Gerrycan

For the last thirty six Christmas Days I have been in Australia it has been a 'tradition' for me to go for a swim on Christmas Day with all but one on the nearby beach and the exception a couple of hundred km inland in the River Murray. Often conducted in beautiful weather and clear seas but occasionally more challenging when cool and very windy. This year Christmas day is forecast to max out at a chilly 21 deg C and, as it will be my first swim since last February, I predict the distance covered in the water will be relatively rapid and very, very short.

Nice to hear you are happy with the remap but it seems you find the performance increase rather underwhelming with the main benefit, for you, being improved dsg gear changes. When you got the engine remap did you get a remap for the transmission? If not then they may have just 'reset' the transmission module it to let it 'learn' the new engine characteristics and your driving style? It's possible that merely doing a transmission reset without the engine remap may have improved the gear changes anyway? What driving mode do you use? Did you change your usual mode after the remap? Most people when they get a diesel remap comment on the improved torque at low/mid revs as increased power (bhp) is usually less relevant because revving out diesels to max bhp is not really pleasant or necessary for a faster progress on public roads. You would probably have to be in Sport mode to access max bhp or manually selecting gears. I'd imagine more torque would mate nicely with 4x4

The dry-clutch DSG on this model does not have a good reputation in Australia, so much so that the mk 4 Octavia sub 2.0tsi model is a 1.4tsi with an 8 speed Aisin torque converter box. The historical dry DSG issues where an incorrectly specified oil caused major issues in our climate have long been fixed but there are still a couple of other issues that need to be considered. The first, is that most Aussies do not drive manuals and they drive the DSG box like a torque converter box balancing the torque box drag against a light brake pressure when stationary on a hill for a quick take off, this is like riding the clutch on a manual and can prematurely wear them out. The second, is that most reviews here complain about a 'dangerous' delay when you want to accelerate from a stopped into a traffic gap that suddenly appears such as on a roundabout. Neither issues barely get a mention in this forum, where most are experienced manual transmission drivers, but ideally you should try each to see what YOUR preference is.

Apologising for being a bit pedantic and off-topic but after digging around the forum and online, I'm pretty sure my 2007 pd mk2 Octavia not only had the (already confirmed) electric power assistance but it was also rack and pinion (not recirculating balls) steering, as have pretty much all European non-commercial vehicles for the last few decades. The thought of driving a modern car with recirculating balls actually makes my eyes water On topic: Got to remember the OP has a mk 4 1.5tsi and and he says it has different driving modes available so adopting the custom mode of 'sport' for steering weight would make it feel a bit heavier without having to resort to VCDS. My basic spec Aus mk3 does not have modes and I think a slightly heavier feel than it currently has would have been preferable for me. Another thing is that those contributors with either vRS or Golf GTi would have the better specified 'variable' steering system. I'm not sure if that was variable with speed or variable ratio depending on amount of steering wheel turn, or both, but I remember it being reported as being much better than the lower performance versions. Another factor is that the OP's version would have torsion bar rear suspension unlike the independent rear of higher specs, not sure what effect it has on handling or ride as I am content with my original 10 yo torsion rear.

I can't comment on VW hydraulic steering but I found the electric steering on my mk2 Octavia with a heavy lump of 1.9pd iron under the bonnet and 15 inch wheels was a better heavier feeling than my current mk3 with 17 inch wheels and the much lighter alloy 1.4tsi. Steering is very light, with little feedback and initially it took a conscious effort to avoid oversteering on long bends until I got used to it.

The changes you are proposing are not necessarily going to improve the steering 'feel'. I'm guessing that your previous car had hydraulic power steer assistance, hence the feedback through the wheel. The Octavia has electrical power assistance, which while it improves fuel economy (over hydraulic) and is very accurate, this form of assistance is noted as being quite remote in most lower priced mass produced applications. Drive a good old direct unassisted steering sports car and even hydraulic assistance can feel numb by comparison.

I think this bit in your opening post has caused most of the initial confusion for many (including me) but your subsequent posts have clarified you are trying for better figures and, not unreasonably, disappointed with the results so far, I know I would be. Comparing figures in a forum like Briskoda is good fun but notoriously difficult because everyone's environment, driving style and vehicle are unique. The real difficulty is where you are convinced that you have a problem with the car (a potential 'lemon' if you will) and you go back to the dealer and voice your disappointment. It's a high probability that you will be fobbed off with a 'they are all like that', at best they will do a quick scan for errors, and if there are none get a 'shrug' to denote they have done all they can and now it is your problem. Or 'It is new and will improve as the engine runs in'. That last phrase may be true as I know that many contributors on this site have said their consumption got better after putting some k's (or m's) on the clock. That is not my personal experience with brand new cars, the consumption has never improved through running in, improvements are solely my learning the particular vehicle idiosyncrasies or improvement in journey type or environment. In fact I'd say that the consumption on our current (owned from new) mk3 1.4tsi, manual, 100k km Octavia is slightly worse now than new. Not surprising considering it is a direct injection engine which spends most of its time in an urban environment at low revs and probably had carbon build up on the inlet valves. Still pretty good though as my wife drives it most of the time now, she is not really an economical driver on her 13km peak time (Adelaide suburbs) commute and on the last refuel covered 680km and refilled with 42 litres for a 6.2l/100 average, so I can hardly complain. You will have to arm yourself with information if you eventually have to do battle with the dealers: What sort of car did you have before and what consumption did you get for it on the same commute? That will at least give some idea of your driving habits and consumption expectation. As 'Rooted' inferred, it is a good idea to record your refuels and compare actual consumption to the display (particularly the 'since refuel') to get some idea of the display accuracy. Mine showed 6l/100 for the above figures, when new the display was pessimistic and showed 0.1l/100 worse than I actually got. Note that the 'Long term display' is really not that long, resetting at 99 hours or 9999 km whichever is the earlier, but always the 99 hours since you would have to average 100kph for distance. When you get an opportunity, find a flat empty road and get some steady speed consumption averages using the cruise control and a reset of the trip average when set up, maybe 80kph and 100kph? Try and use GPS speeds as speedometers are nearly always optimistic. Check the odometer against GPS too when you get a chance, most are reasonably accurate but I had one Korean car that was at least 5% optimistic which meant actual consumption was 5% worse than the truly awful figures it gave anyway. The Octavia RS is a good car and potentially relatively efficient for its performance potential against comparably priced brands. The official combined and urban figures should be achievable, although the extra urban is always a stretch.

Congrats on your new car @LuxoviaRS . UK fuel prices tend to be about double ours so I think even self-proclaimed revheads tend to ration their enthusiasm more there than they let on. Nonetheless your 11l/100 (Imperial 25.7mpg) is probably at the worse end of claims submitted for your type of car and driving environment. Probably a good idea turning off stop/start during the running in period (1500km ?) but I think your mechanic is being a bit alarmist about the possible long-term harm to the engine. The starter motor and engine are designed to handle it and the only possible casualty is the battery may last less than 5 years. Depends on how long you intend to keep the car really and then you have to weigh up the cost of relatively early replacement of an expensive AGM battery against the cost of fuel saved. Some people just don't like s/s and turn it off at every opportunity anyway but personally I'd give it a go and see what difference it makes and you will be making your own informed decision. Revs in low gears while fun also use a LOT of fuel. Sad but true. In hot Australian conditions in busy town conditions your car is going to use a lot of fuel, the air-conditioner going full blast, the engine cooling fan too. My 1.4tsi idling in temperate conditions displays 0.5l/hour consumption, on very hot days in traffic that can go up to 1.5L/hour. It would be interesting to know what your 2.0tsi displays at idle. On a highway run at 110kph you will probably get about 6.5 to 7l/100, probably worse punting along on the an enjoyable country twisting section of road

I think it also depends on the road environment you are driving. Don't have ACC but would think it would be pretty useless on a twisting country lane unless you had a good driver in front ? Motorways and urban roads I would think they would be effective, unless the driver is inclined to be aggressive? Got simple cruise control on our manual Octavia and it is a godsend on our South Australian long flat, straight (mostly single lane each way, undivided) highways. Sorry for high jacking the thread but I have a question about ACC: On our highways I'm happy to sit about 4 seconds behind a big truck doing an honest 100kph where there is little advantage or need to overtake and I have on occasion had people driving unsafely close to my tail who I am happy let through to get rid of them. They then sit right on the truck's tail with the brake lights flickering incessantly but not really making any effort to overtake (it would be really dangerous anyway from that spot). I've assumed they were just useless drivers who did not know how to set the ACC distance correctly, or it was malfunctioning, and the flickering braking was the ACC trying to manage a difficult situation and probably ruining fuel consumption in the process? Does this seem a feasible assumption? Had lane assist on a hire car on a Northern Territory holiday and if I forgot to turn it off it was a real pain especially when I was looking to overtake B-Double/Triples on our single lane highways. I also did not like the ACC in that car because it drove too close to the vehicle in front for my comfort despite being on the longest distance setting. I read many car reviews and it seems that the effectiveness of lane assist (and other electronic safety aids) varies a lot between manufacturers/models and the performance of the systems is not necessarily related to the price of the car.

Some very interesting info on petrol prices there. Australian petrol does not bear as high a Government tax burden as UK petrol nor is it refined to the low EU sulphur levels (will change soon) so our overall prices are not surprisingly considerably lower than yours. However.... when you compare the price of our 95 Ron against 98 Ron there is about 7 cents difference between the two which is about 4 pence. Assuming similar detergents and volatiles are added by Shell/BP/Mobil as in the UK then it seems that your local 10p difference is pure price gouging as UK tax would be pretty much the same on both? Our 140ppm sulphur allowed 91Ron is about 15 cents cheaper than currently mandated 50ppm 95Ron. E10 91Ron (if it actually has 10% ethanol, can be as high as 94RON but they no longer claim this higher RON due to well publicised variations of ethanol added) is a couple of cents cheaper, and E85 (105RON) is available but rare and you need a heavily modified engine to run it.

My only experience of the 1.0tsi was in a dealer loaned Fabia which I really liked although it not was not quite as smooth as the turbine-like smoothness of the 1.4tsi in my Octavia but still way smoother (imo) than the rental 3 cylinder 1.2l Corsa and I thought marginally smoother than Focus 1.0tsi I was once loaned in the UK. What are your engine vibrations like at tickover, or when revved when the car is stationary? That removes the other possible factors that have been suggested by others when on the move. Perhaps you could ask the dealers if you could drive another 1.0tsi to compare. You could also try a 1.5tsi to see if you like it All a bit of a faff but I know how disappointing it is to get a new car that just does not feel right. I had the same thing with another brand and getting rid of it after a year was the one positive when my employment situation changed.

Thanks for the replies. I was pretty sure I did not have 'mild regen braking' but I was curious as to how intelligently programmed it was to actually make any sort of difference or whether it was just another marketing gimmick for those that had it, and whether it was partly responsible for the short battery life that some have experienced? @J.R.'s description of the engine operation ties in with my understanding that the direct injection allows it to operate without a throttle like a diesel does. Does this mean that the versions of the 1.4/1.5tsi that have ACT, where two cylinders valves are closed, have even less engine braking effect? My car does actually have a very intuitive stop/start system which only operates when the operating system recognises that the car is stopped for a reasonable length of time such as at a known long traffic light cycle or the rare occasion when I get caught at a crossing to let a kilometre long freight train through. Yep, you guessed it, I turn off the engine with the ignition key and manually restart seconds before the lights change . My wife hates me doing it . A couple of years back my wife and I fluked a two week break between Covid restrictions to the Northern Territories and also scored a hire car upgrade to a Toyota sedan hybrid, my first real experience with one. One of the things that surprised me with the Toyota was that during purely regenerative braking from high speeds (130kph speed limits there), into a much bigger battery, there was (again) far less retardation than I expected. Toyota must have recognised this as there was a gear lever option to add engine braking into the regen process (for steep hills?). Another surprise was how stupidly economical it was at those high speeds on flat roads where the hybrid functions contributed virtually nothing. A tribute to the efficient Atkinson cycle engine and the CVT transmission. If an estate version was sold here I would have bought one when we got back , but the Corolla sedan and even smaller hatchback did not quite cut it after living with the Octavia estate Tardis-like interior for so many years.

Does anyone know how this mild regenerative braking actually works? I try to drive economically, which means I avoid actual brake application as much as possible. I figure that using engine braking uses no fuel and is still turning over the alternator but does this mean that if brakes are applied, however lightly, this will signal the alternator to create a greater output to the battery and more resistive load? Does that mean that someone who drives like me will not be adequately charging their battery especially if being drained by engine stop/start? My basic spec 2014 manual 1.4tsi Octavia does not have stop/start, I'm not even sure it has regen braking. In fact I have remarked many times in this forum that engine braking is markedly less than other car I have driven. This is excellent for fuel consumption on the flat but a bit of a pain on long moderately steep descents where engine braking even in low gears contributes little or nothing to speed control and I have to use brakes more than others around me or any car I have used before. Yes I know that what brakes are designed to do but I have never 'depended' purely on brakes as I do in this car. Not having stop/start means I have a relatively inexpensive non AGM/EFM battery and mine needed replacing at just over 5 years, but gave plenty of notice. Theoretically I should be on the lookout for indications of ageing in the Australian made replacement but there are no obvious issues as we approach our summer. As a footnote I do not have any appropriate software or dongle so I did not update the system when I changed the battery. I do not know if I have the mild regen braking of the more 'advanced' cars but quite like the relatively simplicity of this car and its consequent lack of issues to date.

The transmission on the Australian 1.4tsi mk4 Octavia (and current Golf) is an Aisin sourced torque converter unit so there is no clutch as such and why it is comparatively smooth. It is a good unit and also used on the Peugeot 208/308 and equivalent Citroens. Consumption would not be quite as good as the DCT transmission around town but on the highway when the torque converter locks up there would be little to no difference. I would expect you to get better consumption on a highway run than I do with my 2014 mk3 1.4tsi because your mk4 has better aero and would also run a higher top gear. Not far behind the best of the reported consumption for the 1.5tsi but at least 'our versions' seem to have appreciatively fewer issues than are bobbing up for the 1.5tsi?

A lull at work has allowed me more time to engage in a more regular running schedule, and I'm trying to address some bad habits I've developed. Before I recently threw a couple of old pairs of running shoes away I noticed how much wear there was on the outer edges compared to previous pairs which had displayed most wear on the ball of the foot. I have got arthritic big toes on each foot (from old injuries) and I was obviously compensating for the pain I can experience during the toe flexing, I think this was causing a misalignment in my gait that was also causing increased knee pains. For the first few runs I had to force myself to run through the toe joint pain of running on balls of my feet but it was worth it as the flexibility of my large toe joints has improved, and the associated pains in the toe joints and the knees has reduced to incidental levels without having to resort to medication. I have regained some of my running speed and it has even had a beneficial effect on just walking. A relief in more ways than one as I was beginning to think I might have cut back or even give up running. Ran along the beach today in wind and drizzle but I had the whole beach to myself for the 5km run. Quite wonderful and amazing on a metropolitan beach that, during the previous weekends hot weather, had tens of thousands of people on it .

I used to religiously record refuels and distance but now only do a quick calc when I refuel to see how it compares with the display 'since refuel' figures. A bit easier being metric based here. My other small runaround is so old and basic I have to rely on the manual reset of the trip meter and calcs when I refuel. Varies between 4.8L/100 and 5.9L/100 depending on the driving profile between refuels, similar to our 1.4tsi if I am driving it, worse if my wife is driving the Octavia during local peak traffic periods. It is possible to get far better consumption driving over 8km in our local (Adelaide) urban environment than at the higher speeds of our interstate 'highways' (mostly undivided single lane each way) unlike the UK where the busy motorways will nearly always better urban driving (West side of the M25 at peak is particularly miserable in my experience).

Some really interesting information here on how this type of engine operates @EnterName. I must admit to having little interest in an engine with performance beyond what I need on public roads and probably even less in mapping for more performance, BUT the apparent excellent consumption results you are achieving has piqued my interest. I've always said power is easy, efficiency is far more difficult but assumed where consumption improves it is probably due to the mapping not having to meet stringent manufacturers emissions standards One question in my mind is whether you have confirmed the accuracy of the displays with actual figures during refueling post map? Even allowing for a bit of display optimism, and the fact you are driving economically, I have got to say they are still probably the best I can remember seeing reported on Briskoda for a 2.0tsi.

He said 98RON and quoting L/100 so I'm guessing either Aus or Ireland? Update: Whoops RHD LHD so wrong on both counts

On much the same theme as @kodiaqsportline, what type and size of bikes are you using? I have fitted three upright small frame road bikes (sans front wheels, and lowered/removed seat posts) inside our mk3 Octavia Estate, and three people with a small amount of luggage. A bit of reassembly faffing at the other end but was worth a lot of set up expense, our bikes were secure during stops and better protected from the elements during the journey. I'm only 178 cm so I'm not sure that large bike frame would have fitted in this way in our car but I'm surprised that larger bikes cannot be fitted if the rear seats can be removed from your Karoq?

Welcome @the_cyclist and nice car.......but what type of bikes do you ride? May I also point you to , and invite you to participate in, the 'Health Club Forum' where there are several cycling threads: Health Club Forum - BRISKODA

We received similar dealer recommendations on our previous mk2's rear brakes and they also mentioned the disks would need to be replaced. When I asked if they could machine the disks level, they actually laughed and said there was not enough metal on VW disks to do that. Not sure how accurate that statement was but have you checked your disks to make sure they are serviceable enough for new pads?

Seems you 'can't catch a brake' 😏

A series of 'unfortunate events' has severely affected any training continuity over the last two or three months so it seemed a bit hypocritical to be posting here but an on-line article piqued my interest. Pat Farmer, a former Australian politician, is literally running around Australia in support of an upcoming referendum for a change to the constitution. The stats are quite mind blowing: The 61 year old had covered about 10,000 km (as of the end of August) of the intended 14,000+ km, running between 65 and 80km daily he is going through a pair of shoes every thousand km or so. I'd say he has shoe sponsorship since he has 30 pairs available but thinks that 15 pairs will be used when he finally ends up at Uluru (formerly Ayres Rock) Obviously a man of immense stamina, natural running talent and belief in his cause. Is it wrong I'd like to know more about the shoes he has elected to wear? The referendum date of the 14th October was announced yesterday so by my calculations he may have to increase his daily mileage to 90+ km daily to stand any chance of getting to the finish before the event. Ultramarathon runner Pat Farmer clocking up 14,400 kilometres for Voice to Parliament - ABC News As far as I can see the only similarity between us is that I also find that a pair of running shoes is good for about 1000 km (about 1.5 years) before they are relegated to less arduous duties

I have a similarly aged 1.4tsi Octavia and the last service suggested that brake pad wear had increased considerably since my wife uses the car for her commute. No surprise there If I have to replace them (and probably disks) then it presents an opportunity to fit pads that produce less dust. The two Skoda I have owned were/are far worse for brake dust than any other British/Australian/Japanese/Korean car I've owned. The alloy wheels are usually filthy soon after being cleaned. Are there any noticeable differences between the recommended brands for brake dust? If not are there alternate recommended brands?

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I fully understand paragaraphs 1 and 3?? But I agree with your comment in paragraph 2