Hi i desperate to buy a octavia with up to £12k to spend , i started out wanting a elegance , then fell in love with a VRS diesel for sports and econ ( got use to 40+ out of ford focus) then got scared by DPF issues i have read on this forum ,then thought about a 2.0 tdi L&K for luxuary and avoiding DPFs as they dont have one but are hard to find and usually high miles for the same money as a good elegance , my final thought is a petrol VRS but the econ is a lot lower

my questions are

1) Are DPFs a" total no go" on VRS around 2008 models and are they now fitted to all the latest 2009 on models regardless of engine size or model?

2) do i hold out and search out a 2.0tdi L&K ?

3) what are people getting mpg on petrol VRS ?

Should i get medical help as i driving myself and the mrs mad by not sorting one out!!!!

thanks everyone

DPF scare stories are over-egged - it's been said on here before, but people only post about their DPF if it goes wrong - all the people who have one and have never had a problem with it don't post on here saying "guess what, my DPF light didn't come on all day! Or yesterday!!"

There are loads of diesel vRS owners on here who've done significant mileages and never had any issues.

I'm one of them. Mine's an 07 plate with nearly 50k miles on it now, bought for combination of pace, economy, value for money, looks, practicality etc etc - in other words, all the things you're looking for.

Buy one!!

I had the pd170 for nearly 4 years (30k miles) with no DPF issues (did not have to regen it once). My normal drive to work is 10 miles each way on a mix of roads so hardly doing mega miles either. Take what you read about DPFs with a big pinch of salt, in my experience they have not been an issue.

Take what you read about DPFs with a big pinch of salt, in my experience they have not been an issue.

Agreed. It didn't put me off buying a VRS. If I am unlucky and do have problems then I shall just have it removed and the ECU remapped to suit.

Go diesel unless you dont do many miles, then you can consider petrol. Depends on your finances I guess, I cant begin to imagine running a car that'll only do 30mpg!

Look to buy the CR (Common Rail) engine where possible, this was designed with DPF in mind, whereas the outgoing engine PD (Pump Duese) wasnt and had more reports of DPF issues. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

The CR engine was introduced on the 58 plate, again unless I am mistaken.

£12K might be a tough call tho for a 58 plate CR.

Look to buy the CR (Common Rail) engine where possible, this was designed with DPF in mind, whereas the outgoing engine PD (Pump Duese) wasnt and had more reports of DPF issues. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

The CR engine was introduced on the 58 plate, again unless I am mistaken.

£12K might be a tough call tho for a 58 plate CR.

Had both the PD and the CR and haven't experienced a problem with either (except the recall on the PD). It is really down to the use they get - lots of urban use, short trips and not getting the engine up to temperature can clog up the DPF, but as long as you are getting it warmed up, the auto-regen should sort it out.

Or go for a nice long drive - which is fun anyway :yes:

Take this with a pinch of salt if you want, but until two weeks ago I was one of the happy diesel VRS owners who had never had an issue with DPF. My car does over 70 miles a day mostly on A roads and motorway and has done over 38k miles. My car has been to the garage three times since then and has had to have a forced regen and then another regen 7 days later. All this and I still haven't even had my DPF warning light come on!!!!

My experience over the last two weeks has radically changed my opinion of the Diesel VRS and I have decided that my next car will be a petrol VRS. I don't want my DPF to fail and get stun for circa 1200 pounds to replace it on a car thats only 26 months old because warranty won't cover it. Never had any issues with my Fabia VRS that did 100k miles and didn't have a DPF.

I know I'm in the tiny minority but just be aware that problems can and occassionaly do occur.

If you do say, 12k or more consider derv, if less then petrol. No brainer for me!

It's difficult to get a clear picture of how common DPF problems are, I did come close to cancelling my Octavia because after reading here there seemed so many DPF problems. So far so good though, had the car since April and after a couple of thousand miles including five days every ten of really bad driving (1 mile drive back and forth to work) so I'm hoping it stays that way. I don't tend to do that many miles but prefer the feel of a diesel engine and still think the costs are pretty good particularly second hand.

I was in a taxi yesterday which was a mk II Octavia estate so I'd commented I had the same car and chatted with the guy about it, he asked if I'd been on the Briskoda forum as he had and been concerned about DPF issues (and many others) with using the car as a taxi but his Octavia has now down 104,000 miles and no issues with the DPF, turbo etc. which was obivously quite reassuring for a change.

John

Edited 8 September, 201015 yr by JohnMcL7

If you do say, 12k or more consider derv, if less then petrol. No brainer for me!

I do around 10k a year and am on my second diesel VRS. Had no issues with my PD VRS and no problems so far with my CR one. Even at my mileage it is still significantly cheaper to run the diesel VRS compared to the petrol. Last time I worked it out the break even point was somewhere around 7k and that was not including the higher residuals of the diesel vRS over the petrol one.

Drive both. If you have red blood you will go for the petrol. TSI VRS, TFSI VRS, older Mk 1 VRS, current 1.8 TSI all way quicker than the wiesels, cheaper to buy, much more fun and should do 35-45 mpg unless you are stuck in jams a lot of the time. Drive them, diesel has narrow power band and not that much better fuel consumption on the 2 litre lumps, 1.9 diesel with the 130 hp was best of the diesels, little noisy, much more economic and hardly any slower than current 140 or 170 hp CR engines, look at the torque figures. EA888 engine in 1.8 litre and 2 litre (VRS) TSIs are a marvel. Do not miss my 140 hp diesel at all excepts its DSG but have 7 speed on order with a 1.8 TSI (not available on diesel), to get a decent VAG diesel you need to go to 6 cylinder or more and live in a place where diesel is cheap compared to petrol ie not the UK IMHO.

Edited 8 September, 201015 yr by lol

OP, test drive a petrol vRS. Give it some welly. Then try the diesel and do the same.

Your mind may then be made up!!

diesel has narrow power band and not that much better fuel consumption on the 2 litre lumps, 1.9 diesel with the 130 hp was best of the diesels, little noisy, much more economic and hardly any slower than current 140 or 170 hp CR engines, look at the torque figures.

I don't disagree that the petrol vRS would be a great drivers car, but have you actually driven the new CR 170 vRS?

Narrow power band? I don't think so. I've had many comments that it drives likes a petrol as the torque curve is so flat.

As for fuel consumption - not that much better than the 2 litre petrol? Gimme a break - many petrol drivers on here are suggesting they can "just about" get 45mpg on a long run and generally average low to mid 30's. My CR 170 does 45mpg average minimum - I'm yet to get less than 550 miles from a tank. Most of the time I get closer to 600. On a long run, I'm getting closer to 60mpg.

As for the 130bhp 1.9 engine, the reason it felt fast was that all the torque came in a huge lump, giving you a thump in the back; however, correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it about 1 second slower to 60 than the CR170?

The new engine is so much more refined; I'm all for decent debate, but at least try to make it accurate. Not to say I'd not love a petrol mind....... :p

Drive both. If you have red blood you will go for the petrol. TSI VRS, TFSI VRS, older Mk 1 VRS, current 1.8 TSI all way quicker than the wiesels, cheaper to buy, much more fun and should do 35-45 mpg unless you are stuck in jams a lot of the time. Drive them, diesel has narrow power band and not that much better fuel consumption on the 2 litre lumps, 1.9 diesel with the 130 hp was best of the diesels, little noisy, much more economic and hardly any slower than current 140 or 170 hp CR engines, look at the torque figures. EA888 engine in 1.8 litre and 2 litre (VRS) TSIs are a marvel. Do not miss my 140 hp diesel at all excepts its DSG but have 7 speed on order with a 1.8 TSI (not available on diesel), to get a decent VAG diesel you need to go to 6 cylinder or more and live in a place where diesel is cheap compared to petrol ie not the UK IMHO.

....Totally disagree! I have long been regarded as a stalwart 'petrolhead' only ever having had one diesel ( a volvo 440 diesel, as a company car) and hated it with a passion, when I started looking for a replacement for my mk1 vrs ( my second one over 7 years and 200K of motoring) it was going to be a hard act to follow for any petrol car to follow, let alone what I considered a Tractor engined car! I looked at several cars that I had narrowed the choice down to, due to mileage that I do I had started to reluctantly look at diesels, thinking I would give them a chance as the current 'Sport' diesels on paper seemed to be pretty reasonable......

Right....Problem.......I do 25K Pa using my car as a company funded private car claiming mileage and some additional 'negotiated' salary to cover costs, given my fuel costs had gone from 61p/ litre when I started with the company to 7 years ago to £1.15 / litre now the cost of fuel had now become a major consideration, I was spending over £5K alone on fuel hence the 'look at what diesels are around!

I looked at Mazda 6 Sport Diesel, loved the looks but expensive to buy in comparison to the Octy vRS, I had also decided that the DSG option looked quite attractive as I spend so much time in the car it becomes a noticeable PIA changing gear all of the time and with no diesel auto option on the Mazda that was ruled out.....Insignia 2.2 SRI CDTI.........what can I say, its a Vauxhall, nice looking outside, felt like a coffin inside, terrible all round vision and even worse build quality, a sea of chrome and shiny black plastic.........engine was noisier than a PD and it's a common rail!

In the end it came back to a choice of get another octy vrs with petrol or diesel, love the TSI engine, my brother has a Scirocco 2.0TSI, but on average gets around the 30mpg mark overall so no reduction in running costs over the 1.8T, in the end I test drove a CR170 DSG and bar the power band being 2K less than the TSI it is as quiet as a petrol, if not quieter ( my brothers comments comparing the Scirocco) pulls like a train, better on the motorway in gear it will eat a standard 2.0 petrol, 0-60 there is not an awful lot in it ( tried the octy and the scirocco side by side and best of all it averages over 40MPG around town, rising to 50+ 0n the motorway, I love the dynamics of the engine over the PD which in my opinion was a bit all or nothing and noisy ( drove one prior to the CR and didn't really gel with it) so all in all the CR diesel is a superb package, especially mated to the DSG, I would highly recommend it to even the most hardcore petrolhead to try..........because I am one.......Still love the sound of a tuned petrol though!

I don't disagree that the petrol vRS would be a great drivers car, but have you actually driven the new CR 170 vRS?

Narrow power band? I don't think so. I've had many comments that it drives likes a petrol as the torque curve is so flat.

As for fuel consumption - not that much better than the 2 litre petrol? Gimme a break - many petrol drivers on here are suggesting they can "just about" get 45mpg on a long run and generally average low to mid 30's. My CR 170 does 45mpg average minimum - I'm yet to get less than 550 miles from a tank. Most of the time I get closer to 600. On a long run, I'm getting closer to 60mpg.

As for the 130bhp 1.9 engine, the reason it felt fast was that all the torque came in a huge lump, giving you a thump in the back; however, correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it about 1 second slower to 60 than the CR170?

The new engine is so much more refined; I'm all for decent debate, but at least try to make it accurate. Not to say I'd not love a petrol mind....... :p

====================================================

Well facts speak for themselves. 2 litle diesel engine is a 2 mm overbore of 1.9D plus counterbalancers, better breathing and of course better ECU. Depending on where the 1.9D engine is put in ie MK 1 Octavia, Fabia VRS the 0-60 can be as low as low 8s to about 9 and half seconds. 2 litre CR diesel is about 8 and half to 60 which is over half a second slower than TSI, TSFI petrol VRS, old VRS and current 1.8 TSI, despite have 10hp less, this is due inertia of engine components as well as many other things. 1.9D diesel has 310 NM torque, 140 hp 320 Nm and 170 CR 340 NM, not a huge improvement. 160hp 1.9D in Ibiza Cupra did 7.6s 0-100kph.

2 litre CR diesel is much more refined but still dull in my opinion. I had the TSI VRS up to 540 miles range today, not eco driving either, diesel is simply not worth the higher buy price, ever decreasing fuel economy percentage difference and simply lack of thrill in the driving experience. There are exciting diesel ie bigger Audis etc but not yet unfortunately in the Skoda range yet. Hybrids will change things but I suspect petrol will be the Internal Combustion engine chosen to pair with this technology. There may be a quantum change ie 2 stroke diesels but it needs something to pull out the thermal effeceincy lead it once had. Bring on more facts.

Edited 9 September, 201015 yr by lol

I don't disagree that the petrol vRS would be a great drivers car, but have you actually driven the new CR 170 vRS?

Narrow power band? I don't think so. I've had many comments that it drives likes a petrol as the torque curve is so flat.

As for fuel consumption - not that much better than the 2 litre petrol? Gimme a break - many petrol drivers on here are suggesting they can "just about" get 45mpg on a long run and generally average low to mid 30's. My CR 170 does 45mpg average minimum - I'm yet to get less than 550 miles from a tank. Most of the time I get closer to 600. On a long run, I'm getting closer to 60mpg.

As for the 130bhp 1.9 engine, the reason it felt fast was that all the torque came in a huge lump, giving you a thump in the back; however, correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it about 1 second slower to 60 than the CR170?

The new engine is so much more refined; I'm all for decent debate, but at least try to make it accurate. Not to say I'd not love a petrol mind....... :p

Not driven the CR 170 and I am sure it is smooth but the performance is not enough bangs for my buck. BMW website has a good comparison tool and the 1,8 TSI with 7 speed DSG ticks all my boxes and the diesels makes no sense to me. They would perhaps if I lived in a country where diesel is much cheaper than petrol. I am fortunate to get a fuel card with work and even my private miles I only pay the tax on the benefit ie on 11p or 15p per mile I think it works out. As I have said elsewhere I can get over 500 miles out of the TSI VRS driving between the nominal legal limit and 10% over it. Did have a zing against a D5 Volvo on the M42 on Friday and there was no difference but I did not change down, he might have. VAG need to push the diesel technology on. Common Rail is simply a way of making engines quieter, I worked on common rail engines thirty years ago, power and smoothness comes from more boost and better iinterpolated and sensored mapping. 1.9D in Ibiza Cupra does 7.6 0-60mph (it was 160 bhp std). 1.8 TSI DSG best Octavia engine/chasis/performance match, until they put the 180 hp 1.4 TSI at some point not VRS petrol or diesel IMHO.