1.3 vs 1.9D overall running costs?

[jonny a]

My usual car is a 1.9 diesel truck, however I have been using my Dads 1.3 felly for the past week. I really like the 1.3 revvy motor and have had half a mind on getting a 1.3 petrol truck. What are your lots opinions on running costs? Obviously there is a good saving in tax and probably insurance to be made. I havent noticed much if any difference in fuel economy, if anything I would say the 1.3 uses slightly more fuel than my diesel? What are your experiences of this? My 20 mile journey to work is on windy b roads and single track lanes with a few stops and starts. My driving is on the faster side of avarage. I know I can make savings by 'Sunday' drivng to work, but It's dull doing that and I don't plan on changing.

Any feedback from people with experience of driving both 1.3 and diesel fellys would be interesting.

Ta

Jonny

[iansmith]

Diesel lost to petrol when the diesel fuel tax increased,

there was publicity on 'unhealthy' diesel soot particulates at the time.

I used diesel but now I don't, it's not worth it.

[bigwayne]

I'm running a 1996 1.3glxi hatchback, (favorit in a felicia bodyshell really with the 136b engine) i'm regularly getting between 40mpg (around town) and 48mpg (at a steady 55-60mph on a 'run')

No experiance with diesel, and a news feature the other day said most manufacturers quote silly mpg figures that in real life can't be attained, no matter how carefully you drive (one was quoted as claiming 75mpg, in reality it just about managed 51mpg)

[Red Studio]

Mine's a 1996 1.9 diesel estate. I do a lot of local mileage with the occasional long run thrown in. I've been calculating the mpg since November and have averaged just over 46mpg in that time.

[uma1998]

hi there i was running a 1.3mpi now running 1.6mpi with air con and there is no diffrence in fuel here but when i had a polo that was diesel that i broke up i found the diesel to be sugish to the petrol my 1.3 engine was the 64bhp engine and now the 1.6mpi is 75bhp only diffrence between 1.3 and 1.6 is the torke

[Jonesy92]

I currently have the 1.9d and prior to that I had the 1.6 petrol.

Whilst the diesel feels more than competent around town and honestly, quite pleasant, I find that if ever I feel like gunning it (when I'm in a boy racer mood), I'm somewhat frustrated by the... 'casual' pace. Motorway driving can be frustrating also in that there's alot of noise thanks to the engine revving around the 3,000RPM range just cruising at 70mph and furthermore, if you put your foot down in 5th at that speed, you'll make next to no headway at all.

The point is because the engine is heavier than the petrol engines and also has less power than both of them (slightly more torque than the 1.3 however), it means that you're likely to find yourself pushing it harder, thus decreasing fuel consumption. Also, because of the large engine, you have to pay alot more tax (which is in my mind ridiculous and not particularly justified). As someone has also said here, diesel costs a fair bit more than diesel these days (around 10p a litre? I don't really pay much attention :/ ). Admittedly, there are arguments for diesels generally being more reliable than petrol engines, although I'm not sure of impact of this financially.

I'm saying all of this, but you wouldn't buy a diesel, especially one without a turbo, because you wanted sportiness. It's the practical choice and it pootles along reliably. I also like that clattery diesel sound, hehe.

I think if I was going to choose an engine based on running costs, I'd go for the 1.3 as the insurance groups are the same as the diesel either way.

If you have a bit more in the way of dosh, the 1.6 would definately be my pick of the bunch. Probably the same running costs as the diesel I reckon - I seem to put fuel in the diesel just as regularly as I did in the 1.6. Only in estate form though... I refuse to have any car unless it's an estate xD

[felicia16v]

The diesel felly's are not as economical as modern diesels and most struggle to break 45>48mpg so not really any saving over the 1.6 doing 40>43mpg.

The 1.3 never seems to be that good on fuel even with mpi etc but does have a £100 cheaper tax disk so horses for courses really

I recon that the 1.4TDI vw fabia motor would make a cracking conversion into a felly.

[Lazy Daisy]

The 1.3 never seems to be that good on fuel even with mpi

If the mpi is the one with the "thing" bolted on the front for the spark plugs, like mine, then I get somewhere about 35 mpg, nearer 40 if there's some extended duel carriageway / mway involved

[felicia16v]

If the mpi is the one with the "thing" bolted on the front for the spark plugs, like mine, then I get somewhere about 35 mpg, nearer 40 if there's some extended duel carriageway / mway involved

yup thats the one. the best of the origional Skoda motors, not many seem to get much over 40mpg even the coffin dodgers struggle!

[djaychela]

When I did Plymouth-Banjul in a 1.3 SPI Felicia Estate, I averaged just over 40mpg for the entire trip (4399 miles). Bear in mind that involved an absolutely mental day doing over 850 miles in a day, averaging 65mph (no, really!) - flat out all day - and three days spent driving in the sahara, and once we got to the southern end of Morocco it was running on "Super" which isn't even unleaded. Top car.

Mum's diesel estate averaged about 45mpg over its life, and it did a LOT of local miles - she just used it for going to feed her horses and round town etc.

[robk1]

Hi, can't really comment on the diesel front but my past 1.3's have been ok mpg wise & fairly consistent with that quoted above. Mine were estates and perhaps that affected the economy slightly? To be fair I've found the 1.6 mpi not at all bad fuel wise and being of the lighter right foot can return pretty good mpg over the range. In the current climate I won't chop mine in for the alternative 1.9d as the benefits aren't sufficiently pronounced.

[chef1]

has anybody tried to combine the two.....? - a 1.3 petrol engine with a diesel box? - would the longer legs of the diesel-box's final drive make for better fuel economy, sacrificing the livelier acceleration of the lower-ratio'd petrol box....?

[rigsby]

Ive had them all, 1.3 favvy, 1.6 fun and a 1.9 felly, thraiped the tits off all of them and got about 35 mpg from the lot. The fun was best on a good motorway run getting 45+ at a steady 70ish and the diesel best round town. only the lower tax cost gave the 1.3 points

[Ghia]

I get a constant 50-55mpg from my Felicia Estate 1.9D.

It is slow. There's no getting away from that and the only way that I get that fuel economy is to change up at 2,000rpm and only go above that on the motorway where I don't go above 60mph.

As soon as you try to push this engine, it starts to drink.

I had one trip to Leeds at 'as fast as it will go!' and it was down to around low 40s mpg so if you drive it like this all the time, expect no more than that.

I have always been tempted to put an AAZ engine in which is the Turbo'd version of the AEF (stock 1.9D) with an intercooler and see what it's like on mpg but I was afraid that the extra oomph would kill the clutch and gearbox without too much trying.

How about a 1.6 and LPG?

MG

[alastairq]

hi....................I regularly achieve between 46 and 50mpg's [rarely over, but must be at some point, as the mpg's are an average]...in my 1.3 mpi estate.

Even on motorway journeys at up to the speed limits, the mileage only fell to the low 40's mpg.

Much depends on the driving style [rather than the speeds driven at].....if the diseasel doris doesn't achieve significantly more mileage that the above, then the 1.9D appears to be somewhat of a false economy [for my purposes, anyway].....since derv costs a significant amount more that basic unleaded, the VED per year is considerably more, and I suspect servicing and repair costs may be higher??

Performance-wise, for normal [legal] motoring I have found no advantage to going to the 1.6 petrol. [not my car, so may not have been so well serviced??]........the 1.3 mpi being a genuine Skoda engine, it is very light in comparison, so the 1.3 is a far more delightful car to drive...not having a gert lump of iron strapped to the front.

The 1.3 mpi motor is also, by design, tuned for low-end torque, with a tuned-in rev limit [timing?} to avoid the piston quality issues reported elsewhere [so I understand]

Thus I have found even top gear acceleration for overtaking to be surprisingly good........better than many larger-engined cars I've driven.....

Actually using the gears and power band results in even better performance.......but I tend to only use that sort of technique when overtaking, or pulling up to a cruising speed, uphill.

I will add, my regular driving involves approx 80% open rural roads [although with junctions, etc]....and around 20% town/city....I make an effort to utilise the mpi's fuelling characteristics...ie, no fuel use on over-run....and try to only use light throttle pressure....ie don't accelerate hard from stops, junctions etc....I attempt to keep the revs low at lower speeds, but avoid getting too near tickover revs, as the fuel starts to get pumped in again....[can be felt as a slight 'surge', especially if in top gear..probably around 15-20mph....] so I try to get to 4th once I'm near the thirty limit, and tread very gently with the gas pedal.

But then, that's me..........but I do make my living within the driving world, so maybe have a slight 'professional' advantage ....which may not be typical.

[gotta be better than the 25mpg's I got from my 136-engined Rapid on bike carbs....which was a better mileage than the same engine on a Jikov or a weber..]

[chef1]

...this is quite an interesting little site for comparison figures...looks like my little 1.3 felicia at 40-48mpg is way ahead of the pack! http://www.fuelly.com/car/skoda/felicia