Please report your Fabia II mpg here!

[HZ123]

My average speed is only 33mph and I still return an overall figure of 57+mpg. It is probably due to the fact I am more senile in my driving style than I think?

[paul2129]

On the way back from NEC in Birmingham to Preston, around 110 miles in total. set off at 3.40pm and got stuck in the rush hour, still managed (and ok, I was trying quite hard) :-

75.4mpg was the highest figure of average on the motorway before I hit traffic

the average had dropped to 74.9 as I hit the preston exit, and 74.7 by time I made it through the streets to my house.

This is a Roomster 1.9td, with no coasting, tailgating or silly techniques, just a light right foot and no more speed than was required.

Paul

[spencem]

First tank through our new 1.4 Petrol gave just over 43mpg measured at the pump with mixed use.

[william l]

Paul 2129 regarding your claim of 74.9 mpg did you have a following gale !!

Being serious this shows the total inconsistancy of these vehicles.

I notice that several of you 1.4Tdi mk2 owners are disatisfied with the mpg as compared with the pulished figures.Have you complained too your local agent and if improved how was it done.If not please complain to them and to Skoda customer services Address Selectapost 34,Sheffield S97 3FA

Then Skoda may take some action hopefully !!

[Hearny]

Paul 2129 regarding your claim of 74.9 mpg did you have a following gale !!

Being serious this shows the total inconsistancy of these vehicles.

I notice that several of you 1.4Tdi mk2 owners are disatisfied with the mpg as compared with the pulished figures.Have you complained too your local agent and if improved how was it done.If not please complain to them and to Skoda customer services Address Selectapost 34,Sheffield S97 3FA

Then Skoda may take some action hopefully !!

What can Skoda do?. I have 1.4td (80) and I struggle to get above 60

[Skoda_Family]

I think some people's expectations of real-world mpg are unrealistic.

I'm finding my 3 Estate 1.4TDi is averaging about 52-55mpg now (done 4,000 miles) and slowly climbing. If I drive carefully I can just about get it to hit 60mpg.

Personally I think that's brilliant - the official combined mpg is 61.4 and that's under ideal test conditions so if you can get within 5-10% of that I think your doing pretty well.

[HZ123]

1.4TDI 6700miles

Went on a motorway trip of 360+ last weekend, @ 70mph mostly (3 up) and display return was 52mpg. I am happy with this but I do sympathise with many peoples comments that by now Car Makers should be showing a practical / realistic return with an explanation of what you can expect.

It seems that is what causes the upset / annoyance is what mpg is achievable. It is all very well employment of driving style etc, but in heavy rush hour traffic 'A road' or motorway it may be very difficult to drive well and reach the claimed figures.

[bahnstormer vrs]

I see this thread has been going for a while with mostly reports of 1.9TDIs getting 50 - 60 - 70mpg. :eek: However, would you accept some figures on a Roomster Auto(I know its the wrong thread but its the same mechanicals)? Anyway;

Roomster Scout 1.6 Tip - mainly lots of local stuff and disadvantaged by cold weather/short trips - circa 25mpg.:thumbdwn: Any form of a run, but at proper 'brisk'odian speeds - 32-35mpg.

Oh the penalties for having an automatic; roll-on a 1.9TDI with 7speed DSG (as in other VAG group cars).

[william l]

Further to the comment by skoda family I do not think that expecting at least an approximation to published figures is not unresonable.Our son runs a 51reg 1.9tdi octavia estate 230,000 on the clock up and down motorways and returns 52 mpg overall.Our old mk1Fabia 65mpg+.I Also some years ago ran a Peugeot 405 diesel F reg 1988 that did 36000miles per annum on business and returned 54mpg,so to expect a modern 1.4Tdi small car to do more that 53mpg in 90% rural running is not unreasonnable

Edited 11 February, 2009 by william l

[GoodDoc]

I have a 56 Octavia 2.0 PD TDI 6 Speed that is currently in the dealers in for Warranty work. They have provided me an 08 Fabia 1.4 PD TDI (no idea of the HP or Spec) and I was surprised to see that on the run from Swindon into London my Octavia got better MPG than the Fabia. Keeping it around 70 I can get between 50 and 55 without any problems, but in the Fabia at the same sort of speeds I struggled to get over 50.

Not scientific and I've only done 150 miles in the Fabia, but I get the feeling that the 1.4 struggles to keep up with the 2.0 at speed.

[Thirdtimeluck]

In the past cold spell my daily 6 mile drive to work, I was getting about 51-52mpg and that is not going over 60mph and above 2.5k rpm. Now the weather has warmed up (a bit), today I got 57mpg, driving the same way.

How come you got more mpg when the weather was warmer? :confused:

I would have thought the colder weather would give you better mpg as the air is denser but I 'spose that the more fuel would be pumped in to compensate? :confused:

I don't really know lol :P

Maybe you just drove it differently ie. not as hard to get more mpg ?:confused:

Anyone care to enlighten me ?

[Celerrime]

Actually i make more mileage when it's warmer too.

I think it is because motor warms up earlier when it's warm. when motor is cold it consumes more, that could be one reason.

Expecially in the morning going to work I have to go slow for 3-4 km. and there i see big differences when it's "0" or lower and when it's "5" or more.

[bahnstormer vrs]

Actually i make more mileage when it's warmer too.

I think it is because motor warms up earlier when it's warm. when motor is cold it consumes more, that could be one reason.

Expecially in the morning going to work I have to go slow for 3-4 km. and there i see big differences when it's "0" or lower and when it's "5" or more.

Two reasons IMHO; 1. cold start/long warm up in cold weather requires richer mixture, and 2. warm weather give thinner air (less dense) so ECU provides less fuel = better comsumption.

[Thirdtimeluck]

Two reasons IMHO; 1. cold start/long warm up in cold weather requires richer mixture, and 2. warm weather give thinner air (less dense) so ECU provides less fuel = better comsumption.

Yeh I agree with the first reason but surly with the air being less dense and the ecu provideing less fuel = less performace for the amount you push the pedal so you have to put more throttle on for the same amount of power you would get when its cold thus equaling out?

[paul2129]

Roomster 1.9td :

Edited 23 February, 2009 by paul2129

[fabman]

nearly done 1700 miles now getting approx 52 mpg on 1.4tdi blueline, also as weather warms up you dont have heater on so much so this help mpg figures as engine is not working so hard as it is all related to using power that must come from engine / amps etc.

[paul2129]

oops (please remove) thks

Edited 23 February, 2009 by paul2129

[snownrock]

I wish people would stop quoting the figure from their dashboard, its not accurate at all, my computer is 3.81mpg over optimistic so far (6200 miles). Quote brim-to-brim figures please.

[Dan H]

Roomster Scout 1.6 Tip - mainly lots of local stuff and disadvantaged by cold weather/short trips - circa 25mpg.:thumbdwn: Any form of a run, but at proper 'brisk'odian speeds - 32-35mpg.

Oh the penalties for having an automatic; roll-on a 1.9TDI with 7speed DSG (as in other VAG group cars).

I second those numbers. My Roomster 3 1.6 Tip has averaged 25mpg on its first tankful of mainly short urban trips in winter (18mph average). On a gentle trip to the seaside the other day it did 38. Will probably do over 40 on a 70mph motorway run.

The car it replaced - C-Max CVT auto was more economical (35 round town, 55 on a run), but unreliable. Adjusting for the cheaper price of petrol makes the C-Max 32-50 equivalent. and a diesel C-Max is £1000 more expensive to buy - and potentially much more expensive to maintain - mine used to eat EGR valves every nine months at £350 a throw. You have to do a LOT of miles to make that pay.

Since I don't do many miles, poor economy and high road tax is a price worth paying so far - as long as the Roomy keeps going

[jaxx007]

Me, SWMBO, my 3 year old son and ten year old nephewdrove from our house (between warrington and st helens) to alton towers. Prob about 70 miles.

We drove at 70 on the motorway and duel carriageways and stopped twice on the way there (I need a wee dad!!!) and belted up to speed again. Anyone who has been to alton towers knows the hillyf orest roads leading to it and are pretty steep in places.

Anyway on the way there we got 63.1 mpg(on-board comp)

On the way back the trip took 20 mins longer cos the traffic leading to the m6 was shocking. Anyway once on m6 it was 70 all the way home and achieved 61.2 (comp again)

We have covered 3500 miles in our 1.4 tdi 80 estate.

I have compared brim to brim and computer readings 5 times and the differences over 400/500 odd miles per tank has varied between 0.4-1.4 mpg. The computer seems to be very accurate. My lowest tank economy was 52 mpg (wife had it loads in very cold weather doing short runs. The best we have had is 58. If I was the sole driver the figure would easily be over 60.

On my 8.5 mile journey to work my comp average is usually 62-66. It's rarelybelow 60. That's doing 60 on the motorway (4 miles) and rest of the journey town driving. This is leaving before 5.30 am so economy dropped for my trip to 58-60 during the freezing spell but is now back around 63/64 on average.

I'm vey happy with this.

[AndyPandy]

Not using the heater (motor) will effect the fuel consumption,but only by a very small amount!.Heat is being made by the engine, and some goes in the heater,but minimal compared to the radiator and fan.In theory any excess heat not taken by the heater will have to be lost in the radiator and its fan. The radiator fan takes about 10 amps which equates to (14 X 10 ) =140 watts, or (746/140) = 0.188 horsepower. If the heater fan is fully on this takes 4 amps max + (14 X 4) = 56 watts,or 0.075 horsepower.

This energy is nothing when taken from the engine which can produce anything from 50 to 300 horsepower.

The Air Conditioning when on, will effect fuel consumption because it is mechanically linked to the engine. All electrical items would have to be on to effect fuel comsumption,and then only by a small amount. To save fuel , modifying your speed ,and looking further ahead to antisipate stopping or slowing down ,will have a far greater effect!.

[Guest]

I've done three 15 mile journeys so far in the new 1.9 tdi 105, seems to be about 60mpg where as the mk1 1.9 sdi was doing 65mpg for the same journey at the same speed. Having the climate control on econ seems to make about 10% difference.

[TooManyToys]

Not using the heater (motor) will effect the fuel consumption,but only by a very small amount!........snip........

I have found that there is another effect of the heater on fuel consumption especially in very cold weather. If the heater is turned off, the engine is able to warm up more quickly. Especially true if the first part of your journey is at low throttle openings e.g. 30mph limit. The oil then becomes hotter and thinner sooner. This results in less drag and consequent better economy in earlier in the journey. The fuelling is richer at lower coolant temperatures as well. The quicker the engine warms up to optimum temperature, the more distance you will cover at best economy. BTW the oil takes longer to warm up than the water.

Put on a warm coat and try it on your journey - you will be surprised! I do a 22 mile commute on rural A / B roads in my 1.4TDi and it consistently makes 5 MPG difference if I leave the heater completely off for the first five miles. i.e. varies between 55 to 60 MPG with heater on all the time and 60 to 65MPG if I don't use it for the first five miles or if I don't use it at all. I mean actually turning the heat control to LO and the fan to OFF on the climate control. If you don't do this warm air still comes in to the car delaying the warm up.

I feel like a right sad cheapskate writing this but squeezing the MPG (without holding anyone up though) has become a bit of a game on the boring run to work!

[jaxx007]

We did 431 miles before we filled up again (the tank wasn't empty but we were at tesco). The trip comp read 58.4 on trip 2 average, and using the amount of fuel put in to make it click off, the actual average was 58.1.

This was on my 1.4 tdi 80 estate and as I said in an earlier post, my trip comp seems to be very accurate.

[HotVRs]

Sorry for a bit of thread hijack, but these MPG figures are no better than my Fabia vRS which has 50+ more BHP.

I had a 1.4 TDi in a 2001 Polo and it would always do 10 MPG more than the Fabia, seems that engine isn't doing the economy magic in the Fabia 2.