stumpy01 –

I’d be interested to know what car that is (and what roof bars are hitting your fuel economy by that much)!

I am currently using my Wife’s Ibiza FR TDi with the 140BHP 2 litre diesel engine.
Urban mpg is supposedly 48mpg.
Combined mpg is supposedly 61mpg.
Extra Urban mpg is supposedly 72mpg.

My journey is mainly a-road and in my old car (Ibiza with the 130bhp 1.9PD engine) I could easily beat the claimed combined mpg figure of 56.5mpg. That car was an 03 plate, so I’d expect a car that is 9 years newer to perform at least as well, if not significantly better.

But, I struggle to get 55mpg out of it; 52-53 is more common. My old Ibiza was a disappointment if I got less than 58mpg.

Admittedly the computer tells massive lies to make you think that you are getting decent mpg, but the reality is somewhat different. Last tank was a claimed 62.5mpg from the display, but actually measured out at 54.3mpg which was one of the best results I’ve had.
Pretty cak for a small car and over 10% away from the claimed mpg values.

I’m interested how VAG think they can sort out this engine. They claim they hope to do a software update (as per DezB’s image) but without affecting engine output, fuel economy or performance…..which begs the question, if they can get the car to meet the targets without affecting any of those parameters, why didn’t they just do that in the first place?

Unless they can prove to me that it isn’t going to affect performance or economy I am not going to have it done.

It’s an Exeo with the 2.0 CR TDi (143).

Roof bars are Thule and I’ve got one of each type of Thule cycle carrier on it. It looks about as aero as a milk float, but I’ve not nowhere to store them off the car.

You’re not alone in wondering how VAG are going to achieve lower emissions without loss of performance or economy without retro fitting AdBlue or something.

I suspect they’ll do the same as all the other manufacturers and simply cut the fueling in the part of the rev range they test at – there are some expensive cars being sold today with massive holes in the rev range to do this and it was one thing that sold the Exeo to me. I won’t be the first in the queue to get it ‘fixed’,

molgrips – Member

Mine doesn’t. Pretty accurate. 2006 Passat.

No. And neither did the one one in my old Ibiza. Well, it always over-read but by around 2-3% compared to tank to tank measurements.
What’s annoying is that if they could do it when my old Ibiza came out, what have they done to the estimation method in the new Ibiza that is so shit. Why not just keep the same technique?
I reckon it’s set to over-read by a certain amount. The range estimator is similarly useless – it’s quite consistent down to around 65 miles & then drops like a stone. But the one in my old Ibiza was pretty good.
And, yes I know that different journies will give different results etc. but I generally do the same 80 mile commute at the same time day in, day out and it still can’t estimate correctly.

P-Jay – Member

It’s an Exeo with the 2.0 CR TDi (143).

That’s interesting….because it’s the same engine but in a larger, heavier car.
I know it’s not my driving, as I’ve always managed to get decent mpg out of cars. I don’t think I could do much more to improve the economy of the current car.
I think it might have been an ex-demo car so wonder if it had a hard life before we got it and engine wasn’t treated very kindly from new??

I think it might have been an ex-demo car so wonder if it had a hard life before we got it and engine wasn’t treated very kindly from new??

I doubt that would have any effect. Modern engines are built so well and all computer controlled that it’s very hard to damage then unless you deliberately run them out of oil.

Well, it always over-read but by around 2-3% compared to tank to tank measurements.

So it would show 51.5 instead of 50? Seems pretty good to me.

It could easily have a fault, stumpy.

molgrips – Member

It could easily have a fault, stumpy.

Such as….?

No warning lights, no noticeable engine issues, it’s been serviced several times since we’ve had it and nothing reported.
We’ve had it since 14k miles (now on about 55k miles) & nothing has changed or worsened with regards to fuel economy; it’s just not as good as I’d expect it to be.
Pretty sure if I took it to a dealer to plug it in, they’d say it’s fine and then charge me £100….

Drac – Moderator

So it would show 51.5 instead of 50? Seems pretty good to me.

You misunderstand (or perhaps I didn’t word it very well).

The mpg readout in MY OLD IBIZA was always within 2-3% of actual fuel economy, which I thought was pretty good.
The mpg readout in MY WIFE’s NEW IBIZA is the one that is nowhere near where it should be; hence why I said this further up the page in reference to the new car, not the old one:

Admittedly the computer tells massive lies to make you think that you are getting decent mpg, but the reality is somewhat different. Last tank was a claimed 62.5mpg from the display, but actually measured out at 54.3mpg which was one of the best results I’ve had.

and why I also said this:

What’s annoying is that if they could do “it” [EDIT – for clarity – “it”, being accurately measure the fuel economy] when my old Ibiza came out, what have they done to the estimation method in the new Ibiza that is so shit. Why not just keep the same technique?

Such as….?

Well sensors can read out of range without throwing a fault code. There are diagnostic procedures you do to establish things like the MAF working correctly. Plus not all faults show warning lights.

If you’re near Cardiff or Swindon I can take a look if you like. And you might be right about the dealers, but dealers (necessarily) are mainly interested in making money rather than fixing your car. So tend not to spend that long on it unless you pay them.

it’s just not as good as I’d expect it to be

Well if your expectations are driven by the improvement in the published stats, then they’re unrealistic. You can get better economy if you drive in the right region of the map, but there’s no way of knowing what that is, and if your driving style falls outside of that you’ll never know. Just read any car forum about economy and you’ll see some people saying ‘oh I can achieve the test figures whilst still driving the speed limit’ and others who say it’s impossible and they only get 2/3 of the test figures.

You’ll possibly find that your old car was tested to a different test cycle when the consumption was homologated, or they’ll have changed the rules as to how the car was set up. So in the new car, even though you are doing the same drive, you are further away from the test cycle. So your fuel consumption differs by more than the old car.
Or it may be down to different gear ratios, different pedal map etc etc. All affect fuel consumption and how it varies compared to the quoted figures.

I’m still interested to see what the new software for VAG cars ends up with, higher emissions figures, almost identical power, torque and fuel consumption, or same/similar emissions and a degradation across the board in power, torque and fuel consumption

@stumpy gearing and aerodynamics play their part, my car has a LOOOOOONG 6th gear, so long at at 70 going up a hill on the motorway (of which there are a lot here in Wales) the gear change light wants 5th and it can loose speed, it makes it feel a little underpowered sometimes, when it really isn’t.

Also, despite it’s size it’s very low – the roof life is noticeably lower than say a Golf which Ibiza sized, that might explain why it falls off so much with the bars on.

Anyone who claims to have bought a TDI thinking it was an environmentally sensitive option is a liar.

That’s certainly one of the main things the salepeople push. I bought a 2.7TDI in 2007 and they where certainly pushing that (not an engine size impacted), my puchase decision was based on economy and also price as the equivalent petrol engine version was much more expensive.

That’s certainly one of the main things the salepeople push.

Quite possibly, but there has been so much info in the news about the damage diesel particulates (esp PM10) do to people, that you’d almost have to be wilfully ignorant to believe a Diesel engine isn’t bad for the environment.

P-Jay – Member

@stumpy gearing and aerodynamics play their part, my car has a LOOOOOONG 6th gear, so long at at 70 going up a hill on the motorway (of which there are a lot here in Wales) the gear change light wants 5th and it can loose speed, it makes it feel a little underpowered sometimes, when it really isn’t.

Also, despite it’s size it’s very low – the roof life is noticeably lower than say a Golf which Ibiza sized, that might explain why it falls off so much with the bars on.

Yeah. True. 6th is pretty long on mine. Can’t remember exactly, but it’s revving at around 1800 in 6th, although can’t remember wanting/needing to ever change down on motorway hills.
That gear change indicator is another stupid idea if it’s the same as in mine. It supposedly indicated the most economical gear to be in, but has no idea if you are going up hill etc. If you follow it in my car, the engine is labouring on anything but perfectly flat stretches of road & you can forget attempting to accelerate while in that gear.

Not sure on the exact height, but my car doesn’t look any higher than the Exeo estate it’s parked next to in the car park today.
Mine isn’t based on the Golf; it’s the smaller Polo chassis & what with it being the 3dr coupe it’s really quite small…..

Yeah. True. 6th is pretty long on mine. Can’t remember exactly, but it’s revving at around 1800 in 6th, although can’t remember wanting/needing to ever change down on motorway hills.
That gear change indicator is another stupid idea if it’s the same as in mine. It supposedly indicated the most economical gear to be in, but has no idea if you are going up hill etc. If you follow it in my car, the engine is labouring on anything but perfectly flat stretches of road & you can forget attempting to accelerate while in that gear.

Not sure on the exact height, but my car doesn’t look any higher than the Exeo estate it’s parked next to in the car park today.
Mine isn’t based on the Golf; it’s the smaller Polo chassis & what with it being the 3dr coupe it’s really quite small..

Yeah the gear indicator is daft, I’m sure it’s some kind of way to reduce the emissions on paper.

Not entirely useless. My mate’s recently got his first diesel after 20 years of petrol, and drives around at over 2krpm all over the place because otherwise it ‘feels wrong’. He needs to pay attention to the gear change indicator.

molgrips – Member

Not entirely useless. My mate’s recently got his first diesel after 20 years of petrol, and drives around at over 2krpm all over the place because otherwise it ‘feels wrong’. He needs to pay attention to the gear change indicator.

I didn’t say they were universally useless, but the one in the Ibiza makes the car virtually undriveable….telling you to change gear so far down the rev range that the engine labours when you make the change; you can just about maintain speed if you are on the flat, but put your foot down & there is almost no acceleration at all & forget about maintaining speed up even the slightest of inclines.

@footflaps I agree with you, this is partly a result of owning one.

As per the comments above I would enforce the fixes and make VW pay owners compensation for loss of performance/fuel economy/vehicle value

Quite possibly, but there has been so much info in the news about the damage diesel particulates (esp PM10) do to people, that you’d almost have to be wilfully ignorant to believe a Diesel engine isn’t bad for the environment.

I think you’re getting yourself confused here.

EGR’s were first introduced to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides via lower combustion temperatures.

As a result of lower combustion temperatures there was an increase in the amount of particulates owing to incomplete combustion. Hence, DPF’s were introduced. Where EGR’s and DPF’s weren’t pratical adblue was the weapon of choice.

So a diesel shouldn’t be emitting particulates provided it has its DPF intact (or is running lean enough to get complete combustion). Now we get to Volkswagen, presumably the frigged maps made the engines run rich at the proscribed nitrogen oxide test point but the rest of the time it ran lean thus decreasing fuel consumption (shock horror engines run more efficiently with full combustion) and lower CO2 emissions (again, through better fuel efficiency). That’s presumably how they roughly managed to get the cars to do what they do.

On nitrogen oxides and particulates – these are only really a problem where they aren’t dispersed sufficiently such as in heavily built up areas (cities) and places that have little in the way of air movement (California being the gold standard). The result is, of course, smog, something you don’t get in the countryside which brings us back to the “all diesels are evil” argument. They’re not, if used in the right places (not that we should be using that as an excuse not to develop better solutions) as it’s not as simple as people like to believe.

The mpg readout in MY OLD IBIZA was always within 2-3% of actual fuel economy, which I thought was pretty good.
The mpg readout in MY WIFE’s NEW IBIZA is the one that is nowhere near where it should be; hence why I said this further up the page in reference to the new car, not the old one

Oh right! Sorry that was me reading it wrong. 😳

AFAIK the gear shift indicator is a legal requirement these days.

So a diesel shouldn’t be emitting particulates provided it has its DPF intact (or is running lean enough to get complete combustion).

I very much doubt the DPF removes all particulate all the time. I can believe it substantially reduces them when running under optimum conditions.

I very much doubt the DPF removes all particulate all the time.

Why? It’s not an on/off thing, it’s constantly in use saving the times it’s on regen (when the engine runs extra lean to burn everything out).

Interesting report out today, Diesel’s days may be numbered…..

“London’s air is both lethal and illegal,” said Harry Quilter-Pinner, researcher at IPPR. “This is a public health crisis and it should be ignored no longer. Only bold action will make the capital’s air safe to breathe again.”

He added: “[Our] analysis suggests Khan will ultimately need to phase out diesel cars and buses in order to reach legal compliance.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/18/ban-diesel-cars-in-london-thinktank-urges

They’re ready –

Best of luck, keep us posted

@DezB are you planning to go ahead with it?

I’m interested to know what the downside is, on the face of it:

Reduced Emissions
No AdBlue system.
Same “Maximum” Torque
Same Economy
Same Performance figures…

It doesn’t add up to me, I’m guess it’s either going to have a rev range full of holes, or it’s going to flat as a pancake unless you’re tearing the arse out of it.

Some interesting wording there. So the published data will remain unchanged – what about the actual values?

As above, I don’t see why they bothered in the first place if the fix leaves the car just as good as before.

Yep – here’s the other side of the letter:

Don’t see why you wouldn’t go ahead with it.

“Advances in diesel combustion technology which were not available at the time your vehicle was manufactured” of course 😆

Of course I would trust a letter from a car manufacturer who lied about the cars emissions not to lie again about the fix not effecting any other performance specifics of the car 😯

Dez thanks, forwarded to a mate with an Audi with that motor.

@craig obviously the defeat device can be removed without impacting day to day performance, the question is with the device removed would the car pass the emissions test ? If not then its hard to see how the mods would not affect performance in some way.

This whole espisode US vs EU handling shows how European governments run scared of the EU whilst the manufacturers are sh.t scared of what the US can do. A software update and no compensation / buyback ahows how lame / in the pocket of France and Germany is the EU

I have an Audi with the 2.0 TDI engine and I’m not letting those feckers anywhere near it because experience suggests that Audi dealers are about as trustworthy as the VW mothership. The letter is going in the recycling, I’ll see what the specialist independent garage I use says next time it’s due a service.

Don’t see why you wouldn’t go ahead with it.

I’m going to say “trust issues” would be a decent reason.

As I understand it, and I’d like to be corrected on this, emission gases on lean burn diesels are a set thing – you burn 1ltr of Diesel and get x amount of Nitrogen. You can reduce it a lot by using Adblue, but without that, it’s a set ratio of fuel to NOx.

So to reduce the NOx without it you need to make the engine burn less fuel, but they say the economy remains unchanged

So it’ll be just another case of horse trading, they’ll they poke big holes in the rev range at the testing speeds, or just make it flatter over-all, unless you really give it some, over and above the test range and it’ll be full power again.

Real world emission change, Zero. But it won’t be as nice to drive, it won’t pull as cleanly and it’ll feel flat unless you’re driving like a loon.

That’s only my guess, they could of course explain it all in detail to consumers if they won’t it, not just in vague terms which don’t mean much, even letting the ‘motoring press’ know so they can disseminate it to the rest of it.

Personally I’ll wait for a lot of other people to do it first to see what it’s like – but ultimately probably won’t do it as I’m changing soon, I’ll probably have another VAG, but it’ll be a petrol.

A friend has had there 2.0 TDI Golf ‘fixed’ and she says it feels slower, particularly at lower revs. She only got it done as wants to sell it and is under the impression that she needed to.

I’ll be leaving mine for a while.

obviously the defeat device can be removed without impacting day to day performance, the question is with the device removed would the car pass the emissions test ?

The defeat device was an alternative map that the engine management system used when it detected the car was being emissions tested in the USA.

The EPA have been on VW’s case for several years because when the engines were being tested the emissions were incredibly low so they comissioned a number of real world driving tests to measure the actual emissions which is how VW were found out. The USA’s diesel emission levels are lower than Europe’s so the cars may/may not pass over here (if anyone cares) but not in the USA hence the compensation schemes. If the schemes were applied across Europe and worldwide it would be the end of VAG.

Of course I would trust a letter from a car manufacturer who lied about the cars emissions not to lie again about the fix not effecting any other performance specifics of the car

Letter is from Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency.

It’s just a car. I don’t use it enough to worry about a minor performance effect. Only thing I’m bothered about is the price of VED. It’s getting done for nothing, they’re collecting and delivering it back.

I cant help but side with the suspicous ones on this matter.

What new technology has been developed to improve things? If that is the case then it doesnt mention anything other than software update from what i read? So its a remap.

This reminds me of the Fiat 500 situation where they launched the 1.2 engine in euro 6 guise. The engine mapping was full of flat spots. You hadto rev the engine so hard to do hill starts they got the stig from Top Gear to try to get one up a hill and he struggled. It was a complete dud but at least they werent trying to do it in a backhand way, they just couldnt sell the things to people that knew how to drive.

There are loads of cars on the roads with flat spots in their existing mapping which is how every other manufacturer has managed to reach required levels without the aid of adblue. The accept that its a characteristic of the vehicles now.

Its just another attempt by VW group to hide the truth. If i had a car effected i would want a guarentee that it doesnt alter the driveability of the car in any way before going ahead.

so DezB are you actually letting VAG fiddle with your ECU map?

I have the same letter, and just dont see any reason to allow VW hobble my engine. At the very least Im leaving it 12m until there’s plenty of evidence out there to say that power curves, mpg, CO2 etc are unaffected. But I dont hold out much hope for that.

What new technology has been developed to improve things?

It’s not new technology, it’s a different map. I’d imagine your car will just end up in a different emissions category IF they have the facility to recategorise it. Or maybe they’ve just come up with a better map in the first place.

VW has been fiddled with, cleaned and returned to me.
Compensation!? Compensation indeed… there was a box on my seat

😆