zkfd03 said: If I was to be really picky then the engine could do with more power as the 4x4 eats up a fair chunk and the fuel economy isnt great either. Best so far is 31mpg but normally 29.

zkfd03's 4X4 is a Hatch and mine is an Estate, but I share his view that fuel consumption isn't great. Mine has now averaged 31.03 mpg since I bought it but, with 5089 miles on the clock, the engine could well still be fairly tight. However the manufacturer's figure for combined mpg for the Estate and Hatch is 31.7 so my figure is about right. The figure for the equivalent non-4X4s is 35.3 mpg - a significant difference.

So why does the 4X4 suffer from that higher fuel consumption? I don't think the functioning of the 4X4 transmission plays a major part in that penalty since the car is FWD for the majority of the time. My guess is that it is due to the higher kerb weight of the 4X4, ie +176 lbs - equivalent to carrying an extra adult all the time - coupled with the higher drag coefficient (0.32 compared with 0.31) arising from the 4X4's higher ground clearance and, probably, less aerodynamically clean underside. That higher drag coefficient would also account for the 4x4's top speed being 5 mph lower than the non-4X4.

Perhaps one of our more knowledgeable 4X4 owners would like to consider whether there are in fact significant power losses in the 4X4's transmission which could significantly increase the car's fuel consumption.

PS Welcome to Briskoda, zkfd03! Nice first post, and nice choice of car.

Denis

I've averaged 28.5 mpg in the last 5500m or 2.5 months, with a best of 34 and a worst of 25.

I agree that the transmission loss on 'our' car is far less significant than any number of 4x4 cars where gubbins are turning to power the rear wheels - far less than Subaru and traditional 'quattro' (ie A4).

Jabbasport said something similar at the rolling road day on Saturday, which is good to know.

As the majority of my miles has been with 'enhanced power' and I've owned a fair few 4x4 cars (not off-roaders), I would say that the potential fuel consumption with the Octavia is one of the best, unless you go the diesel quattro route.

I normally find that my style of driving equates to the combined figure less 10% and once again, this is about right. As a direct comparison with my last Impreza Turbo, with similar power, I averaged 25mpg over 25000 miles in the previous year, but my 'worst' returns were just over 20mpg.

Whilst weight and drag do play a part in explaining the vRS v 4x4 differences, I would say that the majority is due to transmission loss. Against the Impreza, I think that both the (remapped) engine and 4x4 transmission of the Octavia are more efficient in terms of economy.

Originally posted by DGW in this post

... Mine has now averaged 31.03 mpg since I bought it but, with 5089 miles on the clock, the engine could well still be fairly tight.

You need to get out more, Denis! Where were you today?

Fabpreza

Thanks for that - very interesting. I forgot to mention roof rails which would increase the fuel consumption of the Estate even more. The fuel comparisons I quoted were for the 150 bhp engine, not the vRS. The latter has the lowest drag coefficient of the Octavia range (ie 0.29), the same combined mpg figure as the non-4X4 150 bhp Hatch, and an extra 10 mph on top speed on the non-4X4. Again I would guess that the significantly lower drag coefficient plays as large a part in that as the extra 30 bhp. Never underestimate the power-sapping effect of drag! :(

You need to get out more, Denis! Where were you today?

Stuck at home with a bad back! Meanwhile 'my' 4X4 is in Yorkshire with SWMBO and, far from being treated with extreme TLC, is being treated to an overdose of typically Northern weather! :(

Time to see what the dogs are making me for supper........

Ah - sorry to hear that - get well soon

Get the dogs to bring you supper in bed

Denis, you are disappointed by 31 mpg? :eek:

For me it's much worse!

And I don't have roof rails, carry less weight (hatch) and have less drag (lowered). But to counter that, only 3500kms on the clock.

Avg now stands at 28.5 mpg and I need a significant amount of motorway driving to achieve that. Have now seriously increased tyre pressure (found it to be to low) so curious what that will bring.

My worst trip was 13.5 mpg (a balls-out, high-revving, fast-cornering "demo" drive with two of my best car-buff friends), best trip 34.5 (a sluggish 300km motorway cruise in pretty heavy traffic). That doesn't even get me to the RS's supposed 35 mpg avg! I expect that the rechip is making the car pretty thirsty, but that things will slowly get (much) better past the 10,000kms mark. Have had the same experience with other brand-new cars.

I would be pleased with 30 mpg in the future but for that to happen now I would need to restrain myself just too much...

Get the dogs to bring you supper in bed

Thanks for the best wishes, Nick. What you suggest above is a non-starter - they have gone to bed already and will doubtless be hoping that I don't notice them when I get into bed!

Mattijs

Once (if!) the power novelty wears off and the engine loosens up, it WILL improve.

I've had the same as you (28.5mpg) but have been driving it very hard recently.

I only got over 30mpg once in my Legacy 2.5 GX and that was taking things very carefully.

I've worked out that the Octavia has been 20% more economical so far than the Impreza it replaced, and that includes 4000m with the 220bhp remap.

Dennis

Just remembered - one word for you - GEARING ! The 4x4 is much shorter geared than the vRS - that's the crucial factor. So my 'reasons' for MPG difference between vRS and 4x4 (in standard tune) are as follows.(I'll even guess where the extra 'combined MPG' 4mpg goes to !):-

1) Four wheel drive transmission loss - 1.5mpg

2) Shorter gearing - 1.5mpg

3) Extra weight of 4x4 transmission - 0.5mpg

4) Extra drag - 0.5mpg

All in the name of nothing better on the TV !

I would have to agree that fuel consumption is not on of the 4*4s strong points .......until you relate it to any other 4*4 using a similar fuel .......... my brother-on-law's Imprezza gives him about 18 mpg in town !

One of the best ways to gauge the effect of the Haldex on fuel consumption is to watch the instant readout for fuel consumption when cornering - it appears to drop about 35% when keeping the same position on the throttle pedal .

If you want to improve enconomy you need to learn from this readout what speed you need to drive around each corner without the " instant fuel read out " gauge dropping to a lower figure .

Personally , I would not worry - the extra cost in 4*4 tyre wear is relatively far more expensive than a few extra miles to the gallon , and don't even think about depreciation which is almost more than the TOTAL cost of my fuel bills !

I get about 29mpg in the last 1800km, so it's not too bad. The sad thing is, I've only averaged 24km/h in those 1800km

er don't forget the fitting of front mud flaps increases drag as well :1: :1:

That'll be another 0.05mpg

Pardon me for asking - but what's this British obsession with mud flaps? :confused:

It's mudflaps all over in Manny's gallery - even on the RS cars!

Its a business culture , Dutch , which has influenced our cars ( remember roughly half the inventions in the world originated here ) we have three sayings in the UK - " mud sticks " which is why we have the flaps , " it wasn't me guv " which is why we have insurance , and " watch yer back " which is why we use mirrors "

NB. the Italians also use the last item - one because their gear boxes are built in reverse and secondly to look at themselves ...... and after the eurovision song contest this thread could go on for a long time !

And Italian warships can be identified by the fact that they have more guns facing aft than forward....

And BTW, what's this Eurovision Song Contest thingy people are talking about? Did I fall asleep for longer than usual Saturday evening?

Originally posted by Dutch4x4 in this post

Avg now stands at 28.5 mpg and I need a significant amount of motorway driving to achieve that. Have now seriously increased tyre pressure (found it to be too low) so curious what that will bring.

Well, it has brought a serious increase in mpg! (And a better ride overall.)

Now almost up to 30 mpg, with easy drives going to 32 mph. Getting better all the time!

Type of tyre might make a difference aswell...

Using a nice high gripping toyo I guess is yielding more rolling resistance/grip thus more work for poofer up front than a set of super eco low high motorway things...

Re pressure, I found mine to be very very unpredicatble on 30/32 pressure as adjusted by my dealer (cheers) so back up to 34 and it feels right again, 30mpg possbile around that...

SWMBO will have been away in my 4X4 for a week by the time she returns from Yorkshire tomorrow. It will be interesting to see what fuel consumption she has averaged while she was away. Historically she is heavier on fuel than I am (car-wise), but there again she drives faster but denies she has done so!

PS - as Des would say, "don' dis de missus."

Last tank since haldex oil & filter change (But still with 220bhp):-

34.1 mpg over 435 miles (worked out from litres brimmed)

Mainly motorway and very restrained for me (occasional bursts over 80)

That's excellent!

Still 29.5 for me - also mainly motorway and reasonably restrained...

I suppose you guys are talking petrol 4x4's?

My diesel with its 6 speed box gives me a regular 47/48 mpg...

Of course when its tuned (pending) this may change! Although somebody says the magic boxes i.e. Dragon say they will improve fuel consumption as well as performance...

I still want to find out about chip replacement but so far nobody seems very keen to do this. Skoda here in France frowned and said a decisive NON. But an Audi friend says it's great stuff for his motor.

Of course fuel here is much cheaper and if we nip down into Spain for the day and fill up there it's cheaper still!

Currently pay about 68p per litre in France Spain about 59/62...plus sunshine

Codger

I suppose you guys are talking petrol 4x4's?

Yes. The 1.8T was the only engine available for the UK-spec 4X4. However the New Octavia 4X4 Estate currently has either the 2.0 FSI 150bhp petrol engine or the 1.9TDi PD 105bhp engine.

my A4 can manage around the 30mpg mark if being very sensible and it has full time 4wd. i dont think it weighs much more than the octy either

Kenny

You're right - the weight isn't much difference - I got 34-35mpg out of my Avant Tdi Quattro 2.5 and 29mpg overall out of the Octavia 4x4 (220bhp). The latter would give 38mpg on the motorway if kept to 70-75 and an all time best of 43mpg which was 50mph touring around and getting bored in Scotland !

Having had a load of 4x4 road cars I reckon that the engine & transmission combination you have is the best bet all round:-

- The A4 proper quattro driveline is the best I've had for grip (so what if the motoring press say it understeers a bit or is boring), traction, roadholding and sheer dependability.

- The 1.8T is not charismatic but boy can it deliver and still give reasonable mpg.

If I decide I want a 4x4 road car again I've decided I'm not a great haldex fan (its ok) so it would probably be an A4 Q or A6 Q. Trouble is, I'm starting to get tempted by the Superb if I don't !

Rob