Octavia MPG lets see which diesel is best

[Its me]

Clocked up 7054 miles since the 1st September.

Average consumption is 55.59 mpg

Noticed a drop of 3mpg due to cooler weather.

Regards all

Juan

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Armegatron]

2.0 CR VRS 2010

As per the attached, over 11000+ miles I've got an average of 47.95mpg.

Max MPG was 54.06 on a trip back from Manchester.

Cost per mile 14 pence

Computer is around 2.41% out from actual.

[Sugar]

1.6cr estate

Overall I think this is the poorest performing diesel of them all. I have driven a 10 plate for the last 20000 miles. It now has 35 k on and over my 20 k I have a tank to tank average of only 52 mpg. Considering how I drive and the journies I make it is a little diss appointing.

The daily commute is 10 miles, 7 of which is on the motorway at a sedate 60. Admitadly in winter it has only just got warm by the time I get there.

I can drive at a cruise controlled 60 on the motorway for several hundred miles very early on a weekend morning and still only see low to mid 50s.

The same trip at a cruise controlled 80 will return around 45 to 47.

Totally beyond me how similiar posters can get the mpg returns with the same car and engine, can you show me how.

I am not a trained driver eg police or advanced, but do take pride in being smooth and gentle.

Appears to me that the 2.0 cr is only a couple of mpg behind but with more fun under the right foot if you need it.

I think the 1.6 is just a touch too small to be as ecomical as it should or could be considering the size and weight of the octy estate

[io1901]

Green line 1.6tdi estate see signature

[io1901]

Green line 1.6tdi estate see signature

Which is 66.9mpg average and 72mpg best.

[marcusthehat]

I do now (in the winter) notice the DPF punishing the economy, as I do fewer longer runs in the winter as well.

Currently averaging about 50mpg overall.

get about 55mpg in the summer

60 on a long run.

Absolutly the key is sustained driving, a hot engine with fewer stop starts.

Though I get 40mpg on the 3.9 mile drive into work of a winters morning.

[BEK]

Oxford to Newport, South Wales and back showed average of 58mpg on Maxidot.

2012 Octavia 2.0TDI 140 PS SE PLUS ESTATE with 1200 miles from new so not really run in yet.

If I take it slow then I can get about 70mpg on Maxidot.

[Mr Ree]

PD170 Shark Stage 1 and DPF delete, average 50mpg over 6000 miles since owned.

The Shark stuff made no difference to mpg (definately not better) and if I do a long journey without aircon I'll get 57-58mpg which I'm delighted with.

Thinking about one of these myself (estate) and would very seriously consider a dpf delete to go with it.

What were you getting before the delete as a matter of interest?

[Stephen00]

Octavia TDI DSG 2.0 07 reg.. estate.. Diesel..

Oh dear !!! mine only does 35 mpg around town.. is this normal ? Should it be higher ? My Octavia is not 'Kev'd up' .. it's a factory normal one.. I drive very carefully and hardly speed about.. does it need a tune..?

Stephen

[ItalianJob]

The 1.6CR is excellent. Our works car is averaging ~66MPG on a motorway run, 70-80MPH ish last time I used it.

My vRS is about 35, but I do give it a good hiding on the way to work each day!

[booke23]

Octavia TDI DSG 2.0 07 reg.. estate.. Diesel..

Oh dear !!! mine only does 35 mpg around town.. is this normal ? Should it be higher ? My Octavia is not 'Kev'd up' .. it's a factory normal one.. I drive very carefully and hardly speed about.. does it need a tune..

If you only drive around town, then 35 mpg is probably about right....although don't believe what the trip computer tells you.....they are often inaccurate

I never do much town driving in mine, but pottering about locally on short trips (relatively open road driving) I get about 43 mpg calculated.

[tandemrider]

1.9 pd; 53 average, 65 being careful. Always with +2 in the back and a boot full of 'stuff'.

The PD engine is more efficient that the CR engine because it runs at a higher pressure at the injectors. The loud clatter is caused by injector pop, from said high pressures. The marketing people wanted the engines to appear more refined, so they made the engineers quieten the engines down. Only way to do this was dropping the pressure for the CR engines (+they work differently anyway) so the engine is quieter, more refined, but less efficient. That's what I was told by a knowledgable Dutchman, so it must be true! I went for the PD to avoid injector failures and dual mas flywheel failures that can affect the 2.0 TDi. I would like to have a 6th gear, but hey-ho.

So far so good with the reliability side of things.

[mark999]

First fill on a BMM scout, 43mpg (6.6 litres/100km). Including uncharacteristic short city driving and lots of new car "testing". I haven't done enough to know how far out the maxidot reading is.

Spot on what my BMM engined scout does with considerable town work.

[booke23]

The PD engine is more efficient that the CR engine because it runs at a higher pressure at the injectors. The loud clatter is caused by injector pop, from said high pressures. The marketing people wanted the engines to appear more refined, so they made the engineers quieten the engines down. Only way to do this was dropping the pressure for the CR engines (+they work differently anyway) so the engine is quieter, more refined, but less efficient.

This is not quite the case.

Although the PD injectors pressurise the fuel slightly more than the common rail system (27,846 psi vs 26,100 psi), the PD system (although very good) is somewhat limited in it's operation as injection is directly linked to camshaft position. There are injector lobes on the camshaft that depress the plunger on the injector to pressurise the fuel.....this only happens when the piston is near TDC, so injection can only occur at this moment.

A CR design has no such limitation as the rail is pressurised all the time. This allows the ECU to retard or advance the injection according to conditions, and also allows the fuel to be injected in 4 or 5 small squirts at TDC rather that one big one (the PD injector can actually fire a pilot injection before the main injection to provide a bit of combustion smoothing). These factors enable the engine to produce more power for a given emission figure.

That's why the 2.0 TDI CR produces 138 bhp, emits 126g/km and has a combined fuel economy figure of 58 mpg. These emissions and economy figures are slightly better than the 1.9 TDI PD, despite being 100cc more in displacement and producing over 30 bhp more.

VAG changed to CR technology purely to meet Euro 5 emissions regulations that were introduced in 2009. Smoother running engines are a nice side effect of CR but was not the primary factor in VAG changing to CR.

[Paul007]

Back on topic...50 on a good run.

[Kiwibacon]

This is not quite the case.

Although the PD injectors pressurise the fuel slightly more than the common rail system (27,846 psi vs 26,100 psi), the PD system (although very good) is somewhat limited in it's operation as injection is directly linked to camshaft position. There are injector lobes on the camshaft that depress the plunger on the injector to pressurise the fuel.....this only happens when the piston is near TDC, so injection can only occur at this moment.

A CR design has no such limitation as the rail is pressurised all the time. This allows the ECU to retard or advance the injection according to conditions, and also allows the fuel to be injected in 4 or 5 small squirts at TDC rather that one big one (the PD injector can actually fire a pilot injection before the main injection to provide a bit of combustion smoothing). These factors enable the engine to produce more power for a given emission figure.

That's why the 2.0 TDI CR produces 138 bhp, emits 126g/km and has a combined fuel economy figure of 58 mpg. These emissions and economy figures are slightly better than the 1.9 TDI PD, despite being 100cc more in displacement and producing over 30 bhp more.

VAG changed to CR technology purely to meet Euro 5 emissions regulations that were introduced in 2009. Smoother running engines are a nice side effect of CR but was not the primary factor in VAG changing to CR.

And that reason (much wider window of injection timing) is why PD was ditched for CR. Commonrail has the flexibility for very late injection to burn off the now mandatory (euro 5+) DPF's, PD just can't retard enough to do the late injection without the help of higher rpm.

[Stephen00]

If you only drive around town, then 35 mpg is probably about right....although don't believe what the trip computer tells you.....they are often inaccurate

I never do much town driving in mine, but pottering about locally on short trips (relatively open road driving) I get about 43 mpg calculated.

thanks for that.. I did a run from worthing to heathrow yesterday and the av mpg clicked up reassuringly.. around town its 35 ish but after the heathrow run it ended up on 45 av mpg..

cheers..

[Jane_i10]

Reached 54mpg the other night, doing an average of 65mph on hilly moor road which i think is a good achievement.

Not to be biased or anything but i do think the BMN is best, is does all most other diesels can do with been frugal on fuel but it can also get a shift on when you want it to. The Greenline diesels yes obtain a higher MPG overall but when push comes to shove their flat as a fart..

[Rollonanon]

1.9PD mpg 49.9 average (pump calculated) mostly doing short journeys (average over 30,000 miles) and trip computer average is similar with +/- 5% typical. Range of calculated mpg tankfills is 43.1 to 64.8 mpg

[FatblokeVRS]

VRS 170 CR. 36000 miles. Normally around 46 - 48mpg (calculated) with mostly town driving all week (by the wife) and some motorway and A road driving at the weekends (by me).

Best so far on a run from Grangemouth to Campbelltown and back, got 51.6 (calculated).

[tandemrider]

This is not quite the case.

Although the PD injectors pressurise the fuel slightly more than the common rail system (27,846 psi vs 26,100 psi), the PD system (although very good) is somewhat limited in it's operation as injection is directly linked to camshaft position. There are injector lobes on the camshaft that depress the plunger on the injector to pressurise the fuel.....this only happens when the piston is near TDC, so injection can only occur at this moment.

A CR design has no such limitation as the rail is pressurised all the time. This allows the ECU to retard or advance the injection according to conditions, and also allows the fuel to be injected in 4 or 5 small squirts at TDC rather that one big one (the PD injector can actually fire a pilot injection before the main injection to provide a bit of combustion smoothing). These factors enable the engine to produce more power for a given emission figure.

That's why the 2.0 TDI CR produces 138 bhp, emits 126g/km and has a combined fuel economy figure of 58 mpg. These emissions and economy figures are slightly better than the 1.9 TDI PD, despite being 100cc more in displacement and producing over 30 bhp more.

VAG changed to CR technology purely to meet Euro 5 emissions regulations that were introduced in 2009. Smoother running engines are a nice side effect of CR but was not the primary factor in VAG changing to CR.

Thanks for the info, I shall rebrief the Dutchman next time I see him. Cool. I still prefer the 1.9 as it doesn't have a DPF. To my mind, it's a robust unit that delivers a great blend of power, torque and economy.

[D15VRS]

Drove to Scarborough Saturday in ny Octavia MY58 VRS CR170, had a steady ride not going over 60mph, and the Computer returned 61mpg, if it is over optermistic after running a Scoob I'm still laughing

[booke23]

Thanks for the info, I shall rebrief the Dutchman next time I see him

Glad to have been of some help!

I still prefer the 1.9 as it doesn't have a DPF. To my mind, it's a robust unit that delivers a great blend of power, torque and economy

Couldn't agree more.....an excellent engine.

The 2.0 CR is quite a good engine I think, but that's mainly because it's mechanically very similar to the 2.0 PD engine. However the 1.6 CR that replaced the 1.9 PD still has to prove itself.....I've read a few horror stories about 1.6 CR's , but in time hopefully any issues will be ironed out.

[MalcForrest]

When I picked up my 2010 Vrs 2ltr CR from Norwich and drove home to bonnie Scotland. Sitting at 78-80mph it returned 56mpg. And today travelling from Oban, home again (Mostly A-roads) it returned a decent 55mpg. I have given it a hiding and got 47mpg.

[Guest pajor91]

Since last July overall consumption for 1.6CR has been 5.8L/100km (48.7 mpg).

That's the computer.. would measure it properly otherwise but I keep forgetting to check the odometer when I stick some diesel in.. :think: