Gerrycan

Not sure where you read the pessimistic comments? Sure you get the occasional issue as they have been around for 8 years or so but most reports I've read are fairly complimentary. When I got mine 7 years ago and joined this forum most were averaging around 45 mpg (6.3L/100) with general driving. There was of course one exception, "He who must not be named" was getting 30 mpg (9.5L/100) and was still pretty pleased with that with his 'drive it like it was stolen' approach.

@plutus just allow for the fact that UK motorway speed limits are 112kph (70mph) unlike French autoroutes 130kph when looking at UK consumption figures being given.

If you look at the extract of the manual above it says you can manually reset the long term anytime you want. I just went out to my car to test it and it read 5.2l/100 for the long term and 30 km travelled so had only just reset automatically. I pressed the knurled roller on the steering wheel for a couple of seconds and all the long term data reset to zero. A 100 hours of driving is usually good for about 6000 km of holiday driving averaging 60kph We just did 2300km in two weeks in a rental Toyota hybrid in the Northern Territories of Australia with 4.25L/100 returns actual calculated. The longer journeys showed trip average speeds ranging from 100 to 105kph. The roads were very clear of traffic and some speed limits are up to 130kph, but we were happy not to push too hard and soak up the scenery on the way through.

Whoops it seems I was wrong. My apologies

As mentioned above, servicing is very important. Unless you misquoted them then you are being fed some BS. There is no timing chain, it is a belt, so they do not stretch but they can break. A break can be disastrous but not something I have heard of in this forum. With the age and mileage the belt should have been changed at least once already. Seek proof this has been done otherwise other maintenance claims may be suspect. Fuel system on this car is a dual port and direct injection. A good system that reduces carbon build up on inlet valves but a probably a more complex system to repair of things go wrong. DSG system is a wet bath for the clutches and is very durable IF the oil is changed as scheduled. However the oil change is not cheap and a thing likely 'missed' after the warranty finished. Watch for issues with gearchanges and pull aways on test drive. Issues can be expensive to fix. Tend to agree that a misfire would be electrical or fuel feed. Great car if you get a good one. Good luck.

Any car made after 2011 should be ok but you can check your model here: https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-e10-petrol

The suggestion was a very 'tongue-in-cheek' one. I probably wouldn't do it either. I'm still not quite convinced about the standard suspension being adjustable. DCC has been available on a lot of models across the VW group for a while now but always at extra cost. On the other hand the group to have a lot hanging off the success of this pioneering range so maybe they have gone that bit further? It is just your initial complaint about the hardness and the easy rectification is absolutely typical of all the other incidents where they were not removed during the PDI.

Great news the problem has been fixed and I was very confident it would. Pity you were not present when they 'corrected' the suspension setting as I suggested to see if blocks were removed. I find it very hard to believe they would fit more expensive adjustable suspension, either manual or electronic, without charging for it or mentioning in the marketing blurb. Of course you could always call their bluff at some point and ring them up and ask if they could try a harder intermediate setting as it is currently too soft 😁. Bet they won't know what you are talking about.

That is a horological joke right? 🤣 You did a good job of 'Tetris-ing' it in there as neatly as that.

For what is worth, the belt replacement is recommended at 7 years in Australia. Even the tech who asked me at the last service, at 7 year mark, admitted I was not the first to defer and he had not encountered a belt failure yet. Still making up our mind whether to keep or replace our 1.4tsi estate which is still a joy to drive.

The 1.4tsi Octavia available in Australia is not available with the manual box and the auto is an Aisin torque converter which I am not keen on. However a few weeks ago I went in the local dealer while servicing on my old mk3 1.4tsi and saw a white manual 1.5tsi Scala which I was very tempted to put a deposit on there and then. A modicum of common sense (maybe a fear of wife?) prevailed and I attempted to first arrange a test drive for us. A dsg Monte Carlo version available to test, which was really not going to be good enough, so the moment was lost, although not entirely abandoned. I presume the Scala has the same ratios as the Octavia 4 so it interesting to read of such differing characteristics between 1.4tsi and 1.5tsi. My opinion of the 1.4tsi is that it is a really good flexible engine which pulls from low revs but still happily revs up to the red line. Great performance and economy. At 70mph in 6th gear it is revving at 2700rpm and it is quite possible to accelerate up relatively steep long hills without changing down, although I usually display a little mechanical sympathy and change down to 5th. I believe the 7 speed dsg box is geared to 2500rpm for the 1.4tsi. I did feel the gearing could have been lower in 6th for at least a reduction to 2200rpm. I'm confident both engines deliver the same specified power and torque but there may be a little more at play than just the gearing affecting the apparent lower performance of the 1.5tsi. The new engine has ACT and a different type of turbo (variable) and the emphasis of the new engine is lower consumption and emissions which quite honestly seems to have been a problem for VW to meet with good driving characteristics. I believe the eco ACT cuts in above 1400rpm and below 30% max torque so if you press the accelerator it is quite possible the 1.5tsi throttle mapping is less sensitive to allow some acceleration and still run more economically on two cylinders. That is purely speculation of course. I'm sure that using a bit more welly with 1.5tsi in the appropriate gear will get things moving for easy overtaking. Having read this thread I am keen to again get a manual Scala test drive arranged for us. I have only once driven a long geared manual and that was a diesel Kia C'eed we hired on a UK visit about 4 years ago. We did a LOT of motorway driving and I was pleased with the initial 60mpg returns on refills but when I twigged how long the gearing was and that the diesel had a sudden torque hole at lower revs I changed my style and the last two tanks gave actuals of 70mpg. I did this by ignoring the displays gear advice and not loading the engine using to low a gear, so had to be doing over 60mph for 6th, over 50mph for 5th, over 40mph for 4th and so on. A lot more gear changing, slightly higher revs but still on small throttle settings and things were much happier. Would be interesting to see if the 1.5tsi manual responds similarly. Trouble is my wife is a bit more of a lead foot than I am and likes the 1.4tsi characteristics so that's why the test drive is important. Very few Australian women are happy to drive manuals so she is still a 'keeper' whatever she decides

If you compare the calorific values for diesel, petrol and ethanol by the traditional sales system of volume (litres/gallons) then petrol has 10% less than diesel and ethanol 30% less than petrol. If you compare them by weight (kilograms/pounds) then there is far less difference. Aromatics are usually added to petrol to achieve regulation anti-knock ratings but they are not without problems: Fuel left in a tank will usually degrade over a period (beyond 6 weeks) as the more volatile aromatics deteriorate/evaporate so your RON rating will reduce which can affect how well the engine performs. The aromatics are not without their environmental issues. In Australia they were also a real problem for remote aboriginal communities where the youth engaged in petrol sniffing highs resulting in permanent brain damage or death from the Aromatics. A special low aromatic 91 RON fuel is now sold in those areas (I believe it is methanol based) Pure ethanol has a relatively high 109 RON rating so it can be mixed with petrol to replace some aromatics to achieve regulation RON ratings, but it is not without its problems: Ethanol is more corrosive on older incompatible tank linings, seals and fuel lines, but most modern engines are designed to accommodate at least 10% Ethanol content. Ethanol is quite hydroscopic and will attract water more than petrol. If this is allowed to happen through poor storage/transport then the ethanol will separate from the petrol and the engine will run very poorly as it runs on either the lowered octane petrol or the ethanol/water mix. Ethanol mixed with petrol will reduce the calorific content, with a 10% mix by roughly 3% although in Australia when mixed with 91 Ron petrol it raises it to 94 RON. Ethanol is usually touted as a 'green' fuel as it is made from renewable resources. This claim stands up to examination where they use a waste resource to produce ethanol but less so where good agricultural land is used or virgin Amazon rainforest is destroyed to produce the source material. Australian E10 is marginally cheaper than pure petrol but has developed a very poor reputation as there have been many cases where independent testing has shown the ethanol content to vary considerably between batches and storage/transport is below acceptable standards especially for humid conditions by the lower tier producers. The major reputable petrol companies here have had little involvement in the addition of Ethanol to their products, although that will change with future legislation which should improve the product reputation. I'm sure these aspects will already be better controlled in the UK and Europe by your suppliers. E85 (105 RON) is available at some stations here but as far as I know there was only one, now defunct local manufacturer (Holden), who made a 'Flexfuel' engine capable of running it. Unfortunately the engine was designed to run on petrol or the Ethanol mix so was not optimised for either and each fuel has completely different characteristics. The 15% petrol in E85 is required because pure ethanol is otherwise quite difficult to ignite.

Might as well put some Hydroxychloroquine in the tank while you are at it. 🤣 Sorry, but I am not a believer. Our 17 yo Toyota with 194,000 km on the clock, an untouched engine and runs on some of the worst fuel in the world, can still meet the official fuel consumption standards without any additives.

You did not mention how much fuel you put in after achieving your 480 miles. The simple way to determine how accurate your reported consumption is to calculate at refill but 45 litres is 9.9 gallons so your actual would be 48.5 mpg if 45 litres went in. The tank size is officially 50L in the mk3 and in probably a bit larger than that (closer to 55L). Never a good idea to run out of fuel though Lots of reports/complaints from diesels owners over the years that they are being prompted to refill by light/gauge/zero distance to empty and only getting circa 40 litres in. If you are being prompted at 45 litres then I'd consider that as liveable. The vRS 190 was never reported in this forum as being quite as economical as the 2.0L 150bhp version but from memory most reported about 50 to 55 mpg. You don't mention the car's mileage which might give an idea of how it has been used over the last 7 years. If I were you I'd get a cheap OBDC dongle and the DPF app on your phone to monitor ash content and regen frequency. An Italian tune-up now and then when warmed up (in a quiet, unmonitored spot) might not do any harm to long term mileage either.

60mpg at 60mph average is very good for a petrol engine and the 1.0tsi is a comparatively efficient unit but based on my limited experience of driving on UK motorways, I think it is about right in near ideal temps. If you are a naturally economical driver who does not brake much then I don't think the 48volt mild hybrid system would have contributed very much to your results. I see no reason why you will not get similar consumption, maybe better, from your manual 1.5tsi (with cylinder deactivation) in similar circumstances. The mk4 has exceptional aerodynamics for its class and that has got to help at higher average speeds.

With older VW group engines where they specifically recommended a higher octane fuel then I can understand a benefit, but I think the story is less clear with present production engines which are expected to meet rigid emission requirements. Within the context of a standard vRS on a rolling road there may be a small increase in power using a higher RON but just how much? Mazda make a 2.5L turbo 'SkyActive' engine for which they issue power figures with different RON ratings. It can be run on our Australian obnoxious high sulphur 91 Octane rated fuel, which is a miracle in itself considering their engine's high compression ratios but they also say that if run on 98 Octane fuel it produces 13kw (27bhp) more power, however the max torque is unaffected. Unfortunately they do not give figures for 95 RON but my guess the power figure is closer to the 98 RON than the 91 RON so the difference is probably quite small. Another story comes from a now retired research auto engineer in the Fabia 3 section, where he was involved in independent testing of a range of currently available production small turbo engines from various manufacturers with 95 and 98 rated fuels. IF I remember it correctly their findings were that most engines had been so optimised for 95 RON fuels that there were little to no benefits in running the higher octane for power or overall consumption, AND for some engines there was actually a measurable but marginal decrease in both. The owners manual for our 2003 1.3L Toyota Echo states with remarkable frankness that the engine is designed for our local 91 RON fuel and there is no benefit in using a higher octane, so I don't. The engine has done 194k km and never been touched apart from irregular servicing and can still return 55mpg on a refill if I can string together a few runs longer than 10km. It is all a great pub discussion point though.

Pretty sure that all Euro mandatory emission and consumption regulations are required to be met with 95 Ron. No idea whether that would apply to published power figures but considering how easy it is to boost power outputs from software changes why would they resort to 'special' petrol.

I find opening any single window causes a very uncomfortable and unbearable beat in the car, even at remarkably low speeds. We have a Mk 3 Octavia estate and for me the only thing that works is to open a front window and a diagonally opposite rear window. Experiment with the amount the windows need to be lowered to get the required airflow. Funnily enough this was the recommendation from a recent (British I think) study to get the best airflow in a car to reduce to risks of Covid transfer.

The F word is the classic reaction by those who have have subsequently reported one or more transport blocks being left in the front suspension. They can only usually be exposed by jacking up the front enough to allow the suspension to 'droop'. Make sure you are present when the inspection is made and if they are discovered to be present suggest they owe you some recompense for your inconvenience, distress and potential safety issues from the poor handling.

@wr0na, a really frank and interesting review both from the perspective of the use of an EV for long distance travel and the way it was conducted. I'm presuming you were operating roughly in the 20% to 80% battery capacity range to maximise charge rate and minimise time spent at the stop so I'm estimating with your 1:10h at nominal 160kph motorway driving speeds you were maybe getting between 150 to 180km between charges? Roughly how many times and how long did you have to wait for an available charge station? We are in the very early stages of EV adoption here in Australia and the choice of EV are limited, numbers on the road are low but growing, and the recharging infrastructure very patchy in some areas so your experience gives some idea of what's to come and potential issues. I think it is going to be about 5 years before the sort of affordable vehicle I want is available here and an infrastructure in place to support it. Or I get a PHEV?

Manufacturers nowadays have to build an internal combustion engine that complies with emission regulations and customer performance/price expectations and that means at some point there is usually a compromise. A remap or plug-in box will usually release additional performance and my guess is that emissions are a much lower priority so it would not surprise me if there is a small potential improvement in consumption achievable if the extra power is not utilised. Plug-ins tend to corrupt the consumption displays so appear much more economical than they really are. 'Dieselgate' was a classic example of a manufacturer resorting to cheating to meet cost/emission/performance targets and when the subsequent software emission fixes were applied there were many stories of poorer consumption/performance/reliability from lots of unhappy people. Also in 2014 the 1.4tsi 103kw in my Octavia was officially marginally more economical than the equivalent 90kw version of the engine. Do not expect the cost of a remap to be paid back with better consumption in the lifetime of the vehicle.

I always thought it was not so much the coasting downhill that was dangerous but actually switching the engine off as well while doing it where you'd probably lose brake and steering assist in that generation of vehicles. Kill switches (totally illegal) are popular with manic US hypermilers. I have a manual and I'll admit to coasting in neutral where I think it's safe and I will get a consumption benefit, but often as not I'll do as well or better leaving it in gear and using the minimal engine braking effect on offer where fuel is cut off and opposed to the minimal fuel (0.5L/hour in my 1.4tsi) used by an idling engine when coasting. It's been a part of how I drive for so long I'll probably miss the challenge of driving economically when I eventually get an EV. Pre-Covid, my wife and I were looking at a possible awd Kodiaq purchase for a round Australia trip, but I was hoping for a bit better than the 45mpg you are getting on a run because while our fuel can be cheaper, the distances are a bit daunting. Not sure I would get much better than that from any (suitable) awd though.

@BoxerBoy realistically the bi-turbo diesel awd kodiaq is a large heavy vehicle with relatively poor aerodynamics so it is not something you buy for its low consumption especially if you like to use the performance on offer when circumstances permit. I reckon anything over 40mpg is not bad for the vehicle type. I can understand how annoying the coasting feature would be driving around Scotland as engine braking is a useful thing in hilly terrain. My small petrol engine Octavia offers virtually no engine braking and while that is not a problem on the flat terrain where I live, a trip to Tasmania (parts are similar to the Scottish Highlands) a couple of years ago really highlighted how much I missed its contribution. Does the coasting 'turn off' if you touch the brakes?

I'd be surprised if extended idling causes damage to the engine. However if the DPF does go into regen mode then the revs will rise and fuel pumped into the catalyst to raise the temperature to over 400 deg C to burn off the accumulated carbon. There may may well be a smell in the cabin and if you have parked on dry grass then there is the risk of fire from the hot exhaust. May sound spectacularly alarmist but it happened to a BMW diesel police car here in Australia. They had stopped a speeding car and left their engine running having pulled over off the road while they 'interviewed' the speedster and then looked back to see their A$150k car in flames and eventually gutted. I tend to agree that what you are doing sounds hardly best parenting practice. Then again I was useless at it but my wife was brilliant at bringing up our two

What engine are we talking about?