Technical guides Diesel & Petrol

[k.young]

Maybe it will be the Diesel in the Vrs that gets the multi link rear axle. Bad form on Skodas behalf,if this is true.

[dieselV6]

Yes, the poor suspension is a further nail in the coffin for diesel Mk3 Octavia. So much for "premium" specification, just the price will no doubt be premium. I just saw UK Rapid pricing, good luck trying to sell rebadged Fabia sedan at these prices even with VAT free offers, and Octy 3 will be even more expensive. The new offerings are simply no longer value for money anymore. And value for money is what had made Skoda a successful brand, even when they were selling £20k+ Mk1 Superbs in 2002-2008. It's turning into another Seat now.

Edited 12 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[dieselV6]

Anyone know what the width is including the mirrors? The technical data only has without mirrors.

Octy 2 was 2018mm with mirrors and 1769mm without, I guess Octy 3 is heading toward's Audis 2080mm "do not overtake lorries on German autobahn roadworks" size standard.

That's one reason I love my Mk1 Superb for, at 1910mm incl mirrors, overtaking on roadworks when travelling abroad is never a problem.

Edited 12 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Kiwibacon]

Lets see.

1. Actual real life fuel economy is not known yet.

2. Euro 2 has to be a typo. Euro 2 engines were surpassed back in the early 90's.

3. Torsion beam axles are common on all fwd mid range cars. Expect the VRS to have an independent rear end for tuning purposes, the 4x4's also require independent.

4. The rapid isn't a fabia with a boot, except in India where it's a completely different car.

5. Dash mpg readouts aren't that accurate. Especially at idle with 1 decimal place. Idle l/100km are by definition, infinite.

6. Car dealers cannot set or inflate mileage figures.

7. Yes people who drive "out of town" get better fuel economy.

[k.young]

I think the surprise with the torsion beam rear axle is that during all the blurb leading up to the launch, it was only the lower powered versions that where getting it(>140bhp)

So we where fully expecting the 2.0 diesels to have the multi link set up.

Tapatalk'd from my HTC SXE Beats

[dieselV6]

Yes, I also agree the tech data vs the press lauch clearly show the Skoda PR have been economical with the truth. They'll mostly be making (below) average cars with a couple flagship models that will get better suspension (vRS, 4x4). All with too short range (small fuel tank) and likely insufficient equipment (no full size spare) to do any serious driving, and almost guaranteed to be overpriced unless they are sold cheaper than the ©rapid.

4. The rapid isn't a fabia with a boot, except in India where it's a completely different car.

Putting the detailed technical platform names and differences in shapes of molded plastic components aside (dashboard of similar quality as Fabia, but with Octavia layout), and focusing on customer experience, The Rapid is indeed for all practical intents and purposes an overpriced, extended Fabia with a boot, or should I say a Roomster in a normal shape. Front is mostly Fabia/Roomster like, wheels are Fabia/Roomster rather than Octavia sized (tyre diameter 600mm not 630mm), the wheelbase is exactly that of a Roomster (which as you know has almost pure Fabia front), and the rear, though shaped much more pleasantly that the Roomster, also strongly reminds of Mk1 Octavia, just look into that boot.

Perhaps your perception of difference stems from the fact that over the years a lot of Mk1 Octavia / Octavia Tour components found their way into Fabia and Roomster. Eg. The front suspension on Roomie is almost exactly Octavia Mk1 "Sport" suspension, control arms, shock absorbers and high anti roll bar included. Even though it is "Fabia 2" part of the Roomster design. Took me a while to figure out why the van-like Roomster drives better than the Mk1 Octavia it replaced (Octy had non-sport suspension).

But bottom line, the Rapid is not different enough from Fabia and Roomster to seriously compete on interior quality (and at much higher price), and together with lack of more powerful engines (105bhp 1.6CR TDI is the most powerful diesel) it is way overpriced. If anything, its pricing should be in line with the Roomster, giving customers an option to choose a more conventional shape of the car.

Incidentally, the Rapid is also still equipped with Mk1/2 style 55l fuel tank (nothing wrong with that), so we are about to witness a higher class car (Octavia 3) having lower range than a lower class car (Rapid) and the lower class car also having a full sized spare wheel, while the Octavia 3 may not have one anymore.

Though if they ever put a 2.0TDI engine with manual gearbox in the Rapid, allow 205/55/R16 wheels/tyres (by far the most popular and lowest price size) and lower the prices across the range, I predict that myself and a lot of other people driving significant mileages will rather cramm into a less spacious, but more robust, lower running cost and longer range Rapid, than shell out on a "take me to the nearest petrol station now" Octavia.

That's my take on it, feel free to have a different opinion.

Edited 14 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Kiwibacon]

Put it that way, the octavia is the same as a focus. Probably a mini too.

Yawn.

[dieselV6]

Open ETKA, compare suspension, engine, airco, noise insulation pictures of Fabia 2, Roomster and the Rapid while reading my earlier post.

Yawn back at you.

Edited 15 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Kiwibacon]

Suspension? Mac struts and torsion beams are Mac struts and torsion beams.

Engines. They use the same small petrols and diesels.

Air-con. They use the same component suppliers, I'd expect several components to be identical.

Noise insultion. Wow, a blanket that looks the same?

Honestly, they all sound pretty tenuous links to me. Are the firewall stampings the same? Are the floor-pan pressings the same? Can you strip the interior out of one and clip it straight into another?

Regarding range. How far can you get from a fuel station in Europe? Here I have drives of just under 600km which I have often done when all stations en-route (four of them) are shut. The car I have with the 40 litre tank does that trip fine. The 4wd I have with the 80 litre tank also does it fine, but both get filled up at the start and other end regardless.

[dieselV6]

Rear floorpan, fuel tank, exact shape of front control arms, shock absorbers and anti roll bar, exact tyre circumference size, wheel well liners, all point to Rapid being a Roomster albeit in a different outer shape and yes, many part numbers are the same. The main departure are outer body panels and the dashboard, dashboard is Octavia-like to fool people they are getting true Mk1 Octavia successor.

Noise insulation on a Roomster is a bit different hence easy to catch out compared to Octavia, It relies on sound blocking, ie there's plastic covering under the body that stops the sound from entering the car. Of course, plenty of blankets/carpets in the cabin, too.

If they made Octavia Mk1 with Rapid's wheelbase, it would have been an immediate success. Instead, it's a far less exciting car for far higher price.

Coming back to Octavia Mk3 and its tiny fuel tank, range wise, for any trip across Germany at night (most trips to Southern, Northern and Central/Eastern Europe), fuel consumption at ~130mph speeds is quite high, ca 22l - 24l per hour. so 50l tank is not enough for 2h cruise at speed with decent 8l reserve left.

8l reserve makes sense especially in border regions of Germany, as some of them have a petrol station 61 miles apart, and at least on 2 occassions the "next" station was closed. Longest distance between stations I had to travel across Germany was about 82 miles, stations were "only" 34 and 48 miles apart, but the middle one was closed.

With the old 1.9TDI, 55l vented tank (so 64l actual), the range was perfect, The 1.6CR is more thirsty but won't go as fast, about 120mph, but 64l (55l vented) Roomster's fuel tank is just about adequate, 2.0CR and a more aerodynamic shape (Octy 2, Superb) is probably similar at these speeds (and lets you go a bit faster at ~130mph).

50l tank means at most 56l - 57l vented. Considering I currently cruise at even higher speeds in the V6 TDI Superb (69l vented fuel tank) in excess of 3 hours at a time comfortably till reserve lights up, I'd say the 50l is way too small

Slowing down means longer trip time, I regularly do in excess of 1000 miles overnight if half of the trip involves autobahn.

Plus in more "regular" use, 50l-8l reserve is enough for about 400 miles, that's 80 miles a day and no fuel left for the weekend. For a town car 50l is more than enough, for country/distance commuting it is not. Not to mention that in quieter periods it is nice not to have to refill the car weekly.

Bottom line, fuel tanks get downsized and spare wheels are removed not because there is a genuine need for it (packaging etc) but to satisfy unrealistic emission tests (cheapest way to reduce weight), increase profits (spare costs money), and hoodwink customers the boot is bigger than it actually is (e.g. look at VW Phaeton brochure, it quotes 500l boot then adds in small print "including spare wheel well", so 430l actual).

Edited 15 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[k.young]

I sometimes have to fill my tank from one day to the next anyway so a "possible" 50mile lower range is not going to bother me. I also think for transcontinental driving, a 1.6 diesel engined car is not a great choice in the first place (personal opinion)

As I have said before, with the 2.0 diesel, I think the more efficient engine will negate the smaller tank. Family cars the like of which we are discussing where not designed to be doing 130mph flat out for 2 hour in the first place.

For the driving that you do I think I would try and get myself into a 1 or 2 year old V6 diesel (or straight six).

[dieselV6]

I sometimes have to fill my tank from one day to the next anyway so a "possible" 50mile lower range is not going to bother me. I also think for transcontinental driving, a 1.6 diesel engined car is not a great choice in the first place (personal opinion)

As I have said before, with the 2.0 diesel, I think the more efficient engine will negate the smaller tank. Family cars the like of which we are discussing where not designed to be doing 130mph flat out for 2 hour in the first place.

For the driving that you do I think I would try and get myself into a 1 or 2 year old V6 diesel (or straight six).

You will notice from my signature that at present, I have a 2.5V6 TDI Superb 6-spd manual (with underbody protection and 20mm lowered front) for long trips. This car will be very hard to replace, at least for anything equally durable, comfortable and similar range, and under £50k. Skoda makes them no more, and Audi pricing and durability leaves a lot to be desired (no offroad package suspension at Audi, and not all roads in Europe are good). All VW/Audi Alltrack/Allroad versions are stuffed with shortened gearboxes that are not really good for motorway, plus there's the air suspension and auto boxes durability to think about in overpriced Audis. Plus nothing within A5-A7 range has a full sized spare, A3/A4 are too small and A7/A8 too expensive to run and not durable enough.

People use cars for various purposes, and that was the strong point of Octavia - it was very versatile in Mk1 and Mk2, you could use it for anything.

Plus family cars are frequently driven by the Mrs who does not want to fuel the car herself, and 50l tank vs old 55l means more hassle for me to go and refuel more often even at times when the car is used as a shopping trolley.

1.6CR is indeed too small engine for high speed driving, barely adequate in a backup car. The trouble is Skoda does not sell Roomsters (nor Rapids now) with anything bigger, in their minds to protect Octy/Superb sales. I'd paid £2k extra for a 2.0CR 140bhp Roomster but it simply does not exist (there used to be a 1.9 but got replaced with 1.6CR). I am not really interested in getting Superb Mk2 precisely because it is even heavier + larger drag and thus underpowered. The flagship V6 petrol Mk2 Superb had enough power but 60l tank really is not enough for a 3.6V6 hog, plus autobox there again. If VW/Skoda finally delivered a 5-cyl TDI engine (unlikely, but was on the map 5 years ago), I would get a Superb.

The point is that Mk3 Octavia 2.0CR would have been an adequate Superb Mk1 backup or even replacement and less expensive to run, had they kept the fuel tank unchanged and the full size spare wheel well in the boot. It is the same mistake Audi made with the new A6. As it stands, Mk3 Octy looks set to become an average car for an average driver at above average price, and may follow Rapid with the same "sales success" (read failure).

And if Audi A6 sales policies are anything to go by, Skoda will eventually backtrack on the "weight reduction" when it costs them sales. When current A6 launched, there were no manual gearboxes on quattro versions, fuel tank had only 65l (outgoing had 80l on quattro versions), and there was no spare at all. Within 3 months a 75l fuel tank option appeared (was planned originally only for the cars with parking heater ), and a space saver spare went in too. Within a year, manual quattro versions reappeared, though only for the 2.0TDI 4-cyl engines. I am waiting now for backtrack on V6 diesel quattro auto-box-only policy and the raised floor for full sized spare wheel, and then I may think again about the A6, but no sooner.

I am done buying used cars, there is always a good (hidden) reason someone wants to get rid of the car, and during a recession it hardly ever is "because I got bored with it". I'd rather overpay a new car, get all options I need, maintain it myself, know/fix all its problems and keep it till it dies. I just looked up Mk1 Superb's mileage list on Briskoda, mine should be there too at 110k+, and I am quietly hoping to go closer to the top at 200k-250k miles and wait out during this eco-B$ theft of spare wheels and fuel tank capacity from all new cars across VW Group range.

Edited 15 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[k.young]

Would a Superb 170CR manual not do for you ?? You could even have that with 4 wheel drive. Is an Audi A4 smaller than an Octavia ? An A4 Avant V6 diesel with a couple of years under its belt (or less from a lease company) would be a great bus for burning up the Autobahns, I would assume.

All new cars become second hand as soon as they are registered, we can't assume they are all dodgy, a lot of the type of cars we are discussing will be ex-lease/rental and are back on the market because they have reached a predetermined age,sometimes as low as 6 months.

[dieselV6]

A4 is too small, longitudinal engined cars (A4-A8, Mk1 Superb) need 15cm+ extra wheelbase (and newer Audis 20cm+ on account of change in clutch/final drive layout) to have same legroom as transverse engined cars (Mk2 Superb). I'm 6ft5in tall, and really A6 is the first car in Audi range that leaves sufficient legroom for passenger behind me. Or Superb Mk2. Tested in an Audi showroom.

Mk2 Superb 4x4 2.0CR TDI 170bhp 6-spd manual with rough road package (and Bilstein B6 Sport shocks plus a couple of front sport springs from the V6 petrol:) ) is currently my last resort option indeed (if Mk1 Superb dies prematurely). But I'd have to import it from Ireland (again, as my Mk1 Octy/Superb). Fully specced, it works out 15% less expensive to import from Ireland than to buy in the UK, and more importantly, it comes with choice of winter options denied to UK sourced cars (a choice of parking heater and electric aux air heater rather than the too delicate and prone to damage heated windscreen that I currently have in the Mk 1 ).

But fully specced up Mk2 Superb is still a tad pricey car at £25k imported / 28k+ UK, given that the top speed is still a good 15mph less than I'd like it to be for autobahn, and that the 4-cyl engines simply cannot compete on comfort with V6 or even I5 offerings. I would rather buy lower priced Octavia or even Rapid with the same engine and a sensible fuel tank and a full sized spare. Mk2 Superb's lack of serious diesel offering is deliberate, to prevent stealing sales from Audi like Mk1 Superb did. Too bad Audi's current auto-sofas on wheels are unsuitable for long distance travel at present.

The other point, pre-reg cars may be well priced, but at this point the only options you can put on car are mostly cosmetic. UK sourced cars have insufficient standard winter equipment, even for UK winter. Aux air heater is not even offered in UK Skoda range, heated seats are not that common. I have yet to see a pre-reg car that has all winter options available in the UK..

Ex-rental cars, well, I would not buy one, you know the saying "drive it like it's a rental" ...

Edited 15 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[k.young]

I agree about the rental but the car I drive now was leased by my firm and then purchased at the end of its lease term. I have had it from new and have always treated it like it was my own. I am sure a lot of the ex lease rep machines have been meticulously looked after.

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not a car salesman in the UK!!

Tapatalk'd from my HTC SXE Beats

[k.young]

Is it not possible to buy your car new from a northern or eastern European region and try and spec it RHD??

Tapatalk'd from my HTC SXE Beats

[dieselV6]

Private import from Ireland to the UK is simpler, only speedo needs be specced in miles. Did it twice so far. Keep in mind for import the Irish car tax need not be paid.

Though it would be nice if SUK finally started selling Skodas like rest of Europe does, with fully customisable options list. SUK is limiting choice severly compared to every other country in Europe. That's actually worse than overinflated pricing.

[k.young]

I can guarantee that our Elegance spec when it hits the showrooms will be lower than the UK model, but as you say, we have access to the full options list.

Tapatalk'd from my HTC SXE Beats

[Kiwibacon]

The old v6 tdi's aren't that efficient. A 4 cyl 170hp tdi will use many litres less per 100km at full load. Which part of the performance curve are you most worried about?

I also bemoan the lack of winter options, but here it's because we piggy back of Australia for car spec.

[dieselV6]

V6 TDI is quite efficient at high speeds, I am quite pleased with it on motorway, also in the UK. 170CR would be more efficient at low to mid-range, but at the top of the range efficiency drops again, something to do with turbocharger and exhaust sizing, pumping loss is ridiculous. 2.5TDI is relatively unstressed pumping out 190bhp+ (I wonder how that's happened ).

Ideally, I need a car that's still efficient around max power point (and max power being 200bhp+), and efficient enough in town. 2,5TDI's reputation for inefficiency around town is a bit undeserved in manual gearbox guise, since you can waft along at 900rpm - 1300rpm with smooth running engine (V6's main advantage, 1.9/2.0 cannot do it really due to vibration) and then it is surprisingly thrifty. Of course at idle it is about 50% more fuel thirsty than old 1.9, no miracles there. As I stated earlier, in similar driving my wife's Roomster 1.6CR does 6.8l/100km, while Superb 2.5TDI does 7.5l-7.8l/100km. That's with me as a driver in either car. Autobox V6 TDi is another story, burns far more fuel.

I really would prefer to stay with 5+ cylinder diesel and the Skoda way of doing cars (excellent manual gearbox road car with an option of a rugged suspension rather then short auto gearbox Allroad/Alltrack). Hopefully, as people retire V6s of the past 10 years, VAG will see more demand below Audi class of cars.

I do have a budget even for a large Audi, what puts me off are unreliability (no underbody protection unless with air suspension, no spare), short life (auto boxes only in quattro/V6) and overstated image (not a good car to visit some parts of Europe, I prefer understated Skoda).

Downsizing to Octavia/Rapid size and 170bhp+ 4 cyl diesel would be the sensible option, unless they issue Superb Mk2 with a more powerful diesel unit, at least 184bhp as is going into the Mk3 Octavia vRS. But Mk3 Octavia looks set to take itself out of my preference list due to small fuel tank, while the Rapid for now lacks 2.0CR engines altogether. So Mk2 Superb remains as failback option, but it is a forced choice.

Edited 16 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Herschel]

Though it would be nice if SUK finally started selling Skodas like rest of Europe does, with fully customisable options list. SUK is limiting choice severly compared to every other country in Europe. That's actually worse than overinflated pricing.

Now this I do agree with, diesel.

I do have a budget even for a large Audi, what puts me off are unreliability (no underbody protection unless with air suspension, no spare), short life (auto boxes only in quattro/V6) and overstated image (not a good car to visit some parts of Europe, I prefer understated Skoda).

I don't understand the reference to the short life with auto boxes?

As long as the oil and filter is changed regularly, they can last a lifetime.

Also, isn't the tiptronic gearbox on Audi's supposed to be extremely reliable? It's only the multitronic boxes that are rubbish AIUI.

[dieselV6]

Tiptronic is indeed much more reliable, Audi ones are some of the best, and makes a lot more sense because of penalty-free crawl mode in traffic. When I am too old to drive manual box I'll buy it. But even tiptronic still has significantly more limited life than the manual box, plus more scope for old age problems as gearbox operation is always depended on torque sensing of the engine. I prefer to be my own torque sensor, if I break down I won't have a need for the car anyway, plus I adapt to any ageing/problematic engine much better than any auto box software. (early kickdown is a common old age problem, frequently only cured with chipping the engine).

Also, have you tried changing oil and filter on latest Audi tiptronic boxes? Good luck, they're almost made unfillable. It is not a setup you would want to maintain yourself. Manual gearbox oil change is much simpler, I do it everyt 75k miles on my cars and inevitably every time I look at the old discolored and cloudy fluid and think: what a joke the VAG "sealed for life" statement is.

[Herschel]

Also, have you tried changing oil and filter on latest Audi tiptronic boxes? Good luck, they're almost made unfillable. It is not a setup you would want to maintain yourself. Manual gearbox oil change is much simpler, I do it everyt 75k miles on my cars and inevitably every time I look at the old discolored and cloudy fluid and think: what a joke the VAG "sealed for life" statement is.

No I haven't.

But I would get it changed at a quality gearbox service garage.

I used one for my previous BMW 330d, having the fluid changed at 50k miles; they were brilliant and it cost £130.

Every 50k miles, I consider that a bargain.

[dieselV6]

Luckily you have access to a garage that works. My experience with both dealerships and independent garages in my area has been nothing but terrible, I posted several times on briskoda on this, but think blown head gaskets and almost engine fires (no fire only because it was a diesel, fuel squirting on exhaust and all over engine).

That's why I have been maintaining my cars myself. Plus I like it and it saves significant money.

Edited 16 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Kiwibacon]

At 4000rpm and full load my 140tdi pd is using around 17 litres/100km. I have a CR BSFC map here which shows it still does 220g/kwh at max power. From that I would expect A 170hp at max power to use 32.4 litres/hour. If it was only doing 147km/h then that'll match your 2.5tdi for fuel economy.

But it'll be doing closer to 200km/h which is about 16 litres/100km steady state.

With a bit of accelerateion etc thrown in, I'd expect about 18-19 litres/100km.

It's no problem to map a 170tdi to 200hp or so.

Find someone running a 170hp Superb or Passat on the Autobahns and find out how these numbers compare. I can't see any situation where your 2.5tdi will use less fuel than a 4 cyl 2.0tdi. The 2.5tdi is not a very efficient engine at any point in it's operating range.