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.

 

Wrong there sunshine. Got 46 on a sedate run down the A3 to the coast, worst I got was 29 lead footing it.

Wrong there sunshine. Got 46 on a sedate run down the A3 to the coast, worst I got was 29 lead footing it.

Please read my comment again. I said "will not average anywhere near 45mpg". A single sedate run down the A3 hardly constitutes the VRS TSI being able to average 45mpg. Try coasting downhill for a mile and you'll see 99mpg, but that is also not achievable as an overall average.

 

..and the very rough average between your two 46mpg and 29mpg scenarios is 37.5mpg (which is still extremely good).

Edited 16 January, 201412 yr by Orville

I currently get 45mpg from my 2008 Citroen C4 VTS 2.0 HDi. If I get less than that from my vRS TDi that is on order I won't be impressed, hoping for somewhere in the 50s.

>45mpg is very achievable for the diesel VRS so long as it is not all town driving. Some average high 50's but that is mostly on the motorway.

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.

Yes we get the 1.8 TSI over here in the Elegance model as standard, for $16k NZD (8k pounds) less than the equivalent engined Audi A3.  Friends bought one of those Audi's a week ago and while it's nice I was completely underwhelmed by it for what it cost.  

But even though the numbers look good the 1.8 Octavia is not giving a 5.7L average as it says it does just like the petrol VRS won't average its quoted 6.2L either unless you only drive on airport runways asleep at the wheel. I couldn't get near those figures in test drives and I was trying as was willing to go petrol over diesel if they delivered but nope.

Also 1.8 does go well, 0-62 as you said, but isn't the effortless torque monster both the VRS's are as they have half as much again. Same as comparing the 150TDI to the VRS as being similiar. Sort of but you get a VRS for the way it drives too, i.e steers sharper, corners flatter and has nicer seats and more toys to soak it all up in. Over here the VRS is only $6k nzd (3k pounds) more than the Elegance and we just about get most options standard, except the OTT safety orientated ones, i.e 18inch wheels, Columbus sat nav, adaptive Xenons, all the sensors, tints included etc

So its a bit of a tricky choice but I went TDI VRS as petrol and diesel fuel per litre cost the same over here once road user tax is included and the car purchase price difference is only $700nzd.

Also my turn to bag. The TSI VRS hatch here is $15k (7.5k pounds) less than the entry level Golf GTI which has no xenons, no leather, no columbus! Its a no brainer decision and I pretty much think anybody buying a GTI over a VRS obviously have none because without the adaptive suspension and LSD the Golf has nothing over the VRS drive or specification wise. Just feels different cause its a slightly smaller version of the same car and personally I think the interior is worse than the Octavias too. Resale you'd never get the extra $15k back either. Just retarded cause they are selling like hotcakes apparently. Too many pretend wannabes over here obviously. 

Edited 17 January, 201412 yr by snala

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,

I think BMWs new 4 pot 2.0l turbo would claim to be better in all respects.

245bhp 48 or 47mpg and very low C02. Although they badge it 328i

I think BMWs new 4 pot 2.0l turbo would claim to be better in all respects.

245bhp 48 or 47mpg and very low C02. Although they badge it 328i

Nice engine, but combined mpg figures are very slightly lower for the BMW. Torque is the same as for the VRS TSI, but the BM does produce noticeably more bhp, albeit at higher RPM where emissions and mpg are not measured. Of the two I would certainly prefer the new BM engine, but I would not not pay £5k more for it. It's price is also a little too close the BM 335i unit which is a real peach.

BM engine specs and consumption available here.

Edited 17 January, 201412 yr by Orville

Another trip out yesterday comprising mainly A route with B and a short motorway stint. Steady , progressive and a blast for a mile or two.

 

Result,120 miles in total , readout   stated, at  average speed 48 mph returning 37.5 mpg.

 

So again pretty happy with that.

 

Oh! and on 95 RON, before I refresh this week with 97/98 for my two tank trial on Super Unleaded.

Thanks for all the replies. And thanks to the valuable information gleaned from you lot through briskoda.net I managed to put down my deposit on a racing blue TSI vRS last Saturday, pick up this Friday. WOOOOO,

Golf GTI VII vs GTD VII 0-200km/h (0-125mph) below. Both cars use the same engines as their respective Octy VRS's. The 100-200km/h part shows why many think the TSI is worth the mpg sacrifice.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuU1oZShhx4&app=desktop

Edited 20 January, 201412 yr by Orville

 

that's the octy direct comparisons

Thanks for all the replies. And thanks to the valuable information gleaned from you lot through briskoda.net I managed to put down my deposit on a racing blue TSI vRS last Saturday, pick up this Friday. WOOOOO,

Good lad!!

Well I just tanked up with a full 50l of BP Ultimate as I couldn't risk leaving it any longer due to shifts.

 

So I filled it up with a ¼ tank remaining and with 322 on the trip and nothing but local & town tripping, it has returned 28.48 mpg, which isn't bad at all as far as I'm concerned.

 

I probably could have left it another day or so & got a slightly better average, but I didn't want to risk running out of fuel at 2 or 3 am in the middle of nowhere.

 

Total miles covered so far = 952.

Well I just tanked up with a full 50l of BP Ultimate as I couldn't risk leaving it any longer due to shifts.

 

So I filled it up with a ¼ tank remaining....

 

How did you get 50litres into a 50litre tank that was 1/4 full?? that makes about 62 litres in a 50 litre tank....

How did you get 50litres into a 50litre tank that was 1/4 full?? that makes about 62 litres in a 50 litre tank....

No, it means he filled up TO a full 50L

No, it means he filled up TO a full 50L

Well to be full it'll have to have 50litres as otherwise it wouldn't be full......

Well I just tanked up with a full 50l of BP Ultimate as I couldn't risk leaving it any longer due to shifts.

 

So I filled it up with a ¼ tank remaining and with 322 on the trip and nothing but local & town tripping, it has returned 28.48 mpg, which isn't bad at all as far as I'm concerned.

 

I probably could have left it another day or so & got a slightly better average, but I didn't want to risk running out of fuel at 2 or 3 am in the middle of nowhere.

 

Total miles covered so far = 952.

29 mpg is correct if you did put 50 litre in. But that's impossible as you said you could of left it another day or so, which would mean your car runs on.....air?

But going by your other statement, if you covered 322 miles on 3/4 tank, you must of put around 37 litres in which is 39mpg which is pretty impressive if it's the petrol engine?

The range takes into account whatever is in the tank at that time, which is in case was a full tank of 50l.

No I put in a full 50 litres. Unless BP are fiddling the petrol pumps.

There's no way you can get 50l inside a tank that still has 1/4 of petrol. I usually go slightly below 1/4 of a tank when I refuel and my average is around 43l.

There's no way you can get 50l inside a tank that still has 1/4 of petrol. I usually go slightly below 1/4 of a tank when I refuel and my average is around 43l.

 

That's what I said on the last page, i've ran mine down to the bottom of the red and only got 46 litres in!

I did manage to get 50.2 liters in on my first ever fill up straight from the dealers, with 0 range on the clock. But I'm guessing the tank was actually dry and I was running on vapors.

I have put 61l into my wife's Megane 60l tank. It is possible so long as the car is running on fumes. I imagine that the fuel pump, engine run and tank feeder pipe can take several liters.

Edited 23 January, 201412 yr by Orville

That's a different thing, he said he's put in 50l while still having 1/4 tank of petrol.

How can I delete this thread before my other half see' sit, she thinks we've bought an efficient, 45mpg minimum car...