http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/skoda/octavia/new-hatchback/review?utm_source=Outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=October

The only thing putting me off is that rear suspension!

Just remind me.....what the size of its fuel tank?

Just remind me.....what the size of its fuel tank?

Dont Start

Wrong car that was the rapid

Edited 29 January, 201313 yr by daydotz

Just remind me.....what the size of its fuel tank?

I'm sure he will be along soon to remind you.

I saw quite a few comments on the reduced fuel tank capacity a while back, but couldn't understand the negativity. As I see it, the tank is, if I remember correctly 5 litres les in capacity, whereas the newer engines are more fuel efficient. So, the actual driving range of the newer car is probably about the same as the previous models, that had 5 litres more capacity but mpg figures lower than the new cars.

Bit of a storm in a teacup really.... IMHO, I might add.

I'm sure he will be along soon to remind you.

refer to 2nd paragraph here

I saw quite a few comments on the reduced fuel tank capacity a while back, but couldn't understand the negativity. As I see it, the tank is, if I remember correctly 5 litres les in capacity, whereas the newer engines are more fuel efficient. So, the actual driving range of the newer car is probably about the same as the previous models, that had 5 litres more capacity but mpg figures lower than the new cars.

Bit of a storm in a teacup really.... IMHO, I might add.

The newer engines are more efficient only in the lab/ on paper. EU fuel economy numbers are nowadays so abstract that they contradict real life. Below are my brochure vs actual numbers on 2012 vs 2002 engines, same driving routes, same drivers, mixed driving that does include cold school run as well as medium and longer trips. Roomster was tested on both "normal" RPM (1900-2500), as well as per insane MaxiDot gear change indicator (change up at 1500rpm), returned similar fuel economy either time.

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI110 2002, brochure urban cycle 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, real life 6.2l/100km or 46mpg, weight 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR105 2012, brochure urban cycle consumption 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, real life 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, weight 1250kg

2002 1450kg car burned 10% less fuel, where EU numbers show it should have burned 20% more fuel than the 2012 1250kg car does. And that's comparing a diesel 110bhp Skoda to a diesel 105bhp Skoda....

Note I found at least 1 other post stating the same, that 1.9 in a bigger car (Octy Estate there) was more efficient than a 1.6CR in a 200kg lighter Roomster (and another post stating same for 300kg lighter Fabia!).

...but that's just my experience, feel free to count on improved real-life fuel economy of new cars

Personally, I crossed 1.6CR engine off my future purchase list and started looking at aux fuel tank installation details.

Range wise, not everyone looks at Octy 3 from Octy 2 perspective. I look from Octy 1, and for me in Octy 1 diesel I had a 55l+9l=64l fuel tank and a 10% more efficient engine than 1.6CR, in Octy 3 the tank is 50l and the engine likely 0%-10% less efficient based on Roomster (still hoping 2.0CR is better than the 1.6CR).

So conservatively assuming 2.0CR is as efficient as 1.9 in mixed driving and not worse, range in everyday driving will be down 22% in Mk3 Octy compared to Mk1 Octy, and likely 9% down compared to Mk2 Octy.

Edited 30 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

The newer engines are more efficient only in the lab/ on paper.

Wasn't this also argued when the last gen engines came along? People have been saying this about the quoted mpg figures for years, so it makes sense that the new gen engines, although not maybe matching the lab / on paper mpg figures, are still going to give you better economy than the previous gen. So it becomes a moot point.

The proof will be, as they say, in the pudding and we'll just have to wait and see how they perform in real world driving.

...so it makes sense that the new gen engines, although not maybe matching the lab / on paper mpg figures, are still going to give you better economy than the previous gen

Sadly, that's what I thought too, before I wasted money on the 1.6CR.

The numbers highlighted (that I posted earlier) are real life, and directly contradict what you just stated.

Previous bunch of 1.9 engines were noticeably more effcient in real life mixed driving than the current ones are. But they are just my real life numbers, so feel free to ignore them.

Skoda Octavia 1.9TDI110 2002, brochure urban cycle 41.5mpg or 6.8l/100km, real life 6.2l/100km or 46mpg, weight 1450kg

Skoda Roomster 1.6CR105 2012, brochure urban cycle 49.6mpg or 5.7l/100km, real life 6.8l/100km or 41.5mpg, weight 1250kg

2002 1450kg car burned 10% less fuel, where EU numbers show it should have burned 20% more fuel than the 2012 1250kg car does. And that's comparing a diesel 110bhp Skoda to a diesel 105bhp Skoda....

Let's see who is right when Octy 3 comes out, but I am not holding my breath for increased real life fuel efficiency in mixed driving.

VW's CR engines have increased parasitic engine loss (Maxidot shows more l/hr fuel burned at idle, for those who have l/100km rather than mpg set on cluster). Parasitic loss is a significant contributor to fuel usage at low load and at idle, so driving in town affects CR engines more than it used to for 1.9 PD and IP engines. Then there is the DPF that is fed with fuel, again fed more around town/ on cold engine. Real UK town, that is, not the EU urban cycle imaginary free flowing traffic town, located somewhere in the Bahamas (average annual temperature of 21degC - 29degC, as opposed to UK's/Europe's 9degC).

Edited 30 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

please don't ruin another thread...................

please don't ruin another thread...................

Too late.

Irrespective of how accurate you think the quoted figures might be, the test *is* standardised so the same "problems" are present in the results for all manufacturers and can still be used to compare a Skoda to the alternatives.

please don't ruin another thread...................

Too late.

refer to 2nd paragraph here

...the test *is* standardised so the same "problems" are present in the results for all manufacturers and can still be used to compare a Skoda to the alternatives.

... with completely random results. In the current EU economy engine rankings, the car with software better tuned to the urban cycle wins hands down over the car that uses less fuel in real life. Incidentally, please compare your Fiat's numbers to Skoda Fabia 1.6CR numbers, then compare posted fuel economy numbers for each car. Fiat mostly meets its numbers, Fabia burns too much by ~15%

But the initial question was about efficiency improvement between old (IP/PD) and new (CR/DPF) batch of engines leading to reduced need for fuel tank, and there appears to be no improvement in mixed cycle driving, on the contrary, newer engines might be cleaner but are more wasteful.

At least based on mine and a few other poster's numbers.

Edited 30 January, 201313 yr by dieselV6

refer to 2nd paragraph here

Incidentally, please compare your Fiat's numbers to Skoda Fabia 1.6CR numbers, then compare posted fuel economy numbers for each car. Fiat mostly meets its numbers, Fabia burns too much by ~15%

Actually, Fiat get a fair amount of stick for optimistic claimed figures, especially on the TwinAir engines which are **very** sensitive to the type and style of your driving. Some people get nowhere near what they had hoped for - only about 40mph in a 500.

My Bravo isn't too bad on fuel - I stopped tracking it but I was getting a calculated 54mpg - some way down on the claimed 62mpg but still a noticable improvement on the PD140 Octavia I had before it. It does suffer badly in winter when my ten mile commute isn't enough to get it up to temperature, but if I do a lot of motorway driving it's possible to get over 60mpg on a tank full which isn't bad for a car that weighs about the same as a Mk2 Octavia.