Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Skoda Fabia 2018 fuel consumption

Skoda Fabia from 2018 to 2021 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 14% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 13% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 15% higher. Since 2018 the Skoda Fabia average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been less than industry average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline cars
All carmakersSkoda Fabia
2018+28%+28%
Show all years
2019+27%+28%
2020+27%+28%
2021+26%+28%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Skoda Fabia.

2018

Skoda Fabia 2018 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines50.6 MPG
4.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines39.5 MPG
6.0 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+28%

According to advertised fuel consumption, Skoda Fabia 2018 with automatic transmission have almost the same fuel economy as similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Skoda Fabia with automatic transmission consumes around 0.8 litres per 100 km or 14% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Skoda Fabia fuel economy is slightly better than average. The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Skoda Fabia 2018 1.0 TSI 95 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Skoda Fabia with 1.0 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Skoda Fabia 2018 1.0 TSI 110 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Skoda Fabia 2018 1.0 75 HP manual 49.0 MPG
4.8 l/100km
39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km+23%
Skoda Fabia 2018 1.0 TSI 95 HP manual 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+24%
Skoda Fabia 2018 1.0 TSI 110 HP manual 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+24%
Skoda Fabia 2018 1.0 TSI 110 HP automatic 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+41%
2018

Skoda Fabia 2018 wagon fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines50.6 MPG
4.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines39.5 MPG
6.0 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+28%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Skoda Fabia 2018 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.1 liters per 100 km or 2% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Skoda Fabia with automatic transmission consumes around 0.8 litres per 100 km or 14% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Skoda Fabia fuel economy is slightly better than average. The best fuel economy in its class of all the modifications has one with 1.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Skoda Fabia 2018 Combi 1.0 TSI 95 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Skoda Fabia 2018 Combi 1.0 75 HP manual 49.0 MPG
4.8 l/100km
39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km+23%
Skoda Fabia 2018 Combi 1.0 TSI 95 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+27%
Skoda Fabia 2018 Combi 1.0 TSI 110 HP manual 51.1 MPG
4.6 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+24%
Skoda Fabia 2018 Combi 1.0 TSI 110 HP automatic 50.0 MPG
4.7 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+38%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.