You don't think this could be because there are way more diesels out there than tsi's?

TBH I don't think it's based on anything. I've asked two questions about how these conclusions were drawn, one got ignored and the other received a non-answer

I do love a petrol vs diesel thread once in a while!

Riddiculous isn't it. In the middle of all this there is some poor sod who asked for advice...........

Also, since this will be my newest car to date (previous was 1998!), what are they like for servicing costs? I say this, because I used to do it myself, but after spending £10,500 on a car, I'd want to keep it's skoda service history intact rather scribbling down home service. What about things like brakes? I'n guessing these are fairly simple to change? (I've done it many times on older cars.)

Welcome to Briskoda

If you prefer to keep your service history with a Skoda main dealer then you may find this useful...

These prices are negotiable so should be the max you ever pay.

http://www.skoda.co.uk/gbr/owners/national-pricing/pages/servicing.aspx

Which, (based on the above arguable figures) means the petorl would be doing 24-26 MPG.

It's really best to use manufacturers combined MPG figures when comparing different engine consumptions.

I really do believe that doing 10m journeys to and from work won't see 40mpg. Diesels a greedy when cold and it takes more than 10m to get fully warmed up. You would need to take your formulas and work out the average for the whole tank, recording how much fuel was used. It would be very difficult to measure just how many ltrs of fuel was used in just one 10m journey.

It may get 40+ if you get straight on the motorway and sit at 60-70mph. Do thus 10 journey just consist if 10m of motorway?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk whilst in a taxi rank

Which, (based on the above arguable figures) means the petorl would be doing 24-26 MPG.

It's really best to use manufacturers combined MPG figures when comparing different engine consumptions.

I really do believe that doing 10m journeys to and from work won't see 40mpg. Diesels a greedy when cold and it takes more than 10m to get fully warmed up. You would need to take your formulas and work out the average for the whole tank, recording how much fuel was used. It would be very difficult to measure just how many ltrs of fuel was used in just one 10m journey.

It may get 40+ if you get straight on the motorway and sit at 60-70mph. Do thus 10 journey just consist if 10m of motorway?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk whilst in a taxi rank

I think that there are valid arguments for both petrol & diesel varients. If it is simply down to overall running costs then do the maths based on your mileage v fuel costs v vehicle cost/depreciation etc to work out which would be the cheapest overall and then go out & find the one that suits. There are more factors that just the costs for some people though - I know that based on our annual mileage a petrol will probably work out quite a bit cheaper however, both myself & the wife prefer that way that a turbo diesel drives and like the low down torque that they give as well as the mid-range shove provided without having to drop down a gear or two.

That said, from my experience (albeit not scientific at all), the diesel always seems to give us 10+ mpg more than an equivalent petrol engine (and that is town use). Motorways and long journeys it increases even more so.

Drive both & see which you prefer.

My TFSI (petrol) average at the moment = 34 mpg. Mostly commuting in West London and hacking through the lanes when I get closer to home...

I had an A4 2.0 TDi and that only averaged 41 mpg with the same treatment.

For me no contest.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The Audi A4 is based on the VW group B platform. The Octavia is based on the VW group A platform.

So of course it only did 41mpg....it's a bigger, heavier car than the Octavia (although it appears the same size).

Wow, looks likes I've stirred something up here! I'm really not sure what to get now! I can see both arguments to be fair.

And petrol does sound nicer, but the derv has so much more torque. It'll probably be cheaper to run too. Hmm!

Ok, diesel it is. The petrol is a lot faster, so insurance is waaaaaay more, plus I'd do long trips every now and then. Plus, I'd plan on keeping the motor for a while, therefore I don't mind paying for the dpf once. I also like 350nm of torque!

I'm amazed at the poor quoted mpg for the CR diesel.

With my PD170, I get over 50mpg quite easily on my mixed 18 mile drive to work (have hit 58 if I drive like a nun), today was a drive from Worcester to Warwick to Sussex and I averaged 54mpg despite sitting at 80 all the way down the M40.

My average has been 49.5mpg over the 6,000 miles since I've had it!

Ok, diesel it is. The petrol is a lot faster, so insurance is waaaaaay more, plus I'd do long trips every now and then. Plus, I'd plan on keeping the motor for a while, therefore I don't mind paying for the dpf once. I also like 350nm of torque!

Good lad....you know it makes sense!

I'm amazed at the poor quoted mpg for the CR diesel.

With my PD170, I get over 50mpg quite easily on my mixed 18 mile drive to work (have hit 58 if I drive like a nun), today was a drive from Worcester to Warwick to Sussex and I averaged 54mpg despite sitting at 80 all the way down the M40.

My average has been 49.5mpg over the 6,000 miles since I've had it!

I think we have alot of very heavy footed drivers on this thread.....My record on my PD140 DSG is 59mpg (brim calculated)....although I did have to drive it like an undertaker to get that. I'd imagine if I had the CR version I would better that figure by 3-5mpg.

Edited 18 October, 201213 yr by booke23

Even if I drove mine like I stole it (Shark Stage One, DPF delete), I wouldn't see under 40mpg.

Ok, diesel it is. The petrol is a lot faster, so insurance is waaaaaay more, plus I'd do long trips every now and then. Plus, I'd plan on keeping the motor for a while, therefore I don't mind paying for the dpf once. I also like 350nm of torque!

I love my diesel but i would prefer a petrol VRS. Maybe not the fuel bills though. The site im on at present is 2 miles from my house and i get 40mpg average.

Dont get hung up on diesels having a torque advantage either as claimed lb/ft figures are torque figures of the engine not at the wheels. Petrol cars have shorter gearing because they can rev higher so torque at the wheel may be the same for the petrol VRS compared to diesel. Im sure some clever spark on here could work out how they both relate? Thats why 4x4 cars with low range boxes actually double their torque outputs when in the low range box as its all about how the engine torque is geared down.

The petrol VRS actually feels really torquey and i certainly wouldnt say it feels weedier than the diesel. N/A petrols feel gutless but the 2.0 tfsi / Tsi unit has a greta spread of torque. You have to remember its not peak torque figures that matter either, a flat torque curve is what you need. Both the diesel and petrol VRS are good in this respect.

The only advantage the diesel VRS has over the petrol VRS i would say is MPG but it is still a good engine and i can see why people would prefer it to the petrol but if MPG doesnt bother you or isnt a factor due to low annual mileage then i cant see a reason to pick diesel over petrol.

Edited 19 October, 201213 yr by Jockdooshbag

I'd agree about not getting hung up on torque - many people consider 'diesel torque' a factor when perhaps they should think of it as 'turbo torque' instead......

I'd agree about not getting hung up on torque - many people consider 'diesel torque' a factor when perhaps they should think of it as 'turbo torque' instead......

True. With around 207lb/ft for petrol and 258lb/ft for diesel and the differences in rev limits from say 5000 rpm for diesel to 6500rpm for petrol the torque ratio is probably exactly the same i.e same torque at the wheel. I only guessed at the rev limits TBH but they wont be far off i bet.

The press bang on about torque advantages of diesels but, as you say, its really the torque advantages of turbos that they are noticing. This was more relevant a few years ago when turbo charging of petrols was less common but nowadays diesels dont have this torque advantage anymore but merely an efficiency advantage. Anything with a modern low pressure turbo will have good torque.

What is quiet interesting however, sorry for diverging off topic again, is that new diesels with lower compression ratios can rev higher. The skyactive mazda diesel engines can rev to 5500rpm. It wasnt long ago that diesels reved out at 4000rpm meaning it wont be long before diesels rev over 6000rpm. If they could make them sound better then they will be better rivals to petrol in terms of driver enjoyment.

Edited 19 October, 201213 yr by Jockdooshbag

To be fair the TFSi was referred to as the 'VAG diesel soundalike' in an article I saw before buying mine, and I have to agree. Don't know if the TSI is as bad though.......

To be fair the TFSi was referred to as the 'VAG diesel soundalike' in an article I saw before buying mine, and I have to agree. Don't know if the TSI is as bad though.......

Have had both engines - TFSI in a Golf V GTI, and TSI in my current vRS. The TFSI certainly sounded diesel-ish from outside. The TSI much less so.

Well thanks for all the help anyway guys. Definitely going for a diesel now. Plus, I can always just remove the dpf and get a nice fast remap too.

You need to consider less of what it costs per week purely in fuel. Factor in the purchase price and depreciation over the period of ownership.

If a diesel was £10,000 and depreciation was (let's say) 50% over three years and the comparable petrol was £8,000 with the same rate of depreciation, the diesel would still cost you £1,000 more to run over three years.

Then add your fuel savings into the mix and see where you get to. Big miles will counteract the losses, but the mentality is that you are spending less per week and forgetting that you spent more in the first instance!

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The Audi A4 is based on the VW group B platform. The Octavia is based on the VW group A platform.

So of course it only did 41mpg....it's a bigger, heavier car than the Octavia (although it appears the same size).

Yes, I do know about A and B platforms, thanks.

But the statement 'Of course it only did 41 mpg... it's a bigger, heavier car...' is so vague it's ridiculous.

Why don't you show some facts and figures to back up this statement?

Edit: Actually I just found some - A5 = 1,400 kg v. B7 = 1,430 kg. That's 30 kg, or the weight of a child.

I must admit, my fuel consumption plummets when I have kids on board, but maybe that's because I can't wait to be rid of them and drive a bit too fast. No, wait, maybe it's because they've eaten all the pies and become temporarily super, super heavy?

Edited 22 October, 201213 yr by El Dingo

Yes, I do know about A and B platforms, thanks.

My pleasure.

But the statement 'Of course it only did 41 mpg... it's a bigger, heavier car...' is so vague it's ridiculous.

No it's not....it's fact.

Why don't you show some facts and figures to back up this statement?

I don't have to.....my statement was pure fact. But since you asked so nicely it would delight me to do so.

2007 Audi A4 2.0TDI PD, Combined economy - 49 MPG 153g/km

2007 Skoda Octavia 2.0TDi PD, Combined economy 51 MPG 145g/km

Edit: Actually I just found some - A5 = 1,400 kg v. B7 = 1,430 kg.

Yes, I already told you that.......the Audi A4 is a bigger (weight is not the only factor in MPG discussions), heavier car. Apples and Oranges.

Got another question then, DSG or manual on a diesel? Never driven the DSG, so are they any good? What about fuel economy, do they sap power like regular auto boxes do?

Averaged about 42 to 45mpg in my Shark mapped VRS CR. Could get 50 on a run but had to be quite steady - not nun like but just sensible. Was good on fuel considering the power.

Test drove a DSG on a CR and hated it. The gear changed were imperceptible but it wanted to be in 6th at 40mph so you were sat at 1200rpm or something silly like that. Put it in sport mode and it kept the revs too high for a diesel.

DPF issues do happen but mostly on the PD. The CR is not immune but it's much more rare - mine only had the sensor fail which was replaced under warranty. The filter itself was fine. Regens are annoying though as they usually happen when you are about to park up and need to stop the car. That used to annoy me.

Got another question then, DSG or manual on a diesel? Never driven the DSG, so are they any good? What about fuel economy, do they sap power like regular auto boxes do?

Most people love their DSG's, including me. An amazing gearbox. Forget what you think you know about Automatic gearboxes, DSG is in a totally different league to a standard Auto.

You pay a slight penalty in fuel economy over a manual, about 8%. As for sapping power, they don't. There is no torque converter, just clutches. On paper they usually have very similar 0-60 times than the equivalent manual, however in real world conditions I suspect (though don't know) that the DSG would be marginally faster than the same manual car (no human error on gear changes on a DSG).

You really need to test drive one and see what you think.

Edited 23 October, 201213 yr by booke23

Better have a test of one in that case!

What about the pd or cr argument then? I know that the cr engine should be smoother, but what about in terms of reliability?

Another vote for DSG. First saw it on my father-in-law's PD140 Elegance and couldn't believe how good it was.

The changes were so fast when compared the the Honda auto I had at the time. As someone has said, light years ahead of a normal auto.

I've since had two DSGs. One on a Golf V GTI and one on my current Octy. Wouldn't go back to manual again, unless for a much smaller, lower powered car - see my sig.

@OP, good luck choosing. Whichever Octy you buy, I suspect you will be very pleased.