Gerrycan

5.6L/100 is 50mpg (Imperial British measurement) so 5.8L/100 is nearly 49mpg.

Experience tells me that plugs are perfectly safe at UK/Aus speed limits although I'd balk at continental speeds. Their main issue is that they can make their presence felt over time with different wear rates. We visited the UK last September and noted all the new housing developments and their characteristics.

That two week break soon passed and I returned to a heavy work schedule so back to averaging running only every five days or so. It is better than nothing, but I am hoping that some negotiated reduction of working days may allow more regular exercise in future. I eventually accessed my recent medical check-up and blood test results on-line and with figures in the expected ranges I assume that, since I had no follow up request from my GP, there was nothing to discuss. Good news and a tick for the benefits of sensible exercise and diet although I have always regarded it as 'significantly improving the odds' rather than any sort of guarantee of health or longevity.

There is a lot of urban renewal in Australia as many post-war bungalows, built on the "Aussie dream" larger block, are demolished and replaced with 2 or more, multi-story newbuilds. Consequently over the years I've had more than my share of being 'screwed' with relatively new tyres. I think the deeper tread makes them more susceptible to picking up screws casually scattered by the tradies. Cannot remember it happening at all in my 13 driving years in the UK. It is the reason I'd never buy a car without a some sort of spare as I have had to fit them so many times although only once in a very remote place, late at night, on a long weekend. The screw is well away from the sidewall so it will be plugged, otherwise yes it would have been a significantly more expensive new tyre.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo........!!!!!!

Earlier Octavia manual models had a process to reset the gear selection mechanism. Borrowed this video from the Skoda Octavia Guides

I'm sure you are right. The amount of tyre abuse and neglect I see on other cars with under inflated tyres or dangerously poor and uneven tread wear is frightening. I recognise that I am very 'careful' (miserly/mean) with money and it was my decision to run the tyres down to about 2.5mm tread. Wear was even across the old tyres and the wheel alignment showed little change from the last one 5 years before. I suspect the mild saw toothing had been created by wear in the unadjustable rear suspension. Regular tyre rotation, diagonal front to rear, compensated for the total wear but only restricted the saw-toothing and noise and did not remove it. The reason for my post was I had never experienced such a dramatic change in the overall 'feel' of a car by changing from worn but otherwise roadworthy tyres especially considering Michelin's exalted reputation. Of course tyre reviews are of brand new tyres and not when they are near end of life. I know this is totally subjective but I am very happy with the Continentals so far and it will be interesting to see how they play out over their life. Bear in mind that I can run a summer tyre all year here and so my comments on the tyres probably have little relevance to UK or European conditions.

Some background: Australian market so some variation as to what is available The only time I would put any demands on a tyre would be when I, or someone else, has made a mistake, so this is never going to be assessment of the sporting characteristics of a tyre. The car is was bought in 2014 and came fitted with Dunlop Sportsmaxx that lasted for 42,000 km and while I know they are not well regarded in the Forum, they provided us with a good ride, low noise and pretty reasonable handling characteristics until replacement. I did consider replacing with the same tyres but they were unusually expensive here and some Michelin Primacy were then competitively priced but for the first 100km I thought I had made a mistake as the steering felt peculiarly light and vague until the tyre newness wore off. I was reasonably happy but I was never really wowed as much as I thought I would be by their reputation from independent tests. The Michelins wore down to the bars after 48,000 km (90k km total) and needed replacing but the last 12k km or so they had developed a bit of saw toothing and were relatively noisy and the ride had deteriorated to the point I was wondering whether there were also suspension issues. The tyres were also showing a signs of minor cracking in the grooves so it was time for some more internet research for replacements. This time the only good deals I could find for tyres with good reviews were for Continental MaxContact MC6 (Thailand made), which is a brand I not considered before as they generally did not receive good comments on Briskoda. They were rated a close second to Michelin Primacy in independent tests but at an irresistibly low price so the online purchase was made. We have done a couple of thousand km with these tyres now and the ride, handling and road noise levels now seem as good as when the car was new and without the initial issues I had with the Primacy tyres. They also seem to be exhibiting similar low rolling resistance to the two previously fitted tyres so petrol consumption is still good. Being a 17 inch tyre they will obviously make a fair contribution to the suspension but I am very surprised at the noticeable difference between the worn tyres and replacements beyond just the noise. This is subjective I know but so far I am a very happy camper. I run at 37 psi pressures all round, which is a bit over the manufacturers recommendations but I have always done this. I cannot comment on wet weather handling for any tyre as a) we get relatively little rain in my part of Australia and b) when we do get a drizzle I tend to drive cautiously as the road surface is then very treacherous, even worse on a bicycle.

I'm always sympathetic with anyone experiencing worsening fuel consumption but I do wish more information was presented for those assisting. 'Almost overnight' but how long ago and for how many refills has the increased consumption been noted? Was it coincident with any event; servicing, new tyres, drop in temperature etc? How many km has the car done? What is the driving profile like? How many km each week? Typical journey length? Does the car get a reasonably frequent long journey for a diesel particulate filter to regenerate? Have you noted any indication that an attempted dpf regen has failed to complete? High revs/fan running/burning smell? What does 70km less distance covered represent in percentage terms. Do you note the 'since refuel' consumption when you refuel and is the worse consumption similar in percentage terms to the reduced distance covered? There will be other questions but these will provide some background.

A quick look on Motormouth suggests that 98 RON is available in a few roadhouses but my main concern would be the quality as you would have to consider that there would not be many high spec Euro cars doing that sort of journey so the fuel turnover would presumably be quite low and fuel does go 'off' over time. 95 RON would have similar lower sulphur content to 98 RON but is likely to have a bigger turnover so 95 RON with a bit of octane booster might be a better option? My 1.4tsi is less demanding than yours and happily runs on any brand of 95 RON, I have really not noticed any difference in performance or consumption and tend to buy whatever is cheapest when driving by a station. Yes my mk3 speedo is about 6% optimistic, my previous mk2 diesel was similar and an even earlier mk1 Santa Fe was as close to 10% optimistic without being actually illegal as it could be. All were bought as brand new cars. Since I did not have a gps with the Santa Fe it took me a while to figure out why I was always doing the last 50km on a long leg in the dark, during drought times and the roadsides infested with 'roos it was b****y dangerous! Funnily enough my 20 yo Echo town hack is the 'fastest' car I have owned since its speedo is only 2% optimistic . Really great that yours is so accurate. I guessing you should get 6.5l/100 on the 110kph sections so should allow a safe 700km between fills, but be warned, the first half of the tank is always 'bigger' than the second half if you go by the fuel level gauge. At half full mark I should only get 25 litres in the 50 litre tank but yup it takes 30 litres. I'd be useless in currently available EV out there, I would suffer so much from range anxiety. Must admit this thread is giving me a hankering to go touring...

@kreeker, with regard to your trip: You may be the odd one out driving a 'sports' biased car into that environment, most of the other vehicles there will be awd utes, full off-roaders or 'soft' SUV. The RS estate should be brilliant for the tarmac portion but the lack of ground clearance and the RS big wheels (19 inch?) won't be so great on corrugated dirt roads. I've got 17 inch on my 1.4tsi and they are just ok, so choose your dirt roads carefully. If the dirt roads are dry and have just been graded the only problem is dust. Make sure you check the accuracy of speedometer with a GPS or appropriate app on your phone, as speedometers tend to be a bit optimistic and you want to be travelling at the speed limit to maximise the distance you have to cover. I've always come across at least one speed camera in places you will least expect them on my longer journeys. Be very careful around dawn and dusk for more strays, usually kangaroos, emus, wombats (solid little creatures and capable of a surprising turn of speed if they dash out and a lot of car damage) and there are the feral donkeys and even camels. I have seen lots of goats on some trips but strangely never as roadkill. You can get usually get 95 octane (not cheap) at the roadhouses but cannot remember if 98 octane is sold so it might be a good idea to take a bottle of octane enhancer with you if that is your usual preference. Check tyre pressures and have good time. If you get the time I'd be interested to read how your trip went.

I've never quite understood the concern for 'glazing' by maintaining a constant speed for a long time in a petrol engine especially in your case where it is going to be under a certain amount of load at 110 kph. The condition is much more commonly applied to diesel engines subject to very light loads or idling such as can occur for an over-specified diesel generator. I would have thought at 5k km your modern engine was quite well run in, even the manual recommendations for the initial running-in only apply for the first 1k km or so. However if you are still worried then you don't even have to change speed, just occasionally manually change gear. 50 years ago cars required several thousand km running-in period, you even put a sticker on the back warning the driver behind why you were driving so slowly and carefully. Thank goodness those days are over. Anyway enjoy your trip, it is a pretty impressive place to tour and I think you will be surprised how often you be required to change speeds to overtake the many caravans and 100kph restricted trucks, or stopping to let the dogs (and occupants) stretch their legs/drink /pee/poo.

I had a 1.9pd mk2 manual wagon for 7 years and it restored my love of driving after a few pragmatic family based Korean SUVs and a people mover. I often wondered why I got rid of it when I did as it was driving faultlessly and did not even have a DPF fitted to go wrong (Australian emission rules lag Europe by many years). Anyway in 2014 we bought a brand new 1.4tsi manual mk3 which has turned out to be equally enjoyable and almost as frugal (perhaps more so with current diesel prices). Personally I think you should consider including the 1.4tsi on your list. Pulls almost as hard at low revs and has a far bigger usable rev range than the 1.9pd, a lot smoother and about 4 seconds faster to 60mph, but can be surprisingly economical if driven sensibly. The 1.2tsi and later 1.0tsi engines are also surprisingly nimble and worth consideration. I don't know the UK market well enough to comment on availability of some models but I am not sure what your chances are of getting a good low mileage mk2 are. If the vehicle has to have DSG there are a couple of considerations regarding mk3 options There are two types of DSG transmission: The 7 speed 'dry' clutch DSG is generally fitted to vehicles with torque of 250Nm or less so in the mk3 the 1.0tsi, 1.2tsi, 1.4tsi and the 1.6tdi engines. The 6 speed (and later 7 speed) 'wet' clutch DSG were fitted to more powerful 2.0tsi and 2.0tdi engines and also some awd versions of the smaller engines. The dry clutch is a good unit but like a manual clutch it is capable of being abused and damaged if driven incorrectly and the cost of replacing burnt out dual clutch packs is eye-wateringly expensive. Driven as the automated manual it is then it is now quite reliable. Interestingly dry dsg's also have a patchy reliability history with other manufacturers including Ford and Hyundai. The wet clutch is far more durable and can withstand a lot more abuse since the clutches are in an oil bath. The caveat for this is that the wet clutch vehicle must have a good service history and the transmission oils changed regularly as recommended (about every 40k I think, but I have not owned one). A relatively expensive oil change but not in the grand scheme of things. The mk2 had irs suspension but in mk3 you have to go up to VRS or awd versions to get irs. Personally I'm quite happy with the torsion beam rear suspension on mine but I am far from being an aggressive driver. If it has to be a diesel and you could find a low mileage mk2 1.9pd or 2.0tdi DSG (both with wet clutch) and good service history then that would be the ideal but I am sure it would have unicorn status so personally I'd be looking for a mk3 2.0tdi as there should be a few more of those around. Unfortunately I have not followed the mk2 2.0tdi sections in Briskoda so I cannot comment on its reliability record.

The tank is unlikely to be a different size but the difference is more likely due to your fuel level sensor being much more conservatively set and indicating zero miles with more fuel remaining in your tank than his. There were a number of complaints in the Octavia mk3 section a few years back where diesel drivers were refilling at low mileage indicators and only being able to get 40 or so litres into their 50 litre tanks. Obviously their tanks would have been the same size but a batch must have been produced with the fuel level incorrectly set. The fuel tanks ARE officially five litres larger on the 4wd versions than 2wd versions on both diesel and petrol models of Octavia and Superb, probably to compensate for the extra weight and friction from the 4wd drivetrain.

By my calculations for distance and refuel quantity you actually got 64.49 mpg, which means your display is pretty accurate, possibly pessimistic, even after allowing for minor differences refuel 'click' point, and of course accuracy of the refueling point pump. Really good driving discipline over that sort of distance.

Hi @aliveandflipping89, no you are not being paranoid, 40mpg around town (as Toot confirms) is ok, but 45mpg on a motorway is way short of expectations, even in winter. I had a similar consumption experience on a UK visit about eight years back in a manual 1.0tsi Focus loaned to me by a relative. Relatively new car, low mileage, great drive and performance was fine, it averaged 40mpg but for some reason it seemed impossible to improve consumption over 45mpg no matter the conditions (hot summer). At the time extensive roadworks on the local A12 dual carriageways meant long 50mph restricted zones which in off-peak periods should have displayed figures (based on my 1.4tsi Octavia in Australia) closer to 70mpg than 40mpg . It was a major disappointment as the engine had won a couple of concurrent international 'engine of the year' awards but I had no basis for comparison to know if it was (a)typical of the breed or not. As @toot suggested some more information about the car, its maintenance and driving history is useful for others to assist you. Record a couple of refuel quantities to see how it compares to 'Since refuel' average consumption to get a feel for display accuracy. Is it a manual or dsg automatic? Should not make much difference to consumption assuming an automatic is behaving correctly. What 'mode' (Sport, Normal, Eco) do you normally drive in? Again not a big consumption factor but each mode has its own characteristics. Tyre pressures? I use about 38psi all round on 17 inch tyres, which for me (may not be for everyone though) is optimal for consumption, ride, and tyre wear Is servicing annual or on a 'needs' basis and when was it last serviced? Have you raised the consumption issue with the dealers while under warranty and have they scanned for possible sensor or other relevant faults? Dealers tend to be dismissive of consumption complaints, usually blaming the owner, but as you were getting really good consumption in your previous diesel Megane that, for me, is obviously not the case. Modern small petrol engines can be incredibly efficient but far more complex and less tolerant of any problems. The cheap and easy things are air filters and tyre pressures, I'd add spark plugs to the list but even these have to be installed to ensure a correct orientation relative to the injectors, this came from an informative Skoda Master Tech who used to frequent the Forum . Last question and a bit personal, but are you really 89? If so then , it is really quite inspirational!

Cars systems calculate consumption from distance travelled and volume of fuel fed to the engine. There are many threads remarking, or complaining, about how optimistic their particular speedometer can be. Mine is about 6% optimistic but I have owned one car that was at the maximum legal of 10% optimistic so speedos are a particular inaccurate data source. My 20 yo Toyota Echo speedo is only 2% optimistic Odometers are usually more accurate, usually between 1% and 3% variance in my experience with the worst being 6% (yeh, same car as the speedo). Of course this raises interesting questions about odometer accuracy in relation to tyre wear or fitting different wheel/tyre sizes and profiles. A simple test to see what the variance between speedo and odometer accuracy is to set cruise control to a set speed on a clear and straight road and then reset the 'current trip' on average speed display and see what it displays after a few hundred metres at the set speed. I used to do this on rentals to get an indication as to what indicated speed I could safely travel at without getting a speeding ticket due the number of cameras used in Australia. My current 1.4tsi used to display slightly pessimistic consumption values against refuel calculations when new but over 8 years and 90k km it is now slightly optimistic against refuel calculated consumption. I have just fitted brand new tyres which may make the displayed consumption even more optimistic. Not sure when I will next be able to check odometer accuracy though as it was 1% when new, maybe a couple of weeks time when we go camping?

Not sure why, but I have noted over the years that some of the best (verified with refill data) Briskoda consumption claims have come from Superb diesel drivers despite the Octavia having the same drivetrains and smaller and lighter bodies. That's mpg, not distance on a tank. Must be the superb Superb drivers that are the difference

Thanks @toot, have made suitable adjustments to my text.

'Dieselgate' was a classic example of being able to get improved consumption and performance by ignoring/cheating emissions requirements. VW are not going to get away with that again so meeting emissions requirements is a major factor in their engine mapping and it had consequences. The 1.5tsi engine took an age to resume production (trying to meet WLTP requirements) and subsequently there were many complaints on Briskoda about its driving characteristics when it was available. AND it took over a year to get software fixes released addressing most of the 1.5tsi issues. My point is that third party performance maps would have less 'incentive' to meet draconian emission requirements so I would expect there to be real, if minor consumption improvements in steady speed driving than on a standard map. Of course, as others have already said, use of the loud pedal cancels out any consumption benefits . Believe me, if I thought a performance map would pay for itself in improved consumption then I would have got one a long time ago! When you buy a 2.0tsi VW engine vehicle you are already committing to a preference for power over good fuel consumption.....however how much depends on a lot on factors, but mainly where and how you drive. Around town they are pretty heavy consumers compared to smaller (turbo) engines, on the motorway I cannot recall reading any validated consumption (refuel figures) bettering 49mpg for a standard tune regardless of how 'gently' the owner claimed they drove. I can recall only one refuel validated mapped 2.0tsi claim over 50mpg, with a full passenger load and driver not pushing at all and just going with the 'motorway flow' upto Scotland. The OP would have been driving in max 8 degree C temps when he posted so I think his 45 mpg consumption returns are pretty typical for the car, conditions and distance, assuming the displayed consumption is accurate. I would have been disappointed to get less than 55mpg in my 1.4tsi in a similar circumstances, but I might not have kept up with him.

I know that the ability to 'vent the tank' with a specific fitted lever/button was a feature on certain past VW group vehicles (Fabia?) but I'm not aware that any recent Skoda has any such facility, certainly not on the mk2 diesel or the mk3 petrol Octavia I've owned, or any reference to it in any post in the Superb section, other than your good self that is. Based on the rare occasion where a driver has near emptied their tank and posted the refill amount and I think it is fair to say that most VW group vehicle's fuel tanks have a about 5 litres more capacity than the published figure (although it could be even more). Personally I'd be disinclined to risk running the tank empty with modern high pressure fuel injection systems pumping air or running the in-tank fuel pump without it being cooled by the fuel it normally bathes in, or having to do that embarrassing jerrycan walk to the nearest petrol station.

Actually an Octavia only requires about 30 PS to maintain 70 mph on a flat road.

"I like big BUTTs and I cannot lie". Used in Shrek, but really no song for kids.

I am afraid you commited a common 'rookie' error when converting to mpg as you used the smaller US gallon. The good news is that in Imperial mpg you got about 45 mpg which is about standard for a petrol vrs on the sort of journey you describe.

Having a couple of weeks off and some relatively cool weather for us, has enabled me to get in three runs a week. It just makes so much difference, the endorphins are flowing, and the enjoyment is back. Getting back a few seconds per km also contributes to the vibe . My daughter's dog has been helping me with some additional 'sprint' training. I throw the ball away from her and she gives me a (really big) head start and then times her run in to pip me by about a metre, every... single..... time! Cracks my wife up. My motivational (and also intimidating) story for this week is about a 90 year old who can run 5km in under 30 minutes. Perth man David Carr rewriting the running record books at age 90 - ABC News