Following on from my “2WD v. 4WD” post:

I am surprised by the difference in fuel consumption between the 2WD and 4WD (not Scout) versions of the Octavia estate. Looking at the “official” figures for both the 'pre-face-lift' (1.9 and 2.0 'PD' diesels) and the 'facelift', post-2009 (1.6 and 2.0 'CR' diesels), there is seems to be anything up to a 10mpg penalty for having 4WD.

I appreciate that the 4x4 versions are slightly higher (more wind resistance) and slightly heavier, and that there will be a bit more mechanical drag from the transmission. But, considering that this is supposed to be an 'automatic', only-kicks-in, progressively, when-you-need-it system, I am still surprised at the much greater fuel consumption.

Obviously the “real life” fuel consumption figures are likely to be different – often quite a bit worse than the “official” figures which are only obtainable when driving the car exactly in the “official” manner for which the engine economy is optimised. But I would be very interested to hear from owners whether there was as much difference between 2WD and 4WD diesel estates in real life as there appears to be on paper.

Economy matters to me because if I get a diesel Octavia estate it will be as my boring, everyday economy car and with only me driving, this only makes sense if at least one of the cars is cheap to run! With this in mind, do readers have any experience of any other additional costs when buying and running 4x4 compared with a 2WD Octavia, please?

_ _ _ _

While we're on the subject of “real” v. “official” fuel consumption, I note that the latest 2013 Skoda hatchback claims an official fuel consumption 10 to 12 mpg better than the MkII (no figures available for the estate or the 4x4 versions yet).

This is an impressive improvement. Does anyone know if there really is that much improvement, or is it just that the difference between “real” and “official” figures even greater, now that manufacturers have got even cleverer in optimising their engines to give good “official” figures?

There are some difference in servicing, 4x4 needs haldex oil changed.

For real world MPG you can check Honest John or Spiritmonitor (http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/) but obviously brand new version won't be up there yet.

Having owned a 1.9 4x4 estate for three years, I have about 35,000 miles worth of experience with this. I know I am not using calibrated figures, but from the onboard computer, day to day in a very hilly area of the country returns an indicated 50 mpg, and long runs at around about the speed limit returns an indicated 60 ish mpg. While there is a real chance that these figures are not accurate, they are a good indicator. As I have mentioned in previous replies, I love the car. I have spent very little on running costs, and the haldex oil change cost a total of about £80 including oil, filter and labour.

I swapped a MKI octy 110 TDI estate for the 1.9 TDI PD 4x4 last August. The Octy I used to return a genuine 53 mpg which was typically around 57 on the OBC.

I haven't checked on the accuracy of the OBC on the Octy II but it claims to be averaging about 47 so far. I do a bit of towing from time to time which knocks the averages down a little too. The computer will climb into the 50's on a run but I d need to try way harder than with the old car. Any stop start driving and the extra weight of the 4x4 really shows and the MPG seems to fall sharply.

I know you are referring to the 4x4, and not the Scout, but as a point of reference, I am now getting 45-49 on my 2.0 PD TDi Scout . This is mostly on the M8 and M74 (50-75mph), with around 15% urban traffic.

I have used Fuelly to record My mileage over the last 28k or so. The obc always over estimates by 6 mpg.

Fin

4x4 Mk 1's had slightly shorter gearing than the std Octy, Im guessing the Mk 2 might be the same. Worth checking revs at 70 in 4x4 & non 4x4 to see if its different. If reving higher it would accound possibly for using more fuel.

On the Mk 1 the gear cluster from the VRS fitted styraight into the 4x4 box raising the gearing, If the gearing is different & its a real issue Im not sure if this can be done on the Mk 2. As Octy boxes rarely break a s/hand set of gears should be inexpensive.

The 4x4 will also be slightly heavier due to the extra weight of the transmisasion & Im guessing a bit more underbody protection. If the ride height is higher than the std Octy this will also hit MPG

I have yet to break 50mpg on my 2.0pd scout. Likely I never will. 45-47mpg is it normally, 40mpg if I'm stuck in town. I have seen over 50mpg on the trip computer, but back before it was calibrated (7% optimistic) and only for one 2 hour drive stuck in holiday traffic.

There are no motorways where I drive.

Keep in mind there are other changes too. The BMM PD engine has a DPF and injection timing retarded from optimal to meet emissions. The 4wd drivetrain whether engaged or not is always turning and adds significant friction to the system.

My R certainly uses more petrol than my old remapped tsi vRS!