Picked up my 1.2 tsi yesterday. Went to London today, round trip of about 60 miles and averaged 44.5 according to trip computer. Better than I was expecting given cars done total of 90 miles now
Thanks for the info.
I think we do sufficient continuous driving and we've never had a DPF light.
According to the Seat Technical Unit in Milton Keynes the very bad fuel consumption is due to the new engine being "tight" (they don't think 41mpg is bad!). But perhaps it is actually caused by DPF problems and they're not admitting it.
They say there are no computer fault codes so they won't even investigate. I am disgusted with the attitude of Seat Customer Care in this matter. There appear to be a lot of owners with consumption complaints and I haven't heard of a single one who has had this issue resolved. VAG continue to market the TDi engines on their efficiency and make small "city cars" like Ibiza, Polo and Fabia with these engines.
The Honest John link suggests they are not "fit for purpose" because the general use of any car will include short journeys. The cars are also "not as described" if they can't deliver the advertised fuel efficiency. Manufacturers are required to prove "conformity of production" before they can quote the official figures. And again I am not aware of anyone who has managed to do anything about it.
(Aplogies for hijacking your TSI thread with TDi issues but the theme is still fuel economy)
I think we do sufficient continuous driving and we've never had a DPF light.
According to the Seat Technical Unit in Milton Keynes the very bad fuel consumption is due to the new engine being "tight" (they don't think 41mpg is bad!). But perhaps it is actually caused by DPF problems and they're not admitting it.
They say there are no computer fault codes so they won't even investigate. I am disgusted with the attitude of Seat Customer Care in this matter. There appear to be a lot of owners with consumption complaints and I haven't heard of a single one who has had this issue resolved. VAG continue to market the TDi engines on their efficiency and make small "city cars" like Ibiza, Polo and Fabia with these engines.
The Honest John link suggests they are not "fit for purpose" because the general use of any car will include short journeys. The cars are also "not as described" if they can't deliver the advertised fuel efficiency. Manufacturers are required to prove "conformity of production" before they can quote the official figures. And again I am not aware of anyone who has managed to do anything about it.
(Aplogies for hijacking your TSI thread with TDi issues but the theme is still fuel economy)
Hi rji & Frudo,
The main issue as I see it is that there is no way of telling whether or not the car has been in the active regeneration mode burning extra fuel or if it has, on how many occasions. In fact there seems to be an implication that as long as the DPF light has not been on then all is well. I suppose things are OK in the sense that the DPF is not wrecked but the fuel consumption could still have been suffering without anyone knowing.
Yes, HJ can be good. Mind you in reply to a question, they say that SEAT Ibizas are now being supplied with a can of tyre sealant goo rather than a spare wheel saying spare is an extra cost option. When I told them this was news to my dealer and that there was no spare wheel option in the price list anyway they just repeated the story.
Anyway, my new 1.2 TSI SE 5 door arrived at the dealers last week with a full size spare. I'll tell them this and see if they change the story!
The main issue as I see it is that there is no way of telling whether or not the car has been in the active regeneration mode burning extra fuel or if it has, on how many occasions. In fact there seems to be an implication that as long as the DPF light has not been on then all is well. I suppose things are OK in the sense that the DPF is not wrecked but the fuel consumption could still have been suffering without anyone knowing.
Yes, HJ can be good. Mind you in reply to a question, they say that SEAT Ibizas are now being supplied with a can of tyre sealant goo rather than a spare wheel saying spare is an extra cost option. When I told them this was news to my dealer and that there was no spare wheel option in the price list anyway they just repeated the story.
Anyway, my new 1.2 TSI SE 5 door arrived at the dealers last week with a full size spare. I'll tell them this and see if they change the story!
Driving like a Nun? why do people still think cars need 'running in'? The best-running year old cars are Hire cars; driven hard by a mixture of drivers with different patterns of useage. Piston rings will never seal unless the engine is used hard from day 1. Cars build in the 1950's needed running in to carefully introduce all the badly machined parts to each other and wear them in, hard driving from new would just seize the engine. Now parts are so well made, 'running-in' can kill an engine.
if you mean me...... my FR dosnt have a diesel particle filter...... as it dosnt have a diesel engine its a 1.4 TSI Petrol
But isn't thrashing an engine also bad for it? I ran mine in relatively gently but my Cupra is still using oil at 6500 miles. It's not alot but its defo still using. Regarding Fuel consumption my car was hitting 40mpg+ only a few weeks after I got it and it hasnt really improved since. I've heard people saying don't judge the mpg till 10,000 miles though.
naddan28
Guest
Just spoke to the garage said it was a little low but would let them know if still low after 100 miles. Still getting around 38mpg which is pretty poor really, regardless of driving style.
I have noticed though that my girlfriends 1.6TDI Ford Fiesta Zetec S gets 48-54mpg, depending on driving like a loon or sensibly. Which leads me to believe that diesel cars seem to be more consistent on the mpg front then petrols, when you need to be lucky with the traffic conditions etc.
On a side note, I have started to open up with the accelerator now every once in a while, I've done a good 500 miles, which is great fun! Took it for a quick spin on the way home from a client's at lunch today down a one way country road with no traffic. Great fun!
I have noticed though that my girlfriends 1.6TDI Ford Fiesta Zetec S gets 48-54mpg, depending on driving like a loon or sensibly. Which leads me to believe that diesel cars seem to be more consistent on the mpg front then petrols, when you need to be lucky with the traffic conditions etc.
On a side note, I have started to open up with the accelerator now every once in a while, I've done a good 500 miles, which is great fun! Took it for a quick spin on the way home from a client's at lunch today down a one way country road with no traffic. Great fun!
i drove mine hard from day one! (when it was warm) best way 
aint used much oil but a bits gone, probs 500 ml in 1500 miles.... (cupra btw)
aint used much oil but a bits gone, probs 500 ml in 1500 miles.... (cupra btw)You have to pay the extra VAT? wow, i'd be having words, mine didnt arrive till january but the dealer still payed the full 20% VAT for me.
Silveralex,
As I said I ordered just before Christmas and, with some factory options, it would have been *impossible* for delivery before Jan 1st. In view of this I didn't think it unreasonable to to pay a little more.
I believe you ordered yours in early Sept. '10 so delivery before end of year was to be expected. BTW on orders placed from January they now offering only half the VAT on 1.2 TSI (10%) so I don't think I've done so badly. I also get a new reg. number so the car may be worth a little more.
As I said I ordered just before Christmas and, with some factory options, it would have been *impossible* for delivery before Jan 1st. In view of this I didn't think it unreasonable to to pay a little more.
I believe you ordered yours in early Sept. '10 so delivery before end of year was to be expected. BTW on orders placed from January they now offering only half the VAT on 1.2 TSI (10%) so I don't think I've done so badly. I also get a new reg. number so the car may be worth a little more.
To be honest, i'd prefer to see a light or some indication that it's doing a passive regen. It bugs me to get home and see the revs up etc when I could have driven it to clear the DPF. Never had a light on but had plenty of passive regens.
Cupra~Matt
Guest
the smaller the engine in a car, the more throttle input affects mpg. the larger the engine the more stable the engine is due to the engine massees playing there part in allowing the engine to turn over for longer with less effort once you have got the thing turning. a smaller engien does not have as much mass, normally will rev quicker due to it being lighter. this is the problem that affects mpg. you will only life of the throttle for a small amount of time but the engine will lose more momentum dues to there being less centrifugal masses. geeky i know but its the line of work i am in.
also, stated mpg fiqures, are in a controlled climate, with regulated fuel and the car being ina simulated perfect situation. ( i.e, no wingmirros, only one passenger, normally a 9stone person, the temperature is controlled to be the perfect density for the engine to produce maximum peformance.) if you get over the stated mpg you have done very well indeed.
also, stated mpg fiqures, are in a controlled climate, with regulated fuel and the car being ina simulated perfect situation. ( i.e, no wingmirros, only one passenger, normally a 9stone person, the temperature is controlled to be the perfect density for the engine to produce maximum peformance.) if you get over the stated mpg you have done very well indeed.
Cupra~Matt
Guest
yes indeed mpg figures are achived in a lab, on rolling roads. however they put a resistance on the rollers that is equievelant to the road/ air friction etc etc known in the trade as roal load data. this is how they achive so good mpg fiqures. ar temp and humidity is set to optimum for the engine. car colling is at optimum and the maps that they drive to is specially designed to match the calebration of the engine and gearbox to give the optimum results. this is why it is so hard to achive the quoted mpg
The figures acheived in the official tests may be difficult to reproduce in the real world for many reasons but...
1 - Because all cars are tested in the same way the results should at least be representative. So a car with a combined cycle of 65.7 mpg (our 1.6 TDi Ibiza) can be expected to do a lot better than a car with a combined cycle of 47.1 mpg (our Kia 7 seater mpv).
2 - We have acheived close to the combined cycle figure for all the cars we have owned in the last 11 years. Not just on special economy runs but consistently and repeatedly, tank after tank with our normal sensible driving style. We have a record of all the fuel used in each car.
3 - A steady run at a speed that is economical for the vehicle will return a higher mpg than the official extra urban figure. We could get 66 mpg on a 50 mph trip in a Volvo that had an extra urban figure of 58.9 mpg. It is not possible to acheive this figure as an average in normal driving but a car running correctly will beat its extra urban figure when driven steadily at its most economical speed. Our Ibiza can't even get close the the combined figure when doing this.
The overall average we got from the Kia was 44.92 mpg and we got 49.74 mpg from one 518 mile tankfull. The official combined cycle figure for the Kia is 47.1 mpg.
The official combined cycle for the Ibiza is 18.6 mpg higher (39%) than the Kia. There must be something very seriously wrong with our Ibiza when the best it could manage when new was 41 mpg and is now only 46 mpg. Seat still refuse to investigate the problem.
As for the factors that effect real world mpg. I don't carry dead weight or a roof rack, the tyre pressures are correct. I've tried turning off the A/C and as much electrical stuff as I can. We have lived in the same area for the 11 years and in the same house for the last 6. We are making similar journeys. Our driving style has proved to be economical in all previous vehicles and I am trying even harder now.
It will cost us around £500 a year extra in lost fuel consumption at current prices.
My conclusion - our Ibiza is a lemon. But because it keeps running and doesn't break down nothing will be done about it. How bad does it have to be before VAG will admit some of these cars have a problem?
1 - Because all cars are tested in the same way the results should at least be representative. So a car with a combined cycle of 65.7 mpg (our 1.6 TDi Ibiza) can be expected to do a lot better than a car with a combined cycle of 47.1 mpg (our Kia 7 seater mpv).
2 - We have acheived close to the combined cycle figure for all the cars we have owned in the last 11 years. Not just on special economy runs but consistently and repeatedly, tank after tank with our normal sensible driving style. We have a record of all the fuel used in each car.
3 - A steady run at a speed that is economical for the vehicle will return a higher mpg than the official extra urban figure. We could get 66 mpg on a 50 mph trip in a Volvo that had an extra urban figure of 58.9 mpg. It is not possible to acheive this figure as an average in normal driving but a car running correctly will beat its extra urban figure when driven steadily at its most economical speed. Our Ibiza can't even get close the the combined figure when doing this.
The overall average we got from the Kia was 44.92 mpg and we got 49.74 mpg from one 518 mile tankfull. The official combined cycle figure for the Kia is 47.1 mpg.
The official combined cycle for the Ibiza is 18.6 mpg higher (39%) than the Kia. There must be something very seriously wrong with our Ibiza when the best it could manage when new was 41 mpg and is now only 46 mpg. Seat still refuse to investigate the problem.
As for the factors that effect real world mpg. I don't carry dead weight or a roof rack, the tyre pressures are correct. I've tried turning off the A/C and as much electrical stuff as I can. We have lived in the same area for the 11 years and in the same house for the last 6. We are making similar journeys. Our driving style has proved to be economical in all previous vehicles and I am trying even harder now.
It will cost us around £500 a year extra in lost fuel consumption at current prices.
My conclusion - our Ibiza is a lemon. But because it keeps running and doesn't break down nothing will be done about it. How bad does it have to be before VAG will admit some of these cars have a problem?
Thanks rossers87.
The 1.4 TSi 180PS Cupra has a combined cycle figure of 44.1 mpg. If that's your car then you are getting something like the combined figure. That's the way it should be for anyone driving normally. More than 40 mpg is generally regarded as good for a petrol car. For a powerful sporty car 44.1 mpg is very good.
The combined cycle figure for our 1.6 TDi is 21.6 mpg higher than yours. It should be almost 50% better but it's actually worse.
The 1.4 TSi 180PS Cupra has a combined cycle figure of 44.1 mpg. If that's your car then you are getting something like the combined figure. That's the way it should be for anyone driving normally. More than 40 mpg is generally regarded as good for a petrol car. For a powerful sporty car 44.1 mpg is very good.
The combined cycle figure for our 1.6 TDi is 21.6 mpg higher than yours. It should be almost 50% better but it's actually worse.
Similar threads
