Well, I am at a loss.

The garage scanned for faults, apparently there are none.

I specifically asked for temperature sensors to be checked, and they said they were OK. They cannot suggest a reason for the poor fuel economy.

This is the first VAG diesel I've had that has done under 48mpg from a tank. And I wasn't trying to be economical in those.

Have they got a plan to find the problem?

I have a similar situation, my car is going in tomorrow.

Nope. They are not saying there is anything to fix. I am due in again next week for them to have a second go at fixing my parking sensors, so am hoping I can come up with some ideas for them by then.

Let me know how you get on...

Edited 1 November, 201015 yr by pixor

I'm afraid I can't help Pixor as I'm in exactly the same boat with my 2009 2.0 PD DSG estate.

I've never been happy with the fuel economy on the car since I owned it from new, and I also started a post on this forum about the problem. The up shot of that was:

(1) Do NOT rely on what the trip MPG is saying. As one person said - "its more a random number generator". So calculate the MPG "brim to brim"

(2) Although not entirely scientific the MPG quoted by posters (and averaged by me) who also had 2.0 PD engines was motorway driving = 52, town = 35, overall = 47. (I excluded numbers at the extreme end of the range in my calculations in order to establish a reasonable target MPG for my use).

I once got 56 mpg driving at a lowish constant speed over an A road for 46 miles. However that is very much the exception and normally I cannot get close to that figire For the 976 miles I've done since I raised this issue the MPG (measured brim to brim) has averaged 39 on pretty constantly.

I would add that I do NOT drive like a lunatic.

According to the dealer there have never been any fault codes of any description, and the car drives and behaves just fine.

I suspect the DSG box - it always seems to hang onto 4th gear a little too long in my opinion.

But with no fault codes Skoda naturally refuses to accept there may be a problem.

This was my first diesel and will be my last unless I find a solution.

PS: A couple of others reported similar problems in reply to my original thread, and they didn't seem to have an answer either.

Edited 1 November, 201015 yr by Minimoke

have you checked the spiritmonitor site to see many recorded mpg readings for other 2.00L octavias like yours?

i thought that the low 40s i was getting in my 1.9TDI DSG was p!ss poor, but it's more or less mid range of the records there. it didn't make my fuel consumption any less, but it did make me feel a bit better

when i bought my DSG, i thought it would at least equal a manual for economy, but i now realise i was quite wrong. i'd call it a very nice, but expensive luxury.

I found the 2 litre DSG very frustrating in urban scenario ie not picking the higher gear usually 3rd to 4th at the right time. I would use tiptronic often to over-ride.

Remember these wet plate DSG add quite a lot of weight to the car compared to the manual although I loved its action.

I would get 47 mpg on the computer but it may be it was only 45 mpg or less, the range was usually a little over 500 miles or so.

Compare this to the 1.9 PD 130 hp (mk 1 est) which does 55 mpg no problem in and in drag races 130 hp PD against the 140 hp the 130 walks away but then the car is much lighter.

VW have put most of their efforts in to the TSI petrols over the last 7 years or so and now the TSIs 2 litre to 1.2 litre do 38 mpg to 50 mpg no problem. Diesels, as they are currently configured, have had their day as the thermal effeciency of the direct injection, supercharged/turbo TSIs have closed the running cost gap, are cheaper to buy, are not expensive on company car tax etc.

If you keep the Diesel DSG, make sure tyres are well pumped up and think about low rolling resistant one ie Michelin economy as in this car 25% of engine energy goes to overcome rolling resistance.

Diesels do keep there residual value slightly better, trade it in for a TSI, 1.8 or even 1.4 and enjoy the 21st century technology.

redlemon - intresting link!

Looking at the distribution of the numbers on that site, the 2.0 PD DSG returns either 46 mpg (13 owners) or 41 mpg (10 owners). The latter figure is closer to what I am getting so, like you, the consumption is poor but at least there are others getting around the same!

lol -

You're right about the TSI. My wifes little 1.2 (85) TSI Fabia is returning fantastic MPG figures and its not even run in yet!

I will not have another diesel anyway - the DPF abortion put me off if nothing else. And anyway I no longer do the mileage that would ever justify a diesel.

I haven't driven a DSG for any length of time - my current Octavia vRS is a manual - but the last two automatics I had were both CVTs - an Audi A4 Avant 2.5 TDI and (big mistake) a Mercedes B200 CDI.

I wonder if a DSG requires more pressure on the accelerator pedal to make things happen than a manual. I ask because the Audi needed very little accelerator and regularly returned mpg in the early to mid-40s; the Mercedes, despite its smaller engine, needed a lot of right foot and struggled to get better than the high 30s.

I might well go for a petrol DSG next time: I'll need to try a 1.8 TSI versus a 2.0 TSI vRS to see if the extra power makes a difference in normal driving. I started a thread on this here a few weeks ago, and quite a few people favoured the 1.8. Economy by the sound of it would be little worse than some of you are getting with your diesels with DSG.

Edited 1 November, 201015 yr by Zdenek Fibich

I am deliberately driving carefully and under the speed limit, with as little right-foot action as possible in order to maximise my economy. This morning I did 20 miles at a constant 60mph on the motorway, and managed to get the trip computer up to 42mpg. Clearly something is wrong! I will change the air filter tonight and get the local Skoda garage to check for any faults on Monday, as the parking sensors are due to be checked out with them.

Jeeze, that about what I'd get on my TFSI. I'd be seriously upset to get that on a derv.

I get 35mpg on a 20 mile single carriageway run with some significant changes in speed and a few full throttle overtakes.

I might well go for a petrol DSG next time: I'll need to try a 1.8 TSI versus a 2.0 TSI vRS to see if the extra power makes a difference in normal driving. I started a thread on this here a few weeks ago, and quite a few people favoured the 1.8. Economy by the sound of it would be little worse than some of you are getting with your diesels with DSG.

Early days yet but my 1.8TSi DSG has averaged 35mpg brim-to-brim (38 according to computer) over 1st 1000 miles.

I may be 15mpg down on my 1.9TDi but I am way up on gpm - grins per mile.

DSG = direct shift gearbox? No way!! - daft stupid grin

TSi = turbo stratified injection? No! Totally silent inside.

If I thought I was getting "correct" fuel figures for my engine, I too would want a petrol.

However, I am working under the assumption that there is something wrong, and I should be doing a lot better!

The garage said that there are no faults logged on the ECU. Of course, this doesn't mean that nothing is wrong. My next stage is to clean the MAF. I've found a guide on here, so I am off to Halfords for some isopropyl alcohol on the way home.

I have also ordered VCDS, as I wanted to do some re-coding for a Columbus as well. I am determined to get to the bottom of this :yes:

On the subject of the DSG box. I do not believe it can be blamed for the poor fuel economy. It quite happily sits in 6th when I am doing 50 plus, and seems to be tuned to try to keep to 1500 rpmish when cruising. It is also far more efficient than older-style automatics, and should achieve very close to a 'sensible' person operating a manual.

Edited 2 November, 201015 yr by pixor

If I thought I was getting "correct" fuel figures for my engine, I too would want a petrol.

However, I am working under the assumption that there is something wrong, and I should be doing a lot better!

The garage said that there are no faults logged on the ECU. Of course, this doesn't mean that nothing is wrong. My next stage is to clean the MAF. I've found a guide on here, so I am off to Halfords for some isopropyl alcohol on the way home.

I have also ordered VCDS, as I wanted to do some re-coding for a Columbus as well. I am determined to get to the bottom of this :yes:

On the subject of the DSG box. I do not believe it can be blamed for the poor fuel economy. It quite happily sits in 6th when I am doing 50 plus, and seems to be tuned to try to keep to 1500 rpmish when cruising. It is also far more efficient than older-style automatics, and should achieve very close to a 'sensible' person operating a manual.

Let us know how you get on.

But the 6 speed DSG will always turn in worse MPG on the PD's. I understand the new 7 speed DSG's are better. The usually optimistic Skoda brochure quotes 47mpg combined for the 2.0PD DSG compared to the 51mpg for the manual. Thats 8% worse for the DSG. But I note that the spritmotor figures quoted in my earlier post are 46mpg overall for lots of DSG owners so maybe I'm doing Skoda a disservice, albeit about the same number of owners are reporting only 41mpg. My 39 mpg overall is even worse so I wish you well in your investigations. Just don't forget to let us fellow sufferers know the answer if you discover it!

Edited 2 November, 201015 yr by Minimoke