Gerrycan

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.

There are a couple of factors that would lead Skoda to specifying a 95 Ron minimum in Australia but basically it comes down to the recognised poor quality of our petrol. The current general Australian requirements are that our 91 Ron fuel can have up to 150 ppm of Sulphur while 95 and 98 Ron petrol can have up to 50 ppm. Compare this to Europe and the US where the petrol is limited to 10 ppm of Sulphur. Ethanol is added to our cheap 91 RON fuel (which can boost it to 94 RON) but the quantity added is notoriously fickle so it will potentially have the highest sulphur and not necessarily meet the RON rating. The sulphur content of our base fuel would destroy a ppf in a very short time. It was the same with sulphur in diesel; in the 90's it was about 10,000 ppm, from 2002 its was reduced to 500 ppm and then in 2009 it was reduced to internationally recognised 10ppm which then allowed a flood of good European diesel engines to enter our market. The Australian government has pledged to introduce legislation to reduce sulphur in petrol to 10ppm this year but it will probably be half-arsed about dealing with RON standards and use of Ethanol. Ethanol has patchy history here with shonky petrol retailers, and shonky ethanol producers making shonky donations to shonky state government parties about accepting substandard application of ethanol to petrol. I am afraid that corruption is rife at State government level. Done correctly there seems to be no problem with putting upto 10% ethanol in petrol as long as there is a guaranteed minimum octane as in UK/Europe and it is transported and stored correctly. I'm not sure whether @LuxoviaRS 's RS has a ppf fitted or not, although I know the Superb 208 sold here did, but yeh I'd avoid our E10 like the plague until there is some clear resolution from the government(s). It was my belief (although not 100% certain) the RS did still have the dual fuel system with both multi-point and direct injection which would definitely minimise carbon build up on the inlet valves. My 1.4tsi with only the direct injection system is 10 years old and has done 105,000 km and is not showing any indication that there is any carbon build up on our fuels. I only use 95 RON and the car spends >95% of its time in urban areas which accounts for about 80% of the distance travelled.

My statement you quoted was accurate at that time but in Jan 2019 my 1.4tsi water pump failed and had to be replaced by the dealer. It was more expensive and complicated experience than it should have been but we were having traumatic and ultimately fatal family illness at the time so no will to contest. Fortunately they did give us a new Fabian loan car which ran up a big mileage on while being impressively economical despite temps in the low 40's and aircon working overtime.

My MK2 1.9pd estate ambient had the IRS. With the standard 16 inch wheels it was the best ride on Aussie dirt roads. Should have got a Scout with the extra ground clearance as well but out of our budget unfortunately.

A bit late answering this but the ground clearance on the mk3 is about the same as the MK2 at 147mm. My Mk3 has no problem with speedhumps and we have done trips of several hundreds of kilometres on dirt roads with quite large rocks (to avoid). A big 4wd would have better of course but dry roads and a good lookout for potential issues and we maintained an average of 65 kph. Sealed roads no problem at all.

I have the same issue, Can't get a manual in Aus any more, don't like all the mandatory safety assists, don't like or need big screens and only Chinese (mostly crappy) built cars are affordable. Apart from shopping mall scars our 2014 low mileage Octavia drives as new so we are sticking with it.

As rooted intimated there are two aspects to consider: a) that the 5% (or less) ethanol content is only available in higher (more expensive) octane fuels and that could account for a couple of percent improvement but only IF your car is designed to utilise the higher octane. b) ethanol has a lower calorific value than petrol by volume but the small difference of ethanol content has a minimal effect on consumption assuming the ethanol/petrol mix is not compromised by poor storage. In Australia you can get an E85 ethanol mix but while it has an exceptionally high octane rating the few cars that are adapted to run on it or normal petrol will achieve about 30% poorer consumption on the high ethanol fuel than petrol. Some high performance cars optimised for E85 get great performance from the 105 Octane rated fuel but still use lots of it. Personally I don't think you would notice much difference between the E5 or E10 in your PHEV. What does your manual recommend? Fun fact: diesel, petrol and ethanol have similar calorific values by weight.

I am sure the 2.0tsi is a good overall drive but judging by the reported consumptions I don't consider it a particularly efficient unit if I'm honest. Nonetheless I'm pretty sure the OP is not getting the consumption he should with his commute and declared driving style. So it is either the car or perhaps the OP is not driving to the engine's most efficient characteristics? As already mentioned checking air filter and plugs condition is easy, as is tyre pressures and whether there is any brake binding. Beyond that it gets more difficult and expensive. I'm assuming no roof racks or other air brakes are involved I'm afraid I have had brand new consumption lemons from other manufacturers and they did not improve with running in as the dealers promised. It happens and you get no sympathy or help from the dealers I've found using the 'instant' consumption display is useful for highlighting faults in my driving for economy style. . Perhaps the OP could try that to see what sort of consumption should be obtainable at a given speed? For example, in my 1.4tsi if I'm doing 100kph (about 2000 rpm as the 1.4tsi manual is fairly low geared imo) on the flat and showing about 5L/100 (55mpg) then that is pretty reasonable, if I am in the company of other cars then I will get better consumption with the draughting effect. A steady 80kph due to traffic or roadworks and I'll get an indicated 4L/100 (70mpg) or better. Always assuming no headwind or temperature extremes, standing water or really coarse tarmac. Cruise control does just as good a job as me (sometimes better) on the flat but I can improve on it in hilly country. Slogging an engine in too low a gear is not as economical as you might think, use the instant consumption display to compare different techniques. Traffic anticipation and minimising unnecessary application of the brakes is about as sophisticated as I get.

There is a thing called 'runner's high' which is associated with the release of endorphins (to control pain) and dopamine (which give a feeling of euphoria or enjoyment) and it is known to be addictive to some extent. Over the years I have noticed that exercise has been largely beneficial for most adverse conditions I have experienced at different times. I have associated any improvement with general movement benefits and my self-generated drug cocktail. Well it seems that a few short runs I have undertaken to ease my way into some sort resumption of routine have been beneficial for my recent back issues, and I am grateful for that. To be fair, paracetamol has a similar effect for controlling pain but I really don't like taking any sort of drug where it can be avoided and a drug is usually addressing symptoms rather than cause and I also like my euphoric feeling after a run. I should add this is a discussion of my personal experience and is not to be regarded as medical advice, medical professionals usually know best and should always be consulted for issues, especially when considering adding a relatively grueling exercise regime.

I would have thought taking the car to a specialist DPF cleaner may be worthwhile? A lot cheaper than the suggested replacement although there may also be a defective component/sensor contributing to the problem A bit of a worry with all the imminent pending tasks it is expected to do though.

Surprised by the suggestion that the springs can sag in such a short time but if that is the case and the OP tows then that should be looked at. If the problem is apparent then maybe new springs and airbags to avoid repetition?

The year started quite well for me with preparation for a loose goal of running 10km in hour or even 12km in 70 minutes around the time of 70th birthday in late January. Then the metaphorical wheels fell off with a small medical intervention, a knee damaging fall while walking my daughter's somewhat excitable and sturdy dog, increased casual paid work combined with a period of intense internal house painting in preparation for the installation of new carpets. Oh, and throw in a bad back, the first in over 25 years and I am going to blame that on the lack of running. So today I laced up for the first time in about eight weeks and did a slow and steady 4 km in abnormally high temps for this time of year. Everything hurts! But it's a start and we will see how it goes from here.

I would just like to register my personal disdain for most after market 'snake oil' additives. In regard to DPF regen enhancers there is a common thread that while they may actually do what they claim there could be secondary damage to the dpf, or other parts of the engine especially with overuse. Be aware that the additive which performs for the 15 minute (?) post injection regen will then be run through the engine for the whole tank and this may not be really good for long term holistic engine care. Simply follow the others recommendation to drive on to allow the process to naturally complete. It may take longer on a cold day for the dpf to reach operating regen temperature and higher speeds on a cold day can actually work against achieving dpf working temperature quickly. Your manual will probably have some suitable recommendations although I understand that not reading the manual can be a 'male pride' thing for some If you do a lot of short journeys and few longer ones then it may be useful to get a cheap Bluetooth OBCD dongle and an app on your mobile phone to monitor DPF status so you can better plan for, and meet, regen requirements.

Your conversion to imperial mpg is wrong as 12.3l/100 is 23mpg. However 12.3l/100 is about right for short distances from cold in peak period traffic for only 14 mph average speed for a vRS petrol.

It can be tricky coming to grips with a new car's consumption and as @Felix2021 has pointed out the extra emission devices fitted to newer models can have a marked negative effect under certain driving conditions. I rented a small 1.0 litre Corsa on a UK visit a couple of years back and was delighted to get up to 60+mpg (4.5L/100km) on a tank on our longer trips but when I eventually navigated through the complicated infotainment I was amazed to see the long-term average over the last 7000 miles was only 22mpg (13L/100km), which included our 2000 odd miles averaging in the high 50s! I have no idea what they previous renters were doing in it? What sort of urban distances are you travelling? Average speeds? Is it a manual or auto? what distance is on the odometer? When was it last serviced? Are air filter or spark plugs replacement due? What was your previous Octavia and what sort of consumption in similar conditions did you get? Just to get some idea of how economically you drive (lead or feather foot) Have you attempted a longer journey of say 50 km? This could be good for a couple of reasons; to really burn out the contents of the PPF and also to see what your consumption for that journey is like and maybe better assess whether there are any 'mechanical issues' or the consumption is related purely to the types of trips the vehicle is subjected to. And as @Rooted implied I believe that Ireland has had inclemently cold weather recently which would also be a major negative consumption factor.

Sorry, I forgot you had stated your consumption in the first post. To be honest considering the journey type, distances and speeds you describe, your reported consumption is at least 10 mpg short of what I'd expect from a diesel. Was yours one of those affected by 'dieselgate' and had the emissions update inflicted on it? Lots of people reported worse consumption and other issues after theirs were updated. As @TheWanderer proved with his pretty disastrous (imo) reported consumption, Eco mode can be pretty counterproductive if you are a ummm.... let's say a less patient sort of driver.

@WaveyDavey what consumption do you get on your commute with your current diesel Superb?

If you are going to stick the more expensive 'good stuff' in then you should probably do it for a few successive refuels to better determine what benefit is on offer because just adding the odd tank here and there will just result in a shandy with less defined performance characteristics.

It will depend on a few factors such as gradients, traffic density and flow on whether eco mode will make any discernable difference from normal mode. You must have some idea from your diesel dsg Superb whether the coasting function of eco mode makes any difference, but I think I have seen an equal number of claims for better consumption for either mode from different submitters with petrol cars. What you will probably find is that the petrol engine consumption will be more sensitive to driving technique than the diesel so for instance, you will get less engine braking so a lot more traffic anticipation is required. Well that is what I found when I went from diesel to petrol. My admittedly limited recent experience on peak time UK motorway with speed cameras is that a significant number of people will drive a bit below the indicated speed limit and adding in normal speedometer variation means that they are doing a true 65mph or less, which can be a bit of a pain for the less patient. If you avoid the temptation to try and drive at the true speed limit and just 'go with the flow' and add a couple of minutes to your commute then you may find consumption close to 50mpg perhaps even better. Probably telling you how to suck eggs but the petrol car consumption is definitely more pedal sensitive. None of my hire cars were sports models (by any stretch of the imagination) but I found I got ridiculously good consumption from UK normal (and to me, abnormal) close proximity driving using non aggressive driving with minimal time penalty incurred. Some people seemed to be driving with their foot constantly jumping from accelerator to brake while stuck at the same speed I'm sure you will work it out for yourself and experimentation is half the fun of getting a new and very different car.

Never had a blockage of the rear wiper screen washer over 17 years of Octavia ownership and to be honest they are very rarely used with our relatively dry climate. However, picking up on @varaderoguy's point I have always used water from our reverse osmosis filter tap which is similar to distilled water, so there is no chance of algae growth or any calcium build up.

Love our current owned-from-new 2014 mk3 1.4tsi combi, and the only vehicle that was even better in some areas was our previous mk2 1.9pd combi. That was because it had slightly better economy, bigger fuel tank, independent rear suspension, and 16 inch wheels which were better suited to Australian touring. I've looked at and test driven a lot of potential replacements for our mk3 but they have all fallen short in a sufficient number of areas to not warrant the expense of transferring to a less complete vehicle.

Octavia mks 3 and 4 with independant rear suspension (ie vRS and awd models) should get all wheels done. Other 'lesser' grades have non-adjustable torsion bar rear suspension so only need the front done. Mk2 octavia lower spec models had the independent rear suspension so also needed all wheels done.

I have a tsi so I don't read all the diesel threads but that statement surprised me. Sure the water pump failures of the early models is commonly reported on the forum and the silica bags are best removed before they break. Honestly did not think it was a major problem?