Popping along to the launch on Saturday but looking at the figures with incredulity!

Is the new 150 hp diesel quicker accelerating than the diesel VRS and hugely more effecient ie MPG and CO2 some 10-20% better??

So it is 100 Kgs lighter and slightly better drag coeffient but really?

Any insight those who have been looking at this for a while?

1.4 TSI with 140hp also super quick for such hp!

With the price of fuel might have to think about one of these and you get huge space. Loading it up must reallly hurt performance though! Interesting, looking forward to the launch etc.

Edited 12 March, 201313 yr by lol

Popping along to the launch on Saturday but looking at the figures with incredulity!

Is the new 150 hp diesel quicker accelerating than the diesel VRS and hugely more effecient ie MPG and CO2 some 10-20% better??

So it is 100 Kgs lighter and slightly better drag coeffient but really?

Any insight those who have been looking at this for a while?

1.4 TSI with 140hp also super quick for such hp!

With the price of fuel might have to think about one of these and you get huge space. Loading it up must reallly hurt performance though! Interesting, looking forward to the launch etc.

Most of it makes sense given the lower weight. Mpg figures should alway be taken with a pinch of salt but as a baseline comparable figure id say it makes sense. The 1.4's acceleration is own to the torque - the same as the current 1.8tsi!

Regarding mpg and CO2 - All Octavia III's have the Greenline 2 energy recovery and stop/start systems as standard. I suspect it has a greater effect on the government economy figures than will be seen in real life.

"Stop and start" does make a remarkable difference to MPG's, iffen one is driving in urban or congested conditions.

Tested myself 10 year ago (or so)

that is not to say the quoted "Govt" consumption figures are not a trifle optimistic.

Cheers

M

If I had stop start with my tsi vrs that would most likely put paid to my only gripe with it. In that it would likely get me over 30mpg for my commute, sitting stop starting in traffic really hits the mpg.

Put it this way, in mixed 50/50 town/country driving if you had Octy 2 then you will likely use less fuel with Octy 3 with same engine type/capacity . If you had Octy 1 with a 1.9 diesel, do not come anywhere near 1.6CR as it will use more fuel. 2.0CR is a safer bet, probably will still use more fuel than the 1.9, but not much more.

2012 1.6CR Roomster, similar weight as the Octy 3, uses 10% more fuel than 200kg heavier Mk1 Octy 1.9 did in mixed driving, that's at below motorway speeds so air drag does not matter much. On motorway, 1.6CR is very efficient, and I doubt it'll change much with the new 150bhp release.

Says it all about the paper fuel economy figures, really. Keep in mind EU economy test do not show impact of DPF fuel thirst for diesels at all, and engine software is now designed strictly to give out best figure in the EU test, real life driving seems not to matter anymore.

Start/stop has also drawbacks as well as advantages, many conditions need to be met for start/stop to activate (so you may not see all that much start/stop in your driving), and then there are potential lubrication/electrical long term issues (look up the price of start/stop alternator, for example, make sure you have your heart medication to hand ).

Fuel tank has been discussed to death , but as a long term Skoda owner and enthusiast, I still think I'd forgive the higher real life fuel consumption much more easily if Skoda left the 55l/64l vented tank intact, rather than cut it down to 50l only on the Octavia 3.

Edited 13 March, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Fuel tank has been discussed to death , but as a long term Skoda owner and enthusiast, I still think I'd forgive the higher real life fuel consumption much more easily if Skoda left the 55l/64l vented tank intact, rather than cut it down to 50l only on the Octavia 3.

I seem to be one of the very few that doesnt like the idea of stop/start on a turbo charged engine but I have to confess, ive seen good results with it lately so it doesn make a difference if you do a lot of town driving.

Fuel tank has been discussed to death , but as a long term Skoda owner and enthusiast, I still think I'd forgive the higher real life fuel consumption much more easily if Skoda left the 55l/64l vented tank intact, rather than cut it down to 50l only on the Octavia 3.

Last week I put 62.57 litres in my car to fill it up (the range had been saying ZERO for the last 15 miles!) and I had done 717 miles at a true average of 52.1mpg. It does occur to me that to get 717 miles out of an Octy3 with a couple of litres spare, I would need to be doing 67.9mpg! If I go for an Octy, I think I could be seeing a lot more of petrol station forecourts... Audi quote the A4 tank as 65 litres BTW

Of course the Official Combined numbers would have you think all was well:

My Audi: 53.3 mpg vs. Octy3 2.0D hatch 68.9 mpg. (Remarkably close to the numbers I mentioned above!).

Edited 13 March, 201313 yr by Juniperz

I thought the combined MPG figures seemd to good to be true. My sceptical opinion is that car manufacturers are just better nowadays at "passing" the test cycle rather than providing cars that offer better real worls MPG. Would love to see a back to back comparison betwen mk2 and mk3. Apharently the new 150bhp engine offers 20mpg over my 168bhp engine. I doubt that is possible realistically. I seriously hope im wromh though but i doubt it.

I seem to be one of the very few that doesnt like the idea of stop/start on a turbo charged engine but I have to confess, ive seen good results with it lately so it doesn make a difference if you do a lot of town driving.

...and then there are potential lubrication/electrical long term issues...

That's the turbo I specifically had in mind, I am also not entirely happy about repeatedly cutting off lubrication/cooling of the sleeve bearing in the turbocharger.

And BANG - there it is. You almost managed it though

It really is hard not to mention it in view of the fact that at least higher spec Octavia 3 models (vRS/4x4) on paper look set to be the perfect car for long distance travel. Powerful enough engine, good suspension (and can be HD), low key image, good cabin comfort and huuuge boot space that still takes full sized spare. Fitting all this next to a 50l fuel tank is like putting on flipflops to ride on a top quality touring bike. You can, but for how long, and the fun is gone

Of course the Official Combined numbers would have you think all was well:

My Audi: 53.3 mpg vs. Octy3 2.0D hatch 68.9 mpg. (Remarkably close to the numbers I mentioned above!).

I think you nailed the issue - VAG accountants actually believing official EU fuel economy numbers which are departing further and further from reality.

Edited 13 March, 201313 yr by dieselV6

Lets not get started with the fuel tank size again perleease.. :wonder:

Personally I don't particularly have a problem with a smaller fuel tank.

Firstly it might actually encourage me to drive more econimically (which could be one way of drivers getting closer to manufacturers figures and taking the heat off them).

Secondly, I wince everytime I watch the £££'s roll by as I fill my car to the brim, so the prospect of filling an even bigger tank (75ltrs) would bring on palpatations :peek: .

Thirdly, as everyone who watches F1 will know, carrying an extra 5ltrs of fuel could cost you 0.5 seconds a lap

Personally I don't particularly have a problem with a smaller fuel tank.

Same here. My other car has a 40 litre tank and high speed trips on the autobahn are never an issue in terms of range.

Tbh, there's also good economy based reasoning for NOT having a huge tank full of fuel and 'paying' to drive it around everywhere!

I don't care what size the tank is, it's range I care about, and that doesn't seem to have changed for the worse.

I don't care what size the tank is, it's range I care about, and that doesn't seem to have changed for the worse.

What size tank does the petrol get?

What size tank does the petrol get?

Big enough... :peek:

Edited 14 March, 201313 yr by xman

Moving from a 2.0CR 170 Superb to a 2.0 CR 150 Octy III, currently averaging 50mpg in my world so hoping for nearer to 60mpg with the Octy, only time will tell!