What to get next after a 1.9TDI Elegance.

[octavius56]

I have run a 56 plate 1.9 TDI elegance for the past 5 years and am up to 105,000 miles. I do a lot of motorway miles for my job. Typically doing a steady ~60 simply to keep the cost of commuting as low as possible when i'm in the office and normal motorway speeds ~70 when visiting clients around the country.

I can quite easily get 60-65mpg on a normal motorway run of ~200 miles (1 + junk in boot). My best yet is an average of 65mpg (dash computer) over a tank, which did me 785 miles. That was over 9 days doing 50mph tops behind trucks up and down the m61.

A new job has seen significant more travel and a decent mileage rate, so i can enjoy driving again at "sensible speeds". Whilst i love the Skoda for its comfort and space its a bit sluggish on the the cross country A roads especially when overtaking and after having driven a focus previous for 150,000 miles, i miss the decent handling of a car.

I would really like a VRS Estate next in racing blue but have the following questions.

• What does the VRS lose in terms of kit to the Elegance?
  
  • As far as I can tell, the autowipers/dimming rear mirror
    
  • Parking sensors
    
  • Headlight washers.
    

  [*]Fuel economy. Is there anyone there who has tried a long economy run in a VRS? What realistically can you get when you drive with a sensible pair of trousers on?! ( I accept that its not going to be as good as the VRS, and i am sure i will enjoy driving the VRS, but just interested to know what is possible!!!)

Would a 140 TDi Elegance remapped be a better option?

To DSG or Not to DSG. I tend to run cars for as long as i can. There are loads of debates about the DSG gear box. Realistically i see 120-150,000 as the kind of mileage i'd like to get it to before considering replacing.

I appreciate there are lots of different threads covering these topics, but just interested if there is anyone around with a similar experience who can offer some thoughts!

Thanks

[silver1011]

You don't mention how old the replacement car is likely to be.

Early vRS's are PD, the CR engine was introduced in 2009.

The CR is more efficient so marginally better fuel economy - but more expensive to buy used.

I have a daily commute of around 130 miles. I once drove my PD170 vRS at 60mph all week and managed an average over two full tanks of 51MPG.

The PD vRS has quoted combined MPG of 52. We all know how hard it is to achieve the manufacturers results so I can only assume the threads where people quote 50+ MPG are exagerated.

A factory standard vRS is poorly equipped when compared to the Elegance but a lot of them are specced up quite well. To get my ideal spec took lots of looking and some patience (xenon's, rear parking sensors, curtain airbags, anti-whiplash head restraints, auto-dimming rearview mirror, cruise control, auto wipers, maxidot etc.).

A well maintained DSG box will easily live to 150,000 miles and beyond, especially if the bulk of your driving is on the motorway. I had a bad experience with a high mileage auto box so due to my annual mileage I actively avoided another auto. Personally coming from a PD105 then a fully loaded CR140 L&K should put a smile on your face.

I'm getting old (33 ) and so after 30,000 miles the novelty of the 18" alloys, sports suspension and their effects on the ride are wearing a little thin now. It is even more noticeable when I drive the wife's Scout (see signature).

Edited 19 October, 2012 by silver1011

[booke23]

The PD vRS has quoted combined MPG of 52. We all know how hard it is to achieve the manufacturers results so I can only assume the threads where people quote 50+ MPG are exagerated.

Wrong.

My PD140 DSG has a quoted combined figure of 47 MPG. I have achieved 59 MPG in it (brim calculated).

Even without trying I can easily get low 50s MPG, and have never had any trouble achieving manufacturers figures in any car I have ever owned.

I'd probably get even better results in a Manual Vrs. (The DSG costs you about 10% in fuel economy)

I suppose some people's driving habits preclude this sort of MPG.

Edited 19 October, 2012 by booke23

[silver1011]

Unlike you I'm not going to accuse someone I don't know of being 'wrong'.

The manufacturers combined figure is recorded in a lab on a rolling road.

To get close to it is good going, to acheive it is very good, to exceed it by 26% is simply not going to happen.

[polanglo]

Hello there - I've driven the 1.9tdi pd a lot and it's great. But I've also driven the 2.0 tdi cr with 6 gears and it's a totally different experience - quiet, and effortless cruising on the motorway. I drove the 1.9 for about 2 years and the 2.0 since last summer. I have ordered one today from a dealer in Poland for 73,000zl (that's 14600 of the Queen's pounds). It's a great car and can't see the need for a VRs personally. It's all the car you need. But of course if you are set on a VRs then good luck:)

[billyd]

I have a 140CR elegance which mainly gets used for my weekly commute from Wigan to Barrow in Furness. I average 49.9 mpg (brim calculated) and that is traveling at 80mph on the motorway and dual carriage way. Plus i find that 140bhp is more than enough on the sections of the A590 where it goes from single carriage way to dual for only 1/4 of a mile to overtake anything that is in your way and get back in safely.

[RainbowFire]

Would a 140 TDi Elegance remapped be a better option?

How about a 140 TDi L&K remapped? All the toys (straight out of the factory) thus reducing the need to hunt around so much (like Silver), and all the speed.

To DSG or Not to DSG. I tend to run cars for as long as i can. There are loads of debates about the DSG gear box. Realistically i see 120-150,000 as the kind of mileage i'd like to get it to before considering replacing.

I would say that's really down to personal choice/taste, coupled with what driving you'll be doing. If it is predominantly M/A roads and 60/70 mph, then I'd say a manual: once you're in top gear the wizzy wizzy DSG is just dead weight. If there is a lot of stop/start urban driving, then DSG will save your left leg going numb ;)

[adamal]

I think running the extra kit on a l&k 140 pd eats into mpg tho. Speaking from personal experience and a mates...

[octavius56]

Thanks for all the responses

[octavius56]

The plan is to spend approx 12k for the newest lowest mileage. I'm 33 too silver 1011! Most driving is mway so good point about dead weight in 6th rainbowfire. 2.0 l&k manual does seem a good idea now. Pretty rare but worth it I think. A remap sorts the power out too if needed.

The VRS looks the business but when ur inside and paying at the pumps it doesn't add up for what I need.

Decision made! Thanks chaps

[RainbowFire]

I think running the extra kit on a l&k 140 pd eats into mpg tho. Speaking from personal experience and a mates...

Ok, now I'm curious............what extra kit eats into the mpg on an L&K? Would it not do the same to a vRS as well?

[Gizmo]

You really need to get behind the wheel of a CR as they drive completely different to the PD, the CR is more refined (quieter) and delivers it's power more linear like a petrol (so completely different to the PD).

However you will pay for this refinement at the pumps as they are not as economical (but they are more powerful)

Personally I would go for an L&K all the toys you could wish for.

[booke23]

Unlike you I'm not going to accuse someone I don't know of being 'wrong'.

No......reading the quote below, you're just going to call me a liar instead.......kettle pot black.

To get close to it is good going, to acheive it is very good, to exceed it by 26% is simply not going to happen.

Well.....it did happen. And to denounce anyone who has achieved this as a Liar on the basis that you have not done it yourself is just silly.

Suggest you google "Hypermiling"

Edited 19 October, 2012 by booke23

[adamal]

Ok, now I'm curious............what extra kit eats into the mpg on an L&K? Would it not do the same to a vRS as well?

I'm a little disappointed with my mpg as is my mate who has same. I think running a Columbus, climate control, occasional heated seat, cruise etc plus the extra weight of the modules etc reduces mpg a bit. I'm no mad driver but rarely get the figures others seem to get. Perhaps its the relatively high mileage on.mine, but my mate has much lower mileage and same issue. Not sure about kit on the vrs but suspect its less.

But I wouldn't trade mine for A few mpg, like Gizmo, I love the toys...

[octavius56]

There are so many factors that seem to come into it. External temperature. Over 20 deg I can get 75mpg on a motorway run.10 deg struggle to get 60 with the same driving. Tire pressures I know also play a big difference. A very light throttle, coasting etc will all add up. Makes for a very boring drive but if ur not rushing its worth it! I guess everyone gets use to the power delivery of their own engine too. The 105 is not fast so u don't get encouraged to thrash it in low gears but the torque in 5th is quite suprising. I had a 160 bhp insignia for 3 weeks as a hire car when the octi had a idiot neighbour smash into the front. It seemed incapable of getting over 50mpg even driven easy. In part I think because it had lots of power u just used it subconciously!

[RainbowFire]

I'm a little disappointed with my mpg as is my mate who has same. I think running a Columbus, climate control, occasional heated seat, cruise etc plus the extra weight of the modules etc reduces mpg a bit. I'm no mad driver but rarely get the figures others seem to get. Perhaps its the relatively high mileage on.mine, but my mate has much lower mileage and same issue. Not sure about kit on the vrs but suspect its less.

Ah. When you say "a bit" that'll be about 0.000001 mpg then. :p :p

DSG (if fitted) aside, which is heavier than an manual 'box: (approx 25kg)

Columbus won't do anything noticeable to MPG - the extra "weight" will be a 3.5" HDD and a GPS receiver.

Climate control / air conditioning: does, indeed cause a drop in MPG when in use. How you measure "the drop" though would be difficult as it's engaged permanently IIRC, so you'd need to physically remove it from the engine bay to find out what the pre-drop MPH would be.

Heated seats: the weight of the heating elements, cable and switches on the centre console. There is a slight load placed on the alternator when in use that would cause a drop in mph, but not a noticeable one.

Cruise Control: it's basically fitted as standard, all you need is a replacement stalk and 10 minutes with VCDS. The weight involved is so small (really, the difference between he original and cruise stalks is the switch) that if you left a pound coin at home or vacuumed the dirt out of the carpet, you'd have more than compensated. There is a debate over whether it saves fuel or not. If you feel it doesn't: leave it switched off.

Which extra modules? As far as I can see: memory seat module, and the control system for the HIDs would be about it.

If I recall correctly though, the L&K comes with a full-size spare wheel as standard, which will increase weight.

[adamal]

Ha ha, well all I know is I get less mpg than the average. It may well not be the things I mention but I suspect its a combination of extra weight and more electrical things running. I'm not saying I care that much, but it does appear to be a factor to take into consideration if economical driving is important to the buyer.

Adam

[polanglo]

You really need to get behind the wheel of a CR as they drive completely different to the PD, the CR is more refined (quieter) and delivers it's power more linear like a petrol (so completely different to the PD).

However you will pay for this refinement at the pumps as they are not as economical (but they are more powerful)

Personally I would go for an L&K all the toys you could wish for.

I concur with the above post - the CR diesel for me at least sounds like a petrol. I mean the 2.0 110 bhp version at any rate. The PD was a no-nonsense diesel with lots of ooomph at the beginning. As for mpg I suppose it depends on the driver, tyre pressures, outside temperature and right foot and also your vision...planning ahead for traffic lights, queues etc

[silver1011]

Suggest you google "Hypermiling"

Yeah, it's dangerous, and if you are that serious about fuel economy I suggest you move closer to work.

I reckon I could get 59mpg out of a PD140 DSG, just before it reaches the ocean.

[silver1011]

The plan is to spend approx 12k for the newest lowest mileage. I'm 33 too silver 1011! Most driving is mway so good point about dead weight in 6th rainbowfire. 2.0 l&k manual does seem a good idea now. Pretty rare but worth it I think. A remap sorts the power out too if needed.

The VRS looks the business but when ur inside and paying at the pumps it doesn't add up for what I need.

Decision made! Thanks chaps

Here you go, fully loaded, DSG, Skoda warranty. All the car you'll ever need!

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201238485862336/sort/pricedesc/usedcars/price-to/12000/model/octavia/make/skoda/onesearchad/used/onesearchad/nearlynew/onesearchad/new/page/1/keywords/laurin/radius/1500/postcode/sl13yd?logcode=p

[booke23]

Yeah, it's dangerous

How?

[marcusthehat]

perhaps not dangerous per se, but likely to unreasonably hold up, inconvience and irritate other road users thereby provoking them into doing sommat potentially dangerous.

but hey! not my fault gov!

cheers

marcus

Edited 21 October, 2012 by dieseldogg

[Anddenton]

How?

I think the view of it being dangerous is down to the fact that some people take it too far, for instance one tactic that has been noted is for people to drive up as close to the back of hgv's on the motorway- could cause a m-way pile up. Also idea is not to use breaks, so a car is coming off mway at next junction so eases off and coasts last quarter mile as you come on him doing 70, don't see any break lights so don't realise he's slowed to 30 and have to take evasive action. Therefore could be a dangerous practice if those doing it don't think about what and how they are doing it and what the consequences might be.

[RainbowFire]

Also idea is not to use breaks, so a car is coming off mway at next junction so eases off and coasts last quarter mile as you come on him doing 70, don't see any break lights so don't realise he's slowed to 30 and have to take evasive action. Therefore could be a dangerous practice if those doing it don't think about what and how they are doing it and what the consequences might be.

When I was taught to drive, many years ago, I was taught to slow down using the gear-box, saving wear and tear on the brakes. This doesn't bring the brake-lights on either.

If the driver behind hasn't noticed he's catching the car in front up (given that coasting is a gradual speed decrease) then really he should be paying much more attention.

Tailgating is a given example of how dangerous things can be taken. Yes an HGV creates a huge hole in the air which will drag a car along quite nicely (in fact enough to assist in dragging another lorry along - thankfully an exceptionally rare practice in the UK), and yes, HGVs don't stop in a hurry, but being that close means you see nothing but lorry. Quite often I've seen trailer lights that aren't working. This gives a vastly reduced space for you to realise that the lorry is braking if you're that close. Tailgating coaches is worse, as they can stop quicker than lorries.

No amount of extra MPG is worth taking those sort of risks for. The UK roads are not nice, straight, point-to-point roads either. I can see the appeal of hypermiling if you're in the US, but not in the UK.

[booke23]

Tailgating is certainly dangerous, and I would not use tailgating (or drafting as the hypermilers call it) for the benefit of MPG.

Having said that, the 55 mph hypermiling tailgater must still be safer than the obligatory Audi TT driver who always seems to be within 6 inches of ones rear bumper any time you are in lane three on a motorway travelling at 85 - 90 mph.

However basic hypermiling techniques can be safely applied on UK roads, and gives me about 30% increase in fuel economy compared to 85 mph style motorway driving.