EnterName

Probably a combination of factors, but I suspect the main issue is a lack of people willing to organise events, with the second issue being a lack of people willing to turn up to events. To address those issues, if people want meet-ups, I'd suggest they organise a day out for themselves that they personally would enjoy, and then publicise it. A lot of meets seem to, perhaps logically, be arranged to start off meeting in a car park of one sort or another. Hanging around car parks waiting for people who may or may not turn up isn't much fun IMO. (Mind you, thousands of teenagers in McDonald's car parks can't be wrong! 😄) But I think it's better to go somewhere you would want to go anyway. 1) Publicise it in advance. 2) Announce when you are there (post a pic or whatever on here). 3) Check the forum regularly to see if anyone else has turned up and posted their presence. 4) If they turn up, great, you can meet up and hang out. If they don't, well, you have yourself a day out somewhere you want to be. I think it's key to not be discouraged if nobody turns up, so making sure you can enjoy the day even if nobody else shows up is important, IMO. However, I dare say there are other factors in why interest in meet-ups is low.

Respectfully, that comment is a bit full-on for Briskoda. I understand the energy, but things are a bit more chill on Brisky than some other corners of the internet. Speaking from experience, I appreciate it can be disorienting to re-calibrate your tone from somewhere like Twitter or the free-for-all chaos of 4chan, down to the more sedate and measured tone of Briskoda, but you get your head around it. Also, do bear in mind that there are some very knowledgeable people on here, and collaborative debate with them is always going to be the most productive way to reach an accurate consensus on an issue, even if you just agree to disagree at the end.

Personally, I'd avoid the 1.0 TSI, but that's a personal preference, and a personal assumption that a 1.0L engine lugging an Octavia around for the best part of 100K miles will be knackered. I'd love to back it up with some sort of evidence, but I haven't got any. As far as I know, the 1.0 is a good engine that gives excellent real-world economy, and 115PS is plenty of power for an Octavia under most driving conditions, day to day. I haven't seen the reports I expected of the 1.0 TSI being worn-out after this sort of mileage, any more than large-capacity engines. Personally, of the two, I would prefer the 1.5 engine, as it's got some clever tech in it that allows it to use just 2 cylinders at low load/demand for high economy, which appeals to the engineer in me. It's also got 150PS which is a decent amount of power for an Octavia. It's no ball of fire, but it's plenty to give the Octavia sprightly performance and not leave you stuck behind a tractor on an A-road somewhere. https://www.vwgenuineparts.co.uk/vw_act_active_cylinder_technology_explained.shtml That said, there were/are some issues with jerky performance at low speeds with the 1.5L TSI. They can be sorted, but there was a time when they needed sorting, so if you choose one, look out for that.

Hello and welcome!

Much as I avoid Skoda dealers as much as possible, this is certainly a good idea.

Hi Knodty. Step one: Get your fault codes read.

Are you Canadian, @Paws4Thot?

No worries, let me clear things up, though I think Rodders has pipped me to the post. Here is data from Rodders original power graph. (The red curves.) So if you look at the power curve, reading from the x-axis, the one that runs left to right on the bottom, showing RPM, and see where the power curve intersects it for 5250rpm, look at the Y-axis for the power curve on the left of the chart, you get approximately 236BHP. (When I first looked, I got 235BHP, but using a more accurate method, I see 236BHP) Now if you look at the torque curve, reading from the x-axis at 5250rpm, look at the Y-axis for the torque curve on the right of the chart, you can see it intersects at 320Nm. Bear in mind the intersection of power and torque at 5250rpm is BHP and ft/lbs, so we must convert that 320Nm to ft/lbs, which works out at 236 ft/lbs. (Here's a tool for just that conversion. https://www.unitconverters.net/energy/nm-to-ft-lb.htm) So the curve looks spot on to me. Here's an illustrated version of what I've explained. If this doesn't clear things up for you, I don't think I can make it any clearer. Of course, why the measured torque curve is very different to VAGs claim of torque for the engine is a different matter!

You clear on that now, @J.R.?

Hello! For comfort, of the two, the Superb is the one to go for. I don't think there's a "bad" engine for the Superb. The best engine to go for is the one you like best. We all have personal preferences and budgets, so I suggest you pick the engine that satisfies your personal preferences.

Yes, that seems to be consistent across a variety of tuners. During my online search, I saw curves from smaller VAG engines recording peak torque from low RPM, but I'm not seeing any measured evidence to back up VAGs claim of high torque from 1500/1600rpm for the EA888 2.0tsi. I cannot explain the discrepancy. I'd also like to see what torque/power numbers my car returns on a rolling road.

BIngo! Yes, you're right. From my somewhat crude peering at the screen in conjunction with your sensible context, I get the following data. (Errors would appear to be down to my accuracy reading the graph.) So that makes sense now. Thanks @RoddersUK I'll be interested to hear what Racingline say about the low rpm torque. 👍

I don't really know how the plots were calculated, but perhaps the gearbox losses are a factor in the torque and power curves not crossing at 5250 as expected? But that's just the start of the weirdness of those plots. It's weird that the pre-remap curves (red) and the remap curves (blue) cross at different RPM. I'm bemused as to why the power curves start to be measured at a relatively high 2200rpm. I'm not sure what engine @RoddersUKhas, but both the 230vRS and 245vRS engines' peak toque in standard tune is available from 1500rpm & 1600rpm respectively, so starting measuring at 2200rpm seems odd. What's even odder, is that peak torque on Rodders standard tune was a healthy 384.5Nm but at a heady 2750rpm, when it should be developing 350Nm (230ps) or 370Nm (245ps) from 1500rpm & 1600rpm respectively. Even the remap torque curve is about 100Nm down on what it should be at 2200rpm. I'd want a second opinion on the power output of that engine on a different rolling road.

The best thing about keeping a car for ages, is that you reap the reward of looking after it.

If you're baffled @Kenny R take a closer look at the two images...

Do look into any effect a new towbar could have on your reversing sensors. Good luck! 👍

It's an interesting article, however I'm not sure that surgery to reposition your shoulder joint a couple of inches forward to allow you to sit back in your seat, is the sort of ergonomic advice I want to be following. 😄

Hello and welcome!

Do not despair! As Colin suggested, have a look round for a reputable independent garage. It may be possible to fit a reconditioned gearbox, or even a working second-hand gearbox & controller at a more manageable price. Whatever you decide, there are usually more cost-effective options than going to a Skoda dealer, if their prices are unfavourable to you. Good luck!

Hello and welcome! 😊 Window regulators are very definitely the home ground of @Breezy_Pete. See here...

Oh yes! I have never owned a car so prone to getting stone chips as my Octavia.

Don't encourage him! 😋

Elite broken part identification skills! 👌

The fact that they have a "Behavioural Science Unit", nicknamed "The Nudge Unit" is somewhat of a clue, @lol-lol. The whole point of being sneaky and subversive is that people aren't supposed to notice what you're up to. Sneaky: marked by stealth, furtiveness, or shiftiness Subversive: Seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution. The job of the nudge unit is to stealthily encourage people to change their behaviour without them noticing. I'd say that is both sneaky and subversive.

The people who think they know best (in this extract referred to as "the anointed") have a pattern of behaviour: STAGE 1. THE “CRISIS”: Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a “crisis,” even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a “crisis” has in fact already been getting better for years. STAGE 2. THE “SOLUTION”: Policies to end the “crisis” are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and “simplistic,” if not dishonest. STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z. STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as “simplistic” for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors” went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors. Be it climate change or problems in the Middle-East, the pattern is the same. Crisis, proposed solution, detrimental effect, excuses. You'd think more people would have spotted the pattern. (Source of the 4 stages, Thomas Sowell's excellent book "The Vision of the Anointed". A very interesting and informative book.)