Heh, looking forward to trying to prove you lot wrong now

 

I like diesel (loved it in the Furby), but with a 15 mile commute I'd be worried about DPFs and wouldn't be doing the miles to offset the costs.

Try a shot of Redex in it, it won't do any harm it'll just clean any crud out.

Shouldn't have any crud in it if it's a brand new car.

Now sure what mollycoddling will do for future oil consumption either. Surely if you want economy you buy a diesel and not a 2.0 turbo petrol?

I just didn't want a tractor...  :p

I just didn't want a tractor...  :p

 

lol, our current 4x4 sounds like, drives like and wallows around like a old massy harris. It's won't be long before the bailer twine is used to hold the boot shut...

Oh yeah, blue suede shoes and the Canton's wound up, will take at lest 5mpg off your average.

 

Regards

T

TAKES YOUR MIND OFF YOUR CONSUMPTION BUT PUTS 50YEARS ON YOUR LIFE!

HE'S LEFT THE BUILDING!

Many people who buy the TSI base their decision partly upon annual mileage. The petrol premium is obviously less expensive if you do low mileage, but people who drive low miles will most likely have a much higher proportion of short-distance / city trips than other who do 20k+. What I am trying to say is petrol economy sometimes looks much worse than it really is when compared to diesel, because average driving conditions favour high-mileage / motorway / long-commute cars, which in turn are more likely to be diesel. Maybe...

If you buy a VRS for fuel consumption, you've bought the wrong car, as many previous posters stated, buy a 'normal Octavia' if you want these mythical numbers.

 

I've ordered the petrol DSG, I do 30-35 miles per day (50% motorway), my old car (EVO) was costing me circa £60 per week fuel, that's between 16-18 mpg, if I get anywhere near 30 mpg ill have a happy bank manager.  That's my reason why I chose the petrol VRS.

Edited 14 January, 201412 yr by crailton

If you buy a VRS for fuel consumption, you've bought the wrong car, as many previous posters stated, buy a 'normal Octavia' if you want these mythical numbers.

 

If you've got that much money to not care about running cost then my buy an octavia?

With the price difference being so small between the petrol and diesel versions of the VRS the break even point is 1 year if only driving 4,000 miles a year, and only 4 months if doing 10,000 miles. At 10,000 miles a year even with the extra cost of Diesel over petrol you will save over £500 a year on fuel.

It isn't the case that you need to do 20,000 miles a year to warrant getting a diesel.

(these figures don't even include the savings in car tax etc)

Edited 14 January, 201412 yr by JamesVRSmk3

If you buy a VRS for fuel consumption, you've bought the wrong car, as many previous posters stated, buy a 'normal Octavia' if you want these mythical numbers.

 

I've ordered the petrol DSG, I do 30-35 miles per day (50% motorway), my old car (EVO) was costing me circa £60 per week fuel, that's between 16-18 mpg, if I get anywhere near 30 mpg ill have a happy bank manager.  That's my reason why I chose the petrol VRS.

 

You know, there is more than one reason some one selects a particular car so the question of fuel economy on the petrol issue is a valid question, especially as they advertise 45mpg. The diesel vRS is more powerful than the 150 and more economical than the TSI so surely it's a great half way house. 

 

Not everything is so black and white you know. 

My Sprint Yellow Estate has now clocked up just over 800 miles and constantly says I'm only getting 22.5 to the gallon and when I fill it to the brim with unleaded my range indicator says 280 mile. Its all mostly stop start commute journeys and nearly always in eco mode so I'm not too happy with economy of the TSI but I'm stuck with it now for three years so I guess I'll just have to get on with it

 

Are the units set correctly? - there are 2 settings for MPG (US and Imperial). My Seat was originally set to the US Gallon setting not UK Imperial Gallon and was initially achieving lower than expected MPG.

Edited 14 January, 201412 yr by Black_Sheep

Are there any other 2.0l turbo patrols which provide noticeably better mpg? As far as I am aware this unit leads the way in terms of refinement and economy, but anyone expecting 45mpg on public roads is mad.

It is a shame that Skoda do not sell the 1.8 TSI within the UK because this unit offers >10% better economy than the 2.0 yet still matches the VRS TDI for performance (0-62 iin 7.4 secs). Mated to the 7-speed DSG gearbox it is a very efficient and refined beast, and would be a great alternative to the 2.0 diesels. Leaving such a huge hole between 1.4 and 2.0 TSI engines seems one of SUK's stranger decisions, and surely serves to force some petrol buyers elsewhere.

Edited 14 January, 201412 yr by Orville

I would have had one of those without a second thought if it were available, as it wasn't I went for the vRS.

You know, there is more than one reason some one selects a particular car so the question of fuel economy on the petrol issue is a valid question, especially as they advertise 45mpg.

 

Not everything is so black and white you know. 

 

Skoda's mpg claims are black and white... with every possible shade of bull thrown in for good measure. Come on Skoda, fess up, you've way overstated the efficiency of these engines.

Remember that it is not actually Skoda, VAG or any other manufacturer who invent figures. All cars have to follow exactly the same stringent set of test criteria. Of course this leads to manufacturers tuning engines to meet defined test criteria rather than real world usage, but they all do so.

Edited 14 January, 201412 yr by Orville

Skoda's mpg claims are black and white... with every possible shade of bull thrown in for good measure. Come on Skoda, fess up, you've way overstated the efficiency of these engines.

It is not just that the figures don't measure up to the brochure. We all know these figures are can't be achieved in real life. The question is why they are worse than the outgoing model in real life. Surely the new tech should produce some saving over the old tech?

Yes, you would certainly expect them to be more efficient. I know not to expect actual list figures and I appreciate Orville's point but surely consumers have a right to be given figures that are at least in the ballpark of accuracy? These are way off! With the pidly fuel tank, low mpg is not good for fuel station haters like me.

 

I blame the government. They force manufacturers to produce inefficient engines so they get more money in fuel taxation. That's also why despite having a hugely complex network of average speed cameras on variable speed limit motorways, we can't have a traffic light advanced enough to stay on green when there are no cars coming in the opposite direction such as in the middle of the night. It's also why 'road works' are drawn out for months and cones and temporary speed limits stay for months after the job is complete. Did you also know that government dictate that following an accident, police must shut all lanes on a motorway for a period of no less than six hours or more if it involves rush hour.

 

Oh, sorry, wrong site, I was looking for conspiracies R us.

So far my mark 3 vRS TSI manual is doing about the same mpg as the previous petrol DSG - as it's done just 2,000 miles it may well improve.

 

So we're talking about 30-33 mpg in town and in suburbs, depending on traffic; up to 40 on motorways cruising at the legal limit (OK, about 75 mph), and somewhere in between on A- and B-roads unless you drive like the clappers.  I use 97 octane super unleaded which I've found pays for itself in better mpg.

 

My first vRS, a diesel manual, gave about 12 mpg better on all those figures. But the torque on the TSI engine is as good as a diesel, and so you'd need a diesel only if you do a high enough mileage so that the sums work out (I agree with the above, that the mileage doesn't have to be as high as with some other cars to justify a diesel.  But that's just the financial consideration.)

Edited 14 January, 201412 yr by Zdenek Fibich

I am on 34mpg long term (4700miles) combined and 36 since last refill. Recent motorway trip at70/80mph was 40mpg

With the price difference being so small between the petrol and diesel versions of the VRS the break even point is 1 year if only driving 4,000 miles a year, and only 4 months if doing 10,000 miles. At 10,000 miles a year even with the extra cost of Diesel over petrol you will save over £500 a year on fuel.

It isn't the case that you need to do 20,000 miles a year to warrant getting a diesel.

(these figures don't even include the savings in car tax etc)

 

Yeah, but you'll never fully recover from the fact that you've just bought a diesel! :P

 

I do get close to 45 mpg if I drive at 62 mph constant speed. Which is close to what the official numbers state and how they are obtained. So there's that...

Yeah, but you'll never fully recover from the fact that you've just bought a diesel! :p

 

Hahaha - It's my first time driving a diesel….ever. Never even had one as a hire car. Already quite nervous 

No worries, it will be awesome and you a happy owner.

If you've got that much money to not care about running cost then my buy an octavia?

I went to dealer with girlfreind as she wanted to change car, whilst there i liked the look of the white vrs combi (with extreme wheel) poster, test drove one then ordered.

 

After driving Subaru and EVO for last 15 years i wanted a change, nothing more.  If i was told from day one that i would have to wait 6 months then I WOULD have just bought a 2nd hand Audi/BMW or Merc.

I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a petrol VRS in a couple of years, when there are a glut of them chopped in by owners disappointed by sub 60 mpg.

I think that many people's expectations are unrealistic. Admittedly the current test criteria (used by all manufacturers) is unrealistic and leads to figures which are wholly unobtainable, but it should be obvious that a 2.0l 217bhp turbo petrol will not average anywhere near 45mpg. I personally believe 30mpg is very good, having been used to three similarly engined cars returning sub 20's. No manufacturer will go out on a limb quoting real-world figures because it will make their vehicles look extremely poor compared to others, especially when true use emissions figures are quoted and tax goes up. The fact that some owners average mid to late 30's is pretty spectacular for such a car.

 

Diesel is clearly the way to go for superior fuel economy and running costs. If you want more refinement, fun and excitement, and can justify the long-term premium then go petrol. Simplzz.

Edited 16 January, 201412 yr by Orville