juux

Yes, it can get very hot in there, even if you are not using the wireless charging. I find that on long journeys where I'm streaming music via CarPlay the phone will get so hot it will go into a 'protect' mode until it cools down

Mildly, that would be surprising. The ECU doesn’t “know” what the octane rating of the fuel it’s currently using is; there’s no way for it to measure that directly, and if you’d ever seen the equipment and test procedures required to assert a fuel’s octane number you’d see it’s not exactly something you could build into a car. All the ECU can really do is fuel and advance or retard the ignition based on what it is being asked to do and the parameters it can measure, and it draws from the appropriate map for the required operation to do this (closed or open loop traditionally, but who knows what trickery manufacturers employ nowadays?!) Happy to learn otherwise in terms of VWs but I’d wager that any “high performance” map, if it could be so described, would just kick in when the engine is running optimally, not just a step change based on what it thinks been pumped in to the tank last. In simplistic terms the ECU will just keep advancing ignition until knock is detected then dial it back a bit. The better the fuel the more often that point will be in the more aggressive portions of the map.

It's not as simple as "oh, my owner has filled me up with 98 RON, let's go faster", the engine continuously tests for det and along with all other sensors (exhaust/coolant/exterior/intake temps and whatever else is monitored), will fuel and time the car appropriately. You can get duff 99 RON (old, contaminated etc.) and excellent 97 RON and the engine will 'prefer' the latter, allowing more advance and therefore, with an appropriate engine, produce more power with better response. So to simply state that "97 RON is a waste of time, only 98 RON makes my car go faster" is far too simplistic. For one thing, the engine takes a bit of time to adjust to any 'better' fuel which means any "I filled up with TurboFuel MAXX++ and my car immediately went like a rocket out of the forecourt!" is at best wishful thinking. ECUs are deliberately conservative in advancing but will be extremely quick to retard to quell any knock and may take some time to 'relax' again after a transient issue like a bit of schmutz affecting an injector which causes a temporary bit of det. That's not to say you can't detect differences in fuel, but it would generally have to be between really crap fuel and 'normal' stuff. If you care, buy your fuel at a place with a high turnover of whatever higher octane you find works best. I find that places at busy junctions/routes that have it on all/most pumps tend to have sufficient turnover. It's the smaller, more out of the way garages that maybe only have it on one out of four pumps that I worry about, it could be that they don't sell a lot of it and it will degrade over time, often more quickly than 95 RON due to the extra additives. Remember, fuel formulations are constantly changing throughout the year to account for the expected ambient temperatures and for variations in feedstocks, both the raw crude mix and the efficiency (or otherwise) of the cracking process equipment, that may require more, fewer or even completely different additives to meet the required EN standard. Thus, your TurboFuel MAXX++ is not a single fuel but a desired profile (energy density, octane rating, detergent blend etc.) which the refiner attempts to match (mostly successfully ) but which is literally never the same from tank to tank. In simple terms, the only legal requirement is that the fuel meets the relevant EN standard at time of production (which is "only" 97 RON, even in the case of 98/99 RON fuels), all else is driven by marketing and production constraints. Source: 20 years of being involved with modified cars (being driven about by a mapper while you wear det cans is an enlightening experience!) and a chemist wife who for many years worked in automotive fuel additives at a major UK refinery

It's not the temperature that's stopping them working, more the 3mm of ice! Same thing when you drive though a snowstorm, snow builds up on the radar and proximity sensors and when they start throwing lots of funky readings the car disables them and shows a warning on the dash.

Just been out, temperature has risen to -4C from an overnight low of -11C and the car was covered in a thick layer of frozen rain due to a temperature inversion. Amazingly the washer jets still worked! None of the external sensors were functioning though, dashboard was like an orange Christmas tree.

How on earth did we manage before the invention of parking sensors

Did you read the thread? Many 4x4 owners reporting the same behaviour, can't imagine all our cars are broken. The Superb is fundamentally a FWD car that is able to shift power rearwards when needed, all this talk of 'pre-emptive lock-up' was debunked in another thread on here/PH/some VW forum (can't find it at the moment) but despite that it does seem that Skoda have, for whatever reason, been very conservative and allowed a fair degree of slip before diverting power. This chimes with what @Baverhanne found when setting 'increased traction' via VCDS. It's possible that 2015 cars like yours have different programming to current production I guess, making them "more 4WD" at the presumed cost of a little extra fuel consumption. That alone would probably explain why Skoda would keep things as loose as possible as they will always be chasing the lowest possible tax band. I'm away to investigate this 'increased traction' setting

Never had nozzles freeze in over 20 years since I switched to proper -20something°C screenwash, used at the appropriate concentrations - pretty much neat in this weather (-10°C last night). The stuff you buy from garage forecourts, supermarkets etc. tends to be useless. I bought mine in Costco when I was in the UK.

Because mine will happily spin an inside wheel in such situations. The thread below details my experience, and given what others say it would seem to be standard operation.

Although I'm a huge advocate of 4WD or RWD in anything with over about 100hp/tonne, in the circumstances you describe I'd consider it a waste of time. The 4x4 system in the Superb is not capable of eliminating wheelspin coming out of damp junctions etc. (one of the prime reasons I prefer it) and driving like you describe would barely have any other effect, other than to cost a bit more in fuel.

Ordered mine in late-June, delivered start of October, actually a few weeks earlier than predicted.

Can’t say I’ve noticed any issue with the seats, done about 10,000 km now including a few 4-5 hr stints and never felt any pain or discomfort during or afterwards.

The auxiliary heater is an option, even on L&K. Plenty of Webasto dealers who could install one aftermarket, not sure on pricing though.

If CarPlay isn't working - i.e. not connecting at all - then this is, IMO, 100% to do with the cable. I have official Apple cables that will never connect via CarPlay, some that are marginal, and some that just work every time, including one that has significant damage to the sheath and shielding. Go figure.

Need to speak to a dealer. Here I think the cars come with a year online services included, after that there's a small charge to keep it going, but I'm not 100% it's the same in UK. I would pay a reasonable amount, say, €50 a year, for the remote heater activation alone!

I find it useful for starting the pre-heater and sending sat nav locations to the car. If your alarm goes off it tells you too, and you can check if the car is unlocked, how much fuel is in it etc. Is the error on the web or the mobile app?

Yeah, that's about right. Certainly nowhere near 2k at 70 mph.

Not sure what "Online AC" is meant to mean. The only online aspect of the HVAC system that I'm aware of is the remote operation of the auxiliary heater via Skoda Connect. "Heater controls" simply means that all the physical heater controls are duplicated on the touchscreen.

Yeah, after a previous search to try and get rid of this I changed mine to 'Allow' but it made no difference. Tried changing it back a few times buts it's still the same.

Only if they're getting out and pushing the damn things! Unless you hypermile there's precisely zero chance of seeing a 39mpg average in a 280; mid 20s likely, high/low 20s possible depending on driving style/trips/roads. Driving gingerly I imagine you could coax 30-something out of a tank, but it would utterly defeat the point of buying a car with a reasonable amount of poke. Just buy a 150!

Does this mean the '280' is no more and it's '272' from now on?

Afraid I can't tell you as I opted for 18s to maximise ride comfort, afraid that I would regret 19s and have no real (cheap) way of changing if I did. They still look good and are, by almost any other standards, fairly low profile. Running a car (S204 on 18s) a few years ago on the biggest wheel option available cost me about £1,000 in damaged tyres, wheels and realignment over three years (Buckinghamshire's wonderful "roads" also to blame!) and I swore I would never again be a slave to fashion and go for the biggest, blingiest wheel option. Even so, there are more than a few occasions where the ride could be doing with a bit more compliance, even on relatively smooth and well-maintained continental roads, and more sidewall would definitely help. If we were at all sensible animals we would all have 16" wheels, but of course it's not as simple as that

Afraid not, pick a colour and it's there until you change it again. It's a well implemented system, very even spread of light, good colour choices (no silly 16 bit colour space sliders or anything like that), wide range of brightness and neat integration with other displays.

I must've had a dozen satnavs, plus used various Android and iOS guidance evolutions going back to 2010, and none of them have ever been 100% perfect. There's always the odd turn of phrase, awkward pronunciation or stilted cadence, and in that respect I'd say the Columbus is no better or worse than average.

Done about 8,500 km in mine and averaging about 27 mpg, so about 10.5 l per 100 km. 9.1 doesn't sound so bad!