Traded in my 2003 octavia 1.9tdi for 2010 octavia 1.6tdi today, same route 50 miles the 1.9 did 60+mpg and the 1.6 did 49mpg. The 1.9 has averaged well over 60mpg most of the time I've had it as I mainly do main road extra urban driving but I could not get the 1.6 to do any more than an average 51mpg on similar roads. Is the new 1.6 really so terrible, giving 40% less than the advertised 72mpg or could it just be that I got a dodgy one from the skoda dealer, it was very low mileage.

Traded in my 2003 octavia 1.9tdi for 2010 octavia 1.6tdi today, same route 50 miles the 1.9 did 60+mpg and the 1.6 did 49mpg. The 1.9 has averaged well over 60mpg most of the time I've had it as I mainly do main road extra urban driving but I could not get the 1.6 to do any more than an average 51mpg on similar roads. Is the new 1.6 really so terrible, giving 40% less than the advertised 72mpg or could it just be that I got a dodgy one from the skoda dealer, it was very low mileage.

Several factors. Some will change, some will not.

You are comparing a mark one Octavia with a mark 2. Mark 2 is larger, heavier.

In my view the 1.9D, in my view, was the pinacle of the VAG diesel development in terms of 4 cylinder unit until they come out with a major technical revision. The Common rail engines made the engines quieter and smoother but did not majorily improve fuel consumption etc, in fact added to inertial components which offset other improvements. The torque peaks or band width have not massively improved as they have with TSIs.

I regularly get 55 to 60 mpg out of our 130 hp 1.9D and it still does 0-62 in around 9 seconds anicdoatally as it keeps up with or out accelerates 140hp Mk 2 Octavias and other Golf Mk 5 derivates.

Yes it is not as roomy as out two Octy2s but if you are only carrying 3 people it is still fine.

The 1.6 CR could take a few tens of thousands to full "run in" ie gas flow itself and then it should turn in over 50 mpg.

We will replace the 1.9D Octy 1 with another Skoda but, unless VAG come up with quantum leap in their diesel technology or UK prices of diesels versus petrol revert to diesel being cheaper, and the deals are on diesel and petrol, it would have to be a 1.2 TSI logically. A Monte Carlo I guess rather than another Octy2.

Edited 26 August, 201114 yr by lol

Traded in my 2003 octavia 1.9tdi for 2010 octavia 1.6tdi today, same route 50 miles the 1.9 did 60+mpg and the 1.6 did 49mpg. The 1.9 has averaged well over 60mpg most of the time I've had it as I mainly do main road extra urban driving but I could not get the 1.6 to do any more than an average 51mpg on similar roads. Is the new 1.6 really so terrible, giving 40% less than the advertised 72mpg or could it just be that I got a dodgy one from the skoda dealer, it was very low mileage.

Probably want to check the computer vs actual pump fills/miles, as I have heard stories that then can be out by a large amount.

However, having said that I have found mine is very good at motorway commutes (50-52mpg sticking 70-80mph), but this does drop off more quickly than I had expected when doing country lane driving. My old 2.5L petrol on the other hand gave better economy for the country lane driving.

I wish I'd been using Fuelly, from when I first got my Octavia. Then I would have an accurate record of my mpg history. However, it varies, it's usually always above 50, usually 56-58. On a run to London - 120 miles including the M1 and it's lovely roadworks I can get 68mpg according to the computer.

Feel free to have a look at my Fuelly for my 1.6 CR estate; http://www.fuelly.com/driver/octavia/octavia

I wish I'd been using Fuelly, from when I first got my Octavia. Then I would have an accurate record of my mpg history. However, it varies, it's usually always above 50, usually 56-58. On a run to London - 120 miles including the M1 and it's lovely roadworks I can get 68mpg according to the computer.

Feel free to have a look at my Fuelly for my 1.6 CR estate; http://www.fuelly.com/driver/octavia/octavia

Thought I'd better use it to double check the mpg, since I 'justified' having the vRS TDI on the basis that it still should save me £100 a month compared to my last petrol car.

Did you ever check the actual mpg on the 1.9? My 2.0 TDi over estimates the fuel economy by 10 to 15% (trip reads 60mpg, actual is more like 52).

Incidentally having monitored my "actual" mpg for over a year now on a 2.0 TDi pd 140 Scout the figures match the skoda claimed efficiency to within 0.8 mpg. Skoda claim for my vehicle: urban 35.3, extra urban 52.3 combined 44.1 and I have actually achieved over the last 15 months ( 23k miles) 36.1 min, 52 max and 44.7 average. not bad.

Last fuel tank did 1000km before fill up.

I dont think the fuel efficiency is any better than 1.9TDI from what I have read here. I have not owned 1.9TDI so cant compare.

My 1.6TDI CR has just completed 7000 miles. The best recorded was 72.9 on trip on an easy motorway drive (65mph with part AC) of 20 miles with some down slope on part of the way. My trip shows about 1.5mpg higher than brim to brim. Recent motorway trip of nearly 600 miles with 2 adult, 1 child and some luggage, 70 mph, half journey with AC returned about 68mpg brim to brim.

Average is about 54-55mpg

Check brim to brim and not sure whether your car was in regeneration mode to burn the soot.

Edited 27 August, 201114 yr by gizmob

Thanks very much for the interesting replies. I think the mpg indication on the previous 1.9 diesel was fairly accurate as I did a comparison with the full to full tank method a couple of years ago.

I was interested in whether it could be this particular individual car that might have very poor mpg, I had wondered about the regeneration but was not sure how to see whether it was happening, there was nothing obvious on the display. The car had only done about 3000 miles in about a year so probably had been doing short journeys and sitting around for some time at the garage. The other thing about regeneration is that it gets very hot under the car? is it possible to switch this regeneration off as very occasionally for work I do have to drive across dry grassy areas and park. Did this a couple of months ago and had to park with grass pressing tightly against underside of car, was very worried about it but the grass was still green and damp at that stage.

I had done a test drive in another car of the same 1.6 model but which had done 15,000miles and it was showing well up into the 50's mpg even around the streets and main roads where I was test driving and not doing the type of steady constant speed that I had for the test of my new 1.6.

Thanks very much for the interesting replies. I think the mpg indication on the previous 1.9 diesel was fairly accurate as I did a comparison with the full to full tank method a couple of years ago.

I was interested in whether it could be this particular individual car that might have very poor mpg, I had wondered about the regeneration but was not sure how to see whether it was happening, there was nothing obvious on the display. The car had only done about 3000 miles in about a year so probably had been doing short journeys and sitting around for some time at the garage. The other thing about regeneration is that it gets very hot under the car? is it possible to switch this regeneration off as very occasionally for work I do have to drive across dry grassy areas and park. Did this a couple of months ago and had to park with grass pressing tightly against underside of car, was very worried about it but the grass was still green and damp at that stage.

I had done a test drive in another car of the same 1.6 model but which had done 15,000miles and it was showing well up into the 50's mpg even around the streets and main roads where I was test driving and not doing the type of steady constant speed that I had for the test of my new 1.6.

Its not really run in. I would wait until the engine is warm (oil not coolant temp) and then drive it as much as you can throughout the whole rev range throughout the gears. This is how i run mine in and can easily see 56mpg on a motorway run (an i have a 2.0 170CR!).

Don't worry about the regen, as long as you aren't seeing any lights on the dash it is all good and not a regen in the true sense of the word, see it as more of a maintenance clear out. It will only be hot underneath if you turn the engine off mid regen cycle and you will know you have done this because the cooling fans will run for 5 to 10 mins afterwards which cools the exhaust system down.

Its not really run in. I would wait until the engine is warm (oil not coolant temp) and then drive it as much as you can throughout the whole rev range throughout the gears. This is how i run mine in and can easily see 56mpg on a motorway run (an i have a 2.0 170CR!).

Don't worry about the regen, as long as you aren't seeing any lights on the dash it is all good and not a regen in the true sense of the word, see it as more of a maintenance clear out. It will only be hot underneath if you turn the engine off mid regen cycle and you will know you have done this because the cooling fans will run for 5 to 10 mins afterwards which cools the exhaust system down.

Thanks, have done 115 miles today on oxfordshire's 50mph A-roads driving as economically as possible and towards the end of the run just touched 60.2mpg average before falling back somewhat. Suspect the ideas about not being run in and other issues may be correct as I went along the same stretch of road at same speed after 40 miles then again after 80 miles and second time it was much more economical according to the readout.

Thanks for the replies.