TomW80

I've got the same car and average 30-31mpg long term with mixed driving. Eco is pointless in my experience. Might be worth getting it checked out. Honest John user average says 36mpg, but I've never seen anything like this except on a motorway run. It was cheaper to lease and insure than the 190 diesel and with petrol being 10ppl more I don't think I'm paying much more monthly for the petrol version.

Hi @jrgmiles, yes I've got the 2.0 tsi 220bhp on 19 inch wheels (40mm profile I think). The weight would be my best guess too. My tyres were 40+ psi which will be around 3 bar I think and I've now reduced them all to 35 psi (2.7 psi) I think. You might find that deflating the tyres a little will steady things out. I've gone off the middle recommended column for tyre pressure, from the list on the back on the fuel cap. To me 3 bar sounds a lot and if you've got a lighter car I'm guessing it's not going to like speed bumps and pot holes as much.

It's funny how different people are experiencing different things. I've had my car since 1st March and not touched the tyres since I got it, but at the weekend I had to get a puncture repaired and noticed my tyres had been over-inflated by the dealership I got it from. After lowering the PSI/bar I've noticed the car definitely rides softer, which I'm still deciding if I like. With more tyre pressure the car rides firmer, but handles more sharply, but when I hit a pot hole or speed bump it's more noticeable. With the tyres a little softer like they are now it doesn't feel as sharp, but it absorbs bumps better. So perhaps the weight of my car, as mentioned, is a factor, but also tyre pressures being appropriate for the car, load and conditions. In any case I'm not getting any bouncing at all.

Hi @flumpie, nope mine's been absolutely fine. I've got a 2.0 TSI so it might be a bit heavier than some models. Unsure why others are having issues and I'm not.

I ended up getting the car without DCC, on balance of what I read in the motoring press and on here. I had an L&K for the weekend once and noticed the firmer setting on that car made a difference, but I must say I don't miss it on my own car. I don't get any of the bouncing around that others have mentioned and although I notice it's much smoother than my previous Octavia VRS there's also very little between them in the overall handling. My version is UK 18 plate and the one with the a few tweaks, so perhaps Skoda rectified a known issue under the radar. I'm very happy with my car.

Hi All, The issue with 720p and 1080p toggling off with each log out of Android Auto appears to be fixed with the most recent update. After trying 3 'premium' type c usb cables with my phone vs Bluetooth this last cable seems to be doing a decent job. The volume is automatically lower with the cable, but once fettled a bit with bass, treble etc it sounds really good. It's a Syncwire one. I chose one with a rubberised cable over the nylon woven one, as I think the nylon could scratch the plastics over time. As I now have permanent HD Google Maps (or Waze) and decent sound through a cable Android Auto will be my default options. I'm still not convinced by the built-in sat nav at all, even with a data connection. Sends me in to traffic jams and goose chases. Thanks to all those who've inputted

In traffic I can toggle between on route and all, but unlike Google Maps this info isn't factored in to the route or time when planning the route, even when the red globe is white due to data connection. If other's devices are doing it properly, then mine's duff. Hopefully the next software update will sort it out.

I do use my phone's hotspot for the online services, so that works fine. I've not noticed a difference in the traffic info I receive through it though. I'll test it again. My Columbus definitely does not factor in traffic when calculating the route. It'll give me three options, but whichever I chose the time bumps up once it's selected if there's known traffic on the route. Perhaps it'll right itself on the next software update. The best way I can describe a decent sat nav is by whether I trust it or not and at the minute the one I trust most isn't my built-in, expensive, albeit standard, one.

Thanks. Same response as to rtj70 really

Thanks. Funnily enough I was just in terms of use and noticed they use Tom Tom, although when using the hotspot on my phone I didn't notice a difference between data and radio. I'll give that another bash. It would still be useful if it factored in traffic to the router finder. Shame! Petrol and parking features are decent, on the plus side.

I was looking for another thread relating to the quality of the sat nav built in to the Columbus 9.2 but no one else appears to have brought up the fact that it's not very good, especially compared to Google Maps, or even Waze which I'm not the biggest fan of. I'm guessing others share this view or they wouldn't be too fussed about hooking up Android Auto. I'd rather use the built-in nav, as it looks nice graphically and music over Bluetooth sounds better than through the cable, but the nav's biggest issues are both traffic related (and it doesn't have speed cameras - I appreciate they can be added though). Issue 1 - the route finder doesn't factor in traffic, so the driver is blindly forced to accept the green, red or orange route and is unable to make an informed decision. If then for example red is chosen the provisional time given for the journey increases straight away if there's traffic on the route. Google maps does everything in real time and is accurate on the provisional time for each suggested route. Issue 2 - even when the traffic kicks in it's not accurate or comprehensive enough, specifically in around town driving. There's been a couple of times it's led me in to traffic jams, which after switching to Google Maps I got straight out of. So my options are: - Iffy Columbus sat nav with crisp graphics and great Bluetooth sound quality - Google Maps, with great nav, but no cameras iffy graphics and sound - Waze Maps with occasionally iffy route finding, with iffy graphics and sound NB: The Tom Tom mobile app is great for cameras, but I begrudge the second screen. If there's anything I've missed with the Columbus, like a setting please let me know. I've got dynamic mode switched on BTW. At the moment I'm using the Columbus for day to day driving, but Google Maps with my commute, to avoid traffic, but there's compromises with each. It's quite frustrating really.

Cheers @peter_k

@peter_k do you know how to keep it HD? When I come out of the app it resets.

Thanks @peter_k, I've noticed there's a 1080p option too. Just ticketed the boxes, so should do the trick. The built in nav is a bit rubbish, so having Google Maps as back up is essential. Cheers.

You're probably right, but I'll have lost interest by then Part of the fun of a new car is getting to know it, but once the novelty has warn off I'll just get on with it

Yep, that's what I'm looking to suss out - how my miles my first few refuels get me by tank. Based on the litres I refueled with I know roughly how much is left in the 66 litres tank, although I appreciate a bit more can be squeezed in. My first tank was 450 miles and it looks like I'm on track for at least 500 from my current tank.

I'm aware of these factors and the figures are just estimates. In my first tank I did 405 miles, so by the time it worked out I had 45 mile range left when I refueled it should've been reasonably accurate. For my current and second tank I've got rolling figures which are fluctuating based on usage. The figures I posted yesterday were after a drive from Manchester to Cumbria and back, so my mpg and therefore range went up, but based on those figures at that time I had 45 miles left when I refueled and with the mileage I'd done and what I had left I was on target for 564 miles. I appreciate this is extrapolated but it's still a big difference between what the car and the calculations are telling me. I even checked on different online calculators, but the figures remained the same. The bottom line is I'm getting decent mileage out of a full tank, which is improving.

So, I've done a few extra miles including around 150 motorway miles and my mpg is going up decently. I'm going getting the 40-45 mpg yet some people have reported on the motorway, but according to the car I got 36.7 on the return leg. It still appears my car is reporting its mpg much lower than actual mpg. On my last refuel I had 45 miles range left, since then I've done 254 miles and I've got 265 miles left. So, altogether I'm on track for 564 miles from the 66 litre tank. The car is now telling me its long term mpg is 31, but online calculators are saying nearly 39. I'll hold off on any fresh posts now as this is probably getting boring as hell for you guys, but I thought I'd give a quick update on the improvements I'd noticed.

I was looking for 190 diesel figures, but it's interesting your 150 is all in the 30's. Thanks.

I'm getting there, but there's reassurance in the figures. The petrol was an impulse over the diesel, but when I see there's very little in overall costs it's good to know. I love the car and it's a bit of an obsession at the moment and part of the fun is getting to know it. Thanks again

Thanks @Gizmo - I appreciate the comparison. In my Octavia I saw 42mpg and 450 miles from a 50 litre tank. It looks like I deal with more traffic than you. On the basis I'd gt a similar mpg from a diesel Superb with a 66 litre tank I'd get 594 miles. As a result there's about £7 difference in the cost of driving the 450 mile range of my car between the 190 diesel and 220 petrol. This is with diesel at 120.9 and petrol at 116.7 per litre. I paid 109.9 per litre for my last fill up and my petrol mpg is creeping up, so I may be able to reduce this further. It's never an exact science, but it gives me a guide.

I was just looking at this before I saw your messages and got 726 miles, based on 66 litre tank. So, @Gizmoare you seeing 700 miles from a tank? Again, I'm guessing you do a decent amount of motorway miles. 50mpg is decent, especially as I only have got 42mpg from my 184 VRS diesel. @Rainmaker, its good you get 500 miles range. I think you're on the other thread about 220 DSG mpg for figures. I got 450 miles from my first full tank, with relatively conservative driving and a few blasts. Overall, comparing my diesel Octavia to petrol Superb I can live with the difference in fuel costs. Both had/have a range of around 450 miles on a full tank and after looking at the figures again tonight there's only about £12 cost difference.

Thanks, but I meant the range, like 450 miles, 500 miles etc. That's good going by the way. i'm guessing you do a lot of motorway miles. I had your car for a weekend test drive and got around 40mpg. I appreciate it was over a short period. And, with mixed driving I got about 42 mpg out of my mk3 Octavia VRS diesel.

Sorry if I've missed it, as there is 17 pages on this thread. Can someone tell me the range they're getting on their Superb mk3 190 diesel DSG? I'm trying to do a comparison between my old diesel Octavia VRS and my new Superb Sportline petrol. Thanks

I used an mpg app. The top image is the incomplete form, followed by my Superb, then my old Octavia. I paid 120.9 for diesel and my first petrol fill up was 116.7.