20233 yr by Bas750

WOW!, almost 75MPG!, that is truly amazing!.

One of the reasons for driving the Yeti was the fuel consumption, but to say I'm disappointed is an understatement, however, it's still fairly economical, we were on the same road as you were on Thursday, coming up from Portpatrick to Livingston via Ayr and kilmarnock, with the cruise on at 60mpg, I achieved an all time record of 46.6MPG, very little wind. I'll most certainly try leaving the cruise off on the next longish journey, nothing ventured etc. I shall report back.

The car is going in for a remap on Tuesday, so I will record the MPG with the cruise on the first tank full, then without on the second

Blackbird, when I ride my motorcycle my pals ask me if I noticed the milk float behind me flashing it's lights to get past?, my pals have a well developed sense of humour!

Alan.

@BisonI drive that route often in my Petrol, diesel or EV.

On the A77 Girvan is a PITA and the Average Speed Cameras are pretty good for fuel consumption and i know exactly what MPG i get Girvan to Glasgow using different routes.

Since Maybole has been by-passed my favoured route is no longer turning along to Maidens and passed Culzean and to Maybole.

When there are roadworks i do go that way to get to the by-pass though.

In an Electric car there is quite a difference to Ayr going that way, or by the coast road passing Dunure.

 

Then when at Harthill into Edinburgh in an EV you can really see how much the difference is heading towards the sea.

I am used to hypermiling when i am skint and needs to make fuel last, but driving an EV really makes you aware of the difference in going east or west and north or south in Scotland and how much fuel it takes one way or another.

In an EV to make sure i can get at least a 120 miles before really needing to find a charger it is quite good getting behind a McBurney HGV on the A77 and stick with it at a safe distance or a MegaBus or some other coach on the motorways / dual carriageways. 

Maxidot showing 71.3 over 65 miles and that included 2 runs through the centre of Lincoln.
That was after only 5095 miles, it's a bit better now it's run in.

 

@Bison how do you drive it? Are you following the shift indicator or drive it as you like, I mean, drive it in a way the engine is not lauborin’? The 1.6tdi likes higher rpm.

Mine is remapped @ 149 hp, and the egr is written out. Pulls really well, but did that also without the remap, but was runnin’ out of steam quickly, that is why I had it remapped. Don’t expect it to be more economical after a remap, it will be marginally.

All of this brings me back to the original problem, why does my car get such a rubbish fuel consumption and why is it so gutless?.  Nothing shows up in the fault codes and everything that can be checked on a lap top has been!. The car starts and runs very well (apart from the aforementioned observations), uses no oil, no water. Which is why I've delayed having it remapped. It is however possible that it has been messed around with when it has been in a garage in the past?, even though notes were left and messages passed on NOT to do anything. It's entirely possible that  the fix has been done electronically but not physically, so when I look at the inlet etc, it seems it has not been done, Who knows?, the next step is a remap.

I pay no attention to the shift light, if I did the car would go nowhere, if I don't keep it above 1500 or 1600rpm the car shudders like hell and just won't accelerate at all, if it drops below 50mph (1500rpm) even on the flat, I have to change down to accelerate.