Hi

 

I am looking at buying a secondhand Octavia III Elegance. It will spend its time doing quite a lot of long (100 mile +) motorway trips as I work all over the country.

The reviews have got my confused as some say the 1.6 is the best and most refined engine and some say the 2.0. The 2.0 is about £1000 more expensive when looking at cars with about 10,000 on the clock so is it worth it and is there really much difference ?

Oh and it will be a manual I will be looking for not an automatic.

Thanks

 

Pat

Edited 24 March, 201412 yr by pcolbeck

Pat

 

2.0 will give you the safe overtaking urge that is nice to know is there.  1.6 is thought to be oddly geared and as a result, one would often find oneself out of the power band so to speak.  Mind you, on the 100+ mile jaunts, you'll still be able to stay in top climbing a motorway incline.

The other issue is that a 2.0 Octavia is almost the same price as a Supurb 170 which although having less toys might be a better motorway car .....

Edited 24 March, 201412 yr by pcolbeck

2.0 every time. It's a vastly more capable engine with the correct number of gears. You'll get a good chunk of the extra cost back when you sell.

2.0 every time. It's a vastly more capable engine with the correct number of gears. You'll get a good chunk of the extra cost back when you sell.

 

Good point.

I had a 1.6 it needed 6 speed box. Now in a 2.0 it's far more refined on a motorway cruise.

Test drive both for a reasonable amount of time. I have a 2.0 TDI Elegance, and whilst the power and delivery is good, the vibration between 1500-2000 RPM is a PITA. 1500 is the worst, but it's also bad at around 1750-1800 which is slap bang 70-75MPH in sixth. It really ought to be better, my Octavia II was.

Edited 24 March, 201412 yr by HotVRs

I had a 2.0 mkII and went for a 1.6 MKIII, however both have been DGS (6 speed MKII and 7 Speed MKIII).

 

when I first got he MKIII I thought I had made a huge mistake, however I am now 22k miles (9 monhts in) and I don't think I have ever struggled on motorway, and rarely have to floor it to get to the speed I want.

 

I actually find my driving has become more passive because of the car and this can only be a good thing.

 

sorry I cant help with the manual discussion as I love the DSG box.

I had a 1.6 it needed 6 speed box. Now in a 2.0 it's far more refined on a motorway cruise.

Doesn't the Octavia have a 6 speed box?

Doesn't the Octavia have a 6 speed box?

 

The 105 bhp 1.6 as used in the S, SE and Elegance has a 5 speed manual or 7 speed DSG.

The 110 bhp 1.6 as used in the Greenline has a 6 speed manual which should be a definite improvement, but you are restricted to just a single trim level and some options are excluded.

I've been using my 1.6cr Elegance up and down the motorway now on 100+mile runs and not once have I thought it needs a sixth gear or is lacking in power.

 

Sure it needs a drop to 4th gear every now and then for an overtake, but day to day it copes just fine.  I prefer not having so many gears to change.  Sometimes 6 gears are becoming an unnecessary addition in my opinion.  The gears are longer of course however, so some people prefer the extra gears to make it feel more nippy.

 

I'm sure the 2.0 is a much better all round car however.  But in the defence of the 1.6, i've been happy with mine.  It's currently averaging 52mpg and still running in. 

 

However, I'll let you know how I get on when I attach the caravan to the back!

Edited 25 March, 201412 yr by sjrainsford

I moved from a MkII Elegance 1.6 to a MkIII Elegance 2.0, and I have to say that the 2.0 seems infinitely better.

 

The 1.6 always felt like you were pushing it at motorway speeds, while the 2.0 is very relaxed. Around town the 1.6 wouldn't travel comfortably at 30mph in 4th - I frequently had to go down to 3rd; again the 2.0 is better, and feels beautifully smooth. I suspect the more recent 1.6 is better (mine was one of the first) but I'd still go for the 2.0

I moved from a MkII Elegance 1.6 to a MkIII Elegance 2.0, and I have to say that the 2.0 seems infinitely better.

 

The 1.6 always felt like you were pushing it at motorway speeds, while the 2.0 is very relaxed. Around town the 1.6 wouldn't travel comfortably at 30mph in 4th - I frequently had to go down to 3rd; again the 2.0 is better, and feels beautifully smooth. I suspect the more recent 1.6 is better (mine was one of the first) but I'd still go for the 2.0

I have to agree with trevman. I too went from a 1.6 MkII to a 2.0 MkIII and I feel it is much better all round.

I've only driven 2000 miles from new in the 2.0 tdi and in terms of fuel economy the 2 litre is only a few MPG short of the figures I was achieving on a well run-in 1.6tdi. Currently getting 52 mpg compared with 57 mpg in the old 1.6. I'm expecting my figures to improve once the engine loosens and the better weather comes around

Thanks chaps. Am also considering automatic now. Decisions decisons

Do you drive most highway is 2.0 engine is a better choice, the engine works better and has better power.

Maybe my experiences of the 1.6 are better as I have the Mk3 then?  I'd guess it helps that it's a lighter car than the outgoing Mk2.

 

But in reality, most people are going to say 2.0 over 1.6, especially on a car forum.  I'd say have a good test drive in both and see which one suits your life best.

Doesn't the Octavia have a 6 speed box?

Not yet unless it's dsg as far as I'm aware. I have covered 95k in 3 years in a 1.6 slowmotion golf. Was not making the same mistake in a bigger car. It might be lighter but it will be full of more ****.

Are you after an Elegance hatch or estate ?

 

I'm interested in the estate but there are currently only three secondhand mk3 manual 2l diesel Elegance estates (<1year old) for sale in the UK at the moment... according to motors.co.uk and autotrader, at least.

Edited 27 March, 201412 yr by mikej

Well I test drove a 1.6 DSG yesterday. It was excellent, not slow at all and smooth enough. Will do me fine. Have decided that with teh smaller engine the 7 speed DSG wlll be better as it can keep it in the sweet spot easily. The car I tested wasnt an Elgance though so I am not buying it but it has layed to rest my worries over the 1.6.

I guess in the end it comes down to what you are changing from and as my current car is a 1997 Saab 900SE 2.0 turbo taht I have had for years and put over a 100K on (odo is now 150k) the Octavia 1.6 feels a bit slower but so much more refined and modern to drive.

I went for a test drive in a 2.0 DSG Elegance and it was excellent. My budget won't stretch to the 2.0 as a company car purchase and emissions/fuel are factors.

 

I'm going from Octy II 2.0 Manual Estate to III 1.6 DSG Hatch.

 

Yes the 2.0 will always be faster and more powered but cost is an issue and the 1.6 is very good.

 

My car is stuck at Grimsby port awaiting transport to Leeds.

I am surpriced on how the 1,6 performes. Especieally with DSG. For daily use I its plenty enough.

Well I test drove a 1.6 DSG yesterday. It was excellent, not slow at all and smooth enough. Will do me fine. Have decided that with teh smaller engine the 7 speed DSG wlll be better as it can keep it in the sweet spot easily. The car I tested wasnt an Elgance though so I am not buying it but it has layed to rest my worries over the 1.6.

I guess in the end it comes down to what you are changing from and as my current car is a 1997 Saab 900SE 2.0 turbo taht I have had for years and put over a 100K on (odo is now 150k) the Octavia 1.6 feels a bit slower but so much more refined and modern to drive.

Nice one!

Have been quite pleased with mine. It felt quite slow but is beginning to loosen up quite nice now.  It's fine for me shooting up and down the motorway.  A bit more power would have been nice (as I think the 1.6 is capable of it), but it gets the job done in enough comfort.

 

I've just been let down by other things really.  I think the suspension is poorly set up and the stereo system is lacking in a few areas.  Otherwise, my elegance is a nice motor!

The 1.6 is probably one of the sweet spots in fairness. The car is v light anyway so has more than enough power to haul the Octy around, Id suggest more effectively than a 1.2 TSi and probably as well as a 1.4 TSi when loaded up. Its also bound to be quieter and a bit more efficient than the 2.0.

Real shame that SUK have not seen sense to put the 110ps 6 speed Greenline version in the Elegance spec car as they have done with the Superb; for a well loaded, comfortable and cheap to run mile muncher be a great combination.

I'd not buy another 1.6CR. See here why. Before you say Octy 3 engine is newer and different, the engine block is very similar, and petrol engines lately suffered similar quality related problems (see Fabia vRS oil consumption / engine swaps).

 

2.0CR has long been a safer bet, on several counts (reliability, DPF, consistent fuel economy). 

I'd not buy another 1.6CR. See here why. Before you say Octy 3 engine is newer and different, the engine block is very similar, and petrol engines lately suffered similar quality related problems (see Fabia vRS oil consumption / engine swaps).

2.0CR has long been a safer bet, on several counts (reliability, DPF, consistent fuel economy).

No disrespect but id disagree with the 1.6 being no good. Wouldnt be my choice as it wouldnt be fast enough for my liking (the 2.0 in truth only just about suffices but dont want an expensive to run daily drive) but the latest gen CR engines in all sizes are quite a departure from those that came before....headline figures arent particularly different but power delivery is just leagues ahead even with inordinately long gearing. 1.6 for example makes 103hp from 3k to 4k rpm so puts out max hp for approx 25% of its usable rev range (no point revving past 4k after all).

It all adds up....given the Mk3 is also significantly lighter than the Mk2 in general even a 1.6 TDi is quite lithe and performs respectably compared to its competitors. The 2.0 is better in terms of performance of course but if you dont need the performance the 1.6 isnt a poor relation.

VAG petrol engines in my experience, particularly turbo ones have been oil thirsty so wouldnt suggest this is a particularly new thing; the twincharger seems to suffer the worst but thats down to v hard wearing cylinder liners and there is a link between oil usage and gentle running in of those engines (glazed bores in other words).