1.6 multijet2 high fuel consumption

Currently reading:
1.6 multijet2 high fuel consumption

dezert

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2025
Messages
7
Points
1
Location
Sweden
Hello
I experience a very high fuel consumption for no apparent reason. The car is a 2016 year model Doblo with 1.6 multijet2 105. The car has ca 65000km on the clock. Everything seems to work fine otherwise. I noted the consumption on the screen and in reality (confirmed by full to full against the odo measurement) to be whooping 7,0l/100km or lousy 40mpg in other words. Keep in mind I drive 25km to work, not a single traffic light, just steady 100-110km/h or 60-65mph drive. For reference, my other car a Volvo V70 with a very similar 109hp 1.6diesel takes 5,0l/100km (56,5mpg) at the same task (it probably has better aerodynamics, but is for sure a good bit heavier and uses wider tires).


What I have done so far to no avail :
0. Upon the purchase I scanned with MaxiECU and checked the fluid levels - no issues.
1. Temporarily unplugged the EGR (no change)
2. Cleaned the air flow sensor (removed and sprayed with dedicated cleaner, was not so dirty in fact)
3. Cleaned the air pressure sensor on the back of the motor (removed and sprayed with dedicated cleaner, was not so dirty in fact)
4. Cleaned the EGR (removed and sprayed with dedicated cleaner, was not so dirty in fact, moved freely)
5. Checked and blown with pressurized air the air filter (did not look dirty at all).
6. Checked the main running parameters (without really knowing what to look for or how to interpret it), few rose my doubts:
6a. It states that the ECU was replaced at 63kkm, should I be concerned? Should I check that with Fiat dealer? Can it be programmed wrongly somehow? I don't think I can count on honest info from PO, not sure if I even have his number.
6b. The measured vs target airflow is lower by a good margin. See below. Is that normal? What could be the cause?
6c. The battery voltage is ca 14v at idle and 2krpm , but when driving it is rather low, see below. Is that normal? Should I be concerned? What should I additionally check in such case?


Future steps:
The regular maintenance was done (according to the paperwork that followed with the car) at 55kkm, so I should still be good, but just to take taht out of equation:
a. change air filter
b. change fuel filter cartridge
c. change oil+filter


Any pointers? Any important parameters and their values I should look for and present here?

These are some parameters at a stable cruise:
1738783772117.png
 
Last edited:
I was going to compare my readings as I have MaxiEcu Scan tool also and a Fiat Doblo van 1.6 , unfortunately it is a 2010 so doesn't have the same emission standards I believe.
If interested I could maybe try and do it. What gear 6th and engine revs?
 
Yes 6th and ca 2krpm
This is the best I can do , I am sorry the pics are blurry, old age and old camera.
There is a slight delay in target and actual, but generally fairly even I found.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF1878.JPG
    DSCF1878.JPG
    448.7 KB · Views: 20
  • DSCF1877.JPG
    DSCF1877.JPG
    450.4 KB · Views: 20
  • DSCF1876.JPG
    DSCF1876.JPG
    462.2 KB · Views: 20
  • DSCF1871.JPG
    DSCF1871.JPG
    462.5 KB · Views: 20
Hello
Changed the air filter, no change - as expected.

Performed a test on a flat road with warm engine and steady 102km/h (GPS) with disconnected MAF. It was interesting to see that:

With MAF:
MAF reading: 630 mg/stroke
MAF target: 1500 mg/stroke
Indicated fuel consumption: ca 7,9l/100km


Without MAF:
MAF reading: 711 mg/stroke
MAF target: 482 mg/stroke
Indicated fuel consumption: ca 6,7l/100km

Can anyone help me interpret the results? Why is even MAF showing any value, I assume it calculates it from some other parameters when disconnected?
 
Last edited:
Hello
Changed the air filter, no change - as expected.

Performed a test on a flat road with warm engine and steady 102km/h (GPS) with disconnected MAF. It was interesting to see that:

With MAF:
MAF reading: 630 mg/stroke
MAF target: 1500 mg/stroke
Indicated fuel consumption: ca 7,9l/100km


With MAF:
MAF reading: 711 mg/stroke
MAF target: 482 mg/stroke
Indicated fuel consumption: ca 6,7l/100km

Can anyone help me interpret the results? Why is even MAF showing any value, I assume it calculates it from some other parameters when disconnected?
I think the ECU uses a "fail safe " position stored in the computer as a get you home method, a sort of "base stetting".
 
Shouldnt the MAF target be the same? or is it trying to compensate the measurement that seems to be the fault ?
 
Shouldnt the MAF target be the same? or is it trying to compensate the measurement that seems to be the fault ?
Sorry I am not an expert in this area.:) Although now retired after being in the motortrade since 1969 repairing cars, I am picking up more information on the electrical side these days as more problems are in that direction.:(
All I know is that where a sensor fails , there is often a "fail safe" figure stored that is used to allow a vehicle to run.
 
OK, now I have changed fuel and oil filter, oil, air filter.
I bought a used MAF, just to compare the results. Prior to installing it I wanted to remeasure current MAF - and now it shows spot ON! Very strange. As it showed same error just after air filter change.

Fuel consumption is still ca 7,5-8,0 l/100km at 110km/h on speedo and 102km/h GPS - way too much in my opinion.

Looking for some other pointers/clues.
 
I can't compare my fuel economy accurately to yours as most of my journeys are short stop /start in a 10 mile radias.
When you compare with your Volvo with similar engine size etc. What engine revs at same speed, as possibly higher geared Volvo for quieter cruising compared with a vehicle more designed for load carrying as van based. Can you check the throttle % on both vehicles at similar conditions also , I can't remember but does MaxiECU measure load as well?
Apart from that, I assume you will have done all the obvious checks re brakes dragging, tracking/steering alignment, engine overall condition/efficiency, running at correct temp in middle of gauge (90degrees Centigrade) etc. even a roof rack can have an effect.
Even the rolling circumference of the tyres.
 
Yes i did all obvious checks that you mention.
No roof rack on fiat, but i do have a rack on Volvo.
the rpm is pretty mush spot on between the two cars. Tires again a slightly wider on Volvo, but marginal difference in dia.
I will check the throttle opening on both, perhaps it will give some insight.

I guess my next step will be a visit to Fiat workshop that could check or even update the program in the ECU if it actually corresponds to the correct model/engine. Do you think they can do it, or is it programmed for life and only changing it is an option? This remark in MaxiEcu that the ECU was changed at 63k (I bought the car with 65k) makes me really wonder.
 
Yes i did all obvious checks that you mention.
No roof rack on fiat, but i do have a rack on Volvo.
the rpm is pretty mush spot on between the two cars. Tires again a slightly wider on Volvo, but marginal difference in dia.
I will check the throttle opening on both, perhaps it will give some insight.

I guess my next step will be a visit to Fiat workshop that could check or even update the program in the ECU if it actually corresponds to the correct model/engine. Do you think they can do it, or is it programmed for life and only changing it is an option? This remark in MaxiEcu that the ECU was changed at 63k (I bought the car with 65k) makes me really wonder.
It would be interesting to know why the original ECU was changed, I read somewhere that on certain Ducato models there were several upgrades to the ECU.
If your Fiat Dealer is good they should be able to use their equipment to put the latest "firmware" into your ECU assuming yours tells them it is not the latest version.:)
 
If now MAF actual and desired reads are similar then ok, if not beware of intake valve position.

Check at idle:
- MAF temp
- MAP temp
- barometric pressure
- boost pressure
- injectors corrections cold/warm

If all ok recode injectors (note actual codes) and test.

Usually it's injectors, DPF or ecu map bug.
 
Back
Top