Technical guides Diesel & Petrol

[ColinD]

A couple of downloads for you to 'enjoy', the diesel and petrol tech specs in pdf form, subject to change of course, so check if basing any order of these docs.

New Octavia grew not only in size, but in technologies and comfort as well. Together with new looks, a whole array of latest safety, comfort and multimedia technologies will grab your attention. But despite the overall growth of roominess and technical complexity, the new car is up to 102kg lighter than its predecessor which, together with new generation of TSI and TDI engines, is reflected in better fuel consumption and emission levels.

technical_data_new_octavia_petrol_en.pdf

technical_data_new_octavia_diesel_en.pdf

[Ultima]

How come the fuel tank is smaller than the Octy 2? 50 vs 55 litres. 11 gallons seems a bit small for the size of the car.

Edited 9 January, 2013 by Ultima

[dieselV6]

50l fuel tank? Goodbye Skoda :(

Actual real-life fuel economy with DPF engines is 10% worse than the old 1.9, yet fuel tank got downsized another 10% for total loss of 20% range.

Any VW stable DPF engine quoted spreadsheet fuel economy figures are 40% optimistic, if it says 65mpg think 45mpg, I think by now it is only Skoda/VAG marketing departments that still believe these lab-only fuel consumption figures.

In summary, a car unsuitable for frequent use as instead of weekly fill-up it'll be twice a week now. Autobahn trips abroad would also be extremely annoying as 50l of fuel is barely enough for 2h30 min of driving if you drive at speed at night (I am talking ~130mph actual speed). Factor in possible 100km distance to next motorway services and some reserve and you have a car that will make you stop every 90 minutes :think: .

I had high hopes for Octy Mk3 as the body shape improved, but it looks that it is yet another great cruising car from VW stable that got turned into gadget filled sofa on wheels :( Audi A6 is another example, though in a different price category.

Edited 9 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Herschel]

Any VW stable DPF engine quoted spreadsheet fuel economy figures are 40% optimistic, if it says 65mpg think 45mpg, I think by now it is only Skoda/VAG marketing departments that still believe these lab-only fuel consumption figures.

I agree they are overly optimistic, but I think you're way off with the 40%.

I usually think 10-15% (if you're going to be doing mixed driving).

My Octy does around 45mpg on mixed driving, on average, against a quoted 48mpg; so I'm around the 10% level down.

I've never been 40% down on ANY dpf'd car.

[dieselV6]

When you look at absolute numbers they make sense. Mk1 Octavia used 6.1l/100km in same driving style with efficient 1.9TDI engine, I figured 1.6CR engine will not be as efficient due to common rail losses but is smaller displacement so fuel use would be similar, then Roomster is slightly lighter but has higher air drag so again fuel use would be similar, and finally I guess judged DPF to be using about 10% of total fuel in mixed cycle. Add all above and you end up with 6.8l/100km, spot on what Roomster is drinking now, but 40% above the 4.7l/100km quoted in Skoda brochure for that car.

So I am not surprised by fuel consumption, but I am and will remain shocked by disingenious urban and mixed cycle economy figures being quoted in entire VAG literature.

It is a disgusting con, how come e.g. Toyota's figures match real life economy much more closely? Supposedly they test in the same cycles?

It is actually interesting that Superb Mk1 chassis (since 97) had true fuel economy figures quoted, Octavia Mk1 was 15% off and Roomster is now 40% off. Can you see a trend here?

Bottom line is that 50l tank equals a car that needs to see petrol station more often. No thanks.

Edited 9 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[k.young]

I reckon the new 150CR DSG will easily be 10% more fuel efficient than my 140PD DSG this should negate the 10% decrease in fuel tank size. I really don't envisage any extra trips to the Diesel shop.

I would have liked however, to have had a larger tank in the new car.

[Ultima]

Is the fuel tank sometimes a different size, depending on the country the car is being made for?

What's the size of the fuel tank on all the other MQB based cars - Leon, Golf 7, Audi A3 ?

Edited 10 January, 2013 by Ultima

[Herschel]

diesel,

have you looked at the Honest John real life fuel consumption on his website?

H

[dieselV6]

I reckon the new 150CR DSG will easily be 10% more fuel efficient than my 140PD DSG this should negate the 10% decrease in fuel tank size. I really don't envisage any extra trips to the Diesel shop.

I would have liked however, to have had a larger tank in the new car.

Are you seriously saying that a CR engine will be more efficient than PD engine? On motorway, at high speed under load, perhaps yes, anything slower and the increased parasitic load of the CR system compared to PD will make it hard to compete for CR, and DPF will ruin the numbers further. That is the problem of newer diesel engines, previous generation worked very well under low load and even better under high load, new ones only work when they are loaded hard enough for DPF not to need extra fuel and for CR mechanical loss to be negligible part of engine effort, i.e. in constant driving at 40mph+.

[dieselV6]

have you looked at the Honest John real life fuel consumption on his website?

I just did, and tried to put my figures in the Roomster 1.6CR 105bhp at 42mpg. Guess what, the numbers do not show up, it is still quoting economy spread for mixed driving as 44mpg to 56mpg, with 49mpg average. This is disingenious. Likely what they are doing is discarding the numbers outside the spread they publish. I also would like to point out that with the system they have, there is nothing stopping car dealers from inflating the fuel economy figures. I have had 3 Skodas so far, all bought privately and I would like to get another one, so I have no axe to grind.

Edited 10 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[dieselV6]

Is the fuel tank sometimes a different size, depending on the country the car is being made for?

What's the size of the fuel tank on all the other MQB based cars - Leon, Golf 7, Audi A3 ?

Golf has 50l tank too, Smaller fuel tank and missing spare wheel are the cheapest way for beancounters to reduce weight. Much cheaper than using aluminium for chassis.

[Huskoda]

50l seriously? Is the scout going to have the same thimble of a fuel tank, because that's going to be seriously poor. I'm likely going to look at an Alltrack DSG (70 litre tank) as the replacement to my 4x4.

[k.young]

Are you seriously saying that a CR engine will be more efficient than PD engine? On motorway, at high speed under load, perhaps yes, anything slower and the increased parasitic load of the CR system compared to PD will make it hard to compete for CR, and DPF will ruin the numbers further. That is the problem of newer diesel engines, previous generation worked very well under low load and even better under high load, new ones only work when they are loaded hard enough for DPF not to need extra fuel and for CR mechanical loss to be negligible part of engine effort, i.e. in constant driving at 40mph+.

Yes, seriously.

[dieselV6]

Than you should look at idle l/100km display at your maxi dot, and compare it with a PD engine. You'll find a difference of 0.2l/hour which is due to increased parasitic loss of CR system over unit injector. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

Edited 10 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[k.young]

I don't buy a car to sit in it "at idle" The car will earn it's keep in 6th gear on the motorway, most of the day, every day.

I get what you're saying but for me and my driving, the new car can't be anything else but more economical. The end.

Tapatalk'd from my HTC SXE Beats

[dieselV6]

A little addendum from Fabia 2 forum on 1.6CR fuel consumption, basically same experience as mine

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/177983-fabia-16-cr-tdi-90bhp-appalling-fuel-consumption/page__st__540#entry3084025

So Skoda, it is bad enough your diesels are fuel thirsty, why not keep the same fuel tank size as Mk2, or even better, slap an extra 10l-15l stock capacity on?

[Herschel]

My experience and experiments in my car seem to suggest it responds totally differently to those reporting good mpg. I have no idea of the reason, but I've tried all sorts of different driving styles etc. over many tanks and that's what I've found. For some reason, a small percentage of cars appear to drive completely differently and show poor mpg. Most are fine. I have no idea why, but I'm beginning to think it could be some sort of turbo fault or something around this area as the turbo spinning appears to eat fuel, whereas other people report this as reducing fuel consumption.

Seems to suggest many get good mpg returns, so it's not the issue you appear to be suggesting it is across the entire VW range........................

[dieselV6]

Will you swap cars with me so that I can stop paying extortionate fuel bill (and transfer it to you) just because no error codes are listed and yet the car is using 40% more fuel than listed in the brochure? I did not think so.

The problem is VAG/Skoda attitude, they do not care unless an error code is registered in the ECU, Even if I did get a dodgy engine, there is nothing I can do other than lose money either on fuel or on replacing the car. And yes, it is across the VAG range, at least when it comes to 1.6/1.4 CR engines, you can find similar threads on other VAG brand forums.

But I seriously doubt that my Roomster's engine has any faults now, in my opinion quite simply most good reports come from people who mostly drive out of town, or happen to live in towns where road network allows fluent and fast traffic. Neither DPF nor idle losses matter there.

Edited 11 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Herschel]

diesel,

it appears nothing will persuade you otherwise, so I suspect there's little point carrying on this debate.

I've already said that in my view the lower powered diesels are likely to suffer a lot more as you need to boot them hard to get anywhere.

However, I get within 10% of the quoted Skoda "Combined" figure for my vRS diesel with DPF, and I live on the outskirts of Birmingham and work in the City Centre - sometimes it can take me over an hour to do the 7 mile journey - even then, it's exceptionally rare for my OBC to be showing below 30mpg for the trip.

Even though most of that 7 mile journey under those circumstances is with the car not moving..............I still get within 6mpg, or 16.66% of the quoted Skoda "Urban" figure.

Generally, when the journey takes around 30 mins (which is the norm), I get between 35 and 38mpg, so pretty much the "Urban" figure quoted.

If I'm ever in the office really late (after 10pm), I can get home in 15 mins and my OBC will be showing high 40's.

(I should add that my OBC has generally been within 1mpg when I do a brim-to-brim check)

You have a gripe..........an apparently perfectly valid one..........but IMO, it doesn't mean every Skoda DPF-equipped diesel will suffer poor fuel consumption, even when it isn't run purely on long journeys.

H

Edited 11 January, 2013 by Herschel

[dieselV6]

Well, as they say, money talks, BS (that BraunSchweig, of course ) walks. So here is a monetary summary, just for me the long term Skoda private customer muppet :

Amount I spent on Skoda car purchases so far: £15k + £20k + £15k = £50k.

Revenue loss of Skoda UK to Skoda Ireland because they refused to provide UK sourced cars with ESP in 2002 (Octavia) and with heated windscreen in 2006 (Superb Mk1), resulting in me importing these from Ireland: £15k+£20k = £35k

Direct revenue loss of Audi UK due to not offering A5/A6 V6 TDI in manual gearbox option with quattro drive, I bought a Roomster instead: £50k - £15k = £35k

Direct revenue loss of Skoda UK due to not offering V6 Superb in manual gearbox option with 70l fuel tank, I bought a Roomster instead: £30k - £15k = £15k

Projected revenue loss of entrie VAG group due to fuel thirsty engines (even if only some of them), fitting inadequate fuel tanks and removing full sized spare wheels and manual gearboxes on higher powered engines from new models in all VW Group brands: 1 premium car budget every 6 years for next 24-36 years = £50k *5 = £250k

Total loss of Skoda UK revenue so far (my cars only) £15k+£20k+£15k: £50k

Total loss of VW Group revenue so far (my cars only): £35k (the bodged new A6 and A5)

Projected loss of VW Group from now on due to losing just the insignificant myself as a customer: £250k

And to counter this, and the reason why the "excellent fuel economy" posts sound empty to me in view of Skoda/VW failing to take action over cars with excessive consumption:

My projected total loss due to excessive fuel consumption over 10 years and 10k miles/year (assuming a better engine would still be 15% off brochure data): 1.4*1.8*10e3*1.609*10/100: £4k

For anyone running a business, I'd say a rethink is needed. Customers will vote with their feet eventually, no matter how faithful they are to the brand.

Edited 11 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[Herschel]

So you budget for 1 premium car every 6 years, with the massive depreciation, and then you are moaning about it costing you £400 more in fuel per year.

:think:

Goodbye diesel.......................

[dieselV6]

Depreciation makes far less difference if you can "upgrade". With 2 cars absolutely required in the family, 1 is used on extensive European travel, the other one as a town/country runaround in mixed driving mode (and a backup touring car). That way cars are rid of after 12 years, planned mileage of 200k miles or more. Put simply, until Roomster I used to buy cars and run them till the end, that way there was a spare touring car at hand when the other was out of country. Octavia got hit in the back and written off after 10 years, but it would've done 12yr without problems.

£400 per year compared to 50k purchase price/12 years is still nearly 10% higher cost.

But remember we are talking £15k, not £50k here, it's a Roomster, and 4k/15k is a whopping 26% or a quarter of purchase price wasted in extra fuel over lifetime of the car. The "VAT free" offer does not sound so good suddenly, does it?

The "family upgrade" worked well with previous generation of VW diesel engines (so last 20 years).

It is the recent weight saving by reducing fuel tank size and removing spare wheel, plus the fuel thirsty engines that VW/Skoda do not want to know about that messed the process up.

And yes, it will be a goodbye in a few years, once Superb Mk1 and the Roomster are out of my system. Unless VAG take their collective heads out ... you know the rest.

Edited 11 January, 2013 by dieselV6

[broere]

I have been looking closely on the details of the technical data of the O3, 1.4 tsi. When one compares the details with the 'old' 1.4 tsi, 122 ps, it is clear that the 140 ps engine is different (bore and stroke differ). I've been reading about a new 1.4 some time ago, so would this be the one? And my second question: is this the engine the 'ACT' version or would this be a more basic version, not able to leave out 2 cilinders?

[Ultima]

Anyone know what the width is including the mirrors? The technical data only has without mirrors.

[countryboy]

Back to topic, does anyone find it interesting to note that the 1.4TSI units are rated at 140 bhp not 122 and that the DSG boxed 1.4 TSi is an old engine with only euro 2 emissions compliancy? All the diesel engined cars will be fitted with the cheaper rear axle, including the 150bhp unit?

Ian