hi, I used to have a Mk1,1.9 110bhp Tdi estate and now have a 2.0 140bhp Tdi estate with 35K on the clock. On a regular 200 mile round trip I used to get 58-60mpg. With the current car I get approx 55mpg. The 2.0 is slightly less economical but a better drive, especialy when towing a caravan. 6 gears are more flexible. Hope this helps

Thought I'd through in my "tuppence worth." 06 ocatvia 1.9 tdi ambiente.

I use mine mainly for commutes to work on an 80 mile round trip of motorway and A roads. I drive like a nun now, given the cost of fuel and usually stick to the speed limits. So, on the aforementioned trip mostly 50/60 and some 70 driving I'm getting between 55 and 60 mpg(brim method of calculation.) My trip computer is pretty accurate as well being only a couple of mpg over optimistic. Economy/engine wise I'd say go for it, but as for build quality and the like, I'm not so sure. I'm of the opinion now that you either get a good, well built car whatever the marque or you get a Monday car like mine.

2.0 Tdi, DSG box and 48.1 mpg over 27,452 miles (brim-to-brim). Mainly country and motorway driving, not too much stop-and-go town ddiving.

The difference is very small though. The 2.0 has different gearing and more of them. at 70mph on the motorway the 2.0 is doing significantly less rpm than the 1.9.

Is there really such a difference? My 1.9 does 2000rpm at 60mph in 5th gear. How many revs does the 2.0 pull at 60mph in 6th?

The difference is very small though. The 2.0 has different gearing and more of them. at 70mph on the motorway the 2.0 is doing significantly less rpm than the 1.9.

That's not a lot of help, actually. The 1.9 is a totally different engine, with totally different characteristics.

I would also take issue with your descirption of 'significantly'. That is just not so.

That's not a lot of help, actually. The 1.9 is a totally different engine, with totally different characteristics.

I would also take issue with your descirption of 'significantly'. That is just not so.

Sorry, but IMHO 500rpm difference (PD105 5 speed vs 2.0TDI 6 speed) at 70mph on a car where the rev limit is 4000-4500rpm is 10% difference which is significant.

The 2.0 can achieve high MPG if you drive it carefully, it's just when you open up the loud peddle the MPG drops more then on the 1.9.

The 2.0 is a much more refined engine and quieter, plus the 1.9 in the Octy II is the PD105 and not the PD130 so is well down on power compared to the 2.0 TDI.

It's all down to compromises, but having owned a 110 TDI and driven plenty of PD130 and PD105 1.9 TDI's I think that the 2.0 TDI is a much nicer engine in many ways.

Is there really such a difference? My 1.9 does 2000rpm at 60mph in 5th gear. How many revs does the 2.0 pull at 60mph in 6th?

On cruise at an indicated 60mph I was doing 1700rpm.

Figures I found say:

PD105 = 30mph per 1000 rpm

PD140 = 35mph per 1000 rpm

so the PD140 is doing 70 at 2k rpm against 60 for the PD105.

Even though above I have said it's 500rpm I have seen, the figures suggest it is more like 333rpm difference. Still IMHO significant.

From Harlow in Essex to Cumbernauld Scotland got 50 mpg ,most of the way in cruise at 70mph.

On cruise at an indicated 60mph I was doing 1700rpm.

Figures I found say:

PD105 = 30mph per 1000 rpm

PD140 = 35mph per 1000 rpm

so the PD140 is doing 70 at 2k rpm against 60 for the PD105.

Even though above I have said it's 500rpm I have seen, the figures suggest it is more like 333rpm difference. Still IMHO significant.

Agreed! Definitely significant

Where do you get the 333 from?

35mph per 1000 equates to 1714 rpm at 60mph which is as close to your measured 1700rpm as makes no difference - especially when analogue dial readability is taken into account.

My measured figure of 2000rpm at 60mph was from the dials - had a play today: when I set the cruise at 60mph the rev counter showed 2000rpm. When I used the climatronic digital readout the figures were 57mph and 1900rpm - exactly 30mph per 1000rpm.

Note to self - really must watch the road more :rofl:

333 is 1000rpm / 3 which is the difference to be doing 70mph (as 30mph/3=10mph which is the difference between the 60 & 70 quoted somewhere).

This gives:

2333 rpm = 70mph in the 1.9 TDI

2000 rpm = 70mph in the 2.0 TDI

Hello all

James May's slower grandpa here ...

In 4 years & 110k of driving a 1.9tdi 90bhp (non pd)

My records include brim to brim 75mpg (300 mile trip)

& after a gig in London 138mpg after 7miles through at 2am doing exactly 30mph in 5th turning every traffic light to green on approach, then 60mph back to Yorkshire on an empty M1 with 80mpg still showing at the end of it.

With fuel saver tyres it was nearly always over 65mpg on long runs.

However with safety being more important than econmy I fitted grippier summer tyres or seasonal winter spec tyres (but still 195/65/15) that dropped to 58.7mpg (over 3.5k Jan to March2008)

I've now had a 2.0tdi 140 sport with fat 225/45/17 tyres for 9 weeks.

In terms of day to day driving it's much much more refined.

However, pressing too loudly can have a very bad effect on the wallet.

I've been letting the "trip 2" run the full 100 hours to get longer averages ...

In the first 100 hours I did 4080 miles at an indicated average of 51mpg. Brim to brim was suggesting 49mpg. I've since done another 53hours & 2300 miles with 55.7 indicated. Best indicated fuel range (new toy) has been 780miles.

Did a 230 mile trip yesterday in convoy with a tweaked weber carb'd Rapid through pouring rain (aircon /wipers /lights on) then some drier A & B road twisties & still had 58.7mpg showing on screen.

I rarely do short urban runs & I never even wore the front brake pads out in 110k on the previous car. Yet even I manage to catch & overtake quite a few people & especially now with the extra 90 torques!!!.

Hello all

James May's slower grandpa here ...

In 4 years & 110k of driving a 1.9tdi 90bhp (non pd)

My records include brim to brim 75mpg (300 mile trip)

& after a gig in London 138mpg after 7miles through at 2am doing exactly 30mph in 5th turning every traffic light to green on approach, then 60mph back to Yorkshire on an empty M1 with 80mpg still showing at the end of it.

With fuel saver tyres it was nearly always over 65mpg on long runs.

However with safety being more important than econmy I fitted grippier summer tyres or seasonal winter spec tyres (but still 195/65/15) that dropped to 58.7mpg (over 3.5k Jan to March2008)

I've now had a 2.0tdi 140 sport with fat 225/45/17 tyres for 9 weeks.

In terms of day to day driving it's much much more refined.

However, pressing too loudly can have a very bad effect on the wallet.

I've been letting the "trip 2" run the full 100 hours to get longer averages ...

In the first 100 hours I did 4080 miles at an indicated average of 51mpg. Brim to brim was suggesting 49mpg. I've since done another 53hours & 2300 miles with 55.7 indicated. Best indicated fuel range (new toy) has been 780miles.

Did a 230 mile trip yesterday in convoy with a tweaked weber carb'd Rapid through pouring rain (aircon /wipers /lights on) then some drier A & B road twisties & still had 58.7mpg showing on screen.

I rarely do short urban runs & I never even wore the front brake pads out in 110k on the previous car. Yet even I manage to catch & overtake quite a few people & especially now with the extra 90 torques!!!.

You are my new hero! Impressive stats. Best repeatable real world trip I can get in my PD105 is 73 indicated / 66 real for 105 mile trip between sheffield and coventry. And I thought I was doing well with that!

333 is 1000rpm / 3 which is the difference to be doing 70mph (as 30mph/3=10mph which is the difference between the 60 & 70 quoted somewhere).

This gives:

2333 rpm = 70mph in the 1.9 TDI

2000 rpm = 70mph in the 2.0 TDI

at 70mph tonight in my 2.0TDI

5th gear was 2500 revs

6th gear was 2000 revs

You are my new hero! Impressive stats. Best repeatable real world trip I can get in my PD105 is 73 indicated / 66 real for 105 mile trip between sheffield and coventry. And I thought I was doing well with that!

Aww, stop it, you're making me blush!!

The mega mega economy was a humble 90 with a VP37 (I think) fuel pump,

non of this pumpe duse hi-tech melarky.

I test drove a 1.9 130 & 2.0 140 back to back before buying the 2.0

I will say though that I do change gears lots more with the 6 speed box

whereas the old 5 speed could have just had the number 5 replaced with a letter D

Today's most unbeleivable statisitc is that when I finished nights at 10 this morning,

there was an 8 mile stretch of C roads where I only saw 5 other cars!

Are people scared of driving in the rain?

There was more traffic going to work at midnight.

I have the latter and struggle to get much over 46mpg despite the official figures - I hope that will improve as the engine beds in - only 8000 miles at present. My father-in-laws RAV4 diesel does better than that!

.

But I'd like to bet that your father in law would get better than 46 in your Octy as I bet that its more to do with driving style.

I can (if I want to, and have) get 56mpg out of my TDi vRS.

Even really booting it I get 38 and average 42 without even trying.

Steve

Hello,

for 2.0 TDI (not fitted with DPF) 140 hp tyres 205/55R16

it is brand new 6 000 miles so far and the fuel consumption decreases with with 100g per 65 miles each 1 000 miles. I hope after the first oil drain it will be much better.

The combined driving is ~ 39 mpg

which includes traffic jams (huge)

highway @ 85 mpg

and driving the car fully loaded with 4 persons and lots of luggage

Just to add to this thread:

2.0 TDi Elegance. Only had it for four weeks now. The economy never ceases to amaze me. We have done some fairly long (for us) trips recently whilst looking at Fabias for the SWMBO.

Bath-B'ham 200 miles round trip 60 mpg mixed traffic and getting lost

Bath - Bognor Regis 210 mile round trip mixed traffic A roads and MWay 66mpg!!!

Bath - Beer 150 mile round trip A, B and Dual Carriage way 55mpg

Driving bang on speed limit at all times. Judging road conditions well and lifting off gas well in time to minimise brake use. Two adults and two kids in car with a boot load of stuff as well!!!

The saving in fuel costs compared to my old 16V Golf makes me want to go out more and more. Fine for me and the family. Saving about £10-18 per journey.

If I was doing mega miles per year I might have gone for the 1.9 but doing about 7K per year the saving would be minimal. I'd rather have the power and the fun of the 2.0 any day.

HI,

My 1.9 DSG Elegance (6 gears) on motorway @ 70MPH gets atleast 54MPG according to the onboard computer.

Regards

Steve

Edited 1 October, 200817 yr by sjm

HI,

My 1.9 DSG Elegance (Remapped, 6 gears) on motorway @ 70MPH gets atleast 54MPG according to the onboard computer.

Stunning

1.9 TDI Elegance saloon, 2008, no DPF. Done 12k so far (don't tell the fleet manager)

Averaging about 57 and best just under 60 brim to brim. Trip is about 2mpg optimistic. Best trip reading for a journey was 64 on a run from Staffs to Edinburgh.

From experience of other drivers the 2.0 is not as reliable - have a friend with a 2.0 A3 and the turbo pipe keeps coming off leaving him on limp home. Audi just keep putting it back.

I drove the 2.0 and did not feel the power justified the extra cost, it is a company car on lease and would have cost me £25 a month extra on the lease over 4 years just for the different engine, that tells you something about the residuals. And that was before the current drop in used car prices caused by Brown/Darling, My son works for a lease company and he tells me that bigger engined cars (that is 2.0 and up) are not moving.

At just under 2k miles in a 1.9 estate, my computer gives me mid to high 40s for town driving and up to 57mpg for trips that include motorway driving. Speed makes a significant difference - a constant 60mph is very economical, whereas exceeding the NSL drinks lots of fuel.

@fortyfirs, it is important to take note of every piece of driving that you do, not just the high points. A boring Saturday stuck in shopping traffic jams will pull down the overall average. But given that, there is no particular problem using the computer.

Whether or not the figures are accurate, they are likely to be uniformly inaccurate, and this thread shows a clear trend: The 1.9 is significantly less thirsty than the 2.0. That was all the OP wanted to know.

At just under 2k miles in a 1.9 estate, my computer gives me mid to high 40s for town driving and up to 57mpg for trips that include motorway driving. Speed makes a significant difference - a constant 60mph is very economical, whereas exceeding the NSL drinks lots of fuel.

I'm sorry but i can regularly get high 50's and low to mid 60's from the 2.0 TDI and only drop into the 40's when really pushing on such as on autobahns.

I really don't believe it's that cut and dry. When the fuel was high a constant 62mph (speedo) was getting me in the region on 60-65mpg from the fuel computer, which when checked by the book was accurate to about 1mpg over at least 10 tanks of fuel.

IMHO the only solution is to go drive both.

The computer figures on both our Passats are very accurate to within 0.2 mpg.

I agree the 1.9 is more fuel efficient it's not as big a difference as people are suggesting over the 2 litre.

My driving style doesn't change between the cars and the 2 litre on mixed conditions comes out at about 52mpg and the 1.9 is about 57mpg and I have a heavy commuter drive in the mornings.

If it's all about saving money then obviously the 1.9 makes more sense but it's not solely down to fuel, you need to take in insurance, road tax, depreciation and servicing. To be honest there isn't going to be a great deal in it and the 2 litre is just so much nicer to drive.

The 2.0 litre engine seems to vary far more than the 1.9 in fuel consumption. My boss has an Audi A4 with the 2L diesel engine and he really struggles to get anything approaching 45 average. The others of us at work all have 1.9's (fitted in a variety of cars, Golfs, Audis and Seats) and we all get within 5 mpg of 60 mpg!