Fabia 1.6 CR TDI 90bhp appalling fuel consumption

[seboni121]

I too seem to get very poor consumption on my new fabia scout 1.6 diesel I am getting about 50 mpg urban and best of 60 on easy motorway driving ! Thats with no harsh changes or hard revs. I bought this car on the figures based and my previous good service from my felecia and favorit,dissapointed already and its only 3 weeks old.

Pete

Hi whats the mileage on it,mine has done just over a 1000 ,I easy get over 60-64 mpg its down to using 5th gear way to early,apparently needs to do about 3.5k to really start giving you good figures.

[Guest]

Hi whats the mileage on it,mine has done just over a 1000 ,I easy get over 60-64 mpg its down to using 5th gear way to early,apparently needs to do about 3.5k to really start giving you good figures.

That's a plus one from me to!

In fact for a three week old scout doing 50 on urban and a best of 60mpg on easy motorway...that's very very good. As Seb says...it will improve dramatically as more miles go on and as the summer diesel comes in. Read the previous posts about not using 5th gear too early, that makes a difference. Just make sure you actually 'run it in' by the book with plenty of right foot at appropriate times when hot. If you don't follow the book run in procedure you will miss the chance to bed the engine in correctly and it won't perform or give the economy you expect. This is one engine that is very tight from new and you must follow the book procedure for run in. Good luck they are a peach of an engine.

[seboni121]

That's a plus one from me to!

In fact for a three week old scout doing 50 on urban and a best of 60mpg on easy motorway...that's very very good. As Seb says...it will improve dramatically as more miles go on and as the summer diesel comes in. Read the previous posts about not using 5th gear too early, that makes a difference. Just make sure you actually 'run it in' by the book with plenty of right foot at appropriate times when hot. If you don't follow the book run in procedure you will miss the chance to bed the engine in correctly and it won't perform or give the economy you expect. This is one engine that is very tight from new and you must follow the book procedure for run in. Good luck they are a peach of an engine.

+1 :thumbup:

[paramedicpete]

I too seem to get very poor consumption on my new fabia scout 1.6 diesel I am getting about 50 mpg urban and best of 60 on easy motorway driving ! Thats with no harsh changes or hard revs. I bought this car on the figures based and my previous good service from my felecia and favorit,dissapointed already and its only 3 weeks old.

Pete

Sorry guys made mistake on figures! getting about 55miles urban on a tenner of diesel, about a gallon and a half when doing longer runs on motorway about 25 miles getting about 75miles for my tenner points taken about running in its only done a few hundred miles.

Would using cruise control help or worsen mpg on motorway etc?

Pete

Edited 25 March, 2011 by paramedicpete

[Guest]

Sorry guys made mistake on figures! getting about 55miles urban on a tenner of diesel, about a gallon and a half when doing longer runs on motorway about 25 miles getting about 75miles for my tenner points taken about running in its only done a few hundred miles.

Would using cruise control help or worsen mpg on motorway etc?

Pete

Cruise is good but I would actually avoid using it too much during bedding in of the engine. The running in process calls for the throttle, revs and load setting on the engine to be varied quite a bit for the first few hundred miles to bed in the piston rings (as per book advice). The cruise keeps the piston rings too static and encourages glazing of the cylinder bores and rings. Otherwise, just drive it normally paying attention to the book advice on running in and it'll be fine. Just don't go too easy on it, diesel engines are much harder to bed in than petrol cars and take longer because the actual fuel used is a lubricant, not an abrasive solvent as petrol is. Diesel baths the pistons and rings in this lubricant whilst in petrol engines petrol actually tries it's hardest to wash away the oil for the moving parts, and actually partially succeeds too!

Edited 25 March, 2011 by Estate Man

[paramedicpete]

Cruise is good but I would actually avoid using it too much during bedding in of the engine. The running in process calls for the throttle, revs and load setting on the engine to be varied quite a bit for the first few hundred miles to bed in the piston rings (as per book advice). The cruise keeps the piston rings too static and encourages glazing of the cylinder bores and rings. Otherwise, just drive it normally paying attention to the book advice on running in and it'll be fine. Just don't go too easy on it, diesel engines are much harder to bed in than petrol cars and take longer because the actual fuel used is a lubricant, not an abrasive solvent as petrol is. Diesel baths the pistons and rings in this lubricant whilst in petrol engines petrol actually tries it's hardest to wash away the oil for the moving parts, and actually partially succeeds too!

Thanks book says to gradually increase revs to maximum for each gear, between 1000km and 1500 km is this occasionally ,once a day/week you would need to be hammering it to get max revs in all gears your at about 50mph in second to achieve that even pushing it a bit only takes you to about 3000rpm.

Or just maybe a couple of times a week batter down motorway for ten miles or so???

Pete

[logiclee]

Hello gogsp,

Looks like your round trip is similar to mine and what you're reporting is very similar to what I found early days as well. It did go up to early 50s quite quickly, but then seemed to settle. Doing 6 instead of 70 on the dual carriageways will help a lot. It will be interesting to see what happens to your car.

Mike

I do a similar commute, 60 mile round trip, 60% motorway, 30% A Road, 10% Town. I usually have cruise set to 75mph on the Motorway. With the current slightly warmer weather I'm getting 52mpg from my 2.0CR DSG Passat and my wifes 1.9PD 105 Fabia does 64mpg. I ran my uncles Golf 1.6 CR 105 DSG for a week and that did 52mpg.

The figures are from the fuel computer but adjusted for how much they over read. So I was a little dissapointed with the Golf as it posts figures 15mpg better than my Passat but could only match it.

My Uncle has said some tanks seem a lot better than others, I wonder why they are so variable?

Cheers

Lee

[Guest]

Thanks book says to gradually increase revs to maximum for each gear, between 1000km and 1500 km is this occasionally ,once a day/week you would need to be hammering it to get max revs in all gears your at about 50mph in second to achieve that even pushing it a bit only takes you to about 3000rpm.

Or just maybe a couple of times a week batter down motorway for ten miles or so???

Pete

Throughout the running in period it's ok to increase load on the engine ie: revs and amount of throttle used, plus the duration period...gradually over the whole period of 1500 miles. It's ok to be using 90% power at 1000 miles (many usse full power at that point, I did briefly). You don't need to do this by going flat out in every gear, but it is essential to use full power and maximum revs at least a few times when nearing the 1500miles to finish off the initial running in. You don't need to break the speed limit but just stay in the lower gears a bit longer and let the revs and load rise rapidly...that'll do it! But bedding in of the engine still carries on for many more thousands of miles after that first 1500 miles during normal driving.

I ran the engine in my car from new by driving it fairly normally which is really all you need to do but with the Skoda book instructions for 'running in' in mind. For example, the first 500miles I avoided harsh accelleration, high revs, and low revs under load. I varied the engine speed and load considerably (in line with the book instructions)...and avoided constant speed operation (cruising) on motorways. Using the gearbox more than normal is a good thing and deliberately changing gear too much is very good for the engine. When I did drive on motorways at motorway speeds I varied the throttle setting often and when safe allowed the speed to fall slightly and then accelerated again up to cruising speed. This exercisers the piston rings and keeps them cool. Don't worry about fuel economy at first, new engines don't give anywhere near their full economy potential so it's a waste of time anyway until it's run in. Economy driving style encourages cylinder bore glazing which is not good for the engine. The aim is to get light metal to metal contact between the piston rings and cylinder bores under load in that first 1500miles. If you don't do this you lose the chance to ever get the engine bedded in correctly and it will not perform as the manufacturer intended either with fuel economy or performance. The frequent variation of the engine speed and load wears down the high spots in the cylinders that are deliberately put there by the manufacturers (called cross hatching) to a level where not too much friction is taking place and a good seal is formed between piston rings and bores. But not following the book instructions and driving too gently can glaze the bores, or at the other extreme, too fast with too much throttle can lead to too much metal being removed from the cylinders and the 'cross hatching' that the manufacturer puts there becomes glazed (worn down smooth). This means little or no oil can cling to the cylinder bores to help lubricate the piston rings and you never get a really good compression seal and this can lead to piston ring failure at some point in the engines life. It also degrades performance at every level.

All this may sound complicated. But in reality by just driving it fairly normally with regard to the basic book instructions on running in, it will be ok. Just don't go too easy (a common mistake with many new car owners). Enjoy your new car Pete.

[paramedicpete]

Throughout the running in period it's ok to increase load on the engine ie: revs and amount of throttle used, plus the duration period...gradually over the whole period of 1500 miles. It's ok to be using 90% power at 1000 miles (many usse full power at that point, I did briefly). You don't need to do this by going flat out in every gear, but it is essential to use full power and maximum revs at least a few times when nearing the 1500miles to finish off the initial running in. You don't need to break the speed limit but just stay in the lower gears a bit longer and let the revs and load rise rapidly...that'll do it! But bedding in of the engine still carries on for many more thousands of miles after that first 1500 miles during normal driving.

I ran the engine in my car from new by driving it fairly normally which is really all you need to do but with the Skoda book instructions for 'running in' in mind. For example, the first 500miles I avoided harsh accelleration, high revs, and low revs under load. I varied the engine speed and load considerably (in line with the book instructions)...and avoided constant speed operation (cruising) on motorways. Using the gearbox more than normal is a good thing and deliberately changing gear too much is very good for the engine. When I did drive on motorways at motorway speeds I varied the throttle setting often and when safe allowed the speed to fall slightly and then accelerated again up to cruising speed. This exercisers the piston rings and keeps them cool. Don't worry about fuel economy at first, new engines don't give anywhere near their full economy potential so it's a waste of time anyway until it's run in. Economy driving style encourages cylinder bore glazing which is not good for the engine. The aim is to get light metal to metal contact between the piston rings and cylinder bores under load in that first 1500miles. If you don't do this you lose the chance to ever get the engine bedded in correctly and it will not perform as the manufacturer intended either with fuel economy or performance. The frequent variation of the engine speed and load wears down the high spots in the cylinders that are deliberately put there by the manufacturers (called cross hatching) to a level where not too much friction is taking place and a good seal is formed between piston rings and bores. But not following the book instructions and driving too gently can glaze the bores, or at the other extreme, too fast with too much throttle can lead to too much metal being removed from the cylinders and the 'cross hatching' that the manufacturer puts there becomes glazed (worn down smooth). This means little or no oil can cling to the cylinder bores to help lubricate the piston rings and you never get a really good compression seal and this can lead to piston ring failure at some point in the engines life. It also degrades performance at every level.

All this may sound complicated. But in reality by just driving it fairly normally with regard to the basic book instructions on running in, it will be ok. Just don't go too easy (a common mistake with many new car owners). Enjoy your new car Pete.

Thanks more or less what Im doing will report back on any improvements found over the next couple of thousand miles.

Pete

[MikeHart]

Hello everyone,

From what I can make out, evidence seems to suggest the engine builds are very variable. Undoubtedly, peoples driving styles, fuel etc. also makes quite a difference, but the sheer variability of peoples results suggests some considerable variation in engine build. As a comparison (and one that I'm envious of), a friend at work has just picked up a new VW Passat 2.0TDI (140PS) Bluemotion. He's only had it a week and just finished the first tank. Guess what mpg he got?????? 60!! I wish I could get that on my 1.6TDI (90PS) after 8000 miles!!

Some people report great economy from scratch, some poor. Whilst I appreciate things are different in each case, it simply shouldn't be that variable. As to the refinement of the engine........I'm not sure it's any better than anyone elses. My Yaris 1.4 wasn't any noisier and seemed every bit as good (until it blew the head gasket!!) and didn't seem to care how I drove it, what fuel I used, whether it was winter or summer. Just 60mpg, day in, day out and none of this DPF nonsense......

I really do wish someone could come up with a really convincing reason why some cars seem so good and others so bad. The difference is staggering and a lot more than I've seen with others. For my friends car, this is cruising at 70mph on the M27. If I do 60mph and am really light footed, I can just about get that.......just.

Skoda don't seem able to really answer any questions on this and don't seem able to explain why. On top of that is the abysmal running in instructions within the manual. If these diesel engines are so difficult to bed in, they should really spend more effort than a couple of paragraphs in the user manual which doesn't say much at all. Equally, if gear selection is so important, they should give that advice as well and fix their gear change indicator which suggests a change up far too early.........

I have to admit, I'm not impressed. Whilst mine has now got better than it was, it's still very variable and still a great disappontment to me.

[90_Russ]

Mike,

I've just swapped an Octavia vRS TDI for a 105 Fabia for economy reasons and have read this thread with interest.

With only 300 miles on the clock it's doing an indicated 66mpg on the way to work and 61mpg on the way back; a 62 mile daily commute. This is also mainly M27 like your friend.

I'm not driving like Miss Daisy either. I generally do between 65-75 with an occasional gentle increase to 80. Looking forward to the 'giving it some beans' stage!

It does appear that there is a difference between cars though...

[Junoman]

MikeHart,

Have you considered trying to get together with a fellow owner of the same vehicle and swap cars for a while, say 1 week. That way you could investigate whether it's the car or the driving style/route combination that is creating the poor figures. I haven't read all this thread so apologies if this has already been suggested/tried.

[pipsyp]

Wife and I drove from Oxford to Hackney the other night, gentle drive there and back, on the way home very late at night with the AC on car averaged 62mpg........and this is a 2.0 TDI 140 Golf!

I would say travelling above 70 mph really does hurt the overall MPG, even with their incredibly long gearing. Have also recently noticed how much of an impact the heater and AC has on MPG, since the weather has gotten milder and I have been able to turn the heater off my MPG recently has gotten much better. Also wondering whether the garages have now switched to summer blend fuels.

Big problem I have is my lead foot, I do tend to tank my car around a bit, missus is alot more sensible. Also my run to work is only 10 miles so dont suppose my car gets the best oportunity to shine during the working week except when I go on a long journey which is quite frequent.

If my 140hp Golf can average 62MPG a 1.6 CR should be able to better this considerably.

Edited 31 March, 2011 by pipsyp

[logiclee]

a friend at work has just picked up a new VW Passat 2.0TDI (140PS) Bluemotion. He's only had it a week and just finished the first tank. Guess what mpg he got?????? 60!! I wish I could get that on my 1.6TDI (90PS) after 8000 miles!!

The 2.0 CR TDi 140 isn't the Bluemotion model but comes with "Bluemotion Tech" which means it has stop/start, regen alternator and longer gearing. I would imagine he will build on that economy, just by sticking to speed limits I average low to mid 50's in my Passat which doesn't have Bluemotion tech and has an auto DSG gearbox. I can get closer to 60mpg if I drive for economy.

As I stated earlier in the thread my wifes Fabia 1.9PD 105 usually beats my Passat by 5-10mpg depending on type of road.

The questionable economy from the 1.6 CR TDi isn't just a Fabia thing though, my uncles Golf 1.6TDi 105 DSG struggles to match the figures I get from the Passat but is two tax bands lower and posts better economy figurs than my wifes 1.9 Fabia.

Cheers

Lee

[pipsyp]

Wife and I drove from Oxford to Hackney the other night, gentle drive there and back, on the way home very late at night with the AC on car averaged 62mpg........and this is a 2.0 TDI 140 Golf!

I would say travelling above 70 mph really does hurt the overall MPG, even with their incredibly long gearing. Have also recently noticed how much of an impact the heater and AC has on MPG, since the weather has gotten milder and I have been able to turn the heater off my MPG recently has gotten much better. Also wondering whether the garages have now switched to summer blend fuels.

Big problem I have is my lead foot, I do tend to tank my car around a bit, missus is alot more sensible. Also my run to work is only 10 miles so dont suppose my car gets the best oportunity to shine during the working week except when I go on a long journey which is quite frequent.

If my 140hp Golf can average 62MPG a 1.6 CR should be able to better this considerably.

I will add this car has no Bluemotion Tech either.

[Lederhosen]

Like other owners of the Fabia with the new 1.6 (105) diesel engine, I am very disappointed with the fuel consumption of this car. I find I am getting around 10 mpg less with the new engine than I was with my previous Fabia with the 1.9 tdi engine. Also this car does not tackle hills as readily as my previous car. I bought this car on the understanding that it would use less fuel than my previous car, why are Skoda going backwards when it comes to fuel consumption? Back in 1995 I was running a Ford Escort 1.8 tdi which was better on fuel than my present car.

[logiclee]

Like other owners of the Fabia with the new 1.6 (105) diesel engine, I am very disappointed with the fuel consumption of this car. I find I am getting around 10 mpg less with the new engine than I was with my previous Fabia with the 1.9 tdi engine. Also this car does not tackle hills as readily as my previous car. I bought this car on the understanding that it would use less fuel than my previous car, why are Skoda going backwards when it comes to fuel consumption? Back in 1995 I was running a Ford Escort 1.8 tdi which was better on fuel than my present car.

It's all about emmissions and posting an unbelievable figure in the unrealistic EU test. Even big 180bhp+ BMW's and Mercs are posting 50mpg+ when in reality they are getting mid 30's. Its time the tests were made more realistic.

I read all the posts about driving for economy and doing 60-70mph on the motorway to get 60mpg and shake my head, the 1.9pd will do that driving normally and doing 75-80mph no problem. The CR's feels gutless compared to the PD's, on the 2.0's it's noticable, between the 1.6 and 1.9 it's very noticable. Was the reason we ordered the TSi, together with the tsi having the DSG option.

Cheers

Lee

[raisbeck]

It's all about emmissions and posting an unbelievable figure in the unrealistic EU test. Even big 180bhp+ BMW's and Mercs are posting 50mpg+ when in reality they are getting mid 30's. Its time the tests were made more realistic.

I read all the posts about driving for economy and doing 60-70mph on the motorway to get 60mpg and shake my head, the 1.9pd will do that driving normally and doing 75-80mph no problem. The CR's feels gutless compared to the PD's, on the 2.0's it's noticable, between the 1.6 and 1.9 it's very noticable. Was the reason we ordered the TSi, together with the tsi having the DSG option.

Cheers

Lee

Its a bit of an odd situation. How can burning more fuel be better for emissions ? It cant just be the DPF. My GL1 has a DPF and I easily get 65mpg at an indicated 75mph. (Thats taking computer error in to account, overeads by 5 mpg). Where is all this fuel going ? The car isnt heavier. Is the burn less efficient and the smoke generated hidden by the DPF in the CR engine ?

I have been following this exhaustive thread. The only conclusion is that there are as many people happy with the CR as there are unhappy. Making a diesel more refined and quieter means multiple injections at different periods. This isnt necessarily the most efficient way to use fuel. The PD rattles, refined is not a word I would associate with it but what it lacks in refinement it gains in torque and efficiency.

I dont make the extra urban figures in my car.....I can get the combined, just. If you ignore the EU mandated mpg figures is the CR engine so bad ? Is refinement and smoothness worth a few mpg ?

I like my pd, sounds like a tractor but I kind of like that. A few CR drivers might like to try a PD 1.4 3 pot and then decide if the CR lacking some economy is really a bad engine......

[seboni121]

Its a bit of an odd situation. How can burning more fuel be better for emissions ? It cant just be the DPF. My GL1 has a DPF and I easily get 65mpg at an indicated 75mph. (Thats taking computer error in to account, overeads by 5 mpg). Where is all this fuel going ? The car isnt heavier. Is the burn less efficient and the smoke generated hidden by the DPF in the CR engine ?

I have been following this exhaustive thread. The only conclusion is that there are as many people happy with the CR as there are unhappy. Making a diesel more refined and quieter means multiple injections at different periods. This isnt necessarily the most efficient way to use fuel. The PD rattles, refined is not a word I would associate with it but what it lacks in refinement it gains in torque and efficiency.

I dont make the extra urban figures in my car.....I can get the combined, just. If you ignore the EU mandated mpg figures is the CR engine so bad ? Is refinement and smoothness worth a few mpg ?

I like my pd, sounds like a tractor but I kind of like that. A few CR drivers might like to try a PD 1.4 3 pot and then decide if the CR lacking some economy is really a bad engine......

I have both the 1.4tdi 3 pot and the 1.6crtdi 105bhp,they are both great cars the 1.4tdi sounds like a v10 and since I have gone to shell ,redex and k&n panel filter she's much quicker not quieter though ,the cr is and awesome little car in 3rd pulls like nothing ive had before and if I drive for economy I easily get over 60mpg and thats an engine with just 1500 miles on the clock,and if I screw the *******s of it I still get 51-54mpg,so I have not been dissapointed at all with either of the furby's just the amundsen sat nav but hopefully I will get an upgrade to the kenwood free of charge ,

[FABTPM]

Its a bit of an odd situation. How can burning more fuel be better for emissions ? It cant just be the DPF. My GL1 has a DPF and I easily get 65mpg at an indicated 75mph. (Thats taking computer error in to account, overeads by 5 mpg). Where is all this fuel going ? The car isnt heavier. Is the burn less efficient and the smoke generated hidden by the DPF in the CR engine ?

Raisbeck,

Couldn't agree with you more, I was getting 10 to 15 mpg less with the 105 CR engine in a Fabia estate than I was with a 2003 1.9TDI in an Octavia. The figures just didn't add up, how could I get 10-15 mpg more than the official figures in the 2003 Octavia but get 10-15 mpg less than the official figures for the Fabia. I soon found out where the extra fuel was going, into the oil! An oil change was done under warranty at a mere 3000 miles as the oil had goen way over the maximum mark. After the oil change the level was about half way between minimum and maximum, needless to say 4000 miles later it had just about reached the maximum again. I asked Skoda if they were prepared to continue to provide oil changes under warranty, never did get an answer other than it was caused by my short journeys. A 25 mile commute per day, apparently the vehicle has been designed to do journeys greater than 50 miles!

I bought the vehicle purely for economy, I have now gone back to a 1.9TDI PD Octavia and again I am getting about 10 mpg more than the official figures without even trying to drive economically. The official figures just do not make sense, there only seems to be one or two people that can get anywhere near them with the CR engines - clearly a backward step for Skoda.

[logiclee]

Couldn't agree with you more, I was getting 10 to 15 mpg less with the 105 CR engine in a Fabia estate than I was with a 2003 1.9TDI in an Octavia.

I had a 2003 TDi Elegance Octavia with the old 110TDi direct injection unit. That engine held the world record for the most thermally efficient automotive production unit for many years.

It's the most economical car I've owened and I've had over 30 cars. . Was a bit dull to drive though, I had a simple tuning box on it that livened things up a bit. Gave the tuning box to a workmate when I sold the Octy and he had it on his Seat Toledo for 6 years and 160000 miles. Taxi drivers loved the old 1.9TDi nonPD, it ran for ever on hardly any fuel no matter how you drove them.

Since then weve gone PD and now CR with DPF, progres??????

Cheers

Lee

[logiclee]

, there only seems to be one or two people that can get anywhere near them with the CR engines - clearly a backward step for Skoda.

It only seems to be a major issue with the 1.6, the 2.0 doesn't post such impressive figures but they are figures that can be reached. Official combined figured for my DSG Passat is 47.9 and I can better that easily on my commute, even upto the mid 50's if I'm trying, that nearly reaches the 55mpg of the extra urban figure. The 1.6 DSG Golf has Extra Urban of 72.4 and combined of 62.8mpg but in reality it only does a couple of mpg more than my Passat.

Cheers

Lee

[RandomSkodaperson]

I have the 1.6cr 105 bhp Roomster.

It has 7000 miles now and getting better all the time. I always seem to get over 600 miles on a tank no matter what the driving conditions are. Third gear is great. Plenty of oomph when needed and very refined.

I used to own the passat 130 pd which was a fantastic car. The 130 pd had plenty of power but to be honest I prefer theh CR has it has a longer range in each gear which makes life easier in day to day driving. I would love to see the 2.0 cr in the Roomster! That would be nippy.

When you look back at the different engines, the PD based in my opinion were ahead of their time and are still quality . It seems to be the emmissions have taken over how engines are designed which is a shame.

Great to see over 60mpg as it gives a nice feeling of satisfaction and I made the right choice. Plenty of power when needed also puts a smile on my face.

My wife drives an old ML270 163 bhp 4x4 and she commented how much she liked the power of the little Roomster! The Ml does 30 mpg at best and the Roomster has taken over as the car of choice for the longer run due to the impressive mpg!

Edited 3 April, 2011 by RandomSkodaperson

[pipsyp]

My Golf MK6 2.0 TDI CR 140 averaged 68mpg on the M25 yesterday at a steady 70mph. Car has now done nearly 27k and am really noticing an improvement in efficiency from when it was new. For a long while it would barely average 40mpg.

In fairness it isnt much worse than my old MK5 Bluemotion Match and it has alot more performance.

[pipsyp]

I have the 1.6cr 105 bhp Roomster.

It has 7000 miles now and getting better all the time. I always seem to get over 600 miles on a tank no matter what the driving conditions are. Third gear is great. Plenty of oomph when needed and very refined.

I used to own the passat 130 pd which was a fantastic car. The 130 pd had plenty of power but to be honest I prefer theh CR has it has a longer range in each gear which makes life easier in day to day driving. I would love to see the 2.0 cr in the Roomster! That would be nippy.

When you look back at the different engines, the PD based in my opinion were ahead of their time and are still quality . It seems to be the emmissions have taken over how engines are designed which is a shame.

Great to see over 60mpg as it gives a nice feeling of satisfaction and I made the right choice. Plenty of power when needed also puts a smile on my face.

My wife drives an old ML270 163 bhp 4x4 and she commented how much she liked the power of the little Roomster! The Ml does 30 mpg at best and the Roomster has taken over as the car of choice for the longer run due to the impressive mpg!

PD's fuel injection system is more efficient than common rail, problem with it is that its noisy and the injection process produces alot of soot, something DPF's have a lot of trouble dealing with (which VAG found out rather quickly with the later Golf MK5's with DPF's - particularly the PD 170 which is renouned for having DPF issues).

VAG had to go common rail in order to improve refinement and reduce soot production, but as a result I think they have become slightly less efficient. My Golf bluemotion would do 60mpg all day long, wifes old Ibiza PD 130 woudl do 50-odd no problem. My CR Golf is good on a long run or if driven gently but economy does suffer if driven swiftly.