Gerrycan

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

The Subaru XV is a pretty well "idiot proof" car to drive with mediocre power outputs and an effective awd system. Transitioning to an Octavia vRS with vastly more low down torque applied only to the front wheels is going to require far more considered driving on public roads irrespective of what tyres are fitted. I'm pretty confidant that changing the tyres to a more recognised brand will make a noticeable improvement but if you buy summer biased tyres for winter then you will be back on here making exactly the same comments in the cold weather. Try looking in Briskoda's tyre section for some background on the benefits of appropriate all-season tyres especially if you are likely to experience some snow (Ireland so probably not). Also when your new tyres are fitted avoid the temptation to see how good they are for at least 100km to allow for them to bed in and also scrub off that slippery new surface. Read some reviews of the Davanti tyres and they are amusing to say the least. They vary from "would race on tracks with them" to "they nearly killed me" so you can assume, as with many low cost tyres, that quality control is more a concept than reality.

Ooh a Corolla Hybrid Estate...jealous! Not available in Australia, we are only allowed bloated "SUV" type vehicles. Had a hire Corolla Hybrid Sedan, but an economy focused 1.8L, a couple of years back. Blown away by the excellent consumption, even on the open highway with speeds upto the 130kph speed limit where the hybrid functions were not supposed to contribute much. My only criticism was a lot of tyre roar noise on the course tarmac surfaced highways in the Northern Territories, it was virtually silent on the smooth surfaced roads of Darwin.

Your "G-spot"?

Totally agree with what you say about how environment and style being such major consumption factors but a bit bemused by how much better your car is with the higher ron fuel, but hey if it works for you then . There may be a couple of percent more calories for the potentially lower ethanol content for higher rated fuel and most manufacturers claims I've seen will say there is a potential 1% improvement in consumption for each individual increase in ron on a standard production engine, but only if the engine is designed to recognise the higher ron fuel. I've used this example before but Mazda produce a turbo assisted SkyActive 2.5L engine that is designed to run on a range of fuel types in the US where they have the equivalent of 91 ron fuel (appearing as an even lower rating by a different measuring system) and presumably as high as 98/99 ron fuels for 'exotica'. Mazda say their engine produces 13 kw more power using the higher rated fuel which I think is close to a 7% improvement. Unfortunately they did not make any comparable statements regarding the effects on consumption.

Don't expect much improvement if any just from changing fuels. Comparisons are so difficult! There can be differences between individual vehicles which are otherwise identically specified but more likely it is due to the driving environment and individual driving styles. I suspect that @AlanOsborne is also a far more accomplished "hypermiler" than he is letting on Differences between my wife and I driving the same car: a) highway, speed limit, no traffic - we get the same consumption b) highway with traffic - I'll get 10 to15% better c) urban driving conditions then I'll get about 30% better consumption. Hopefully my wife doesn't read this post.

Glad to hear you are enjoying your new car and getting good consumption with the Aisin 8 speed box. Modern torque converters are way better than they used to be although unbelievably there are still ancient 4 speed versions on a few brand new cars. With your very good highway consumption I'd be interested to hear what revs the car is doing at the 110 kph legal limit in 'top gear'. Adelaide petrol prices vary by up to 25% percent over a 2 or 3 week cycle. I recently bought 95 ron at a low A$1.78 a litre which at the time converted to 96 pence. The next day the price rocketed to A$2.25 as the school holidays ended. There is a thread in the Briskoda "Off topic chat" zone entitled "£1 per litre" and dating from October 2014. For British readers our 91 ron fuel is about 15 cents cheaper still although forbidden for use in VW group vehicles.

Thanks for the information. I only saw the online promotional technical details on the launch of the 1.5tsi years ago so I am really surprised that the variable turbo is not currently fitted to the most commonly used 150ps version. Maybe it had something to do with the protracted non availability of the 1.5tsi during their issues meeting WLTP standards and non-variable version was retro fitted? I did not even know there was a 130ps version! If your A4 owning friend is averaging 5.5L/100 (51 mpg) then he is matching most one-off best journey reports from standard 2.0tsi owners, best averages are usually in the mid 40's mpg range. While the speeding fines here in Australia are probably not as high as Finland (where I think they are speed and income related) they still raise billions for the regional governments as many Australian drivers are slow to learn from their mistakes.

Let's be clear I have no experience with an engine with cylinder deactivation so I am going by previous owner comments on Briskoda. I have no real idea how modes affect operation in different driving environments. I don't even have modes on my car but I do have different 'moods' and that can affect consumption The 1.4tsi that was put in the Superb had it and owners reported similar consumption to the lighter/smaller Octavia without it so I assumed it was worth a bit more than 5% improvement. I do remember reading an early 1.5tsi Octavia owner complaint that the cylinder deactivation did not cut in as much as he expected but it turned out he was trying to lug the engine in similar gears to his previous 1.4tsi and needed to adjust to allow the engine to rev a little more which reduced the load and allowed the cutout to activate, which for his version was reported from 1500 rpm. I'd love to get my hands on one to see what I could achieve but alas there is no 1.5tsi Aussie Octavia mk4 and I let the purchase opportunity for a really well priced new manual 1.5tsi engine Scala slip by during the instability of the Covid era. The only current one on the market is an interstate demo (2500km away) and about A$20k more expensive than the original including A$8k of packs I don't want.

Yes you have and

So 70mph would be 2100 rpm (give or take) which is substantially lower than my 1.4tsi calculated 2700 rpm and the reason for the mk4 requirement for more gear changes. My 6th may well be closer to your 4th gear in gearing. Both engines produce the same 250Nm of torque. A few years back in the UK I had a hire Kia C'eed manual diesel. Fairly average car but it was economical and was delighted to get 60 mpg on tank, however it had very long gearing and the display was always suggesting a lower gear than the engine felt comfortable with. The instantaneous consumption display was a fairly useless bar graph that only showed under 30 mpg. Once I had worked out that the recommendations were wrong and that I could not use 6th below 60 mph, 5th below 50mph, 4th/40mph and so on, my calculated refill consumption improved to 70mpg. It was then a nicer drive and actually able to accelerate more easily. This required more active use of the gearbox was not a biggie, I got a bit more fun AND better consumption.

Interesting, I honestly cannot remember anything being written about the 1.8tsi in manual versions. Never read any really notable consumption reports from manual or auto versions either, so I sort of discounted it because of that. While I think my 1.4tsi is very tractable it is possibly quite low geared compared to the 1.5tsi. As near as I can tell I'm doing about 2700rpm at 70mph in 6th gear, allowing for the known inaccuracy of the speedo and unknown tachometer accuracy.

Not everyone will agree with my personal opinion that the smaller capacity tsi engines have for many years offered a better balance of power/economy than the larger 1.8 and 2.0tsi engines, as I have never needed to use the full potential of my 1.4tsi on the road. The mk4 Octavia has class leading aerodynamics and the 1.5tsi with variable geometry turbo and cylinder deactivation is one of the most sophisticated (complicated?) production ICE engines so no real surprise with the excellent figures quoted especially on a longer (UK summer trips). I believe the cylinder deactivation activates over 1500 rpm and under 30% available torque in Eco, which would be 90+% of my driving. Do the 1.5tsi owners notice the difference? The quoted figures are measurably better than I could probably achieve in similar circumstances with my 2014 manual 1.4tsi but not enough to justify the expense of upgrading even if it was available in Australia. Our Mk4 Octavia is limited to 1.4tsi with 8 speed Aisin torque converter box below the 2.0tsi options, no manual version at all 😞 . I prefer manuals, not that you have to change gears much at all on the open road due to the oodles of low down turbo torque and the relatively light body. Out of curiosity does anyone know if the 2.0tsi 'Budack' cycle engine is still in the Skoda range and if it actually was more efficient and whether there is a 2.0tsi with cylinder deactivation?

What size engine and transmission type?

Our local 95 Octane does not yet have ethanol added and so when I tried a few tanks of local 98 octane in the 1.4tsi I could not identify any performance or economy improvements. I did it because the dealers recommended I try 98 to address a cold start jerkiness experienced for the first 100m (1st gear to road) after a cold start, made no difference to that either. The UK Corsa hire was fed E10 95 Octane and apart from feeling gutless at lower revs (compared to small capacity turbo) I was more than happy with the near diesel like consumption. I agree with @Prezafab's assessment about the effects of more careful driving on petrol and diesel consumption returns. The Yeti is a wonderful little Tardis and I have no idea what to suggest as a replacement.