Just ordered a new 2.0tfsi vrs with parking sensors and have been told by my dealer that it would be around the end of April. However when phoning SUK I have been told it will be 6 months. Now if it actually is 6 months I am going to be without a car for sure so I am starting to worry. If it does take 6 months is there anything I can do or have I just got to suck it up??

Off topic, where can I go to in Bristol to have my alloys painted black, I ordered a White one you see.

Explain the situation to the dealer they may give you a loaner. Really if they've suggested a 3 month lead time and its going to be 6 months they should be willing to help.

You don't say why you won't have your current car for the difference....Have you agreed to sell it on a given date?

Explain the situation to the dealer they may give you a loaner. Really if they've suggested a 3 month lead time and its going to be 6 months they should be willing to help.

You don't say why you won't have your current car for the difference....Have you agreed to sell it on a given date?

Exactly right sir. Selling end of April. I can cope u till end of may but no longer than that.

Exactly right sir. Selling end of April. I can cope u till end of may but no longer than that.

So the options are:

Delay/Cancel the sale

Get the dealer to lend you a car

Use a pushbike

Borrow a car from a friend or relative

Get lifts

Buy another (cheap) car to tide you over

Get the bus/train

Hire a car

Go on extended holiday/tour of duty abroad.

Just ordered a new 2.0tfsi vrs with parking sensors and have been told by my dealer that it would be around the end of April. However when phoning SUK I have been told it will be 6 months. Now if it actually is 6 months I am going to be without a car for sure so I am starting to worry. If it does take 6 months is there anything I can do or have I just got to suck it up?

Why did you rung SUK direct out of interest? I can't imagine they'll be able to tell you anything accurate. The petrols are arriving more quickly, but it also depends what options you've specced too.

Get your dealer to put in writing the delivery date they have in mind. Then you should have some manoeuvring available nearer the time - they might have a part-ex that's come in that would be available to you, etc etc etc.

Steve

My petrol VRS took 13 weeks from ordering in June til Sept last year. I read about horror story delays on here after ordering even back then but to be honest the dealer said 12 weeks and it was pretty close to that.

Are you sure the 6 months from Skoda wasn't just a general answer, ie worst case scenario for an Octavia, not your specific order?

Why don't you ask the dealer for a build week, the car should arrive a few weeks after that. Its subject to change so no guarantee of course but its a fairly good indicator in my experience.

You may have to wait a month or so after ordering, but it might offer some reassurance.

I spoke to them because of things I've read on here. I've got to wait another two weeks until I apparently get a build date. Just seen a lot of stories saying build date moved etc etc.

Il sort something out with the dealer when the time comes but cheers for giving me ideas people.

If you've been reading on here, you'll know their responses aren't often accurate

Best of luck getting it on time

If the dealer doesn't offer you a loan car ring round for one that will.....I was given an old Felicia taxed and tested and they even sorted the insurance for me free of charge for nearly three months until my petrol vRS arrived on the 11th December.

I know the 170 TDI are on at least 6 month lead time due to a part shortage in the engine. I gained this info from two local dealers and Skoda CS this afternoon, the dealers are pushing the petrol versions instead.

Just ordered a new 2.0tfsi vrs with parking sensors and have been told by my dealer that it would be around the end of April. However when phoning SUK I have been told it will be 6 months. Now if it actually is 6 months I am going to be without a car for sure so I am starting to worry. If it does take 6 months is there anything I can do or have I just got to suck it up??

Off topic, where can I go to in Bristol to have my alloys painted black, I ordered a White one you see.

Petrols usually take around 16 weeks unless there are some very unusual extras, diesels are around 26 weeks or so, even longer with some extras. SUK must be just giving out worse case ie diesel.

All VRS have been TSIs for the last 2 years or so ie engine type EA888, EA113 was a TFSI but Audi still use the TFSI abbreviation which confuses things.

Edited 4 February, 201115 yr by lol

My local dealer showed me two lists from Skoda called restricted and unrestricted or something like that. The restricted (i.e. subject to long delays) list had the 1.6 and 2.0 tdi engines and the 1.4 tsi on it. The engine I was interested in (1.8 tsi) was on the unrestricted list and thus they reckoned they could bag one in 9 weeks or so. Sadly I can't remember what other engines were on each list, but a quick call to a dealer could surely resolve this?

My local dealer showed me two lists from Skoda called restricted and unrestricted or something like that. The restricted (i.e. subject to long delays) list had the 1.6 and 2.0 tdi engines and the 1.4 tsi on it. The engine I was interested in (1.8 tsi) was on the unrestricted list and thus they reckoned they could bag one in 9 weeks or so. Sadly I can't remember what other engines were on each list, but a quick call to a dealer could surely resolve this?

You have gone for the best of the bunch IMO anyways. The 1.8 TSI has it all as is a real bargain with the VAT deal. I did go for the DSG as the fuel consumption was even better than the manual 1.8 and I do about 3K miles a month. Tried 99 octane but I do not think it made a significant difference.

You will not be dissappointed with the performance, fuel consumption can be impressive in you drive A roads but poor if you drive it round town only and zing it a lot.

As to SUK I think that are not always bang up to speed with matters concerning factory schedules or new models etc somewhat surprisingly but are a nice bunch of people I have found. Their principal function is advertising campaign etc and customer questions are something of a drag sometimes out of their direct control ie Skoda CZ manufacturing issues but I would still put SUK as 9 out of 10 for effort and service.

Edited 5 February, 201115 yr by lol

I did go for the DSG as the fuel consumption was even better than the manual 1.8

I'm curious about this...I suspect it may be a function of the rules that consumption tests are run under rather then an actual difference?

I'm curious about this...I suspect it may be a function of the rules that consumption tests are run under rather then an actual difference?

Well I do not know what it might be in the manual but the 1,8 DSG is definately capable of some amazingly good fuel consumption. On the probably optimistic fuel computer I can get the DSG up in to the 50s mpg after about the first 20 miles of the journey and that is driving between 60 and 70 mph a part from the loads of 50 mph road works that seem to be everywhere.

My driving technique is probably a bit unusual as well. When I get up to over 40 mph, on the motorways and A roads, I tend to knock it out of auto and put it in to tiptronic. This stops it changing down in to 6 th when going up a hill which is unnecessary really, At 40 mph it is already on the torque plateau which starts at 1500 rpm of course. I also free wheel down long hill which maintains speed rather than leaving in gear which wastes momentum/energy.

The 7 speed DSG gearbox only add 20 kgs over the manual box (the 6 speed is about 40 kgs heavier than the manual box and screws acceleration and urban consumption), Also first gear on shorter and seventh gear longer than in the manual box and this means, despite the car being about 1% heavier, the acceleration is the same but fuel consumption actual better.

So yes I suspect the 7 speed auto can be more economic becuase of the higher gearing for little extra weight but I would be interested in what the mph/1000 revs is in the 1.8 TSI. We have a TSI VRS and it looks to be about 25 mph/1000 rev compared to the 1.8 DSGs 28 mph or so (that is on the sat nav rather than clock).

Edited 5 February, 201115 yr by lol

Just ordered a new 2.0tfsi vrs with parking sensors and have been told by my dealer that it would be around the end of April. However when phoning SUK I have been told it will be 6 months. Now if it actually is 6 months I am going to be without a car for sure so I am starting to worry. If it does take 6 months is there anything I can do or have I just got to suck it up??

Off topic, where can I go to in Bristol to have my alloys painted black, I ordered a White one you see.

I've got the same idea with the candy white/black alloys combo. Also some Eibach's. I am going to ask the dealer to include them in the spec. Failing that there is a wheel place in Birmingham that Quinton Willson recommends.

My driving technique is probably a bit unusual as well. When I get up to over 40 mph, on the motorways and A roads, I tend to knock it out of auto and put it in to tiptronic. This stops it changing down in to 6 th when going up a hill which is unnecessary really, At 40 mph it is already on the torque plateau which starts at 1500 rpm of course. I also free wheel down long hill which maintains speed rather than leaving in gear which wastes momentum/energy.

My advanced driving instructor only uses auto around town, otherwise he is in tiptronic all the time.

You should never freewheel. it is dangerous. My dad does it. He is not in control of the car.

Anyway, when you take your foot off the throttle the engine does not use any fuel and you remain in control of the car. I can't imagine a police class 1 advanced driver ever freewheeling......and they are better drivers than the rest of us.

My advanced driving instructor only uses auto around town, otherwise he is in tiptronic all the time.

You should never freewheel. it is dangerous. My dad does it. He is not in control of the car.

Anyway, when you take your foot off the throttle the engine does not use any fuel and you remain in control of the car. I can't imagine a police class 1 advanced driver ever freewheeling......and they are better drivers than the rest of us.

Yes that is pretty much what I do ie keep it in auto in urban area and in tiptronic out of town ie A and B roads and motorways. I have paddles as well as the stick and use both. I was in the outer lane of the mtorway when a police car came surging up behind but even if in tiptronic if you floor the accelerate it drops to 4th from 7th and steams away. Know I exceeded 85 within a couple of seconds getting out the way of the cop, not sure of you suppose to do that or not, he probably had his cameras running, hope he thought I was being helpful.

I disagree about freewheeling being dangerous. I only ever do it when in plenty of clear space and feel in complete control all the time, nudging it back in to Drive or Sports only takes a couple of tenth of a second. Police have no motivation to do it as they do not pay for the fuel.

Also disagree that it is just as effecient to leave in gear. The best way to explain why is that keeping the engine turning at higher revs means more wasted energy. If you freewheel compared to leave in gear then both modes will use no fuel during this period but the freewheeling car will have a higher speed at the bottom of the hill due to less energy being wasted. Hope that makes sense to you. Clearly if it is steep hill then braking may be required to stay legal and safe and the difference is less.

Edited 6 February, 201115 yr by lol

Also disagree that it is just as effecient to leave in gear. The best way to explain why is that keeping the engine turning at higher revs means more wasted energy. If you freewheel compared to leave in gear then both modes will use no fuel during this period but the freewheeling car will have a higher speed at the bottom of the hill due to less energy being wasted. Hope that makes sense to you. Clearly if it is steep hill then braking may be required to stay legal and safe and the difference is less.

If you freewheel the engine uses fuel to keep the engine turning at idle speed whereas if you leave it in gear not under load (foot off the accelerator) it uses none.

That's the conventional wisdom with fuel injected cars (ie just about all cars made in the last 20 years)

.

Edited 6 February, 201115 yr by juan27

If you freewheel the engine uses fuel to keep the engine turning at idle speed whereas if you leave it in gear not under load (foot off the accelerator) it uses none.

That's the conventional wisdom with fuel injected cars (ie just about all cars made in the last 20 years)

Also. the highway code states "Do not coast. it reduces driver control'.

As Juan states, you are wasting fuel if you coast. The engine uses no fuel if you take your foot off.

Edited 6 February, 201115 yr by rockhopper

Yep, coasting is the equivalent of sitting in your driveway with the engine idling- it uses fuel to keep the engine turning over.

If you take your foot off the throttle but leave it in gear, the injectors will shut off thus using no fuel, and the engine will keep turning over due to the wheels being connected to it via the gearbox.

Also. the highway code states "Do not coast. it reduces driver control'.

As Juan states, you are wasting fuel if you coast. The engine uses no fuel if you take your foot off.

Yes we have been through this topic many times and we consistently disagree and the non-freewheelers do not understand the concept. The point is that leaving it in gear, despite using no fuel, wastes potential energy transforming in to kenetic energy as effeciently as taking it out of gear, not turning the engine at 2K or 3K and lossing all that friction energy compared to tickover speed. Fuel used for tickover is tiny now on modern engines.

The results I get speak for themselves.

I do not freewheel in manual cars, too much effort and time to put it back in to gear, depressing the clutch, moving the gearstick, releasing the clutch, In the DSG this happens several times quicker in a single motion of moving the DSG stick 1 cm.

The Highway code is not the law, I have, no anyone else, been able to find a Section of any of the Traffic Acts defining this. In fact there are several vehicles that have freewheeling systems biult in to them, SAABs use to, several cars and motorcycles with auto and manual boxes have sprag clutches which do this. I always do this when I am a good distance from other vehicles. The only thing that might worry me is if in an area where a deer or the like might run out and be in neutral might comprise evasiveness, but i do not do it anywhere this is a possibility.

You keep not freewheeling, I will keep freewheeling, I will keep smiling at the pumps. (Also lengthens the distance between variable service internals as an afterthought.)

Edited 6 February, 201115 yr by lol

The point is that leaving it in gear, despite using no fuel, wastes potential energy transforming in to kenetic energy as effeciently as taking it out of gear, not turning the engine at 2K or 3K and lossing all that friction energy compared to tickover speed. Fuel used for tickover is tiny now on modern engines.

I'm really not sure what your point is here.

I may be wrong but what I think you are saying is;

'Leaving it in gear does not use any fuel, but the losses incurred by keeping the engine turning will slow you down (i.e you're not turning as much potential energy into kinetic energy.)

If you take it out of gear and leave it ticking over, you are using fuel but you don't have engine braking slowing you down so it will be more efficient.'

If that is indeed what you are saying then here is my argument.

When it's in gear, you might be wasting some of the potential energy by using it to turn over the engine, BUT you wouldn't leave it at high revs, it would always be very low revs, hence this engine braking effect would be very small.

And in any case, to miss this 'wasted potential energy' you would have to drive without touching the accelerator until you came to a stop. Obviously no-one will ever do that.

I would imagine that when you 'coast' or I drive along using no gas, it will be for a few hundred yards at a time, maybe half a mile max. We'll both be able to get through that distance and be doing similar speeds at the end of it before we need to accelerate up a hill or come up behind a slower car or whatever.

But I will have driven that half a mile using zero fuel, you will have done it with your car out of gear and using fuel to keep idling.

Now to be fair, I hardly think the amount it will use when idling for the few seconds it takes to cover the distance would be massive, and to be honest, unless you're doing it multiple times every journey I doubt the differences in economy would be noticable over and above the normal fluctuations you get from tank to tank.

If you are happy taking it out of gear then nothing is going to change you're mind, but my point is, the Physics don't agree with you.

I'm really not sure what your point is here.

I may be wrong but what I think you are saying is;

'Leaving it in gear does not use any fuel, but the losses incurred by keeping the engine turning will slow you down (i.e you're not turning as much potential energy into kinetic energy.)

If you take it out of gear and leave it ticking over, you are using fuel but you don't have engine braking slowing you down so it will be more efficient.'

If that is indeed what you are saying then here is my argument.

When it's in gear, you might be wasting some of the potential energy by using it to turn over the engine, BUT you wouldn't leave it at high revs, it would always be very low revs, hence this engine braking effect would be very small.

And in any case, to miss this 'wasted potential energy' you would have to drive without touching the accelerator until you came to a stop. Obviously no-one will ever do that.

I would imagine that when you 'coast' or I drive along using no gas, it will be for a few hundred yards at a time, maybe half a mile max. We'll both be able to get through that distance and be doing similar speeds at the end of it before we need to accelerate up a hill or come up behind a slower car or whatever.

But I will have driven that half a mile using zero fuel, you will have done it with your car out of gear and using fuel to keep idling.

Now to be fair, I hardly think the amount it will use when idling for the few seconds it takes to cover the distance would be massive, and to be honest, unless you're doing it multiple times every journey I doubt the differences in economy would be noticable over and above the normal fluctuations you get from tank to tank.

If you are happy taking it out of gear then nothing is going to change you're mind, but my point is, the Physics don't agree with you.

Yes I sometimes do it several times in a journey and sometimes for more than half a mile, there are a few streches on the M40 and M5 where it is more like a mile I reckon. I will be doing several mph more than left in gear. FL OCtavia is pretty aerodynamic, not as good as a Eff Dynamics 3 series but pretty good.

I do not know if you are a Physics graduate or Physics teacher or what. I have had heavy elements of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics in my OND and Sc degree I have done, I am confident of my systems analysis and results gained. I am pleased if you pay more tax and are happy to do so by burning the extra fuel as the government say they need the money but prefer everyone put less carbon in to the air. BMW being a clever company may introduce freewheeling to complement their start-stop etc so our new vehicles may again do it as some use to.

"Saab used a freewheel system in their two-stroke models for this reason and maintained it in the Saab 96 V4 and early Saab 99 for better fuel efficiency".

Edited 7 February, 201115 yr by lol