I thought the a class site was good but this is better. For those not getting the required mpg mhght it not be worth considering on short runs taking out the spare wheel and maybe investing in a sealing kit. It seems to be the norm in many cars not to even have a spare anymore. Her Cooper has no spare and all we have had is one slow puncture. Considering that most people call out the services to change a wheel if you have one it would not make much differnec for the operative to inflate your tyre and pump the gunge into it. My current car has the original tyres with no changes in the last 5 years. Clearly this may not be any good if you do a great deal of mileage. Perhaps someone can check exactly what the difference is via their maxdot.

One other question that I wish to know . Is there any sound insulation fitted to the bonnet and has anyone fitted any to reduce the noise.

Well.. I don't see a difference in consumption between driving with a full tank and a near empty one, and I'd guess the spare tyre weighs no more than 1/3 of the gas in a full tank. Surely there is a difference, but probably too small to notice (second decimal or smaller). I doubt anyone could use the maxidot to tell you the difference, and making a comparison over time would require you to drive the same (long) stretch twice in exactly the same weather conditions. Besides, such a comparison would ruin itself because the gas saved by removing the spare tyre would mean less gas and thus weight would be removed from the tank, counteracting the effect of the removed tyre

What do you mean by showing? based on the maxi-dot??? or do you have a running log book with liters filled vs miles traveled?

Like you, I started off checking the figures carefully by topping the tank and calculating from the distance travelled according to the odometer which I had reset at the last fill-up. It was always so close that I stopped checking after a while and from then on depended on the readout.

We have a 1.4TDI 80 It replaced a Polo 1.9 SDI so they are both of similar size. Like many others it was bought for its mpg ( a realistic reduction in makers figures was made) It now has about 7000 miles on clock. The engine has certainly loosened up in that time.

With the Polo we always got over 55mpg and often over 60 depending on mix of driving. The Fabia is used in the same way. We are unhappy and disappointed with the consumption we are achieving bearing in mind the claims made for it in the sales blurb. Very low 50s are the norm with an occasional drop below depending on mix of drive. Even on a long run 55 is maximum we have achieved. There has been a gradual improvement over time. Otherwise no complaints.

We have a 1.4TDI 80 It replaced a Polo 1.9 SDI so they are both of similar size. Like many others it was bought for its mpg ( a realistic reduction in makers figures was made) It now has about 7000 miles on clock. The engine has certainly loosened up in that time.

With the Polo we always got over 55mpg and often over 60 depending on mix of driving. The Fabia is used in the same way. We are unhappy and disappointed with the consumption we are achieving bearing in mind the claims made for it in the sales blurb. Very low 50s are the norm with an occasional drop below depending on mix of drive. Even on a long run 55 is maximum we have achieved. There has been a gradual improvement over time. Otherwise no complaints.

I find I need to drive it pretty hard to take the mpg down to the mid fifties? I went on a 15 mile drive today and managed a 70.4 mpg average? Maybe my computer is being optismistic

What size engine is your's Mayoga.

What size engine is your's Mayoga.

It's the 80 1.4tdi Fabia2 and it's now got around 700 miles

Gavin.

Gavin

Thats very impressive with only 700 miles on the clock. I have had mine in the mid 60's on a couple of occasions but normally mid to high 50's.

Ian

I tried it going home from work yesterday. Going 90 km/h in a downhill slope in 6th gear the maxidot reported consumption as 0.0 l/100 km. I then put it it neutral, at which point the figure rose to 0.8 l/100 km, with the engine speed falling from ~2000 rpm to idle (around 800?).

That's very interesting but it is the exact opposite of my experiments yesterday in our Octavia Scout 2.0TDi. With the instantaneous fuel consumption displayed I tried going down a long hill at about 50mph with the drivetrain disengaged and engaged. With it disengaged the readout said --- mpg (presumably so low that it can't be calculated accurately) and with it engaged, in 6th gear, the readings were in the region of 100mpg. I really can't understand why these results should be so different from yours.

Thinking it has something to do with the fact that he's in Sweden... Now that I'm in Israel where we're on the Metric system, my Maxi-Dot equivalent in my Ibiza Sport works much the same as d96em explained his trial-run. While my brothers Jetta GLI back in the US works like your Octavia Scouts... Hope that makes sense.

The Fabia I test drove (1.9TDI) did the ---- in the maxi-dot display when I lifted off the accelerator but still in gear.

I guess it will be similar to my current Vauxhall Zafira. If I have the intantaneous readout on, driving along normally showing say 40 mpg, if I were to dip the clutch or put the car in neutral, it will read somthing between 80 and 150 mpg, depending on how fast I'm going.

However, if I just lift off, it shows 999.9mpg.

The reason (or how I understand it anyway) is that modern cars have a fuel cut-off where if the ECU detects you lifting off but it's still in gear, it shuts off the fuel pump and uses the wheels to drive the engine. If you touch the accelerator, it switches the pump back on and you're using fuel again. Similarly, if you let it coast in gear until your revs drop to near idle speed, you can sometimes feel a very slight jerk as the fuel kicks back in (you can sometimes in my Zafira anyway!).

Should get my Fabia within a week now. Looking for a big improvement in economy over my 1.8 petrol Zafira! Currently get 25-27 round town up to 36-38 on a long run (although if I accelerate really gently and cruise at 65-70 I have managed 42mpg!!!). When I got that, I thought it was really good. But then my previous car was a Ford Explorer with a 4.0 V6 (14mpg round town, 18-20 on a run):eek:

That's very interesting but it is the exact opposite of my experiments yesterday in our Octavia Scout 2.0TDi. With the instantaneous fuel consumption displayed I tried going down a long hill at about 50mph with the drivetrain disengaged and engaged. With it disengaged the readout said --- mpg (presumably so low that it can't be calculated accurately) and with it engaged, in 6th gear, the readings were in the region of 100mpg. I really can't understand why these results should be so different from yours.

Neither can I, as in fact they're not only different but diametrically opposed. Normally, this would have me suspect a communications problem, that we really have the same results but can't convey them to each other, but in this case things are a little too simple for a mere misunderstanding.. I get "clutch disengaged or no gear selected - some fuel consumed", and "clutch engaged and gear selected - no fuel consumed", and you seem to be getting the exact opposite result. Too few variables to mix up or misunderstand. Puzzling.

Having experimented a bit more I think I may have an explanation for the apparent discrepancy. The difference lies in a subtlety - when you go downhill with the drivetrain engaged but with your foot off the accelerator you do get the ---mpg readout from the trip computer as you have reported. However, because the drivetrain is being driven by the roadwheels (as has been said), the motion of the car is providing some energy to overcome the friction etc of the drivetrain. As a result the car slows down, unless you're on a very steep hill.

When I have been going down hill with the drivetrain engaged I have used the cruise control - or have had my foot on the accelerator - providing sufficient fuel to maintain the car's speed. In either circumstance the readout doesn't show ---mpg because the overrun cutout does not operate. The only exception to this is if the hill is steep enough to provide a sufficient excess of energy (to satisfy the friction etc of the drivetrain turning) over that required to simply maintain the speed of the free-wheeling car.

So in hills that are less than that steep it appears to me that the only way to get a readout of ---mpg if you want to maintain the road speed is to disconnect the drivetrain by putting the car out of gear, ie coasting.

Does that seem reasonable?

Having experimented a bit more I think I may have an explanation for the apparent discrepancy. The difference lies in a subtlety - when you go downhill with the drivetrain engaged but with your foot off the accelerator you do get the ---mpg readout from the trip computer as you have reported. However, because the drivetrain is being driven by the roadwheels (as has been said), the motion of the car is providing some energy to overcome the friction etc of the drivetrain. As a result the car slows down, unless you're on a very steep hill.

When I have been going down hill I have had the cruise control engaged, or have had my foot on the accelerator providing sufficient fuel to maintain the car's speed. In either circumstance the readout doesn't show ---mpg because the overrun cutout does not operate. The only exception to this is if the hill is steep enough to provide a sufficient excess of energy (to satisfy the friction etc of the drivetrain turning) over that required to simply maintain the speed of the free-wheeling car.

So in hills that are less than that steep it appears to me that the only way to get a readout of ---mpg if you want to maintain the road speed is to disconnect the drivetrain by putting the car out of gear, ie coasting.

Does that seem reasonable?

Very. To be honest, not being a native english speaker I had never heard the word 'coasting' before, and just assumed it meant 'going forward with your foot off the accelerator'. I guess I figured what you describe is called cruising (as in 'cruise control'). Obviously, to maintain road speed you have to give precisely as much gas as is needed to have the engine feed the same exact amount of energy to the wheels as is lost to friction, wind resistance and whatnot. That amount of energy of course decreases with increasing steepness of the downhill slope, as gravity lends its helping hand, and at a certain point you can let go of the accelerator and still maintain road speed, as you noted. What I was talking about is the fact that as soon as you take your foot off the accelerator, the ECU cuts fuel meaning the engine is essentially not running anymore (it's still turning though, because it's still connected to the spinning wheels). I was under the impression you argued that fuel is never cut. Case solved, and it seems I was wrong yesterday when I stated it couldn't be a simple misunderstanding

I'm glad that we have resolved that question! I'm quite amazed that you mention that you are not a native english speaker as your command of the language is vastly better than many other so-called native speakers...

So the conclusion I reach is that my technique of coasting (ie travelling downhill with the drivetrain disengaged) will definitely result in less fuel being consumed, as I have observed.

I hasten to add that this technique should only be employed, just like any other driving technique, where it is safe to do so; although I cannot think of any situations that I have encountered where it could be employed that I would consider to be in any way dangerous! Certainly it is IMHO much less potentially dangerous than using cruise control which is employed by many people a lot of the time.

I'm glad that we have resolved that question! I'm quite amazed that you mention that you are not a native english speaker as your command of the language is vastly better than many other so-called native speakers...

So the conclusion I reach is that my technique of coasting (ie travelling downhill with the drivetrain disengaged) will definitely result in less fuel being consumed, as I have observed.

I hasten to add that this technique should only be employed, just like any other driving technique, where it is safe to do so; although I cannot think of any situations that I have encountered where it could be employed that I would consider to be in any way dangerous! Certainly it is IMHO much less potentially dangerous than using cruise control which is employed by many people a lot of the time.

Thank you

I agree. Don't really see how it could be dangerous, except perhaps if for some reason you suddenly need to quickly accelerate. I've heard of people who actually turn the ignition off when going downhill (though quickly turning the key to the 'on' position to keep power steering and things like that working), then restarting the engine at the end of the slope. That to me sounds far worse.

I've heard of people who actually turn the ignition off when going downhill (though quickly turning the key to the 'on' position to keep power steering and things like that working), then restarting the engine at the end of the slope. That to me sounds far worse.

Now that WOULD be dangerous - I personally wouldn't touch the ignition key when driving because of the risk of triggering the steering lock and, as you mention, the fact that all power assistance to steering (and brakes) would be lost if the engine was stopped.

Now that WOULD be dangerous - I personally wouldn't touch the ignition key when driving because of the risk of triggering the steering lock and, as you mention, the fact that all power assistance to steering (and brakes) would be lost if the engine was stopped.

20 years ago this was rarely a problem... There's progress for ya!

Now that WOULD be dangerous - I personally wouldn't touch the ignition key when driving because of the risk of triggering the steering lock and, as you mention, the fact that all power assistance to steering (and brakes) would be lost if the engine was stopped.

I did that involuntarily last summer, or rather my girlfriend did. I had a SAAB then, and those have the ignition key placed between the seats by the handbrake lever, which is also a place my girlfriend has deemed "suitable for hand bag storage". She was going through her bag looking for something and all of a sudden the engine died and everything went really quiet. It took a couple of seconds before I realised what had happened. We came to a stop by the kerb, steering lock never engaged and the car was actually not that hard to handle, although I don't want to think about what might have happened had we been going in heavy traffic in a bigger city :eek:

:orb_beautI take it you told her where to put her purse!!!:moon::buttkick:

Being me, I tend to sometimes overdo things a good deal. So I simply explained the intricate inner workings of an automobile, complete with a summary of the operation of a four-stroke internal combustion engine, and a brief outline of the brake system and how power steering works. I then told her it is not a good idea to turn off the engine while driving. She replied I could have spared the rest and just told her that, then she removed her purse and we kept going. Of course, two days later the purse was back in position..

Picked our new car up yesterday. 1.4tdi 80.

Got 56.8 on the 30 mile run home, the wife says she's got it over just over 60 doing another 30 odd miles today.

All that on a tight engine, doing a mixture of roads and not driving like a pensioner.

Very happy.

I have attained the same sort of read out over 300 miles. What I did observe by reading the handbook was that the car should not exceed about 60 mph over the first 1000 miles or there abouts as the figures are all in KPH . I trust all others are observing this advisory. I am in Finland this week without the car and have yet to see the new model lots of mk 1.s.

Yeah, read that. Do not use more than 3/4 power/revs for first 1000miles. Seems straight forward enough as running in goes.

Did not mean to be rude in any way it was merely that the dealer never said anything so had I not read the book i would have been no wiser. I think it has been mention already but with the availible technology you might assume that ruuning-in was not required. My wifes Mini Cooper makes no mention of the 'running-in' requirement and a number of new cars she has had i recall no such advise.