Hello all,

Firstly, I'd like to point out that although I won't be changing my current car (Suzuki Swift 1.3 GLA-AMT 2006) until probably 2013, I'm seriously considering the Octavia to replace it as the latter seems a good family car for it's price.

With this out the way I would like to discuss the fuel economy of engines (VAG and other makes) over the past year. Below is a short description of that I have come to realize, which is the reason I'm posting this.

In 2006, I purchased my first (current) car. The purchase was supported by my municipality as the car was granted as a car "for a disabled driver". A student at thew time, my economy could not stretch for any other than the Swift, however, as I was not (and still aren't) a "petrol head" the Swift is just fine for me and my wife.

And here comes the point: engine is 92 bhp, 0-62 in 12 secs and when on a main road (you call these A roads in UK?) I can easily manage between 48-52 mpg if I stick to the speed limits.

Considering my car is from 2006 (just before people in Denmark REALLY started focusing on improving the MPG and CO2 things) I consider this to be quite good.

But now it seems that the TSIs are not that much better MPG wise in the Octavia- AFTER SIX years of development! Now, in all fairness, the Octavia is of course much heavier and the 1.4 TSI is much quicker than my 1.3 and has a lot more torque but still.

I understand that prior to the TSIs the FSIs were the petrol engines of choice for the Octavia and whilst I don't know at what time the FSI was released in the Octavia line up, I now consider it an old engine and still the official MPG numbers says that the FSI is/was capable of doing 43 MPG combined. That's only 3 MPG less than the current 1.4 TSI and I believe I could do 43 MPGs in my Swift too which is fitted with an N/A engine.

Now, if MPGs are a concern, I realize diesel is the obvious way to go. Only problem is I'm likely to do no more than 9,000 miles a years which means that the DPF will probably be a pain.

What do you think?

With that mileage, petrol. I can easily do over 40 mpg on a run, the new Tsi's really are very flexible.

The 1.4 is underpowered for the size of car( so has to work harder) and the swift is a small , relatively light car , so the engine is on top of it , a lot of 1.6 engines are more economical than 1.4 for medium sized cars in the REAL world

"... the Octavia is of course much heavier..." - And here is the crux of the matter; try comparing the the fuel economy of both Swift and Octy with a Fabia using the 1.4TSi.

Hello Nicolai glad to see your thinking of moving over to the Skoda brand and have done plenty of research already into them. Can you get the 1.2TSI Octavia in Denmark? I have heard its not much different in MPG over the 1.4TSI but if you are a gentle driver and focused on MPG it might be worth thinking about, cheaper and it claims 49mpg combined on fact sheet although in the real world I have heard people saying that they have got less but would depends heavily on driving style.

Forgot to mention: I need DSG due to spastic cerebral palsy and it seems the DSG vers. don't have the "Green Tech" suffix in the model name which means the difference between the petrol and diesel MPG is even bigger. Frustrating!!!

Bluevrs2: Underpowered? Well, hoirses for course I guess. Toyota uses a 1.8 NA 147 BHP and 180 NM in their Avensis. I imagine I could easily live with that one, and that the 1.4 tsi in the Octy would feel like a rocket in comparison.

Fubar: yes, the 1.2 tsi dsg IS available in DK but but I'm afraid that will be a wee bit small for the Octy as a family car. Wife is expecting first baby in april so will have to carry me, wife, boy, pram (plus my parents in weekends on weekend trips) without feeling sluggish/underpowered. Whilst it will mostly be me alone in it, I'd rather pay the extra and have the extra power availble IF needed (same goes for body style: could prob. do with hatch but I like the extra space/practicality of the estate).

Still as said, won't change til 2013 or 2014 and perhaps we'll have 70 mpg. hybrids by then.

The combined is 56,6 MPG for the new Swift which weighs 1480 kg. 53,3 MPg for the Fabia which weighs 1545 kg. Is it just me, or is the Swift doing very well in this comparison?

Edited 18 January, 201214 yr by Nicolai

And here comes the point: engine is 92 bhp, 0-62 in 12 secs and when on a main road (you call these A roads in UK?) I can easily manage between 48-52 mpg if I stick to the speed limits.

Considering my car is from 2006 (just before people in Denmark REALLY started focusing on improving the MPG and CO2 things) I consider this to be quite good.

But now it seems that the TSIs are not that much better MPG wise in the Octavia- AFTER SIX years of development! Now, in all fairness, the Octavia is of course much heavier and the 1.4 TSI is much quicker than my 1.3 and has a lot more torque but still.

My stepfather claims he used to get that sort of MPG from his 1950s Ford Anglia if he took it very steady. So even after SIXTY years of development nothings improved ........at least if you ignore the fact the Suzuki weighs 40% more than the Anglia and the Octavia weighs nearly 40% more than the Suzuki!

You cannae change the laws of physics.

Point taken! I guess what I would really like to see/have is an "increased weight's effect on fuel consumption."

And the Fabia is only 4 per cent heavier than the New 2012 Suzuki. So in my book, the Suzuki comes out on top regarding MPG. The Fabia has more torque though.

I would bet in real world the MPG of the Fabia with 2 adults a child and boot full would be better with more torque though. Would a Fabia estate be too small?

In my opinion, yes. But reality is it would probably be sufficient. I just the Octavia better (more roomy) and more classy imo.

Time to start bashing cars out of aluminum and composite materials for the panels to save weight.

Got to be cheaper than every gadget in the universe for making an engine have a lower CO2/mile.

I guess they like steel because it rusts, but cars would still wear out even if built out of other materials.

So even after SIXTY years of development nothings improved

Behind every car manufacturer is an oil company. So there's no real impetus to develop uber-economical cars. There are other solutions available, and they'll suddenly become almost affordable when the oil runs out, then gentley slide into affordability, with those manufacturers fleecing everyone too.

I bet if we cared less about legislating for the environment there'd be more development too. IIRC Toymota had a 1.6 lean-burn engine, about 18(ish) years ago. Fairly economical and 'green' and reasonably powerful, but development was killed off when the Euro-crats legislated that all petrol cars had to have a cat. American cars have to have big engines because of the amount of power that is lost due to their 'ecological' / polution measures.

If you are waiting until 2013 / 2014 then hold out for the electric version with DSG as standard...

Edited 18 January, 201214 yr by silver1011

I realize i've touched upon this before, however, I now read a thread here (most and least reliable var) and it seems quite a few people has had probs with their Skodas / VAG products.

I must be honest: all the time I have been into cars, I have also considered Jap cars the most reliable (Adac/TÜV ratings etc.)

Only prob is that they mostly sacrifice their economy with N/A engines (Subaru, Mazda etc.) in favour of their reliability and they are expensive.

I turned to Skoda because the Octavia is relatively cheap, will seat a family and has a good gearbox (DSG).

Weight, emissions regs and fat tyres are the real mpg killers on modern cars.

My first car had was built in 1989, 1300cc petrol with carburettors and only 4 gears. I reckon I got well over 50mpg and possibly over 60mpg with it.

But it weighed next to nothing because it had no safety really. No big door bars, no safety cages, no electronic aids not even power steering.

Just five seats and 4 skinny tyres.

Every time there is a development in efficiency there tends to be some sort of regulation that buggers it up. And now to get reasonable mpg and power engines are tweaked and monitored within an inch of their lives which decreases reliability. The more points of failure you have the more chances something will fail.

But now it seems that the TSIs are not that much better MPG wise in the Octavia- AFTER SIX years of development! Now, in all fairness, the Octavia is of course much heavier and the 1.4 TSI is much quicker than my 1.3 and has a lot more torque but still.

I think that you can't just choose to completely ignore the point that undermines your argument.

The combined is 56,6 MPG for the new Swift which weighs 1480 kg. 53,3 MPg for the Fabia which weighs 1545 kg. Is it just me, or is the Swift doing very well in this comparison?

Where did you get these figures? There's no way the Fabia weighs anywhere near that much (and I doubt the Swift does either), IIRC it's slightly under 1300kg, the Octavia *only* comes in at 1360kg according to Parkers.

I think that you can't just choose to completely ignore the point that undermines your argument.

Where did you get these figures? There's no way the Fabia weighs anywhere near that much (and I doubt the Swift does either), IIRC it's slightly under 1300kg, the Octavia *only* comes in at 1360kg according to Parkers.

I think its the "total weight" the kerb weight of the 1.4Tsi DSG Fabia (180) is 1243kg and the 1.2tsi (105 manual) is 1055kg the Octavia 1.4TSI DSG (122) kerb weight is 1255kg and the 1.2TSI (105 manual) is 1190kg.

Anyway I think that you get far more power for the mpg in modern engines. I used to have a Mk1 Nissan Micra (1.0l) that would do 55mpg easily but only produced a staggering 55bhp and would have trouble exceeding the speed limit on a slight incline. The 1.2tsi Octavia nearly achieves 50mpg and it a heavier, larger bodied car and produces 50bhp (*well ps) more!