Gerrycan

Our older slightly less powerful 103kw but manual version of the 1.4tsi managed a driving holiday to from Adelaide to Tasmania with 4 adults and two had full international travelling luggage that really challenged the legendary luggage capacity of the wagon (at last I can say wagon here instead of estate ). Every stop at many wineries increased the load further for some reason and each day's repacking was like a harder game of Tetris. Tassie is very hilly in parts and sure you noticed the load, but I was really impressed at how well the vehicle coped with the load and gradients because the full torque is available at such low revs. While the engine is very smooth and happy to rev out you really do not have to and to be honest with just 103kw power (in our case) that is not where it does its best work. Our friends were so impressed with the performance of the car they went home to Scotland and sold their Porsche 911.....and bought a Golf R 😄. I don't think you will go far wrong with either car but if you can afford the initial purchase price and the higher fuel costs then go the RS route. It will be the better driving car for sure. With that much occasional load are you sure you would not be better off with a Superb? One other thing to be aware of is ground clearance on the RS is about 129mm and 1.4tsi about 147mm, not a lot but would be noticeable on our driveway out to the road and on some of the Aussie dirt roads we occasionally travel on.

I agree that is pretty reasonable for a vRS but when you look at the average speed (39 mph) then I start to ask if a vRS the best car if you are looking for reasonable consumption? Without knowing the route in detail, my guess is that lesser engined versions (1.0tsi, 1.5tsi, 1.4tsi) would achieve far better than 50mpg with a similar driving profile and a lot less 'effort'. Would be interesting, if you had the opportunity, to compare results for the same journey same style with the car in 'Normal ' mode rather than 'Eco'. Not everyone has found 'eco' to actually be more economical for them. I think the rationale is that not everyone uses coasting to best effect compared to being better practiced at utilising engine braking.

Hi @Redmanc99, I must have responded to your post on my phone (based on my stilted grammar), but I missed the very important letters 'vrs'......doh! My response was based on my own lower spec, less sporty 1.4tsi Octavia. However, after a bit of a google search, it appears that both the vRS in mk2 and mk3 are around 129mm, although there was a reference suggesting that the 245bhp version may be 99mm. You would have been better posting in the more frequented Octavia mk3 section of the forum where my mistake would have been picked up by others. Did you buy one?

Possibly the most 'Pythonesque' sounding creature since the 'Norwegian Blue Parrot' but today I came across a feature on the Tasmanian Mountain Shrimp! The name conjures up the weirdest imagery in my mind. The 'enigmatic' Tasmanian mountain shrimp allows researchers to look back 200 million years - ABC News

I have found the VW consumption information I referenced in an earlier post on a backup of my old computer. As I said it is for the old 90kw 1.4tsi manual in a Golf but the reference points upto 130kph are almost identical on my 103kw manual version so I would not expect too much difference with your 110kw output version. It confirms my theory that your original consumption displays at speed were quite unusually good.

Should be checked for sure but I would have thought the affects would be across the speed spectrum and his lower speed consumption is still pretty good. At 150kph sticking brakes would glow in the dark

@Balazs_HU, other than the expense there is obviously no harm in servicing earlier than required, may even be necessary if doing track work, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee greater reliability either. Changing the intake air filter as regularly as you do also seems a bit of an overkill but are you sure they are actually replacing it? The only other thing I can suggest checking is the accuracy of the displayed consumption. The only way really is to look at the 'since refuel' consumption display and compare it with the calculated consumption when you refuel the car. Try to use the same refuel procedure each time. When my car was brand new the displayed consumption was actually worse than I was really achieving by about 0.2L/100, then by about 40,000 km it changed to being absolutely accurate then by 80, 000 km the display had changed to being about 0.2L better than I was actually getting. Now it has swung back to being truer again. These are small variations for me but maybe yours are greater? Other things to look for that may affect high speed consumption are: Whether the undertray is still in place (significantly worse aerodynamics at speed), after all the thing would have been taken off a number of times with the number of services the vehicle has had, maybe it got damaged and not replaced by the mechanic? Whether the consumption change is related to a tyre size change (unlikely to affect it by that much though). I presume if you are travelling at those speeds they are at an appropriate pressure and checked regularly. I'm clearly running out of ideas now

The thing with the 1.4tsi is that the nominal peak 250Nm of torque comes in from just above 1500 rpm to nearly 4000 rpm and the mk4 weighs about 1400kg so acceleration to 100kph is a reasonable 8.5 seconds. No ball of fire but 250 Nm is enough for me to overtake safely even when the vehicle is loaded. Sure the RS would be much quicker (under 7 seconds) but it would be wasted on me because I don't drive the 1.4tsi anywhere near its potential on public roads anyway. Most (Australian) reviews rate the 8 speed torque converter as being a better drive in traffic than a dsg. @SouthernComfort is getting pretty good consumption in his mk4 especially on a run which is not surprising as his mk4 has better aero than my mk3 and probably longer gearing in his auto than my early model manual. I can guarantee you would not get that sort of consumption in an RS, maybe 6 to 6.5L/100 on a highway and around 8 to 8.5L/100 in urban areas, which is still not bad although there would be great temptations to use a bit more welly with possible speeding fines 😞. All you can do is drive both cars and work out whether the RS is worth the NZ$10+k price difference for you. I'm not sure what the NZ warranty period is, it is 7 years here in AUS so yours would be at least 5 years, you would think that would cover any problems with the dq381 during your ownership?

Sorry, I'll remember to undersimplify it next time @HenryNZ, what he said

The DSG boxes are really an automated manual with two clutches, so when accelerating the next gear is already selected and the change is almost instant. Also because the drive from engine to wheel is direct it is slightly more economical than a torque converter around town where there is more 'slurring' especially between gear changes. Modern multi-speed torque converters are far more efficient than the old 4 speed boxes though. The dq200 incorrectly specified oil issues some years back were a problem primarily in hot and humid countries but no longer relevant in a new car but it did their reputation a lot of harm at the time. The dq200 is used in the Fabia and Scala sold in Aus and NZ and is fine as long as the driver does not drive them like a torque converter and burn out the dry clutch packs by lightly pressing the brake and riding the clutch for long periods of time. The wet clutch packs in the dq381 are far more durable and can handle that sort of abuse. A point not mentioned so far is that the 1.4tsi has a simple torsion bar rear suspension while the RS has superior independent rear suspension. I think the cheaper rear system is pretty good for its type but that is not an opinion shared by all. The smaller engine will be noticeably more economical than the 2.0tsi Also variations in service requirements are not uncommon between countries.

It does look very good without rails imo.

@Balazs_HU, fuel consumption variations are generally difficult to account for. A minor point but I think you may have used the smaller USA gallons instead of the larger Imperial (British) gallon for your conversions so 5.5L/100 is 51 mpg, 6.2 - 6.4L/100 is 45 to 44 mpg and 8.0 - 8.5L/100 is 35 to 37 mpg. I have a 2014 1.4tsi combi that has only done 105,000 km and there is no doubt in my mind that the engine is a really good, economical unit....however like most petrol engines it drinks noticeably more if you use the performance or if there are adverse road or environmental factors. Based on some official VW issued consumption figures I have seen for early 1.4tsi engines and my own experience I find it hard to believe that your car would have consistently achieved your claimed displayed consumption of 6.2 to 6.4l/100 at real 140 to 150 kph speeds. A diesel could possibly do it or maybe even a mk4 1.5tsi with it's better aerodynamics and longer gearing but that is a moot point. Most British drivers on their roads would not have the freedom to travel at those speeds for any distance without incurring punitive fines and the same here in most of Australia where I live. Quite honestly travelling at a true 130kph in good conditions and I am really happy to get 7L/100, which corresponds with VW claims. Obviously consumption increases with speed. A headwind or stiff crosswind can adversely affect consumption by 1.0 to 1.5L/100 at 110kph in my experience. Equally a tailwind or travelling at speed in enforced reasonably close proximity to other traffic can benefit consumption by similar amounts. If your car has a real consumption problem that is only manifesting itself at higher speeds then it probably has to do with the higher airflows. As @Rooted says check your air-filter is clean as a first step but it gets more difficult from there. Other possibilities may be turbo related or maybe the variable valve timing is not performing as it should? I imagine the only way to disprove either is to put the car on a dynamometer and see if peak outputs are below par? Personally I think your current consumptions at both low and high speeds are quite realistic.

We have a had a few cheap bread makers over the years and they were not reliable and the results were largely disappointing. All changed when we bought a Panasonic, which has proven to be reliable and consistently produce excellent results. I also use it to make our pizza dough, and naan bread, but should experiment more than I do.

I gave an involuntary squirm when I read this bit

@Lady Elanore, the problem is that your comparisons to date are mainly of inert foodstuffs (I understand foodstuffs are one of your passions) but those proffered to date can offer some benefits on consumption whereas Trump has no such redeeming feature. A better comparison would be a 'rotten egg' but even that falls down when you realise it only does one foul smelling emission while Trump's foul emissions are constant and never-ending. From an Australian perspective I offer as a comparison, a member of the Bufonidae genus, the Rhinella marina or more commonly known as the Cane Toad. It is an introduced species that is extremely poisonous from spawn, through tadpole to adulthood. It is seemingly invulnerable to any counter measures to prevent its spread and has been held responsible for the actual and imminent extinction of many indigenous species. There is considerable resemblance , it is also useless at the job it was introduced here for, which was to eat the (also introduced) destructive sugar cane beetle. It is also an extreme pest in Florida, so the comparisons seem endless. A small hope: Members of the Australian ibis (Threskiornithidae) families (colloquially known as 'bin chickens') have been observed goading cane toads into exuding their poisons then washing them in the nearest water, killing them, putting the corpse on its back and eating from the more vulnerable underside. We can learn a lot from nature.