Hi guys,

Had a demo in a 1.6 CR Elegance Saturday afternoon, first time I've driven the 1.6 (current car is a 1.4 TSI).

Reasonably impressed with the performance of the diesel considering I went into the drive a bit "blinkered" to going back to a diesel (the TSI is my first petrol car for years).

At the end, I told the salesman I was really after another 1.4 with the DSG if/when that happens.

However, since getting home and looking at reviews etc, I'm now wondering about the 1.6.....

What do others think?

My boyracer days are long gone in the distant past so I'm more interested in a decent drive that gives good MPG - does anyone think I'd regret going for the 1.6 CR instead of waiting for the DSG to come out for the 1.4 TSI? The demo was in a manual not the DSG - has anyone tried a 1.6 CR with DSG?

Thanks.

Steve.

I too wanted the 1.4 DSG but couldn't order one so have gone for the 1.4 manual. A number of road testers have said that they thought the 1.4 was the best of the launch engines. A road test of the 2.0DSG had the tester complaining the box held on to far too high a gear around town, but that may be because it was an early test car.

Strangely, the 1.4Tsi is the only engine which you cannot order factory fitted towbar as an option - it could be a brochure mistake possibly they meant 1.2Tsi

The new 1.4TSI has more PS than the one used in the octy II (140 vs 122)and the octy III is lighter too, so the new 1.4 package should be more responsive (if that's what you want), though both the CR and TSI engines in the Octy III put out the same 250nm of torque. Looks like according to the official MPG figures you can expect circa 20mpg more from the CR though as the pay back, plus the VED will be cheaper after the 1st year (free as opposed to £100 at the moment).

A lot is made by some who prefer petrol about the initial 'extra cost' of buying a diesel, with the 1.6CR being and extra £850 and that you have to do so many miles a year to make the diesel cost effective. Personally my own opinion is this not the whole story because the diesels attract a higher price secondhand, so much if not all of the initial difference is offset when you change, plus you save all that VED and fuel costs as well (if this is an important factor to you) so it's not all about how many miles you do that should determine which you go for.

Guess it'll be down to personal preference on whether you want the quicker TSI against the CR and the type of milage you do and if you do just short trips the DPF on the CR would be something to consider. A good test drive in both will help you make up your mind.

I too wanted the 1.4 DSG but couldn't order one so have gone for the 1.4 manual. A number of road testers have said that they thought the 1.4 was the best of the launch engines. A road test of the 2.0DSG had the tester complaining the box held on to far too high a gear around town, but that may be because it was an early test car.

Did you make your choice based on company or private car Stokey? I'm company so wondering whether to go down to a 1.6CR and sacrifice power from my current MK2 vRS. Or would a 1.4 be worth a look?

Did you make your choice based on company or private car Stokey? I'm company so wondering whether to go down to a 1.6CR and sacrifice power from my current MK2 vRS. Or would a 1.4 be worth a look?

Just on tax, I would say it doesn't make a lot of difference:

Elegance 1.4 TSI 140PS 121g/km £20,240.00 x 16% = £3238 Benefit in Kind (£107.95 / month for a 40% tax payer)

Elegance 1.6 TDI CR 105PS 99g/km £21,090.00 x 14% = £2953 Benefit in Kind (£98.52 / month for 40% tax payer)

So the difference is only £9 per month or half that for a 20% tax payer - unless you have a fuel card of course. I would say you would be better off deciding based on whether you prefer to drive a petrol or diesel, and if you don't have a fuel card, whether you want better mpg for your private miles. (And better range out of your 50L fuel tank).

Just on tax, I would say it doesn't make a lot of difference:

Elegance 1.4 TSI 140PS 121g/km £20,240.00 x 16% = £3238 Benefit in Kind (£107.95 / month for a 40% tax payer)

Elegance 1.6 TDI CR 105PS 99g/km £21,090.00 x 14% = £2953 Benefit in Kind (£98.52 / month for 40% tax payer)

So the difference is only £9 per month or half that for a 20% tax payer - unless you have a fuel card of course. I would say you would be better off deciding based on whether you prefer to drive a petrol or diesel, and if you don't have a fuel card, whether you want better mpg for your private miles. (And better range out of your 50L fuel tank).

Wow! Tax AND car advice on one forum! Thanks Juniperz. Yes, hadn't thought of the private miles implication of the petrol which is certainly something to consider. I suppose this has to be balanced with the difference in purchase price.

Now here comes my gripe with Skodas pricing policy. As a company car driver myself, BIK is a big choice factor and I do check the likes of comcar quite often to keep abreast of whats coming. Trouble is, Skoda are getting like furniture retailers - always on sale so they're rarely bought at RRP (or even close). Why not just leave them at the 15-20% off price? At the moment, I can't see me having an Octy 3 based on the BIK values and it still gripes that I'm paying tax on the discount on my Fabia. Other concern is what happens over the next 3 years with the every increasing BIK %age; over 3 years, the diesel will probably work out worse.

I'm waiting for the 1.4 140PS with ACT and DSG to come through...currently only on the Polo BlueGT I think?

...Other concern is what happens over the next 3 years with the every increasing BIK %age; over 3 years, the diesel will probably work out worse.

At least the petrol vs. diesel playing field should be a bit more level from 2016:

• "From April 2016, the government will remove the 3% diesel supplement differential so diesel cars will be subject to the same level of tax as petrol cars. The lowest BIK percentage will be 15% for cars emitting 0-94g/km of CO2."
  

I found a few websites that also say this, but sadly none of them is HMRC, so I cannot be 100% confident that this is accurate.

Handy to know....figures I was using only go as far as 2015/16 tax year...which shows 13/16% for 0-94g

At least the petrol vs. diesel playing field should be a bit more level from 2016:

• "From April 2016, the government will remove the 3% diesel supplement differential so diesel cars will be subject to the same level of tax as petrol cars. The lowest BIK percentage will be 15% for cars emitting 0-94g/km of CO2."
  

I found a few websites that also say this, but sadly none of them is HMRC, so I cannot be 100% confident that this is accurate.

So why is the 1.4 such an attraction for you chaps? I don't do a massive amount of private mileage and don't have a fuel card so a 1.4 is a consideration...especially as my co car budget is just over £22k and I'll never get into a vRS again!

I think you need to consider you annual mileage before choosing between petrol and diesel. As a company car driver I have an annual mileage of 33k-35k miles, so diesel is a no-brainer.

If you think diesel makes sense, but would relish a little more power, then you could always choose a 1.6CR and have it remapped. This would give the best of both worlds.

Personally, my 1.6CR is growing on me. It is significantly more refined than my old 1.9PD, while the average economy is 13.96% better!

A 1.6CR DSG with optional paddle shifters would be interesting, however, I'd want to try one before committing.

Sorry, off topic, but very impressed with your Fuelly figures for a big car with a little engine! And Fuelly does look nicer than SpritMonitor that is in my sig. Might use that for my next car...

Its a personal thing - I'm not a diesel fan. Going with a 1.4 keeps my private mileage payback low (fuel card, but pay back private mileage to remove the fuel BIK) as opposed to having to choose a 1.6/1.8 petrol from other manufacturers.

My mileage is around 30k/year as well so not sure why diesel is a no-brainer? Rules for our company cars have changed recently (after I got my Fabia) and one diesel I would have considered was the Octavia vRS CR which I couldn't have before but can now. I can also (theoretically) also have another Fabia vRS which pleases me but not some of the others on my old list (new one is loaded with mpg figures). The VAG 1.4 TSi lumps come with DSG which is a pretty efficient way of getting an auto, as well as having low CO2 whereas I would be in the next pence/mile bracket with an equivalent 1.6/1.8 from someone else. Some manufacturers go with the 2.2 diesel option which works if you claim company miles back (but not for me).

I also have a choice of Mercs now but having spent a couple weeks in a B180CDi, I'm not enamoured by them personally...

It depends on your personal mileage. I have to pay for all my commuting/personal mileage which equates to around £120-£150 per month, therefore, I' m certain that a diesel is saving me money.

I suppose a 1.4TSi DSG wouldn't be a bad combination, although, the six speed manual would be more rewarding.

Have you considered a Leon or Civic as possible alternatives to a OctyIII/Fabia?

If you are looking for performance and economy, don't overlook the 2.0 TDi CR, for company drivers it is only 106g CO2 so quite low on tax and mpg in the real world will give 1.6 CR a run for it's money especially if you drive it a bit hard now and then as the 2.0 CR will not be straining as much. The six speed box on 2.0CR will also give more relaxed cruising IMO.

I have also just opted out of company car Superb to buy Octy III. As high rate tax payer, the cost to me of Superb is over £400 month roughly split 50:50 between tax and car allowance after tax. Purchased over 5 years it's not costing me any more than the Superb and I recon that I will break even in 3 years or have about £3k equity after 4 years so opting out for me was a no brainer, especially when mileage allowance relief will also cover insurance and tyres, it's like getting a free car :think:

It depends on your personal mileage. I have to pay for all my commuting/personal mileage which equates to around £120-£150 per month, therefore, I' m certain that a diesel is saving me money.

I suppose a 1.4TSi DSG wouldn't be a bad combination, although, the six speed manual would be more rewarding.

Have you considered a Leon or Civic as possible alternatives to a OctyIII/Fabia?

Likewise ref the private mileage and the 1.4 falls in the same bracket as the 2.0TDI (and 1.6 for that matter) for me as I pay x pence/mile (recently went up).

Leon was a possibility but they realigned the specs just as my order was due and likely candidates went out of the window..I'd just placed the order for the Fabia when the Ibiza ST FR came out which was a little annoying until I saw one in the flesh - side by side I prefer the Fabia anyway; Looks like they couldn't make their mind up on the Ibiza what to do with the back end!

Civic is the next mileage band up being a 2.2D and the 1.6 was too gutless for me. 1.8 was a possibility but to heavy on the CO2's. Audi are a company favourite but I've driven a few and yet to find one I like. Must try the new 1-series BMW though - again, launched just after my Fabia order..timing wasn't the best!

The new Leon gets the same 1.4 TSI lump, which is in the tax bracket below at 119g/km; which (considering the leon is heavier) makes you wonder why Skoda haven't gotten the octy into that bracket.

The new Leon gets the same 1.4 TSI lump, which is in the tax bracket below at 119g/km; which (considering the leon is heavier) makes you wonder why Skoda haven't gotten the octy into that bracket.

Can I ask where you are getting the weight values from when you say the Leon is heavier than the Octavia with the same 1.4TSi lump? Thanks.

Leon is 1231kg according to the Seat brochure...

Leon is 1231kg according to the Seat brochure...

And the Octavia is 1180. Something doesnt add up there as the Octavia uses the longest wheelbase version of the same platform and they both get the same rear torsion beam setup. One of those figures is wrong Id bet. (The Leon one is marked as 'provisional data figure' so maybe its the Leon, unless they really have saved weight somewhere else....) :wonder:

The weight does correspond with a slightly slower 0-60 time on the Leon though, which adds more weight (ba da bum tsschhh!) to the conclusion the Leon is heavier.

I struggle to understand how the Leon is heavier unless it is due to a significant amount more sound deadening etc.