Managed a very steady run from Newcastle to Edinburgh and back again yesterday. Went A1 , which is infested with Gatso cameras. Filled up the tank on return and reckoned on about 51mpg for the 250 mile trip. Not bad considering the engine has now done only 600 miles so is still quite tight. Impressed with the flexibility of the engine in 6th. Seems happy to pull just over 30mph. So in theory, where allowed, you could see 30 to 130 in one gear ! I thought only my old Lotus Elan would do that ! Yep, I'm very impressed so far.

UPDATE: On Weds drove from Manchester to Darlington and then to Camberley in Surrey. 430 miles and an average of 47.7mpg.

Very happy with that.

Now done 4400 miles in 4 weeks and 1 day.

43-46 ish generaly, but will get over 50 on a lazy traffic laden trawl

very pleased with that as my old 110hp 307 struggled to av. over 40 even on a long trip.

Trouble is the 1.9 is going to be slower than my current Mk1 1.9 TDI (110bhp) and I'd be reluctant to spend more than last time on a slower car.

I replced my 1.9 110 SXL with the Mk2 1.9 105 Elegance. I don't notice any significant change in acceleration etc.

What I do see is a far superior ride, much better roadholding and a generally much nicer car to drive. The extra boys toys like auto sense wipers and auto dip mirrors are very nice.

I replced my 1.9 110 SXL with the Mk2 1.9 105 Elegance. I don't notice any significant change in acceleration etc.

What I do see is a far superior ride' date=' much better roadholding and a generally much nicer car to drive. The extra boys toys like auto sense wipers and auto dip mirrors are very nice.[/quote']

I would agree with that - I went from 1.9 110 elegance to Mks 1.9 Elegance DSG. Still running in so never fully opened up yet but notice no speed difference in everyday driving.

DSG is lovely now that I am getting used to it, why did I bother wagglying a stick!!

The big bonus is I have returned 51.5 mpg for the first 1000 miles and the manual 110 avged around 53.5 between resets. (all trip computer figures)

When I was looking for a diesel company car a while back I had a look at the 2.2 Accord. Good car but lacking in extras and too much money. Used to have a petrol Civic so I tried a new Civic diesel. Not overly impressed and not only that, i'm on pretty good terms with one of the diectors of the dealership after bringing my old Civic to them over the years. He knows his motors and says the 1.7 Honda Engine is a world apart from the 2.2. They also have a Seat dealership and his advice if I insisted on diesel was to go for a new Leon. Quality not the same but better to drive due to the 1.9 PD engine. He said the trouble with the 1.7 was that it was Honda's first go at a diesel engine.

The 2.2 is Hondas first diesel the 1.7 in the Civic is a GM (Isuzu?) unit I think, so not a proper Honda . who make the best engines in the world >

The 2.2 is Hondas first diesel the 1.7 in the Civic is a GM (Isuzu?) unit I think, so not a proper Honda . who make the best engines in the world >

That makes sense. It's the same bag of bolts they used to bolt a low pressure turbo onto in the Mk3 Astra then.

The 2.2 is far too petrol like in it's performance for my taste though economy is fantastic.

It is going to depend how you drive it. I prefer to think of the clear liquid going into the tank as liquid money. How do you want to burn it? Slowly and efficiently? or Mad and Fast and complain later.... I drive cruise control as often as I can but allow myself to overtake as is convenient and necessary sometimes, but for the most part take it easy. I get an average for the 2 mile journey to work as 35 which isn't bad for start-stop. But when I go on a long run I expect no less that 50. If I drive properly then I get 50 and on a 400 mile run I did achieve 59. I stress that 50 involves stopping at services and motorway snarlups etc etc and 60 was an unusual straight run with no stops on the m5 to cornwall.

I drive fast everywhere and average 40. Not bad at all.

46.9 over 35K miles for me, so in line with Skoda claims

I was surprised to see that fuel consumption range on 2.0 TDI is so broad going from 55-35 mpg, depending how hard you pres gas pedal. Trip computer helps if you want to keep your consumption low on a long highway travels by driving on 1,600 revs in a sixth gear you can make it up to 63 mpg. So it’s practically up to you to decide, economy vs speed.

Hi All, I am new to this excellent forum, and am about to become a proud owner of a 1.9 TDi L&K estate (pearl black & ivory leather).

Re. the performance difference between 1.9 110bhp and new 105bhp, I too am baffled. My wife has my old company Seat Toledo SE 1.9 tdi 110bhp. That is a cracker of an engine, though I tested a 1.9 105bhp Octy L&K and have to say that it is far more responsive than the 110bhp and even seems a little faster! This is backed up by three different road tests I reviewed on the internet, where all tests acheived sub 11 sec 0-60mph with the 1.9 105 bhp, though maxed out at 115 mph.

I was going for the 2.0 TDi though stepped down to the 1.9 get £3K of extras instead and greater mpg. Having tried both engines, the 1.9 was not as urgent but not as far behind the 2.0 as the figures suggest.

Mine is now 3000 miles old , and the economy has improved a lot since I got it.

On my journey to and from work my Mk1 110tdi would typically get 56 going to work and 60 coming back. Now I'm getting 53 and 56 which is pretty good.

On some long journeys I'd been in the 56-57 range and got 53 overall on the last tank which is pretty impressive.

The one place I do see a bigger difference is in town driving where I can sometimes find myself around 40mpg compared to the 50 I might have got in the old one.

When I first got the car I was only getting 50mpg if I was lucky on a long run and under 40 round town.

I wouldn't expect the 1.9 105 to be significantly more economical than this so it's only the purchase price that represents a big saving

In my MK I, I average between 58 and 65 on my journeys to work along the M/Way.

Hi All' date=' I am new to this excellent forum, and am about to become a proud owner of a 1.9 TDi L&K estate (pearl black & ivory leather).

Re. the performance difference between 1.9 110bhp and new 105bhp, I too am baffled. My wife has my old company Seat Toledo SE 1.9 tdi 110bhp. That is a cracker of an engine, though I tested a 1.9 105bhp Octy L&K and have to say that it is far more responsive than the 110bhp and even seems a little faster! This is backed up by three different road tests I reviewed on the internet, where all tests acheived sub 11 sec 0-60mph with the 1.9 105 bhp, though maxed out at 115 mph.

I was going for the 2.0 TDi though stepped down to the 1.9 get £3K of extras instead and greater mpg. Having tried both engines, the 1.9 was not as urgent but not as far behind the 2.0 as the figures suggest.[/quote']

Jabba mapped our old 110 to 164 bhp & the mpg improved, need I say more.

we have the 2.0 in the new Superb & still have the old Octy.

The old cars now on 114000 whilst the Superb is only on 4500 so has a way to go until its run in but at the moment the old engine is definately a lot sweeter albeit a bit noisier, I wonder if a remap might help !!

Jabba mapped our old 110 to 164 bhp & the mpg improved' date=' need I say more.

we have the 2.0 in the new Superb & still have the old Octy.

The old cars now on 114000 whilst the Superb is only on 4500 so has a way to go until its run in but at the moment the old engine is definately a lot sweeter albeit a bit noisier, I wonder if a remap might help !![/quote']

My Octy II is much smoother and quieter than the Mk1

My old Octy TDI would average about 57mpg. I am only getting 44 at the moment but it's only done 1300 miles. I hope it improves sharpish.

One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post , the economy on the 2.0 seems to suffer more when you drive enthusiastically than the 1.9 did.

Thats very true, I spanked mine on the way home and the consumption was horrific.

When the old Octy got a spanking, it never used to dip below 35mpg.

High 20's anyone?

Who cares the company pays the fuel. Mind you if you cut costs and ended up with a poor mans VW I suppose it matters.

Coming in late on this after a 3-week holiday, the on-board computer says 42 mpg, for our 2.0 diesel, which my more accurate Psion says is 41.2 mpg - either way I'm happy. Our Octy 1 did 45 mpg, but I'm happy to pay the trifling penalty for a more powerful engine and the DSG automatic.

After a week's holiday from South Yorks to the Scottish Borders I've calculated 55.3mpg and 50.8mpg from the 1000+ mile journey. The majority was on motorways and twisty A roads. That's with the air-con on too and 10150 on the clock. More than meets my expectations.

Who cares the company pays the fuel. Mind you if you cut costs and ended up with a poor mans VW I suppose it matters.

A poor mans VW but with better build quality and reliability, go figure.

Does that also mean a VW is a poor mans Audi?, an Audi is a poor mans Lambo?

Where does it stop?:P

Where does it stop?:P

Bugatti Veyron ?

Ok, the Lambo is a poor mans Bugatti Veyron as well

All this "poor mans VW" is just silly nonsense.

Before anyone tells me to calm down, I am very calm right now, just come in from a walk along the beach with SWMBO and my "poor mans VW" is absolutely fantastic.

:D

P.S.

Does that also mean a Vauxhall is a poor mans SAAB?

I've left a space for the smart ar$e remarks below.

:P