I never expected the published MPG as I did not think a car of this size would do 74.

 

it just seems the 2.0 drivers are getting better MPG.

 

ended on about 59mpg over my 400 mile run (on a friday) to and from Liverpool.

I doubt if a 2.0 litre DSG would be as good.

Agreed - need to compare like with like. DSG is def more thirsty. I imagine in truth there is not much difference between the 2 most of the time, similar price too

I've got a 2011 Octavia with the 1.6CRD and 7 speed DSG, my average consumption was 58.2 mpg until about 6 weeks ago when I had cruise control fitted, since which it has been 61.4 mpg over four tankfuls

Figures are measured not trip computer

I cruise on the motorway at an indicated 75 mph,

Regards all

Juan

Sent from my iPhone using my thumbs

I never expected the published MPG as I did not think a car of this size would do 74.

 

it just seems the 2.0 drivers are getting better MPG.

 

ended on about 59mpg over my 400 mile run (on a friday) to and from Liverpool.

Either you rag it everywhere or the engine needs time to loosen up, even my 2.0 pd 4x4 scout has managed 57mpg over a tankfull on long distance runs. I would expect a carefully driven 1.6 to get 30% over this, so 75mpg on a run.

Either you rag it everywhere or the engine needs time to loosen up, even my 2.0 pd 4x4 scout has managed 57mpg over a tankfull on long distance runs. I would expect a carefully driven 1.6 to get 30% over this, so 75mpg on a run.

75 mpg? No chance! You wouldn't get that out of a diesel supermini let alone a car the size of an Octavia.

75 mpg? No chance! You wouldn't get that out of a diesel supermini let alone a car the size of an Octavia.

100% with you.

If you went up the M1 on Christmas Day and stuck to 50 mph you might get some where near, but under normal motoring no chance

Regards all

Juan

Re

Sent from my iPhone using my thumbs

75 mpg? No chance! You wouldn't get that out of a diesel supermini let alone a car the size of an Octavia.

But surely if a Heavy 4x4 scout with the old pd diesel is capable of 57 then it's only a small step for a much lighter fwd mk3 with a smaller engine to get 75? If not then what is the point of the 1.6?

That debate has raged round here for a long time now.....good company car as the BiK is low due to the 99g/km CO2. Probably better than the 2.0 if you are doing mainly urban commutes, or for a private buyer that just wants to potter round places. If you want an Octavia and can't justify the additional purchase price of the 2.0 and you need the economy of a diesel.

Edited 13 July, 201312 yr by Timoctav

75mpg?! :wonder:  And back in the real world...

75mpg?! :wonder:  And back in the real world...

Exactly

I doubt if a 2.0 litre DSG would be as good.

I've done a couple of thousand miles in a 2.0CR DSG Golf MKVII, and now done my first 1000 in my new Octy III 1.6CD DSG.

 

The Golf was giving me about 54MPG, and the Octy is giving me about 59MPG so far. The type of driving has been very similar, and the driving style is obviously the same as it was the same driver, so I can confirm about 5MPG improvement on the 1.6 over the 2.0, which is about 8% so not insignificant. Also I think the 1.6 is definitely better (economy wise) round town.

 

I will say that the 2.0 goes like a bat out of hell, and you do have to work the 1.6 a bit more to get the grunt out of it. I find myself switching into tiptronic when I want to overtake as the 7speed DSG will only kick down 1 gear in ECO mode, and 6th is still very long legged (has anybody else observed this?)

 

Now I was assuming that the Golf would be a lighter car, but I've just checked out the figures on Parkers, and this shows, remarkably

2.0CR Golf       1330KG

1.6CR Octavia 1245KG

2.0CR Octavia 1275 KG

 

Really surprising, the Golf is 55KG heavier than the Octavia - for a car which is nearly half a meter shorter!

I will say that the 2.0 goes like a bat out of hell, and you do have to work the 1.6 a bit more to get the grunt out of it. I find myself switching into tiptronic when I want to overtake as the 7speed DSG will only kick down 1 gear in ECO mode, and 6th is still very long legged (has anybody else observed this?)

 

Every 1.6 I've tried (Octavia, Golf, Touran) I find I am driving it almost flat out everywhere acceleration wise. 

 

When joining a motorway I thought this is ok, not bad for a little engine until I put my foot down more and there was no more to be had (i.e foot was 25% of way down, no difference in acceleration between that and 100%)

 

You have to work them MUCH more to get anywhere.

 

The one impressive thing about the 1.6 is the figures chipping it provides (if you're into killing your warranty on a new car!).  Once chipped they have more power & torque than a standard 2.0 (150HP) engine.  That's if you believe superchips dyno print out of course.

I've done a couple of thousand miles in a 2.0CR DSG Golf MKVII, and now done my first 1000 in my new Octy III 1.6CD DSG.

The Golf was giving me about 54MPG, and the Octy is giving me about 59MPG so far. The type of driving has been very similar, and the driving style is obviously the same as it was the same driver, so I can confirm about 5MPG improvement on the ...

But they use totally different gearboxes with different ratios and different transmission loads so I wouldn't say the difference in mpg was down to just the engines.

I think the makers lie about weights and mpg in equal measure

ie land rover with weights and most with there mpg claims some magazines are now on to this as well

I am surprised at the people who don't think the 1.6 has enough power. I drive 35k a year, mostly motorway. Have now done over 2k miles and have not had any issues with overtaking .

I think in that time I have kicked down maybe three times.

If anything the 1.6 is VERY calming

And for fun, my other halts 1.0 citigo is soooo much fun.

Never about size, it's about how you use it ????????

I think people forget that the official mpg figures doesn't included bombing down a motorway at 70mph+.I have got between 60mpg and just under 90mpg (according to the obc) and have an average (fuelly calculated) of about 66mpg.

I pretty much hated the 1.6 105 Ibiza FR Estate we had as a courtesy car.

 

It felt gutless and we were struggling to get 50mpg at 70mph with cruise control on.

 

That car had 3000 miles on the clock.

 

It was nice and smooth but seems a bit pointless next to the old 1.9 or new 2.0.

 

Phil

Manufacturers don't lie about their figures for goodness sake, they cant openly lie or make them up, they simply report the tests done on a production car after it has been run in for 1800 miles and put it under various loads and somewhere at a temp of 20 degrees I think, the problem is everyday driving is not always the same conditions on a test bed so of course the figures on actual cars will be different as they are open to differing conditions, driving styles, road surfaces etc etc

 

That process is exactly the same for all manufacturers who arrive at their figures. Anyone who thinks they openly lie about such figures is always welcome to challenge them in a court of law and see how far you get.

Plus manufacturers ensure their cars perform well on the test but not the same in real world.

 

Phil

I find that it's amazing how different the same or similar engine can feel in different cars. I test drove a run out model octavia ii with the 1.6tdi engine (a Connect I think) and I was decidedly unimpressed. Thought it was rough and gutless. Particularly disliked the 5 speed box. Test drive a 1.6 tdi Bluemotion vw touran with 6 speed box and thought it was great. Didn't even want to drive a 1.6tdi octavia iii when I discovered it was still the 5 speed, but when I reluctantly did it felt totally different..... sufficient that I bought the demonstrator! Now I don't know whether the engine or box have actually changed between the generations or whether the touran engine is actually identical, but I wouldn't expect them to feel a different as they do. Irrelevant to the original mpg query. .. sorry!

The new car is lighter and the gearbox ratios are different. Even an identically car/engine can feel very different depending on what software revision it's running on its ECU and how it's been driven.

I am amazed by the 2.0D manual; mostly the average mpg from a cold start. Just going to Tesco, shopping, and back, it was showing 55mpg. I think that is exceptional because it's only about 2 miles total. The 4 year old Audi 2.0D 143bhp would have been nearer 40mpg. This morning I got the 3 miles to the M4W showing 50mpg and to the Severn Bridge showing 60mpg, and to Swansea on 66mpg. These are all 10mpg better than before. Admittedly it is going to be a bit different in the winter when a cold start really will be COLD, but it should have loosened up a bit by then - it's only done 600 miles so far. Weighing 250kg less that the Audi must be helping a bit too.

 

And while I am A4 stat bashing, it must be spectacularly badly packaged - the Octy3 Combi has 44mm less length and 122mm less wheelbase, yet the Octy has 120 litres more boot space, massively bigger rear leg room and I don't feel the front is at all cramped (and I am 6' 2").  But I guess I am preaching to the converted here 

Also:

Fuel  67.3mpg vs 53.3mpg Combined

0-60  8.6s vs 9.7s

CO2  110g/km vs 139 g/km

Edited 15 July, 201312 yr by Juniperz

Regarding the consumption tests that car makers have to do, if you check, you can see that there is a section of the test where the car travels at 120km/h (70ish mph), so that point is moot.

 

The problem with this test (if you look at the acceleration/deceleration graphs) is that the cars are veeeeeery slowly accelerated through the gears. They accelerate from 30 to 80 km/h for example in 30 seconds or something. Which is completely ridiculous. Most people would accelerate faster with a scooter while towing another scooter! 

 

Considering that the acceleration is the actual bit that completely dominates a car's consumption figures, it's obvious that the test is designed to minimize it's impact on the results. You can have almost any engine use very little fuel at higher speeds just by using proper gearing and aerodynamics (the problem is with how much fuel the engine uses to attain said speed).

Just for reference - I have a 2011 1.6 TDI Golf and get very good fuel economy - since new the economy is 59mpg

 

motorway driving at 75 mph - (whole journey av) 55mpg

A road driving - 50-60mph - (whole journey av) - 65 - 75 mpg

 

very please with the economy and find the engine to be powerful enough to overtake when needed and comfortably cruises at 75mph

 

I am due to change company car next year so read these threads with interest.....