kalniel

Thanks, but actually that's a different subject

It's claimed to be only 100kg extra though isn't it? I quite often add 100kg extra load to my current car (one passenger+luggage for a trip away is about 100kg) and it doesn't make anything like 15% difference in fuel consumption, more like 1-2%.

Well the official test addresses all of those by using a standardised (if unrealistic) proceedure on a new car. I was just wondering if there was something in the way the test was done that highlighted a difference between 2WD and 4x4 models that was peculiar to the test.

Thanks for the link, it was confusing me for a while until I realised they were using US gallons for the main page! That's relatively promising then. I think I can take a mild hit to my current 55 avg. MPG (2.0tdi A3 sportback) for a lot more car.

I'm looking at Octavia estates, and see that there's a huge penalty in *official* fuel consumption for the 4x4 version. For example: 2.0 TDI CR 150PS - 55.4/76.5/67.3 mpg (urban/extra urban/combined) 2.0 TDI CR 150PS 4x4 - 47.9/65.7/57.6 mpg So for the combined that's nearly 10mpg difference, or nearly a 15% reduction by going for the 4x4. This seems very large to me, for a system that is meant to be light-weight and operating in 2WD mode most of the time. I get that 100kg is not nothing, and there is still some axle and clutch rotation to present extra friction to the drivetrain. Also that the multi-link suspension might add a futher bit to the weight. Are there any other reasons for the drop in official figures? Ultimately, I'm only concerned with real use figures of course, but if I can figure out the reasons for the drop in the official tests I might be better able to judge what the real-world impact for me would be. Thanks in advance,

So.. hello. Not much to say about me - just a perpetual car window shopper very interested in a skoda for my next car.. which could be weeks, or months, or years away!