Upgrade time!

[Jcb.]

Hi all, first post in a while, i could use some advice. I currently run a mk1 Octavia GLXi 1.6. Come up at the right price is an ambiente 1.9tdi 90bhp on a 52 plate vs the W of the GLXi.

As the petrol car is high powered i'd just like to know people opinions on the performance difference. Is the Tdi 90 a decent engine or underpowered. Should i wait for a 110 to come up? Also, does the ambiente come with any more toys than a GLXi?

Thanks

[ExAudiSi]

I would say that a 1.9 TDI will feel much quicker than your 1.6 petrol mainly due to the extra torque of the diesel engine. Maybe not so much from a standing start, but the in gear aceleration will be better.Fuel consumption will also be better with the TDI.

Not sure on the equipment level of an Ambiente compared to the GLXi though.

I think that the Ambiente will have a 6 disc cd autochanger in the boot, electric windows all round, electric mirrors, remote central locking and air conditioning.

[Jcb.]

Thanks, the GLXi had this also except for the auto changer. Are Ambiente spec cars fitted with a sunroof? This is something the GLXi lacked.

Glad to hear about the power! Would you say the same even for the 90bhp model? Obviously on paper the 105bhp petrol would appear to be better.

[Gizmo]

If it was me i would wait for a 110 Elegance to turn up, more toy's than you can shake a stick at (inc sunroof) and the best engine available (for MPG) more than quick enough too.

[ExAudiSi]

Glad to hear about the power! Would you say the same even for the 90bhp model? Obviously on paper the 105bhp petrol would appear to be better.

Just because the petrol has more power, doesn't make it pull quicker through the gears, the torque does that.

I would take it for a test drive, I am sure you won't be disappointed.

I drove a 90 BHP TDI before I bought my Elegance and would have been quite happy with it. Far nicer and more relaxing to drive than my 1.4 petrol Fabia which had 100 BHP.

[DeeBe]

I drove a 90bhp Ambiente beofre settling on my Elegance 110. It wasn't much different to be honest, but I went for the Elegance because of the Climatronic and the sunroof. It's got bags of power, and I get around 48mpg 'aound the doors'.

It will feel a lot more 'solid' than a 1.6. The power delivery is so different. It won't have as much 'gear-time' as you have to change up more often than in a petrol because of the smaller rev range, but once used to that, you'll never look back.

I wouldn't go back to Petrol (unless I came accross a nice VRS!)

[Railroad]

I've got an Elegance TDi110 too and it goes like a rocket. It's a pleasure to drive although not quite as good on fuel as other people say theirs are. It averages just over 40mpg overall, but it is possible to get more than 50mpg on a long run. I have once seen 60mpg, but that was on a long trip driving like a nun. Having said that if you do 30mph everywhere on flat roads in top gear with no stopping and starting you would average in the high 50s or better, but of course that just isn't realistic. It's still better than you can expect from any petrol engine though.

Last year I went to Silverstone to watch the Le Mans Series. There were four diesel cars, two Audi and two Peugeot. Not only were they much quieter than the petrols they easily came 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Nothing else could touch them.

Forget the old diesels that were sluggish and noisy, modern diesels are the new petrols.....

[Rustle]

Railroad not sure why your getting 40 mpg!!!!! I dont drive like a granny & I'm in the Peak District alot witha car full of mountain bike & camping gear, my avarage which is worked out on milage & diesel fill ups it's 52!!!!

There is not much between the 90 & 110, but as I have an Elegance I would say go for one of them. Loads of spec for your money. As long as the car has a decent history, has been well looked after & is not an ex taxi it should be ok.

End of the day the choice isyours as they say.

[octywagon]

I get 40mpg also - better on a run 50-55mpg.

Go for a 110 elegance if you can hold out and wait for one to pop up.

[Railroad]

Railroad not sure why your getting 40 mpg!!!!! I dont drive like a granny & I'm in the Peak District alot witha car full of mountain bike & camping gear, my avarage which is worked out on milage & diesel fill ups it's 52!!!!

I have to say that an average of 40mpg does seem a little low. My wife drives it more than me, and only does a total of about 20 miles per day. We average about 10,000 miles per year. It does get the occasional longer run, but short journeys is what hits fuel economy hard. The engine runs well and doesn't smoke. I've checked it with VCDS and changed the coolant temperature sensor and the MAF sensor about a year ago. It does seem to have a slight hesitation on acceleration which to be honest someone who has no experience in car repairs and fault diagnosis wouldn't even notice. I notice it, but then again I've been in the trade for 27 years. It could be over-fuelling on acceleration which might explain why the fuel consumption is lower than usual, but there's no shortage of power with it, and no turbo issues either......

[Rustle]

I have to say that an average of 40mpg does seem a little low. My wife drives it more than me, and only does a total of about 20 miles per day. We average about 10,000 miles per year. It does get the occasional longer run, but short journeys is what hits fuel economy hard. The engine runs well and doesn't smoke. I've checked it with VCDS and changed the coolant temperature sensor and the MAF sensor about a year ago. It does seem to have a slight hesitation on acceleration which to be honest someone who has no experience in car repairs and fault diagnosis wouldn't even notice. I notice it, but then again I've been in the trade for 27 years. It could be over-fuelling on acceleration which might explain why the fuel consumption is lower than usual, but there's no shortage of power with it, and no turbo issues either......

Probably the shorter runs thats hurting the economy, I don't meen to be rude but if I was getting an average of 40 from mine I would be a little suspicious that something was not quite right. Either that or SWMBO has a lead foot

[andy-fisher]

Ive got a 1.9 TDI 90 GLX and can quite easily manage 60mpg. On a long run I've even managed over 70mpg with a boot filled to bursting point which I'm sure should hinder good fuel economy. I did take this figure from the trip computer so it may not be too accurate.

[Railroad]

Probably the shorter runs thats hurting the economy, I don't meen to be rude but if I was getting an average of 40 from mine I would be a little suspicious that something was not quite right. Either that or SWMBO has a lead foot

You're not being rude, and I didn't take your comments as such. I have thought the same thing too. I might at some point invest in a new set of injector nozzles. After all the car has done 155,000 miles, and they've probably never been changed.

I drove a total of 97 miles today through Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset, on a variation of roads including some steep hills and stopping several times along the way. The trip computer showed an average of 51.3mpg by the time I got back home.....

[athol]

my mates Octy estate 110tdi only does about 40 as well, he says he dont drive it hard, and i guess his daily trip to work is getting on for 20 miles. however my 90tdi hatch does 52-54 even though I do drive it quiet hard.

[Gizmo]

In the 3 years i had my 110 Elegance (which was on variable servicing - it makes a difference) i don't think the trip ever dropped below 60mpg average, (it made no difference on if i drove it hard all week)

I had even had the average mpg up to 74mpg, when i checked this against brimming the tank there was only around 4mpg difference.

[Railroad]

In the 3 years i had my 110 Elegance (which was on variable servicing - it makes a difference) i don't think the trip ever dropped below 60mpg average, (it made no difference on if i drove it hard all week)

I had even had the average mpg up to 74mpg, when i checked this against brimming the tank there was only around 4mpg difference.

In that case I wonder if I changed mine to variable servicing (it's on fixed at the moment) would it make a difference? In addition to that does the frequency of servicing itself make a difference, or the type of engine oil used? I change my oil (10W40 semi-synthetic) and filter twice a year, by which time I have covered about 5,000 miles.

I really don't like the car go to go 20,000 miles between servicing. Oil is cheap enough, and filters are cheaper so I'd much rather change them often....

[Gizmo]

In that case I wonder if I changed mine to variable servicing (it's on fixed at the moment) would it make a difference? In addition to that does the frequency of servicing itself make a difference, or the type of engine oil used? ....

Maybe i should of phrased it better, it's not the fact that the car is actually on variable servicing, but the oil that is used, so if you use variable oil (506.01 or 507.00) you should still get better mpg, but as you get very low (IMO) mpg at the moment there may well be something else that is not quite right also.

[Railroad]

Interestingly I usually drive with the instantaneous fuel consumption figure showing. On acceleration this often drops down to single figures. As I stated earlier it might be over-fuelling, but it doesn't smoke so it is a bit of a mystery. The injector nozzles could be worn, and I may change them at some point.....

[drefaldwyn]

Why not get a 90bhp and get it remapped by someone who knows what they're doing? You should be able to discuss the map characteristics with them and get a suitable compromise between BHP and MPG. My old Octy1 90bhp (now owned by my son) averaged top 50's mpg with mixed driving - up to 70mpg on very steady runs.

My current Octy2 (1.9 TDI PD105) shows 65mpg on the long-term display - this is after a custom remap which optimised performance at around 2 - 2.5k rpm (around NSL on most roads). Not much BHP increase but super economy - for me .... the best of both worlds!

I've lost some "round - town" mpg but gained on long runs (which represents most of my motoring).

I'm sure that you will find a good remapper if you trawl around the forum.

Dave

[andy-fisher]

Why not get a 90bhp and get it remapped by someone who knows what they're doing? You should be able to discuss the map characteristics with them and get a suitable compromise between BHP and MPG. My old Octy1 90bhp (now owned by my son) averaged top 50's mpg with mixed driving - up to 70mpg on very steady runs.

My current Octy2 (1.9 TDI PD105) shows 65mpg on the long-term display - this is after a custom remap which optimised performance at around 2 - 2.5k rpm (around NSL on most roads). Not much BHP increase but super economy - for me .... the best of both worlds!

I've lost some "round - town" mpg but gained on long runs (which represents most of my motoring).

I'm sure that you will find a good remapper if you trawl around the forum.

Dave

Hi dad, that reflects what I said in my post (#12). I guess it should be as, like you said, it was your car first. On my runs to Gt Yarmouth I normally average about 68 - 71 MPG. I guess it is the perfect journey for the car though, 40 - 50 MPH all the way.

Edited 13 August, 2009 by andy-fisher

[KenONeill]

Another 110 Elegance owner here. I'm pretty lead-footed, and the roads around here will totally kill fuel economy, but I still get 45mpg (based on fill to fill) commuting, and over 50 on proper runs.

I've also driven an Ambiante 90, and it didn't feel much slower when it was in the powerband, but the 110 has a wider powerband at both ends.

[andy-fisher]

Now the warmer weather is with us my MPG is back on the rise. Drove into town today and including stop/start centre of town driving and plenty of waiting in traffic and at lights I still averaged 67.4 MPG. Maybe its due to the fact that my engine has just been ran in at 141,500 miles. I feel its more to do with the less dense air though so the ECU is fueling a little less. Downside being less power though but not that I would notice... Difficult to tell when your sitting at a red light.

[greg123]

40mpg is very poor unless heavy town work. A TDI pre-pd (90 or 110) octavia is one of the most economic cars out there and a very good drive. A 90hp tdi is a better drive than a 1.6 petrol.

The Ambiente is the modern version of the GLX with similar kit. The Elegance the modern version of the SLX, including it's 110hp engine. Later they also introduced a Laurin & Klemet which had leather/full computer centre display (MFD mid line) Xenon headlamps (dip beam only) cruise and a few other bits.

The main annoying thing I have against the Ambiente is the lack of ASR (not that a big deal, but it helps with traction pulling off in snow) and lack of side airbags.

Either way, it's a step up from yours.

Greg.

[rwbaldwin]

One of the cars I drive is the TDI 110 and I expect to get 60mpg+ at 60mph on a longer run. I can only assume the 40mph is mostly stop/start in town. I have driven a TDI 90 and found more difficult to get really good mph.

The side airbags were the deciding factor for me. So many accidents are side-on.

I don't think the 90 is underpowered, but as you would expect the 110 is quicker. A mate and I had to go out to spalding on a regular basis - we shared cars and the driving. There were definitely times I would have to change down in his 90 but wouldn't have to in my 110.

HTH

[Railroad]

My wife drives it mostly about 7 miles each way every day. She leaves home, out of our estate and down the road at 30mph. Then she turns onto the by-pass and up the hill onto the dual carriageway (probably giving it some welly) for about 3 miles. Then it's onto an A road for another 3 miles where there are 50mph and 40mph speed restrictions. Then it's the return journey. She also works about 1 mile from home, and often takes the car. Last Sunday I took it for a 97 mile run and it returned 53mpg, and recently to my sisters house 50 miles away and it did 51mpg. For all of this the current long-term average is 41.7mpg from our 110TDi. And doing the calculations by filling the tank means the MPG indicator is surprisingly accurate.

So what exactly could be wrong with mine? Turbo perhaps? I don't think so. The engine runs very smoothly and is very powerful. It could be over-fuelling though and may benefit from a new set of injectors. The coolant temperature sensor was replaced a year ago and the engine runs at about 72°C. I run with the air conditioning on 'AUTO' all the time which of course means the cooling fans run all the time. The MAF was also replaced a week earlier but even though I do have VCDS it's difficult to tell if the air flow reading is correct without a text book figure to compare it against. The basic fuel injection pump timing is within limit but slightly advanced, which is better than being retarded. No fault codes are present, but then again I don't expect there to be. The air filter and fuel filter have only just been replaced, and the car has done 10,000 miles since the last time they were changed. They were in fact in very good condition in any case.

So apart from the short journeys I'm baffled as to why mine is so much worse on fuel than everyone else's. The car has done 155,000 miles and is nearly 6 years old now. I've owned it for a year and bought it with 144,000 on the clock, so obviously the previous owner used it for long trips most of the time. It wasn't a taxi, the previous owner was a self-employed service engineer whose work took him all over the UK. It has a genuine towbar fitted and he used to tow a small trailer.

I'm all ears to anyone who may have any other suggestions......