Hi all,

have been looking to change my 2.0 diesel for a newer 1.9..mainly because I think the 1.9 "may" be a better / more reliable engine than the 1.6. A 4*4 version has popped but I do not know much about them as I thought the only 4*4 was a scout? Is anybody aware of any problems with these?..appreciate any input

No issues as aside from the Haldex rear diff and transfer box they are identical to any other Octavia.

Check the Haldex has had an oil and filter change every 40,000 miles and have a good crawl under the car to check for weeping seals.

On the test drive get it up to motorway speeds and listen out for any droning or unusual noises.

The 4x4's and Scouts are favoured by caravaners and vets so they've either towed (check for signs of a removed towbar and a rattly DMF) or spent most of their lfe in farm tracks (check for under body damage and a scabby boot).

Finally the 4x4 is quite a bit more thirstier than the standard 1.9 TDi due to the raised ride height and extra gubins slung underneath.

They often demand a healthy premium too, are you sure you want/need a 4x4?

Hi and thanks for the reply....we currently run an "old" 4*4 as a "winter car", and I thought if I got a a 4*4 "car", then I could get rid of our winter car.....however, as you say, may be a false economy in the long run. I initially wanted a 1.6, but am being put off by the "filter" issues fitted to newer diesels....I would rather have a "simpler" established engine, whiah I am assuming may be more reliable in the long run. Problem is I am after an estate, there do not seem to be many 1.9 estates about....

Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) complaints are few and far between on VAG Common Rail (CR) engines.

Don't let it put you off buying the 1.6 TDi. As long as the car gets an occasional longer run so that it can passively regenerate (get naturally hot enough to burn off the soot without having to actively regenerate) then you'll have nothing to worry about.

The 1.9 TDi us the undisputable king of reliability but I'm sure the 1.6 won't be far behind once it gets the same amount of time/sales under its belt.

I have had a 4x4 for three years now and it is brilliant! I have a separate set of winter wheels and tyres and the thing goes anywhere. The average fuel consumption is just over 50mpg and the best I have seen is 60mpg on a particularly long and tedious journey. The 1.9 has no DPF, so no worries there. Because the four wheel drive only works when it needs to, the fuel consumption remains good.. Mine has done 60000 miles and is still on it's original brake pads and discs. It is also a bit of a Q car, because it looks standard outside. As far as I know. the only mechanical difference between the 4x4 and Scout is bigger wheels on the Scout , and hence more ground clearance.

You might have noticed that I am big fan of mine

Hi StewartB...ta for the feedback..will certainly consider after your feedback...although I am now being "re-tempted" by the 1.6...have even thought about a 1.4 petrol, but I do tow a (small) caravan...

I second StuartB. had my 4x4 for 5 years and had no problems at all. Towed a van trailer, then changed to a caravan. The only thing that I have had that towed as well was a Landrover! I regularly see an indicated 50+ mpg, which onlt drops to 38ish when towing. never had any major problems.

As far as I know. the only mechanical difference between the 4x4 and Scout is bigger wheels on the Scout , and hence more ground clearance.

The Scout also benefits from additional underbody protection.

Be wary of 'indicated' MPG.

My Scout happily lies to me telling I'm averaging mid to late 40's.

Manual calculations tell a very different story though. Over 40,000 miles I've averaged 38MPG.

Be wary of 'indicated' MPG.

My Scout happily lies to me telling I'm averaging mid to late 40's.

Manual calculations tell a very different story though. Over 40,000 miles I've averaged 38MPG.

I guess that's a heavy right foot, over 55k miles my Scout has averaged 46mpg.

If you ever head into deepest darkest West Yorkshire give me a shout and I'll correct your trip computer with vcds.

Just did a 2155 mile round-trip to the Italian Alps; 40 hours in the hot seat at an average of 54mph gave an average 47.5mpg, which I won't grumble too much about given there wasn't enough room left in the boot for so much as a paper clip and the roof box was carrying 4 sets of skis plus a few other odds'n'sods.

No grumbles whatsoever from either the car or the occupants.

I guess that's a heavy right foot, over 55k miles my Scout has averaged 46mpg.

If you ever head into deepest darkest West Yorkshire give me a shout and I'll correct your trip computer with vcds.

Out of interest do you have a guide on how to do this please?

Out of interest do you have a guide on how to do this please?

I just had it done over the weekend:

17- Instruments

Adaptation - 10

Channel 03 - Consumption correction

If its overreading by 10% like mine was, set the value from 100 to 110.

^^ As above, I had to go to 112 on mine it was that far out (Still is a bit out as I didn't change it when I went to winter tyres but will go back to summers at weekend)

Out of interest do you have a guide on how to do this please?

Thanks guys,

So its a simple % calculation. I was always led to believe it was a far more complicated process but that sounds pretty easy (once you know the % its out from doing a pump to pump manual calculation).

I guess that's a heavy right foot, over 55k miles my Scout has averaged 46mpg.

If you ever head into deepest darkest West Yorkshire give me a shout and I'll correct your trip computer with vcds.

I think it's more to do with very short journey's as the wife uses it to pootle to work and back.

It was more to show the difference between actual and indicated MPG.

I'll be sure to take you up on that offer if I'm that way out, thanks!

Just did a 2155 mile round-trip to the Italian Alps; 40 hours in the hot seat at an average of 54mph gave an average 47.5mpg, which I won't grumble too much about given there wasn't enough room left in the boot for so much as a paper clip and the roof box was carrying 4 sets of skis plus a few other odds'n'sods.

But I'm guessing that's indicated MPG, not actual?

So its a simple % calculation. I was always led to believe it was a far more complicated process but that sounds pretty easy (once you know the % its out from doing a pump to pump manual calculation).

Yes, that's all you need to know. However to get an accurate idea of the accuracy of the trip computer you need to do a few brim to brim calculations.......I'd say at least three.

I actually did brim to brim calculations for 6 months before correcting the computer! Mine was over reading by 8%

<br />

But I'm guessing thats indicated MPG, not actual?<br />

You're right. I recon on 4 full tanks for that trip; 240 litres equating to 53 gallons, giving a (very) rough estimate of 41mpg actual as opposed to the 47.5mpg according to maxidot.

Still, was good fun, especially the Grand St Bernard Pass - 4x4 plus a lead foot makes for a very fixed grin on that sort of road, tempered only by the slightly green faces in the back seats...

Hometime, with the Matterhorn just appearing from behind the clouds...

Edited 11 April, 201313 yr by Rab-k