Cauliflower

Okay, I'm replying to you but don't take it personally because there's other posts along the same mocking vein. Hand on heart time for all you mockers (no, this isn't rhyming slang). Did none of you, I repeat, NONE OF YOU, ever add wheelarch extensions to 'XR-ise' your Mk1 Fiesta or, to bring things more up to date, ask the garage to remove the '1.6' badge from your Ford Mondeo? It's no different than sticking a Bentley badge on your Chrysler 300.

First things first Yaniv, how did you measure it? That is, was your car definitely brimmed upon collection and did you brim it again after 375 miles? Or did you simply believe your dashboard readout? If you can't be sure that it was brimmed at either end and until your dashboard readout is corroborated by brim to brim analysis over a longer distance, then you can't rely on the accuracy of the 24 mpg figure. If however you're confident that your 24 mpg is accurate, then this is VERY low, even allowing for the engine to settle in. I've several thousand miles on mine over 3 months and with a mixture of largely driving gently (but no less slowly in terms of overall journey time) with a few spirited 'foot to the floor' moments in most journeys (when joining motorways, overtaking on A roads, that sort of thing) and the overall consumption is 41-42mpg. On one VERY long motorway journey driving at a fairly constant 60-65mph I achieved 47-48mpg. But such journeys aren't the norm for most people. On one brim to brim (almost a full tank) when I consciously drove like a madman most of the time, the consumption fell to 30 mpg. On another brim to brim, when I relegated thoughts of economy to the back of my mind and drove without thinking (ie. not as a madman but 'in a spirited manner') most of the time, I got 35mpg. Sorry I can't be more definitive. As I've said in other posts, anyone buying an Octavia with this engine thinking that it might have super economy to match the good performance may be disappointed. Buy this car with a mindset of getting the equivalent of a good 1.8 petrol engine performance with economy of: (1) low 40s mpg overall if you drive for the most part conservatively; or (2) 35 mpg if you tend to shift it a bit in most journeys; and you won't be disappointed.

OK, you're not a badge snob but I think what you've described is simply the outer end of a tendency which is inherent in virtually all of us. A quick surf will show you that the majority of Chrysler 300 owners upgrade from the standard to the Bentley grille. I think going further by replacing the badge only seems strange because the Chrysler 300 is rare on the roads. I reckon that if a really common car, say a Ford Mondeo, fundamentally looked a bit like a Bentley and could be made to look very like one indeed with a few cheap and easily effected changes, then oodles of people would go as far as replacing the badges and you would see them everywhere and regard it as relatively normal. Certainly no more abnormal than the fact that 9 out of every 10 people that you meet walking down the street carrying a Louis Vuitton bag or wearing a Tag Heuer watch knows that their goods are fake. A bigger issue for me is the fact that for £93k more than the low and mean looking Chrysler 300, the Bentley looks, how shall I put this, corpulent. On this DRL melarkey, can anyone actually provide a link to robust research that demonstrates they make things LESS safe? It seems like a no-brainer to me, for despite all the subjective noise about them here and elsewhere, every study I've found so far on the www bar one shows that they improve safety. And the one exception (a US study), while identifying no statistically significant reduction in frequency and severity of accidents, certainly didn't find any evidence to suggest they increase accident frequency and severity. The gauntlet's down. :p

OMG you guys, are you not committing the same 'badge snobbery' sin that has bedevilled Skoda owners and enthusiasts for years? I quite like the look of the Chrysler and the optional grille is a big improvement over the standard version. But I could never afford it. But to those who can, £28k (the 3 litre diesel version) in one HELLUVA lot easier to justify than a Bentley in expenses. I remember reading an article a year or two back that (Dragon's Den's) Deborah Meaden had, after test drive (or should I say being test driven) chosen this as her chauffeur driven car. In addition, the write-ups by the various mags are pretty positive in respect of quality and performance. Come'on, what's the problem here?

Like politicians? Oh, I geddit.

WHOAAAAHHHHH! "Down the other side of the hill free wheel." I was told that this is not indictable, but nonetheless illegal and not good practice on safety grounds - can anyone enlighten?

I don't have a VRS, but this is exactly my experience in my 1.4 TSI. It's a peach of an engine and smoother than a baby's bum, BUT, whether hot or cold, there's a slight 'diesel' roughness in 1st gear when taking off. Disappears in 1st the moment after you apply pressure to the accelerator and isn't apparent in any other gear. I'm assuming it's clever black box (ECU) gubbins.

Can I ask what might be a REALLY stupid question (and no, there is no agenda, I really want to know) ? If car manufacturers, with their engineering design experience and expertise, spend such extraordinary amounts of time and exhorbitant amounts of money on developing a vehicle (as they do), why do they not incorporate what can be achieved by a relatively cheap remap into the vehicle range? Were they thick?

On the subject of knobs, I'm not overly impressed by the standard FL knob that's on my 1.4TSI gearstick - very 1980s stereo-ish. :'( Hope they conjure up something less tacky for the next generation. But coming back to issue in hand (and don't be starting wars over remapping and CO2 emissions - where on earth did that come from???) I still think there's a case for maybe giving the VRS brigade a little strip of forum racetrack of their own. On a wider note, Skoda marketing needs to consider giving VRS a brand/message/direction of its own, as it probably deserves it - remember the halcyon days of Ford RS?

OMG, I'm trembling as I write this. Is there a need for a separate, ahem, 'area', to satisfy the needs of the VRS community??? I mean, I see the frequent posts of these guys (and occasionally gals) and I feel singularly inadequate and uninspired to diagnose the 'jpg' picture of a brake calliper collecting excessive dust or comment on marginal tyre widths. Pile in and let known what you think!.

Except the next morning when you need to return home!

What about option 8? Invest your £300 in an NSI 3 year RPI index-linked certificate, then in 3 years time play the table with that and whatever else hasn't gone into the Stella Artois expenditure column and place it in the hand of a reputable dealer selling a 12 month old 'next generation' Octavia VRS (timescales to be confirmed). The pics of the bog standard version Octavias so far are encouraging.

This phenomenon (did I pronounce that correctly?) is something I've only caught on to recently. My commute to/from work in my 1.4TSI is less than yours, but the difference between to and from (albeit according to the dashboard readout) is typically up to 5mpg. Apart from one obvious but short hill section on a motorway, you would be REALLY hard pushed, without seeing the contours on a map, to guess which way was ultimately uphill or downhill. Point being, you need to measure economy brim to brim over a reasonable time period and distance, rather than take a snapshot of a one way (no matter how short or long) journey.

I'm with you on this. The best engineers in the world operate under the rule of "necessity is the mother of invention". The Czechs are still in that space.

Nope, can't agree. I came from a basic diesel Fiesta to a new Octavia and by comparison, the tyre noise is indeed "terrible". I think the fact my new 1.4TSI engine is so quiet is part of the problem. Shame.

How we all laughed at the Estelle having "...a rear windscreen heater to keep your hands warm when you push it" joke. But that was back when we also drove the Morris "Marina", named after the amount of water regularly found in the footwells, and the Austin "Allegro", inspired by the musical term for "brisk and lively". Seriously. There were lots more awful duds back then, such as Lancias which self-destructed their bodywork within 2 years. The truth beyond the jokes was that the pre-VW Skodas of the 70s and 80s were competent, a good deal more reliable than many competitors, and certainly not the basket cases they were made out to be. Fast forward to today and the bottom line is that there are very few intrinsically bad cars on the roads. Skoda, with its traditional skillbase and VW input, maintains its record of competence and reliability. .

Yes it does. Have a DMF, that is. As does the 1.8. I don't know about the 2.0, but would be surprised if it didn't. However, the incidence of DMF problems is primarily related to diesel engines and is a consequence of the high levels of torque generated. I've driven the 1.4TSI for over 2 months and 2k miles. Engine is silky smooth and quiet (due in some part to the DMF no doubt). Performance probably wouldn't satisfy the expectation of an out and out racer but is more than adequate for everyday driving and then some (think of the performance being more akin to an average 1.8 or slightly lazy 2.0 petrol). BUT. Don't walk into ownership thinking you can get 45 mpg without trying. I'm averaging about 41mpg with a mixture of restraint and the odd blast. Once got 47 mpg on a very long motorway journey. But giving it the beans everywhere will see you drop down below mid 30s. 38 - 40 mpg in normal driving should be possible without trying. Still, not bad mpg for a petrol engine with that sort of performance.

Let's be clear here, we might all have different SUBJECTIVE opinions about the quality of a BMW, Audi , Mercedez-Benz and a Skoda in terms of the perceived look, feel, sound and smell (I don't think taste counts!). But those opinions bear no relevance to the OBJECTIVE quality of those cars in terms of how well they are built. Year after year, Skoda vies with the Japanese in being at the top end, while the other listed marques languish in their wake. Fact. Incidentally, how cheap and nasty are those little rows of lights running along the top of Audi headlights? Naffer than a wooden bead car cover...

It strikes me that those who write off pre-VW Skoda without any equivocation at all are ignoring the history, such as the group B rally record of the 1980s where they whipped the ass off every other manufacturer using a 30 year old engine. Yes, VW's input has revolutionised the brand, but it's rather glib to suggest that VW, in buying the badge and an open door to another market, are somehow wholly responsible for the modern quality products that all but the ignorant now appreciate as such. For all that VW brought to the table in terms of investment in technology and economic nous, the Czechs brought technical skills by the bucketload - it wasn't a one way street. Remember this quotation by a Skoda engineer: “We didn’t know a lot about Western advertising or marketing, but we did know how to build cars.”

Don’t forget that other people’s opinions are just that. Other people’s opinions. Some of these opinions brought you ‘Cars of the Year’ like the Talbot Horizon, Talbot Alpine Fiat Bravo! (perhaps the Fiat wasn’t such a bad car) What caused you to overlook that COTY paragon of loveliness, the inspiration for every toddler's first crayon drawing of a car, the Renault 9 ???

I just use a square yard offcut of (not foambacked) old carpet draped over the bumper (pile side down) when my podgy lab gets in and out.

Got to agree on the noise - in my FL, the tyre roar is a real shame as the engine is otherwise so quiet. Nothing would possess me to get the same tyres again (Dunlops). Also agree on the back bumper, the bottom third of which can become noticeably dirty after even a few miles. I still have a thing about the pedals not lying naturally / intuitively underfoot, the relationship between the height of the brake pedal and the other two necessitating a crooked ankle which can be wearing after heavy miles - I've had a couple of (Ford and Renault driving) friends periodically driving the car and they agree that it's not the best set up they've happened upon, despite the extensive seat / steering wheel adjustment. Still, a very well put-together car with a peach of a 1.4TSI engine.

Moley, seriously, go test drive. I can't speak about economy, but after years of diesel ownership including the venerable VW 1.9 in various guises, I just found the 1.6TDi CR performance smooth, quiet (by diesel standards) but totally lacklustre by comparison - not dangerously wanting by any means but, dare I say it, not really enjoyable to punt around in. I'm still of the opinion that it may be to do with gearing rather than the engine. Given similar driver experiences posted on various sites and the potential DPF/cambelt liabilities, I decided to give it a miss this time round. However, there are no doubt 1.6TDi CR drivers who will read this post and be ready to pile in with opinions to the contrary so, as I said, best go test drive.

I have driven the 1.6 petrol in Audi A3 and VW Golf guises on several occasions in the last 5 years and the 1.4TSI (in my current Octavia) is in a different league. If you really don't need a significant performance upgrade and have your eye on economy, test drive the 1.2TSI.

After many years of diesel driving and a recent lacklustre experience of test driving the VW 1.6 CR Tdi engine and given the elephant in the room regarding DPFs, I decided to buy a 1.4TSI Octavia. Now, after approximately 2k miles, I have to say I'm very impressed by the performance, especially given the size of the Octavia. VW clearly is as well, hence their decision to use this engine in the exact same state of tune to punt their base Scirocco around. Smooth, quiet (pity I can't say the same about tyre roar), not boy-racer fast, but usefully swift when you need it to be, I cannot understand how anyone not requiring sports car performance would find this significantly wanting in everyday driving. Be warned, though. If you point and squirt it everywhere or spend life in traffic jams, you will NOT regularly achieve 40+ mpg. In normal mixed driving, meaning everything from city streets through country B roads to motorway jaunts, with a modicum of restraint mixed with the occasional and necessary bit of welly, I have achieved on average 41mpg. On individual (80 mile) long motorway journeys sitting at 60mph I have achieved 48mpg. But thrashing it will take you places rapidly, including the low 30s mpg. I think it's a mindset thing. Some people see it has a 1.4 litre capacity, hear the rave reviews about its modern technology and duly expect the economy to be consistently 45+mpg. But go into your purchase with an expectation of getting usable performance akin to many other manufacturer's 1.8 or 2.0 petrol engines and 40mpg overall and you shouldn't be disappointed.