EnterName

The gearbox usually mated to the TSI190 is the DQ381 which is a great gearbox. It has the capacity to handle up to 420Nm torque (some say 430Nm), is of the wet-clutch type, and needs servicing at 80,000 miles. (Not sure if there's a time limit on servicing, but I'd guess there is.) Mine has turned me into a DSG convert, having only owned manual gearbox cars before.

There used to be a saying years ago, that if you took your Rover car to a Colliers garage to fix one fault, it would come back with two new ones. It is in the spirit of that thought, that I start this thread. What I'm trying to collate in this thread, is modifications to Skoda vehicles to be driven by the average person, that were implemented and gave the desired effect, but unfortunately created a new problem that meant further work was needed to accommodate the modification, or meant that the modification was abandoned and deemed to be a failure. I don't care if people disagree with individual experiences, what is going to be a problem for some folks is likely to be a positive feature for others. I suppose I'd better give some examples of upgrades with undesirable side effects. I once bought a tuning box for a 90BHP Seat Ibiza. It worked in conjunction with a vacuum hose, and gave a good slug of extra torque and was fun to drive when accelerating. However, it was a bit on/off in the delivery of the extra power, and what this meant was that when cruising on the motorway, a slight change on the accelerator would cause the car to surge forward undesirably. This gave the effect for passengers of driving in a car where the driver is constantly either accelerating or braking and was unable to drive smoothly. The problem was solved by the company whop supplied the box, by replacing it with a box that used electrical signals to determine how much extra power to provide, and it worked pretty well. So while I got what I wanted with the extra power, I also got something I didn't want with on/off characteristics until the box was replaced. Catalytic convertor removal: I removed the cat on my Rover 420 to "release more power". It didn't release much extra power, but it did release a load of additional noise. This was all well and good when trying to sound cool vrooming about town, but on my daily motorway commute it did my head in, and it wasn't long until the catalytic convertor went back on and the de-cat pipe came off. Same goes for the Pipercross cone air filter I fitted. It added a load more noise, not much power (if any), and was an oily greasy mess to clean and re-oil. I'm pretty sure it had far poorer filtration ability than the OEM air-filter. So off it came. ( I appreciate that these two mods are changes that for some people would have been an unmitigated success, but for me they were failures.) Brake upgrades that need to "warm up". Great on race tracks, downright dangerous on normal roads. Suspension changes that lower the car so you have to modify your wheel arches, or you have a harsh ride that's only fit for a racetrack. This thread isn't about disrespecting anyone's successful modifications that they have implemented and are very happy with. This thread is all about capturing people's dissatisfaction with their vehicle modifications, and providing a resource of experiences that temper the natural enthusiasm of changing bits on your car without knowing all the pros and cons. I accept that what is an undesirable negative for some, may be a desirable positive for others. That's cool! So long as people can make an informed decision, that's what this thread is about. While it's aimed at performance upgrades (which is why it's posted in this part of Brisky), but if you want to talk about upgrading bulbs that caused a load of crazy error messages to crop up unexpectedly, that's good too. If the mods want to move the thread elsewhere, then that's okay with me. I'll start with a simple one from my experience, as I haven't actually made any performance mistakes on my car yet. I upped the base voltage at which the Start/Stop system would activate. I had intended this would mean the hardwired camera wouldn't be power-cycled by the stop/start system dropping the battery voltage below the "battery-saver" level set by the dash camera. The unwanted and unacceptable side-effect, was that it effectively disabled my stop-start system as it almost never kicked in. Now for some, that may be a very desirable feature, in which case, go for it. But I didn't fancy being stuck on a motorway for some time in a tailback with a disabled stop-start system. If I want the stop/start system disabled, I can press the button to disable it, I don't want it almost permanently crippled (though others may want that). So it was reset back to the default voltage setting, lesson learned.

Hello Rasputin. 😊 There are a few threads knocking about on here regarding locking fuel caps that may help. IMO, a good way to search Briskoda is not with the internal Briskoda search tool but with something like Google/DuckDuckGo/Yandex/Presearch/Bing/<whatever> outside of Briskoda which tend to home in on specific thread more intuitively than the Briskoda search engine. Here's a starter for 10. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=briskoda+%2B+"fuel+filler+flap"+%2B+stuck&t=ffab&atb=v159-1&ia=web Good luck!

The 190 Gen3B engine can be very frugal if driven gently. If you're cruising at 70 on the motorway, 50MPG for the journey should be very attainable.

This is useful and persuaded me that a standard air filter is best for my needs. (Years ago I had a Pipercross cone foam filter on a Rover 420 which made a great noise, but was a pain to clean. I left it off eventually as I got bored with the additional noise once the novelty wore off.)

Hi! Lovely car. 👍

I have Cross Climate 2's on my wife's Fiesta and they have been excellent. Good grip in dry, wet, hot, cold, whatever. Can't comment on their wear as I don't do many miles, but they really do grip well in all conditions on my wife's car. It's a fairly low-powered 1.4TDCI it must be said, but I do chuck it about a bit and the CC2's work very well on the Fiesta.

Hi Mark! Successful lurking for years is an underrated skill. 😊

Back from a very warm week camping in Wales. Car performance was great. Power delivery was progressive, just dialed up a bit from the original 190, which is what I wanted. Overtaking is now quick and drama-free, which is what I wanted. I don't think the car would be any better with more power without some new shocks and springs, which I won't be changing for some time. I bunged the car in Economy node and set the cruise control to 70 with tweaks to accommodate traffic, as I don't have the fancy speed-adjusting cruise control, which is an option I would be specifying if buying from new. MPG is IMO excellent on a long run if sensible speeds are sustained. (See pic with last year's for comparison. Note difference in average speed; there is a (PITA) 40MPH speed limit near Cardiff and 50MPH limit around Worcester on the M5.) Maybe the MPG would have been better last year under identical conditions, but I can certainly say it's very acceptable as it is, especially as I forgot to re-inflate my rear tyres for motorway driving and they were at 2.5 bar all round, rather than 2.5 front and 2.8 rear as I had going down. I don't have the numbers going to Wales as I forgot, but to be fair they wouldn't be as good as I wasn't trying to drive economically. Fuel for return journey was 30L Gulf super unleaded with 97RON & 5% Ethanol, on top of Sainsbury's 97RON Super Unleaded. (Which I think has 5% ethanol too.) EDIT: Looking at the pics, I really don't do many miles in a year. 😄

Tyres are way more complicated than people think. I used to buy tyres based on whether I liked the look of the trad patter and the rubber used. 😄 I have since realised I honestly haven't a clue how to choose between tyres if simply looking at them, and I rely entirely on reviews and my own previous experience. I would say that cheap tyres are a false economy, they usually have a fatal flaw: Rapid wear or lousy performance in the wet/cold being the two main issues. Noise can be another. Buy good tyres and check the date of manufacture. (In my post above it's week 37 of 2018.)

I was going to say cracks off the sidewall are fine. But that really is a bit of a canyon on yours. Personally, I'd replace. These are mine.

Congratulations! 🎊

That's me thinking everything's about me again. 😄 Seriously though, there's a part of me that's thinking "What are you doing remapping your nearly new car, you lunatic?!" But I actually think I've timed it just right. Do it just as it leaves the warranty period and gives me maximum time with the remapped car. I think that's good advice about changing the plugs, in fact a full service would be a good idea prior to a remap. 👍

An absolute shot in the dark here, but has the EGR been disabled/blanked? If so, this might be a contributing factor. If not, please keep looking for the solution and good luck!

Oh I see it now! In fact it's hard to miss now you've pointed it out. 😄 I was looking for a chain. Reminds me of this.

It's running perfectly TBH, so I'm not planning to do anything to it before the next service, though I have had the G13 coolant replaced with G12evo, as I took the silica bag out. At just 12K miles, changing the spark plugs seems like a bit of an extravagance to try and solve a problem I don't have. It'll get some hot action next week in Wales, and then get its first MOT at the end of July.

You know you've just reminded me about this, @roottoot. Thanks! 👍 Frankly, this is perfect for me, as I do generally potter about, but Tom clearly said that GPFs benefited from hard acceleration now and then. I suppose that's his opinion based on his experience, but I can't argue with the manual and a slap to the back of the head for me for forgetting it.

This is good advice! The GPF needs hard acceleration to clear it out now and then. ⬅️ EDIT: This is an opinion, contradicted by the manual. Yes, I used Angel before with my Mondeo, and was very happy with the map I got from them and this one seems to be okay so far. (Though I can imagine quite a few will be scoffing at the +41BHP gain in power for £395.) Incidentally, I was mooching about my hard drive to see what the MPG was last year, and managed to find it. As I recall, that was quite a steady drive down, because it was wet and traffic speed was slow. 51MPG isn't bad at all for that run. If I get something similar for the journey down, I'll be happy enough. If I do better, then that will be a definite win for me. It's tricky to get an accurate like-for-like comparison as even on the same route, no two journeys are going to be the same, but I'll get a rough idea of what's going on.

Got any more pics? I'm not seeing how the engine drives the rear wheel.

Lovely car! 👌

Hi Peter. One additional consideration to add is ride height. The vRS has a lower ride height and snugger seats, which make getting in an out more difficult. For most people, this isn't any kind of issue, but for older people, or people with difficulties, such differences can become issues. These issues can become compounded, for example when getting out of the car onto a slippery surface or when the car is parked facing uphill. As the other guys said, test both and see which you prefer. TBH, I think you'd be better off with an Octavia Scout, by the sound of it.

This is what I suspect. In similar bodies, different capacity engines will have an optimum speed/gear combination for peak MPG. If I simplify it by removing driver gear selection and use a DSG, then presumably it would be possible to plot a curve showing speed and MPG, that would rise, and then fall, perhaps like a crude bell curve. What I'm curious about is seeing these curves, because it's not something I've seen any data on. My own personal perspective is to favour larger capacity engines for high vehicle speed efficiency, and small capacity engines for low speed vehicle efficiency. But as I said, I have no data to back this up. The crude MPG figures given for vehiclesis no help and that's been replaced by the even cruder WLTP economy figure, which gives an overall fuel efficiency (and CO2 emission) rating.)

Yes I realise there are differences, and it gets complicated with hybrids, but the questions remain. (Rephrased) 1) Is the 1.0 TSI at 110MPH still more economical than the 2.0TSI at 110MPH? (My assumption is that it is not, though to be honest I have no science to back this up. It's basically a gut feeling) 2) Are all similar cars most economical at a particular speed? (Which I accept may vary with different shapes of car.) Now it might be that the answer to 1) is "Yes of course!", I'm just assuming a 2.0 TSI is working a lot less hard at 110MPH than the 1.0 TSI in the same body shell is. Same with 2). But I don't know, hence the question.

I've rewritten this a few times, as I've confused myself a bit trying to explain what was an initial single question. Fortunately, these rewrites have cut a lot of explanatory waffle down to two basic questions: Firstly, on the same platform, do different engine sizes have max MPG at different speeds, or is 55MPH (or thereabouts) is the optimum speed for max MPG for all engine sizes for a particular car? (Presumably, very aerodynamic cars will have a higher optimal efficiency speed to cars with poor aerodynamics.) Secondly, using the Octavia as an example, is the 1.0 TSI Octavia is the most economical TSI Octavia when compared to other petrol variants throughout the performance envelope of the 1.0 TSI? (For example, I suspect that at 110MPH, the 1.5 TSI will be more economical than the 1.0 TSI, which is probably starting to get a bit red in the face at this speed. Is that assumption correct?) Does anyone have any info/opinions on these two questions?

Unpopular colours are a great way of getting a used car bargain, as people really are reluctant to buy them, so the price often needs to be adjusted to make them more attractive to buyers. (Of course, you have to be able to live with a car colour you don't much care for.) IMO, if you're buying new, pick a popular colour to get the best resale value. If buying used, buy an unpopular colour to get the best deal.