Gerrycan

Got to be worth at least 10 bhp extra I like the building's stonework in the photo. 👍

That is pretty much textbook battery care and good to know that it seems to be working for you. Most battery guarantees seem to be around 70% capacity retention after 8 years, but I'm assuming that would cater for abuse by less considerate owners so, fingers crossed, you should easily improve on those figures.

As mentioned Octavia are fitted with minimal noise insulation material so the road noise in both my previous mk2 and current mk3 varied depending on a number of factors: Both cars with good new tyres on very smooth tarmac at any speed and road noise was almost imperceptible. Same cars/tyres on coarse tarmac and road noise was very obvious. Having said that I have experienced far worse road noise in other cars (rentals) on similar surfaces/speeds. It is not uncommon for a slightly misaligned suspension geometry to cause "saw-toothing" of the tread which causes a sound very like a worn bearing. My mk2 came with factory misaligned irs which caused the Dunlop SportsMaxx to become unbearably noisy from the saw-toothing and I replaced them at only 15k km with a 4 wheel realignment. Fairly standard road noise after that The Mk3 does not have irs in the lower specs (only vRS or AWD versions have irs) and so does not allow/require a rear alignment. Obviously the front suspension does allow/require alignments. I never found changing the tyres diagonally to reverse the rotation fixed saw-toothing or noise once it had set in. The OEM Dunlop SportsMaxx on the mk3 were fine for noise right up to the end of life at around 40k km. The replacement Michelin Primacy lasted 50k km but became relatively noisy for the last 10k km despite being road legal and no apparent saw-toothing (I even felt they were affecting the ride). New Continentals are fine so far for road noise, as usual, dependent on coarseness of road surface. I vaguely remember there was a phase where some mk3 owners were critical of the noise from a particular brand fitted as OEM. I think they were Pirelli but would not swear to it.

Judging from the change from the topic heading, someone got tyred of idle conversation

Yes it is probably unlikely. I had Dunlop Sport Maxx as oem on both my mk2 and mk3 Octavia and had no real issues with them although others seem to have less regard for them than I. The mk2's had to be junked early as the car came with the rear multi-point suspension misaligned, not the tyres fault. Dunlop replacements are relatively expensive here in Aus and there are usually better value options. I do remember from years back, there was one Briskoda road warrior whose diesel Octavia was fitted with Dunlops and he declared them the worst tyres he had ever encountered and tried to wear them out but gave up after about 80k miles. Huge relief for him when he fitted new tyres but I think soon after he moved onto a BMW anyway and I always wondered how he found the run-flats. An isolated and extreme case though. Be interesting to hear how you go with damper replacements when you decide on your choice for when I'm forced into it. Since I would still venture onto dirt roads I would certainly not want to lower the car at all which seems to be a major factor for some.

Despite my instinct to resist spending money on our cars I was at point last year where I was questioning whether the shocks on our 1.4tsi 2014 (then 90k km) Octavia needed replacing due to a perceived ride deterioration. At the same time the 17 inch Michelin Primacy tyres, while still just legal, had been very noisy for the last 10k km (of their near 50k km life) and were obviously due for replacement. I had delayed any expenditure due to possible total vehicle replacement. Anyway, fitted some well priced Continentals which fixed the road noise AND much to my surprise improved the ride to levels I remembered when new. The Michelins are considered a premium brand but I think our Australian heat and high UV had affected the tyres normal compliance and close investigation revealed some almost imperceptible cracks on the walls so I think the loss of resilience was our main problem degrading ride quality. While we don't do high annual mileage we do give our car an occasional rough session such as a recent trip to an iconic remote South Australian outback location which involved 400km of dirt road usually travelled by 4WDs. Not saying it was rough, but being heavily corrugated and with frequent washouts and large gibber sections, the occasional cattle grid actually felt smoother than some of those sections . Overall our non-modified Octavia was brilliant off its preferred environment and gave us a memorable experience with another 'bucket list' item ticked off for us! The age and condition of the tyres may not be the issue with your ride but it was an aspect I had not experienced (to that degree) before and may be worth investigating before committing to new dampers.

Yup, there on my 2014 model 3 but for me it disappears after a 100km or so of fuel use. First world problem. Turn the radio up

Congratulations on achieving the distance. The idling consumption of 0.9 and 1.0L/H seems unusually high. Was the engine still cold?

I've got a Fitbit Versa 3 that I've been using for about 6 months and while it is not as dedicated a sports watch as the Garmins it is proving to be quite good value at the discounted price I paid. The particular plusses for me is that it is light, has a comparatively long battery life in normal non-gps mode (5 days), and because it fits so well on my skinny wrists the heart rate monitor appears to be very accurate and compares favourably with a chest monitor (which I dislike wearing anyway). The focus is mainly on encouragement of activity, which was a little annoying getting notifications when you meet the goals they set for you but I've got used to them now. It does a thing called 'Active minutes' where you are awarded values related to certain heart rates so in my case it seems over a 100bpm is one point per minute and over 130bpm is two points per minute of exercise. The target for the week is 150 Active minutes so about 23 minutes a day so not big objectives to say the least. One active day at home I did an 8km walk with my wife in the morning and then later a 7.5km run along the beach, plus shopping (it counts) added up to 220 Active minutes for the day. One active day at work pushing loaded trolleys, packing and unpacking etc registered 380 Active minutes. I found that very interesting. Good at providing stats for specific nominated activities which are manually selected, stopped and started to activate the gps. Obviously battery consumption then increases . Overall a good unit so far, especially for the price. If I can get 3 years out of it I will be happy but the internet suggests reliability is not necessarily one of its strong points.

Interesting, I don't think I have ever had tyres that retained pressure for that long. Glad your cat got better

I agree with @RADIOTWO that the right pressures are appropriate for both dry and the wet conditions. I've never read anything to suggest otherwise. I was a bit intrigued by the figures you gave though, which I think, are for a fully loaded vehicle and appropriate for over 400kg of people and luggage mostly added over the rear wheels. If you have only two people in the car then surely 44psi on the rear is a lot more than necessary to avoid excessive tyre flexing at higher speeds and potential overheating? The front pressure seems about right because those tyres are subject to most of the cornering, acceleration and, especially potentially, heavy braking loads. Consider that full emergency braking is near 1 g so the torsional weight on the front tyres is near 3 tonnes, pressures need to be high to avoid tyre deformation potentially reducing tyre contact and braking effect. The rear tyres on a fwd vehicle have a far easier life and so a lower pressure will theoretically enable a little larger and more sustained tyre contact on a bumpy corner. Tyre pressures should be set when the tyres are 'cold' (ie at ambient temperature). It is probably fair to say there would also be a sort of automatic adjustment of actual tyre pressure on a dry warm day (where the air pressure in the tyre would increase with the internal air temperature from driving ) compared to a colder wet day (where the conditions and cold water would suppress the internal air temperature and pressure). I've got no racing or performance experience but a couple of advanced defensive driving courses I did for work drummed home the importance of correct tyre pressures for safety were about 5 psi over manufacturer's recommendations which were for comfort on the high profile tyres of that period. My 17 inch tyres lowest recommended pressures are 32 psi all round so I run 37 psi which feels about right for me with two people in. I up the pressures as per recommendations if doing long distances with heavy loads. For what it's worth, each of my tyres lose about 1 psi a week, so I top up every couple of weeks or so when I refuel. I like to think I can feel the difference.

You might have been better off posting in the mk3 section for some responses on the two engines. I've only got experience with a 2014 1.4tsi (which I have been, and still am, pleased with) but I follow all those reporting their consumption with interest. As you would expect the 1.6d can get about 10 to 15% better consumption than the 1.0tsi, mainly due to the 10% greater caloric value of a litre of diesel over petrol but that really depends if you get a good example of the diesel. For some reason there is greater variation (some surprisingly poor) on consumption reports for the 1.6d than the 1.0tsi. On a motorway run it is possible to expect up to 70mpg from the diesel (with the mentioned caveats) and about 55/60 mpg from the 1.0tsi (based on the mk3). Obviously that changes for the worse when you hit traffic or urban areas. The mk4 has better aero than the mk3 and maybe a bit higher gearing so the 1.0tsi in the mk4 should be even better? Be interesting to know what you are achieving for the journey currently: type of vehicle, engine, transmission, journey time, average speed and whether you travel in peak or off-peak traffic. It would help assess what you are likely to get with the Skodas. Whatever your preference try and get a good test drive to include a highway stretch with the 'instant fuel' consumption display on to see if you are getting a good example of the type.

This thread is of mild interest to me as my previous Australian and basic 1.9pd mk2 (no Kessy) would lock all doors and windows from the fob so you could not get out as being reported in this thread, although I think there was an emergency method of exiting through the boot but I really cannot remember the details. Just a little disturbing and something to avoid mistakenly inflicting on a passenger even for a short time on our potentially hot days. However, our current similar low spec 1.4tsi 2014 mk3 is totally different in operation as after locking with the fob, any of the doors opens from inside with the door handle or unlocking using the central lock/unlock button. Cannot find any setting on the Swing radio so far that would change it, but I'm far happier with this arrangement. No idea why the operation would be so different and yet apparently cycled around again on the mk4?

Well it was pretty much a splash and dash but the Christmas tradition has been maintained for another year despite the adverse weather conditions. The main problem was not the air temperature, although only five degrees warmer than London today, but the howling gale along the beach. My wife had to hold onto my sandals, clothing and towel while I swam to avoid an impromptu beach sprint pursuit. And I actually enjoyed it.

I was referring to the air temperature but actually the sea temperature in the Gulf of St. Vincent is apparently 19.7 which surprises me that it is that high, as we have had a cool start to our summer. Going to be pretty breezy too 🥶 so it will probably feel warmer in the sea although it will be very choppy out there. I'd only swim in a wet suit in your sea temperatures. Actually a wet suit not a bad idea for this Christmas Day and would be a first. A couple of years back, my wife and I did once did snorkel in 12 deg sea temps to tick off a bucket item of swimming with an annual gathering of giant cuttlefish. That was an incredible experience although we shivered for an hour after. If the shark spotter plane indicates there is something close at hand, then to hell with tradition!

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.