Hi everyone. Me and the wife currently run a fabia vRS and a Mk1 Octy vRs but with 3 young boys more space will be required within a year or two. I am of course considering the superb ll and was wondering if anyone had heard any rumours of a 6 cylinder diesel model becoming available?

A 4x4 3.0 tdi superb ll would be just the ticket!

Cheers

Jim

Hi everyone. Me and the wife currently run a fabia vRS and a Mk1 Octy vRs but with 3 young boys more space will be required within a year or two. I am of course considering the superb ll and was wondering if anyone had heard any rumours of a 6 cylinder diesel model becoming available?

A 4x4 3.0 tdi superb ll would be just the ticket!

Cheers

Jim

Not much point, with tax and fuel prices a V6 diesel won't pinch the 2.0 D market, the engine wouldn't make it much faster, but would swallow it 33% faster, I can't see them bothering this time.

I agree with Supurbia, and it would simply be too expensive as a SKODA. It`s a great car but even this 6-cylinder gas-engine is useless in my opinion. It`s not exactly a competitor for MB E, BMW 500 and Audi A6, even though it`s spacious. There is a limit to what people are willing to pay for a "normal" brand.

And now, into a hot sauna, and then.....a few.....

:dtp:

Performance Car voted the Superb V6 the best Q-car on sale today

ppl who buy Audi aren't shy of £400 road tax and 23mpg, that's why it goes in an Audi, but Skoda is a budget brand and cuts it's cloth to appeal to the good value motorist, so by not having a V6 TDi you have a raod tax saving of £225 pa and a 25% less fuel bill for going 0-60 1 second slower. hth.

Mind if I have a taste of your tasty beverage...Hmmmm mmm.

Since when does the 3.0tdi cost £400 to tax... it's only band I ( g/km) in the A6 q SE (£175.00). And I'll tell you this..... 23mpg is dream world. You can get almost 40mpg out of one on a run and between 30 and 35 normally. Also I think the torque and 240bhp from a std 3.0tdi blows away any VAG 2.0TDI unit.

Oh and to answer the OP's original question... no you'll not see VAGs current V6 diesels in any supurb II as they are all longitudinally mounted... where as the supurb II's engines are now mounted transversely.

Edit... Supurbia please see this link ( http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=41197 ) might help with your knowledge of the 3.0 TDI.

Edited 18 July, 200916 yr by auroan

ppl who buy Audi aren't shy of £400 road tax and 23mpg, that's why it goes in an Audi, but Skoda is a budget brand and cuts it's cloth to appeal to the good value motorist, so by not having a V6 TDi you have a raod tax saving of £225 pa and a 25% less fuel bill for going 0-60 1 second slower. hth.

Mind if I have a taste of your tasty beverage...Hmmmm mmm.

Erm ?

0-60 6.4 secs, 500 Nm Torque, limited top speed 155 mph

hmmmmm

And if you go for an A4 with the 3.0TDI the figures are even better

Tax band H (172 g/km), 0-60 5.9secs

Need I say more ?

I've removed a number of posts from this thread for they added nothing and were quite unfriendly in nature. I'm am not impressed, come on everyone this is not scoobynet yet.

comparing the A4 to the superb the roughly equivilent spec is around 5-6k cheaper in the superb and the 3.0 quattro A4 is 30k so an equivilent superb could be 25k, sounds good value to me

comparing the A4 to the superb the roughly equivilent spec is around 5-6k cheaper in the superb and the 3.0 quattro A4 is 30k so an equivilent superb could be 25k, sounds good value to me

Except you'd never get a Supurb II with a longitudinal V6 and perminent 4wd (not this part time wishy washy stuff)

Anyway, the A4 is a compact exec. Not a large family car. My A4 quote was to show how good a 3.0TDI engine'd car (which isn't a luxo barge or soft roader) would go.

Edited 18 July, 200916 yr by auroan

I've removed a number of posts from this thread for they added nothing and were quite unfriendly in nature. I'm am not impressed, come on everyone this is not scoobynet yet.

Can you PM me what I wrote? I don't recall it being that?

Except you'd never get a Supurb II with a longitudinal V6 and perminent 4wd (not this part time wishy washy stuff)

Anyway, the A4 is a compact exec. Not a large family car. My A4 quote was to show how good a 3.0TDI engine'd car (which isn't a luxo barge or soft roader) would go.

The 3.0 TDI I had in the Q7 did 21mpg

Makes you wonder why VAG haven't done a twin turbo 2.0 TDI with the new engine yet. Surely if they can get 170 out of it with one they must be able to get 200bhp + and be approaching the sort of performance of the 3.0 TDI plus it would fit in the golf, passat, Octavia and superb where the engine is mounted the other way to the ones in the Audi.

@ auron, my 1.9 TDi auto is over £200 a year to tax, so I assumed anything 2.5 and upwards would pollute enough to put it in the top bracket, and as for real world fuel figures I stand by what I said, the average user of a car with a 3.0 TDi in it would be lucky to see 25 mpg, as backed up by Babs I might add, amd the Audi site says it's 189kg which is band J @ £260pa, Parkers can say what they like we all know how accurate their figures and advice is don't we, for a 3.0 to return 40 mpg you'd have to have a clear motorway with an already warm engine and drive at 50mph all the way, or are you relying on OBC's to tell you those sort of figures, I noticed you added 30-35 on a run, that's more like it.

What I originally said made sense, who is going to buy a budget car and pay all the extra running costs, ppl buy Skoda for value, Seat for style, VW for middle management appearance and Audi cos they've got enough money not to worry about fuel and tax, Skoda know this and that's why the engine choice for the Superb reflects reasonable performance combined with economy, and the 3.6 one is for all the other countries they sell to that didn't have a Gordon Brown at the helm, I'd be suprised if they ever manage to sell one without heavy discount here.

But my original statement was using Skoda history, and had Skoda had a 3.0 TDi you can be sure it would be slightly less tuned and likely to have a 0-60 of around 8 seconds, and the cars weight would add to time and pollution, so the 9.9 seconds a 2.0 takes to do 60 would probably only reflect 1- 1.5 seconds in real terms, hardly worth making a car that much faster at the expense of having a 2.0 that will return 45mpg on a run, and cost £100 pa less to tax.

Edited 19 July, 200916 yr by Supurbia

Come on the Q7 weights over 2 tonne. There are 3 collegues I work with who run 3.0Tdis at work in their A5s and all regualry get over 35 mpg with mixed driving. And it was over 40 on a run and 30 to 35 normaly (ie around town etc) that I said.

Your 1.9 and the 2.5 are old designs hence the higher co2 output. I stand by what I say regarding the 3.0TDI with it's economy and performance. And thats real world as well not just taking the figures.

Just an example; 3 of us were joining the a64 after work. Me in my 2.0tdi, a collegue in a 3.0tdiq A5 and another in the new S3. The A5 and S3 left me for dead, but astonishingly the A5 also left the S3 for dead as well, as we acclerated up the slip road. And I know after talking to them that they were both trying.

With reference to your who buys what badge... Audi's are one of the most fuel efficient cars in the VAG range like for like. So I can't agree with your tax and fuel comment. I've had a car form every stable in the VAG brand. Does that make me a value seeking, stylish, middle management person with an appetite to use as much fuel as possible and pay the governement money hand over fist ?

I think not.

my mate has a 530D(older late 90's one) and he certainly doesn't hang around. ever.

yet he gets 40-45 when driven gently and doesn't drop below 30(on average) when making progress, when he a 528 his average was in the teens.

and about the S3, the A5 3.0tdi is quicker on paper than the old one and very very nearly the same performance as the new one so with a new one its down to who ever puts their foot down first really.

If I don`t remember wrong, those first news from this new superb included some hints that a big diesel could be an option, but now there are no hints about that.

And at least here, where cars have always been relatively expensive, those special models like 3.6 FSI V6 4X4 DSG sell very poorly. If I understand this industry correctly, those special models aren`t very profitable for the manufacturer, and that`s why many manufacturers don`t offer them to the public at all.

the uk isn't expensive for new cars.

Come on the Q7 weights over 2 tonne. There are 3 collegues I work with who run 3.0Tdis at work in their A5s and all regualry get over 35 mpg with mixed driving. And it was over 40 on a run and 30 to 35 normaly (ie around town etc) that I said.

Your 1.9 and the 2.5 are old designs hence the higher co2 output. I stand by what I say regarding the 3.0TDI with it's economy and performance. And thats real world as well not just taking the figures.

Just an example; 3 of us were joining the a64 after work. Me in my 2.0tdi, a collegue in a 3.0tdiq A5 and another in the new S3. The A5 and S3 left me for dead, but astonishingly the A5 also left the S3 for dead as well, as we acclerated up the slip road. And I know after talking to them that they were both trying.

With reference to your who buys what badge... Audi's are one of the most fuel efficient cars in the VAG range like for like. So I can't agree with your tax and fuel comment. I've had a car form every stable in the VAG brand. Does that make me a value seeking, stylish, middle management person with an appetite to use as much fuel as possible and pay the governement money hand over fist ?

I think not.

To be fair, that average or 21mpg was over 20 miles at 50mph, so not exactly thrashing it, regardless of weight!

and about the S3, the A5 3.0tdi is quicker on paper than the old one and very very nearly the same performance as the new one so with a new one its down to who ever puts their foot down first really.

The 240ps 3.0tdi has so much more torque than the 2.0TFSI S3. So you get more real world performance. Once moving over 20 mph the S3 would struggle immensely with a 3.0tdiq in an a4 or a5 with like for like drivers. Thats not my words either... thats straight from the mouth of one of Audi's German instructors from a recent Driving day.

The 240ps 3.0tdi has so much more torque than the 2.0TFSI S3. So you get more real world performance. Once moving over 20 mph the S3 would struggle immensely with a 3.0tdiq in an a4 or a5 with like for like drivers. Thats not my words either... thats straight from the mouth of one of Audi's German instructors from a recent Driving day.

Section highlighted.

Surely an S3 owner would be more inclined to drop a cog? Also, it's a 3.0 V6... what ever the fuel it'll have more 'natural' torques.

Drop in a 3.0 V6 petrol and strap on a turbo, and then see about it

Yes but my assumption of like for like drivers, are ones who know how to get the best from each respective engine, but with the same mentality with regards to how they "push it" when driving.

I've gone from a chipped 6cyl E320 CDI Merc which had 250hp and 400ft lbs of torque to the 4 pot VAG 170hp engine and i really dont feel like i'm missing out , sure the 6 cyl is a smoother engine and you have to work the 170hp unit more but as i've said before FWD and a chassis like the Superb doesnt scream for more horsepower its not a drivers package FWD kills that

As for Audi being a premuim brand like MB or BMW , i'm not convinced i see it as a expensive VW as opposed to Skoda and Seat being cheap VW

FWIW my old Mercedes did 33.5mpg on my daily use my Superb is currently doing 42mpg which will hopefully get better with more miles, i could get 21mpg out of my Mercedes when towing a caravan :)

Finally £400 RFL isnt going to put anyone off but the fuel economy might , i think Skoda have a better idea of their market than most of their customers do as i expect they sell two 140hp diesel Superbs to every one 170hp version like the 3.6 petrol a bigger diesel would never be a big seller

Yes but my assumption of like for like drivers, are ones who know how to get the best from each respective engine, but with the same mentality with regards to how they "push it" when driving.

But "like for like drivers" would never buy those cars! If you like actually having a rev range and a nice sounding motor you get the S3, if you want lazy torques low down and like tractors you buy the A4/A5 with the 3.0 V6 TDI

What if you like both ?

The 240ps 3.0tdi has so much more torque than the 2.0TFSI S3. So you get more real world performance. Once moving over 20 mph the S3 would struggle immensely with a 3.0tdiq in an a4 or a5 with like for like drivers. Thats not my words either... thats straight from the mouth of one of Audi's German instructors from a recent Driving day.

absolute rubbish, my brother driving his remapped PD160 ibiza cupra (1177Kg) running ~190bhp and over 300Lbft couldn't get away from me driving my other halfs standard vectra GSi (1500Kg) running 208bhp and 221Lbft and infact over 40mph he was holding me up due to him having to change gears all the bloody time. this was both of us going for it in good conidtions from a moving start on a dual carriageway.