silkysteve

The problem with the DSG variant of the 1.6CR is it pushes it up into the same tax band as the new 2.0CR that should now be ready to order according to the brochure. The 2.0 has quite a bit more power with the smoothness of the 1.6 and is, near as makes any difference, as economical as the 1.6 on paper. All I'll add is, if the 2.0CR been around when I bought my current car, it would have been a more difficult decision. The 1.6CR is still good though and, at the risk of causing another argument, IMO, better than the 2.0PD - I'm just a sucker for quiet and smooth.

Of course I meant, "fingers crossed".

The compressor failed on my last Octy at around 130,00 miles and just over 3 years. It was a 2006 model, so it looks like it was one of the dodgy ones mentioned elsewhere. Fingers on my current Octy. It may be a coincidence, but the A/C seems a hell of a lot better on the new one than the old one - it seems to get cooler quicker.

1.6 CR - 54mpg average from new - about 25,000 miles mainly motorway. As I've mentioned in other threads, this is accurately measured, not from the maxi-dot.

Some people really do need to get over the DPF. It's simply a non-issue. So much better not to have a cloud of black smoke out of the back every time you give it a bit of welly.

I very often carry a heavy load in the boot - after all, that's what the Octy is best for. I also had 4 adults in it the other day and I couldn't really say I noticed any difference in performance.

We're not allowed to discuss the 1.6 CR on here.

I did it on my last Octy to fit a DAB aerial. It's possible to just slide your had in with a spanner to remove the nut, but you have to watch you don't crease the lining too much otherwise it'll show. I had no choice but replace the aerial in order to use DAB, but I wouldn't recommend it for any other reason. The factory fitted one is going to be at least as good as anything aftermarket and certainly a lot better than a chavvy shark-fin. If reception really is that bad, the problem may lie elsewhere.

No offfense, but that's a load of horse droppings. If that were the case, the 1.9 would have been dropped in favour of the 2.0 long ago. The fact is, they both co-existed even in the top spec models. There's now even more reason to get a 1.6 as it's better than the 1.9 (yes, really, it is) and a much lower tax band than the 2.0CR is likely to be.

Regardless of origin, I think the total absence of black smoke can only be a good thing.

One example that may or may not be true - you only have hearsay "evidence" and it doesn't even relate to a Skoda - isn't enough to prove that something fitted to another make of car is inherently faulty. If you could come up with some actual evidence that would stand up to scrutiny as being more than a once off, then it may be worth taking into account. Anything else is just gossip.

As an IAM member myself, of course I totally agree. To drive well on the road takes training, practice and a good attitude. To drive a Formula 1 car just needs rich parents. Although I probably shouldn't be saying that since Nigel Mansell became IAM president.

Formula 1 and road driving are chalk and cheese and require a different skill set.

My 1.6D is now 0n 22,000 and has been averaging around 55mpg for the last three months. This is measured, not using the maxi-dot which is around 2-3mpg optimistic. This is mainly motorways, but does include some start-stop city driving.

Further North in South Gloucestershire, it's pronounced OCTAYVER. Across the border in plain vanilla Gloucestershire, it's not called anything at all as none of the in-bred half-wits can read.

I'm certainly of the opinion that a better trained driver trumps a more powerful car. In a legal race across a major city between a highly trained driver in a 1.6D and an average driver in a petrol vRS, my money will always be on the car with the better trained driver. Even for the simple reason that better drivers don't slow down as often, so don't need the extra power to get moving again.

I find too many motoring journalists and hobbyists are to far towards the motorsport and petrolhead end of the spectrum, than those from a Roadcraft background - although these groups don't have to be mutually exclusive, they do start from a different point of view. I take the opinion that the power required by a driver is inversely proportional to their skill. In other words, it makes up for their inability to read the road and plan ahead adequately. Harsh, but fair.

No offence, but it sounds like you need to learn how to drive. Or at least how to drive properly.

The thing is, once the 1.6 is up and running, it pull strong right up to the red line. I put a lot of the "bad press" about the 1.6 down to nothing more than mis-informed rumour. I've just gone past 22,000 miles in mine and it's easily the best diesel car I've ever owned and has been a 100% reliable. It's also fun to drive - not bad for a car with "green" credentials and 35 quid a year tax. I'd go so far as to say it's also a better engine than the 2.0 PD I had before, although I'm probably being a bit too controversial here - it's certainly a lot more refined.

I was once told there's no such thing as a silly question. However, asking which is the best between the old, noisy and thirsty 1.9 and the modern, quiet and economical 1.6 probably comes into the catagory of a stupid question. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you could point to a small difference in the low down grunt for about a tenth of a second after pulling away from rest, but you do have to look hard. A small change in driving style will soon iron that one out though. From then on, there's nothing about the 1.9 that beats the 1.6. The DPF is also a non-issue for normal driving and probably a non-issue in the real world for abnormal driving.

I have them on mine and I noticed this at first. I just make sure I leave a long enough gap between turning the ignition on and running the starter. If you try to start the car while they're still unfolding, they get stuck.

Because the 1.9 is a noisy thirsty bag of bones in comparison to the 1.6 There's nothing wrong with a device that means you don't leave a trail of black smoke behind every time you give it a bit of welly.

[quote name='xman' date='15 March 2010 - 18:48' timestamp='1268678920' post='1925743' For heavens sake, even my lowly 1.2 HTP Fabia has far more torque at 1000 rpm than that award winning GM CR diesel... For heavens sake indeed. That may be the case until my turbo cuts in and shows it a smokeless clean pair of heels, thanks to the DPF.

I think it's just something that's become a bit of an urban myth even to people with experience of diesel cars. I've owned lots of diesels and driven many more - none of them has had this now legendary "low down torque". They've all been gutless until the turbo cuts in to some degree. They've got better over the years, but it's still there. This most noticible improvement has been in the area of the torque curve. Early turbo diesels gave you a big kick at 2,500rpm and and died to almost nothing after just over 3,000rpm. My 1.6D is pulling like a train from below 2,000 to over 4,000. You just have to give it a bit of welly and leave it in a lower gear for longer. If you think about it, the 1.9 is bound to give you better torque from a standing start as it has more raw material in the way of capacity. That is, until the better turbo charger of the 1.6 kicks in. The paper figures bear this out.

For one, the economy is far better in the 1.6. For two, the 1.6 is simply more refined.