Test driven both, after nearly five years in a diesel DSG vRS, I wanted a petrol one. Petrol drives better, smoother more poke. Slight worries over MPG, but I never seemed to get more than 46mpg on a long run anyhow on my present diesel vRS. I was always paranoid about the dpf and dmf as well. Worries were unfounded though. Had one failed temp sensor on it last year, but it has served me well and it will go on sale here nearer to new car arriving, sometime in January. I can honestly say I have NEVER hankered after a heated screen either as my car is garaged. What's the point??

 

Can't wait for my Corrida red tsi dsg estate to arrive!! Without heated screen, but with Black pack Amundsen, tint and Canton. I might however miss my heated seats :-(

And Cruise Control :-((

On the subject of diesel performance, I've searched the forum and can't find anything on whether there is any precedent for Skoda introducing a tuning pack or similar to the golf GTD to up the power, or whether this upgrade might be compatible in due course? I know there will be tuning boxes, but seems a shame to wait for warranty to expire before getting the power up to petrol levels! :think:

Might be an option to have it mapped with a bluefin as you can swap it back to stock if you have their hand unit?

Bluefin is not available for the 184CR or 220TSI engines yet, and when (if) it is the ECU will need to be hard decoded (taken out and manually unlocked).

... I can honestly say I have NEVER hankered after a heated screen either as my car is garaged. What's the point??

.

Useful when parked outside when away from home and probably away from a source of hot water.

As for petrol v. diesel: depends on what kind of use you to plan to put the car to.  As the owner of a petrol sports car for pure 'fun' driving and posing in, I also want a diesel estate car in order to tick all the missing boxes when I want or need a capacious, economical, all-weather workhorse and tow car.  It doesn't make a lot of sense for just one driver to own two cars unless at least one of them is economical to run.

I also tend to keep my cars for a long time.

While I accept that a petrol car might sometimes feel a bit more more 'sporty', and I don't want to buy a car which is ever boring or unpleasant to drive - even as an everyday workhorse - I am amazed how good modern diesels are.  As I have said eslewhere, I am deeply impressed that with a Mk3 Octavia 4x4 estate I could have a huge, comfortable load carrier which does over 130mph, gets to 60mph in just over 8 seconds, does well over 50mpg, can tow 2 tons (!) and (with winter tyres) doesn't get come to a halt on icy, snow-covered or muddy roads or on wet grass.

Sounds good to me!  And yes, I'd like a heated windscreen (and an electrically adjustable seat with memory, please, Mr Skoda - are you listening?) please.  More than happy to avoid dark windows, bult-in sat-nav and anything other than the smallest possible wheel-rim diameter (don't like expensive, uncomfortable low-profile tyres), thank you.

But I guess each owner or potential owner has their indiviual preferences and priorities.

 

If I were running just one car and wanted that car to be distinctly sporty rather than just versatile and practical and was less concerned about economy, then I might choose a petrol car.

Edited 24 October, 201312 yr by Stuarted

Think dieseldogg has got it right. The poorer thermal efficiency of the petrol does give you the luxury of more of your expensive fuel being converted to heat - so the cars own heater should be pumping out more heat in a shorter time, so less need for heated screen.

Genuinely would not know whether to go diesel or petrol though.

To me the deciding factors are:

1. Do you believe VAG have sorted out the DPF problem?

2. Do you believe VAG have sorted out the carbon build up problems with their petrol engines?

Now, given they are keen to deny there ever was a problem VAG are not the place to go for an answer.

If you believe there are no such problems, then it is down to personal preference.

If you believe they have sorted out only one of these problems then the choice is clear

If like me you believe there have been major problems, and are unconvinced that either have been fully sorted, then the choice is a bit more difficult.

There are no DPF issues with the CR engine, they died with the PD luckily.

Personally I like the diesel for my long daily commute I like the relaxed nature of the engine with much better low down torque than the petrol has. It suits the character of the Elegance very well, although I guess might not fit so well with the more sporty nature of the vRS as the petrol engine will always have quicker response.

DSG is definitely better suited to petrol than diesel though.

Given the weight difference of petrol over diesel and the very slight difference in torque the two drive very similar at diesel like revs, petrol then storms ahead where the diesel dies

I love my diesel VRS, it's a great engine, so flexible.  Although, to be honest it's returning far from the stated mpg.  Just travelled 12 miles with a warm engine on an empty M6 motorway with a 50 mph speed limit (how do they justify that on such a key route?) and returned 47 mpg.  So, when doing the number crunching I'd take the figures with a massive pinch of salt.  Overall mpg to date is just 43. 

 

I test drove the petrol and liked it too.  I'm not a speed freak but somehow the 2.0 petrol just underwhelmed me, it seemed to lack pull and urgency.   I understand from the figures that is not the case but it certainly felt that way to me.

 

It's a lot of money you're spending so decide wisely.  I drove both for as long as I could before settling on diesel and I think I made the right choice.  Lots of people do seem to talk about DPF issues but there's no mention (I don't think) of any problems on here, I think it's just a legacy from the CR as Neily says but old habits die hard. 

I love my diesel VRS, it's a great engine, so flexible.  Although, to be honest it's returning far from the stated mpg.  Just travelled 12 miles with a warm engine on an empty M6 motorway with a 50 mph speed limit (how do they justify that on such a key route?) and returned 47 mpg.  So, when doing the number crunching I'd take the figures with a massive pinch of salt.  Overall mpg to date is just 43.

 

What gear were you using at 50mph, reading on here people try to drive diesels on top gear every where which i find murders economy and makes the engine labour alot.....  I'd be using 5th at 50mph....

 

I see just over 50mpg driving to my girlfriends 12 miles away which is probably 11 miles of motorway doing around 65mph.

What gear were you using at 50mph, reading on here people try to drive diesels on top gear every where which i find murders economy and makes the engine labour alot.....  I'd be using 5th at 50mph....

 

I see just over 50mpg driving to my girlfriends 12 miles away which is probably 11 miles of motorway doing around 65mph.

 

I was in 5th too Neily with cruise set.  I've only travelled about 500 miles so I'll see how that changes with time.  Hopefully it'll see an improvement as the miles go on as my drive tonight was just about as economical as it could be with low, constant speed on flat surfaces starting with a warm engine. 

My problem with the diesel vRS is that looks the part but doesnt really have the go to back up its sporty pretense. Its also quite a heavy car compared to the standard 1.4 petrol and 2.0 diesel cars so real world is hardly any quicker than either. I find the all show, lack of go thing frustrating with my current MK2 vRS CR....its not hugely quicker than my old 140hp Golf 2.0 CR.

If I were buying an Octavia 3 without using my head at all it would have to be the petrol vRS, I however know that real world its not that fuel efficient and as much as i'll enjoy driving it, I wouldnt much enjoy refueling it every 280-320 miles which is probably going to be its real world range with a bit of right boot and lots of short runs.....much like my old Fabia vRS. Also I wanted a wago and by the time you put the black pack, sunset glass (things i think it needs to look the part) cruise and nav on it, its a 25.5k car which is for me getting on the wrong side of value.

In the end I went 2.0 TDi Elegance, was plain staggered at how well it drove and in terms of straight line punch and performance is was genuinely quicker and more exciting to punt along than my MK2....didnt expect it at all. It does also have an air of mild wolf in sheeps clothing about it too, kind of a anti-vRS appeal.....very ordinary but goes like a warm hatch when provoked.

Also who can argue at nearly 70mpg combined and £20/year road tax on a 150hp low to mid 8 sec 0-60 car?

Edited 8 January, 201412 yr by pipsyp

100% agree diesels have came along way in last few years. My first diesel motor was a 240bhp 3.0 v6 twin turbo. Very refined, managed 35ish mpg and not a bad note for an oil burner!!Z

Pipsyp, you'll do well to get that near 70mpg combined! But hey, even if we dont see their figures, at least they give us cheap Tax.

There are no DPF issues with the CR engine, they died with the PD luckily.

There may not be any issues but the DPF is a consumable part that will need replacing, I don't know what Skoda quote as the expected life for their DPF, does anyone know? Most are approx 70,000 miles at a cost of £1000 minimum.

Pipsyp, you'll do well to get that near 70mpg combined! But hey, even if we dont see their figures, at least they give us cheap Tax.

They need a good few miles under their belt before they give their best efficiency wise. My old CR 140 was terrible when new bit after 50k early mid 50's was achievable in most conditions, over 60 on a longer sensible run. Remeber wife had 72mpg out of it on a 50-60 mile run from home to Welwyn Garden City. Not bad for a car with a 53mpg combined book figure.

My 170 CR was the same but it now is improving and will get 45/48mpg on a longer run with a book figure of 47.

Id expect it to be able to make late 50's early 60's once broken in, maybe even somewhere near book figures.

Had two petrol vRs's a MK I and pre facelift MKII. Then moved to a diesel MKII CR DSG. The diesel served me well for five years, but all the time I really missed the 'fizz' of the petrol.

 

I also got sick of the horrible noise it made when pushed hard. On here the MK III seems to be dominated by diesel, whilst on the MKII forum it seems to be slanted towards the petrol heads.

 

Test drove both the MK III diesel and petrol versions, and I am sorry, but apart from the economy angle the petrol is by FAR the better car to drive and don't let the oil burners try to persuade you otherwise. End of!!

Solution is easy. Practical, economic MKIII daily VRS combi. Then run a fun fizzy "fast" petrol as a second car. Best of both worlds! But because you really can't have both, as dervs go, this current crop aint half bad for what they are.

Skodas response has been that it is to do with alternator loads.

 

I saw that thanks, and mentioned it to the CSR at Skoda this morning. All the girl said was that Skoda change the spec from time to time. When I asked why, the reply was that it could be due to supply or changing the design.

 

It seems a little odd to say the least that the Skoda CSR wasn't aware of this reason but then it seems equally odd that Skoda have managed to overcome the "Puny Alternator", petrol engine and heated windscreen conundrum in some cases?

 

The only (possibly) useful advice I can offer is that a colleague of mine used to have a diesel Nissan Qashqai with which she was so pleased that I considered getting one.  However, she traded it in for a petrol Octavia when she got fed up with the DPF light coming on all the time.  She says that the Octavia seems a far less agricultural car and she would never go back to any diesel.

 

I don't know what your driving requirements are but I really think that car dealers should be compelled to find out what sort of driving anyone buying a diesel expects and to advise strongly against buying one unless you do a reasonable mileage and frequently run at decent speeds for half an hour.  It is just plain irresponsible to sell a diesel as a town run-about

 

 

Back on topic, I can understand why you would be incandescent with rage at Skoda's incompetence.  Whilst they do seem to be held in high regard, they really don't appear to be a very customer focused organisation do they?.

Test drove both the MK III diesel and petrol versions, and I am sorry, but apart from the economy angle the petrol is by FAR the better car to drive and don't let the oil burners try to persuade you otherwise. End of!!

I tend to agree with this statement. Moving from a 320D (which arguably has one of the best 2.0 diesel engines currently available) I found the VRS TDI demo car very similar in terms of performance, and almost as refined. The VRS TSI on the other hand is in an entirely different league, feeling much faster and much more refined. As I only do low miles I am happy to pay the fuel & depreciation penalty for a nicer petrol car.

 

If you can justify the additional running costs of the petrol and yearn for a more sporty feeling motor then go for it. Diesel refinement and performance have progressed massively within the past decade, but it still cannot match petrol for driver enjoyment. Better noise, refinement, throttle response, performance, smell, lower weight agility, and less visible emissions all help create a superior environment for the driver who picks petrol.

 

You need to drive both to really appreciate the difference.

Oh even as a diesel driver, its not difficult to admit petrols are better for those of a petrol head nature. Or just a mild one. Much more responsive lower down the rev range (although to be totally fair, what petrol heads ever have the revs low down?) The diesel, even when it supposedly has more horsepower, only shows this when the turbo kicks in. Get it in the wrong gear, at the wrong speed, and you really notice the difference. However once the turbo kicks in. Woo hoo!

For a mild petrol head, the petrol surely wins. But for a full on petrol head, im not sure. As they rarely keep the rev counter towards the lower end, their driving style is surely perfectly combined with a diesel?? I bet they love me saying that! For a normal driver, then the diesel would surely be the preferred option. On the 2.0TDI, it doesnt take very long for the turbo to kick in, and it is a fun car to drive.

There is no argument that a good petrol is generally more fun than a good diesel but for most people they are buying a car like this because of economic amd personal circumstance....i.e they want a useful family car thats still half quick but is cheap to buy and costs supermini cash to run.....for these regular people i am sorry but TDi really is the only way to go.

Id like a TSi vRS but I dont really want a 150+ mph family hold-all that'll do nothing but spend most of its time at the pumps, I dont actually pay for my own fuel, just the tax on it but thats still my perogative. If i lost my job and my fuel card I know i wouldnt want to be fueling the thing out of my own pocket.

You then have others who obviously lead v comfortable lives, multiple cars of which some a proper sports cars....a vRS TSi is pocket change to buy and run for these sorts of people in such a fortunate position. Of course you have others that just dont care and are prepared to have a TSi regardless, fair shout but that doesnt suit all. Common sense prevailing a TDi offers suitable go for less running costs in all driving conditions and I cant see how that can really be argued.

It cant be argued pipsyp. Harrysprout has exagerated things slightly. Petrol always a better car to drive?? Afraid not. Depends on the individual. Some individuals who arent petrol heads may prefer the drive of a diesel. A petrol is more 'fun' to drive (if thats what you want), but not necessarily better to drive overall. I know someone who has driven petrols for a good few years now, and is likely to carry on driving petrols. But he prefers the drive of a diesel.

There is no argument that a good petrol is generally more fun than a good diesel but for most people they are buying a car like this because of economic amd personal circumstance....i.e they want a useful family car thats still half quick but is cheap to buy and costs supermini cash to run.....for these regular people i am sorry but TDi really is the only way to go.

Id like a TSi vRS but I dont really want a 150+ mph family hold-all that'll do nothing but spend most of its time at the pumps, I dont actually pay for my own fuel, just the tax on it but thats still my perogative. If i lost my job and my fuel card I know i wouldnt want to be fueling the thing out of my own pocket.

You then have others who obviously lead v comfortable lives, multiple cars of which some a proper sports cars....a vRS TSi is pocket change to buy and run for these sorts of people in such a fortunate position. Of course you have others that just dont care and are prepared to have a TSi regardless, fair shout but that doesnt suit all. Common sense prevailing a TDi offers suitable go for less running costs in all driving conditions and I cant see how that can really be argued.

It makes me laugh this 'lifetime at the pumps' thing, it's hardly a 3.0 ltr V8! It might be a 150 mph capable car but you can still get 38 mpg out of it.... if you don't drive like a loon.

 

I can honestly say, that I did not notice any significant saving when I bought the diesel after running two petrol vRS's. And this new petrol engine is a damn site more frugal than the old TFSI. I do no more than 13K a year, so I reckon it's a no brainer to go for a petrol. 

 

On a separate note, I get the distinct feeling that diesel drivers are about to get hit by some form of increase in running costs, maybe not now, but it's a distinct possibility.

I've switched to Diesel, just order the Diesel VRS after owning petrol cars all my life.

 

0-60 wise its slower but how many 0-60 sprints will I be doing….none. Handling wise they seemed both the same when test driving them both back to back. Petrol felt marginally quicker but is the tiny difference in speed worth £110 more a year in car tax, less in MPG, worse residual? Personally for me and my daily needs from a car it wasn't worth it.