Hi guys im new to this fourm and I'm thinking about buying a 2006 octavia vrs but im not sure if i want the petrol or tdi engine ,please told me the 2.0 tdi is rubbish and it has alot of problems, there saying the 1.9 tdi is the best, I currently have a v40 t4 volvo 1.9 turbo petrol and i love it, there are 2 models for sale for £6995 and its a 2006 2.0 tdi with 80.000 miles fully service history and the other one is 2.0 tfsi petrol with 38.000 miles for the same price...what u guys think??

thanks guys

I have a petrol vRS Octavia II but have driven the diesel version plenty times too. Both cracking pieces of kit so for my tuppence wort your priority should be to work out running costs based on your projected milage. My vRS returns around 32 mpg. That includes a lot of sensible A road driving and some fun thrown in too. Others will give you an idea what to expect from the diesel.

Petrol TFSI here also. Averaging 30.2 mpg - car is mapped.

The one thing to be wary with on the PD170 is the injector issue. Can be expensive.

Likewise on the TFSI they can have issues with valves seizing due to carbon build up. Again, can be expensive.

Looked at both before I purchased my petrol. Whilst the PD170 is a good engine - and torquey, I just prefer the characteristics of petrol engines. With an exhaust and map they sound incredible and shift.

Lowest fuel consumption I've seen was 19.6 mpg over a few miles in stop start traffic - during Oxford rush hour!

Best - 42.7 on a long motorway run.

Petrol TFSI here also. Averaging 30.2 mpg - car is mapped.

The one thing to be wary with on the PD170 is the injector issue. Can be expensive.

Likewise on the TFSI they can have issues with valves seizing due to carbon build up. Again, can be expensive.

Looked at both before I purchased my petrol. Whilst the PD170 is a good engine - and torquey, I just prefer the characteristics of petrol engines. With an exhaust and map they sound incredible and shift.

Lowest fuel consumption I've seen was 19.6 mpg over a few miles in stop start traffic - during Oxford rush hour!

Best - 42.7 mpg on a long motorway run.

i really dont see any vrs's on the road,tdi or petrol ,alot of people are saying the tdi 2.0 has problems and i dont want problems as i need a good car for my kids thats why im getting an estate,does the PD 2.0 tdi has problems like they say ?? or is that for the VW only?

i dont mind having a petrol really,just will pay more for road tax thats all

I've owned the pd vRS and now own the petrol. Both pretty good but the petrol has a much more refined engine and is nicer to drive (IMO).

My pd did have issues with the DPF completely blocking and needed to be replaced under warranty. My tsi has been complaint free.

Essentially it's going to come down to your annual mileage. Anything over 12k, I would start to consider the diesel.

thanks guys,i think ill have enough space for 2 car seats in the back as my wife is preg with twins,the boot is huge as im getting the estate

Would only consider the diesel if doing big miles ...ie 10,000 + a year. Hope you get a good one.

I wouldn't call 10/12k pa big miles although I don't know when the diesel becomes cost effective. Also depends on your priorites; personally I would take the petrol every time for driving pleasure over the economy if the diesel. I wouldn't rule out the hatch either. The boot is plenty big enough and it never failed to swalllow everything we threw at it with two small children and we did a lot of weekends away.

I wouldn't call 10/12k pa big miles although I don't know when the diesel becomes cost effective. Also depends on your priorites; personally I would take the petrol every time for driving pleasure over the economy of the diesel. I wouldn't rule out the hatch either. The boot is plenty big enough and it never failed to swalllow everything we threw at it with two small children and we did a lot of weekends away.

I'd probably go for the TFSi, they have their known issues like any car its age but DPF issues with the PD engine are prevalent and I personally wouldnt want to risk it. Much lower mileage, smoother and faster too just be prepares for it to be a lot less efficient than what you drive now; official 37mpg combined figure is tripe; if you average low 30's you'll be doing well

I have had a 2011 petrol and since may have had a 2012 model CR Vrs, both estates.

The petrol is nicer to drive.

The estate version happily carries my family of 2 adults and 3 kids (13, 11 and 9) plus 2 dogs.

The PD engines appear to have injector issues and DPF problems, plus the usual diesel dual mass flywheel problems/debates.

Petrol engines have their own issues if you have a look around this forum, but not as many. Mine did 22K in 12 months with no issues and very little oil use.

I think that the tipping point between diesel and petrol is now well over 18K miles.

If you don't do high (15-20 K) miles per year, get the petrol.

If I had not had a change of job location and gone from 17k to 25k per year, I would still be in my petrol Vrs.

I am a diesel fan, but if buying a family vehicle for general usage with mileage less than circa 15k, I would plump for the petrol.

Winter warm up and dpf issues on the diesel are a bit of a pain my opinion, especially if the car is regularly used for short journeys.

Good luck.

all the injector issues on the diesel have been subject to a recall. if they have not been replaced you can have them done by the main dealer free of charge

Following on from aomeone giving mpg figures above, i think this can be a little misleading as some proples figures (for both petrol and diesel) seem to be significantly higher or lower than others. Ihad the TFSI until last summer and now have the CR diesel so can give you properly comparable figures for the same kind of driving in the same areas/traffic, etc. I have a ten mile each way commute and based on my mileage since July will do around 17k a year.

Long term average mpg - petrol 23/24, diesel 38/39

Best mpg - petrol 40 (mainly 50mph coastal roads no traffic) diesel 50 (dover to Brighton, plenty of motorway but a bit of an intentional economy run). A comparable (economy run) motorway trip in te petrol would have returned in the region of 34mpg, maybe as high as 36.

Longest run in the petrol was dover to Edinburgh and back, with a bit of running around whilst up there. Over a thousand miles in a week with te missus and with mother in the back so no hooning up the motorway, apart from the occasional blip, and effectively on cruise control at an indicated 80 for most of it. Calculated mpg based upon brimming the tank before and after was 32.5mpg

That's a lot of waffling on about mpg but as someone else said, Thayer both good cars so mpg/cost is likely to be the deciding factor for most. Be aware that the TFSI should only run on super unleaded bough - so whereas normally you factor in the difference in price of fuel to petrol vs diesel mpg calls, here you don't as they're pretty much the same price.

If I was to ignore the financial side I'd have my petrol back. It's s quicker, revs longer and sounds nicer (although on idle its a bit clattery and very much sounds like a diesel). I had the carbon deposits on the valves problem referred to above and can tell you that I you get the same you're looking at over two grand. Luckily mine was within five years so I got a bit of skoda and dealer contribution but on a 2006 you wouldn't get that now. Mine went at below 40k miles and despite always having been run on the right fuel. If you get one just make site you take it for an Italian tuneup once a month

I think its fair that the diesel will always win out in the affordable running stakes. One issue (and this goes for pretty much all modern turbo petrol engines not just VAG group) is that turbo petrols from experience never return anything near the manufacturers stated combined MPG unless you really baby them. Our Fabia vRS is supposed to achieve 45mpg and will only return late 30's on a reasonably long gentle run; tap into the performance and low-mid 20s is the norm. I had a MK5 GTi for a few weeks a few years ago and as much as i loved it was glad to give it back as it just ate fuel, admittedly i gave it a fairly hard time but it never really bettered 21 mpg all the time i had it.

My old MK6 Golf CR 140 it was difficult to get it to return less than 40mpg even on a short run, its rangw ia practically double that of the Fabia and its tank wasnt that much bigger.

Id also like to point out that its not necessary to run a 2.0 TFSi on super unleaded, best practice but not necessary will run on 95 just fine with little or no noticeable power loss.

People bang on about how the Fabia vRS must be run on 98 ron and its complete rollocks; I did this religiously for the first 9 months or so of ownership, missus stopped putting it in then i got a fuel card so couldnt buy it anymore. Have experienced no problems and i cant tell any difference in the way that it drives; none whatsoever.

Everyone has their view and they are entitled to it but I personally would say just run it on branded (not supermarket) 95 ron and make sure you give it a bit of stick now and again.

Id also like to point out that its not necessary to run a 2.0 TFSi on super unleaded, best practice but not necessary will run on 95 just fine with little or no noticeable power loss.

People bang on about how the Fabia vRS must be run on 98 ron and its complete rollocks; I did this religiously for the first 9 months or so of ownership, missus stopped putting it in then i got a fuel card so couldnt buy it anymore. Have experienced no problems and i cant tell any difference in the way that it drives; none whatsoever.

Everyone has their view and they are entitled to it but I personally would say just run it on branded (not supermarket) 95 ron and make sure you give it a bit of stick now and again.

Your post is dangerously incorrect, especially as you are claiming that it is ok because you do it - on a completely different engine!

The Fabia vRS is a 1.4 TSi engine and doesn't need super unleaded. The octavia vRS from 2009 is a 2.0 TSi and doesn't need super unleaded. The 2006 octavia vRS (which the OP is looking at) used a 2.0 TFSi engine which can run on 95 Ron when necessaey but should always run on super where available.

I was grilled at length about what fuel my car had been run on and in the end gave them a stack of receipts together with a screenshot from my fuel/mpg app, to prove that it's always been run on super ( this wasn't demanded but I felt was easiest as it shut them up and I had all the receipts attached to my work mileage claims anyway). My dealer even told me in no uncertain terms that I should not even admit to the occasional £20 of standard fuel (I think I'd done it max twice in 30kmiles anyway) because skoda UK would only contribute if the fuel had een run exclusively on super.

Everyone may well 'have their view' but with the TFSi engine it is not a matter of whether people feel any performance benefit from super - it is a matter of fact over what fuel the manufacturer states the engine requires and as such your comments are misleading.....

thanks guys,i think ill have enough space for 2 car seats in the back as my wife is preg with twins,the boot is huge as im getting the estate

The difference in load capacity between the estate and hatch isn't that big. Something like 40 liters, I beleive. Personally I just prefer estate cars.

I've not long bought my 56 plate VRS TDI. I came from a 1998 Civic VTI-S and even though I dont do massive miles im seeing big benefits such as the tank costing £10 more but lasting 2 weeks instead of one.

The DPF issue is a worry but it seems a mixture of driving short and long journeys is fine. The daily commute for the car is about 2 miles each way but because of that my misses does make sure it gets taken for a blast once a week minimum if we dont use it for a long journey.

We've had the light come on for the dpf but a decent run of 10 miles or so and i'll will sort its self out. If you are really worried about it then removal is an option.

I didnt go for the petrol as I wanted to see an improvement over the civic's 30mpg (250ish to a tank sometimes so down into the mid 20's at points)

There is actually official VAG documentation advising that the 2.0 TFSi can run on normal unleaded with a slight reduction in power output, the TFSi was flawed hence why it was replaced. it'd be luck of the draw if you experienced coking or other mechanical issues; use of 95 ron fuel would not damage the engine.

You have a point but Skoda UK blatantly adopted that attitude in an attempt to minimise the no of warranty issues they had to pay out on; on the basis none of those cars are under warranty anymore i dont see why it should matter.

In any case much of the super unleaded available in the UK is 97 ron or that tesco crud, Shell being one of the few 98s available, so i dont think the argument is all that credible myself.

1. My TFSI has been run on mostly 95 with some 97 RON since 2008, no problems in 50,000+ miles.

2. MPG is dependent on many factors. My annual avg is 35-36 Mpg with commuting and normal motorway speeds. higher in the summer and down to 31-32 in very low temperatures. I live in a rural area with 10 mile commute each way with few delays and plenty of opportunities to overtake responsibly. if you live in urban heavily congested areas and ambient temperatures are low you will get 24 Mpg. It is all subjective.

3. I have been lucky and had no problems bar a cruise control switch which I've cleaned twice in 5 years. It takes less than 10 minutes to remove, clean and replace.

4. It swallows huge amounts of luggage/rubbish.

5. I have never kept a car so long. That tells a story.

Edited 29 December, 201213 yr by Redboy

The vehicle you chose depends on a combination of your needs and your "wants".

I chose Diesel for several reasons. When I was working, I had a 50 mile commute. Now I'm retired, I enjoy driving in Europe, but not on motorways, my mileage is not much different.

The fuel cost is considerably less in France, the saving is worthwhile. Even more important is the extended range I can cover on a tank of fuel, with less worry about running out (this is also useful when shortages are pending) and allows me to go to places which have limited refueling possibilities.

Finally is the change in the way you drive. All the Diesels I have had since the mid eighties have tended to be slower revving, but the torque makes them good at maintaining their speed, so you tend to drive to their strengths and try to maintain speed where possible rather than point and squirt. (I can do that on my bike). Tends to make for more relaxed touring, although irritating when nominally more powerful petrol cars slow you on hills.

A lot of people find their priorities change once the kids come along. Hooning about looses its attraction when your precious cargo is at risk (or your now essential job).

Your milage, commuting or visiting the grandfolks or holidays plays a part too.

I have a pov spec L&K combi, only 105hp, but can keep up with traffic, cruise at 80+ and not drop below 40 mpg. No DPF but showing signs of a new DMF maybe later in the year.

A colleague's wife was expecting twins, after having two girls and trying for a boy. Bought a new people carrier in anticipation. Turned out to be triplets. Woops!!! Its all about identifying your needs.

Drive both and see which one you like.

I've got a cr and its 3 years old tomorrow with 24.5k miles on the clock. No dpf or other issues.

If I was to do it again with my mileage I'd go for petrol. Overal over the last year of motorway, town and track days its averaged 42mpg.

Drive both and see which one you like.

Agree with this from MK12MKD- test drive them and see which you prefer.

If you're not doing too many miles and don't mind 30mpg I'd say pick the petrol one, simply because the other choice is the PD, rather than the CR diesel engine, so you'll probably notice quite a difference between them with the petrol being more sophisticated than the PD and the PD does have it's know problems with DPF and injectors (the latter should have been done under recall though, but there are threads on the site where it wasn't done correctly with follw on problems occuring). From what you say the petrol has done 1/2 the miles so all the common parts have done 1/2 the miles of the PD at 80000. Downside is the higher road tax of the petrol but with unleaded being 8p a litre less , that's around £4 a tank over diesel, though you'd need to check if standard U/L is ok for the TFSI- if not ouch!. The insurance is I believe 2 groups higher on the petrol which may afect your insurance & I think the TFSI has a cambelt rather than camchain, if so you'd need to check if this is due for replacement/needs doing before you buy.

38,000 on the petrol isn't many miles for a 6 year old car- be sure to see other evidence apart from the service history like the old MOT certificates and other reciepts to establish the milage is correct and that it hasn't been 'clocked'

best of luck

Ade