Where you UK imperialists miss out is that the Octavia consumption display is optimised for litres and kilometres.

If you have it set up for litres/100km then you get a bit more information such as litres/hour consumption when stationary and idling or true consumption when coasting. The mpg display maxes out at 200mpg in the conversion process.

Sounds like they're still using conversion routines from 15 years ago. With the computing power now available there's no good reason for this limitation. If the display space is the limiting factor then it should still able to go up to 999 mpg, and with a graphical display indicate infinity. Likewise when stationary, if it can indicate litres/hour then it should also be able to indicate hours/gallon. This stuff is not difficult.

The 1.4 tsi has so little engine braking that I can use it a lot and sometimes wish it provided more (screaming the engine in 2nd gear down a 4 kilometre hill and still using brakes to hold at 90kph speed limit where my previous diesel 1.9d provided ample braking effort in 3rd gear)

Petrol engines do provide a lot less engine braking than diesels, I presume because of the lower compression ratio. It will be interesting to see how my new 1.2 TSI compares against my 12 year old 1.6.

Coasting is only beneficial under a small set of circumstances matching gradient/speed requirements or you are able to anticipate road conditions upto a kilometre in advance. Otherwise in normal (UK) traffic you are probably better off with maximising use of engine braking.

In flatter areas, and even on steeper motorways, even coasting will slow you down a bit, so if you want to maintain speed using engine braking is not an option. On the other hand, in hillier areas coasting is much less suitable.

Yes, but how else are you supposed to get some kip doing 73mph on the M1?  

Edited 20 May, 201511 yr by sniperpenguin

We're getting ACC as a no cost extra, please tell me you can turn off the radar function if required, I don't want to be yoyoing like the car in front!?

We're getting ACC as a no cost extra, please tell me you can turn off the radar function if required, I don't want to be yoyoing like the car in front!?

 

Its either all ACC or no cruise control at all.

 

However, you have manual control of the gap between the cars (bigger gap makes it less reactive, closer gap makes it more aggressive).

In the entertainment unit there is also an option for cruise control to be "normal" or "eco".

I didn't try these settings but I believe this will control how quickly ACC accelerates when the car in front does.

 

In Europe I find ACC very nice as there is less traffic & the VW calibration of this system is good

It allows you to drift into the gap or a faster moving car to pull in front of you without hammering the brakes immediately.

 

In the UK in the usual busy traffic it was not as good.

For sure it makes driving more comfortable but when the roads are busy, even the minimum gap is larger enough some for lane-hopping idiot to jump inside which willl cause you to slow down (much to the annoyance of the Audi behind you

 

However, in these conditions, you probably wouldn't be driving with standard cruise control either.

I would always choose ACC now over standard cruise.

Edited 20 May, 201511 yr by Gabbo

We're getting ACC as a no cost extra, please tell me you can turn off the radar function if required, I don't want to be yoyoing like the car in front!?

I dont think it can be run as a normal CC.

But when in traffic, its quite smooth. You dont get the yoyo-effect unless the car in front brakes hard.

I havent missed the old school CC once since getting the car.

Petrol engines do provide a lot less engine braking than diesels, I presume because of the lower compression ratio. It will be interesting to see how my new 1.2 TSI compares against my 12 year old 1.6.

The 1.2tsi is not available here in Aus but from what I have read it has about the same performance as my old diesel and I found that was fine for me.

Not many 1.2 owners post on here so I would be interested to hear your opinion when you get it.

The 1.2tsi is not available here in Aus but from what I have read it has about the same performance as my old diesel and I found that was fine for me.

Not many 1.2 owners post on here so I would be interested to hear your opinion when you get it.

The performance figures are slightly better than those for my 12 year old 1.6 litre petrol Focus hatch, so I'm expecting the performance to be fine for everything except quick overtaking manoeuvres on short straights. And it's just gained 5 PS (to 110), which has to help.

What does surprise me is how it compares with the 125 PS Ecoboost engine in the current Focus. The Focus is slower but more fuel efficient, which is not what you would expect from a more powerful engine.

Edited 20 May, 201511 yr by Rodge

Torque over weight is the key when it comes to throwing you down the road, forget PS/BHP its all bar-talk.

Torque is meaningless unless you specify the transmission ratio. Low torque in a low gear will accelerate you faster than high torque in a high gear.

The torque of the two engines is nearly identical anyway.

The performance figures are slightly better than those for my 12 year old 1.6 litre petrol Focus hatch, so I'm expecting the performance to be fine for everything except quick overtaking manoeuvres on short straights. And it's just gained 5 PS (to 110), which has to help.

What does surprise me is how it compares with the 125 PS Ecoboost engine in the current Focus. The Focus is slower but more fuel efficient, which is not what you would expect from a more powerful engine.

I am no expert on UK specifications but I think the Ecotec engines include stop/start which I cannot see on the 1.2tsi? So that could account for some of the consumption claims and the Octavia is about 50kg lighter (even though much bigger). The smaller Ecotec certainly claims more power and torque though.

Are you getting the DSG option or manual?

My relatives in the UK have had a 1 litre Focus for a year or so and are a little disappointed with their mid 40's consumption on runs.. still beats their Silver Shadow though

I am no expert on UK specifications but I think the Ecotec engines include stop/start which I cannot see on the 1.2tsi? So that could account for some of the consumption claims and the Octavia is about 50kg lighter (even though much bigger). The smaller Ecotec certainly claims more power and torque though.

Are you getting the DSG option or manual?

My relatives in the UK have had a 1 litre Focus for a year or so and are a little disappointed with their mid 40's consumption on runs.. still beats their Silver Shadow though

Start/stop is standard on all UK spec Octavias. What the 1.2 does lose (with a very small asterisk to point it out) is the driving mode selection. The Ecoboost claims 170 Nm of torque (with up to 200 Nm on temporary overboost on the Fiesta, not sure about the Focus), compared with 175 Nm for the TSI. Mine will be the manual.

I get low 40s consumption on my old Focus, so mid 40s from a new one would be disappointing.

Start/stop is standard on all UK spec Octavias. What the 1.2 does lose (with a very small asterisk to point it out) is the driving mode selection. The Ecoboost claims 170 Nm of torque (with up to 200 Nm on temporary overboost on the Fiesta, not sure about the Focus), compared with 175 Nm for the TSI. Mine will be the manual.

I get low 40s consumption on my old Focus, so mid 40s from a new one would be disappointing.

 

The problem with fuel economy is its very dependant on driving style.

Often someone coming from a old car are used to it not having much go & tend to drive much more economically.

Put the same person directly into a new turbo charged car (which will no doubt have a much more agressive pedal map to make it feel "zippy") & they will naturally drive harder as the same pedal position will give e.g. 50% torque instead of 20% on the old car.

It will take some time to get used to the car before they feel the balance between performance & economic driving.

Dunno what you mean Gabbo, I just drive them like I just stole them.

As Gabbo says, it depends on your driving style, you should be good if you ignore TMWNO ... well as much as possible anyway

Had a rare run along the M6/42 using ACC in Eco mode in my 1.4 TSI,  set the ACC to all the speed limits along the way and drove as fast as the traffic and limit would allow.

 

Out 55 mpg on the way back through heavier traffic (breakdowns and accidents) the car registered 60.1 mpg at on point and ended up at 55.7 thanks to a broken down lorry.

 

I am happy with the mpg using ACC - as good as my manual 1.6TDI Fabia with standard CC.

Petrol engines do provide a lot less engine braking than diesels, I presume because of the lower compression ratio.

I've heard the complete opposite, for the same reason. (I remember hearing that the compression "rebounds" the piston after the compression, almost canceling out the engine braking effect. Which is why tucks use a "jake brake".)

 

And my experience seems to confirm this. The 2.0 TDI I drive now slows down considerably less when engine braking than most petrol cars I've driven.

I've heard the complete opposite, for the same reason. (I remember hearing that the compression "rebounds" the piston after the compression, almost canceling out the engine braking effect. Which is why tucks use a "jake brake".)

 

And my experience seems to confirm this. The 2.0 TDI I drive now slows down considerably less when engine braking than most petrol cars I've driven.

I have not driven enough VAG machines for long enough to really compare but based on what you say there must have been a generational change/reduction for both petrol and diesel related to reduced engine braking.

Certainly what you say about the 'rebound' effect is true up to a point, I know that in engines with ACT the cylinders deactivate by stopping the valves from opening to use that rebound effect and reduce pumping losses.

Old school diesels were always more efficient at low revs/tick over than old school petrol because the latter had throttles that lived up to their name and they struggled, and wasted power, to suck air past the small throttle openings. Diesels don't have throttles just varying amounts of fuel injected.

I presumed that new petrol engines with direct injection did not have throttles so more 'open airways' and that was why they had lower braking effect, but I have no idea what changes may have occurred on diesels that may have reduced theirs.

All I know is that on one particular long hill in our area I used to be able to easily contain the speed with engine braking alone for near two tonne vehicles with a normal 2.5 litre petrol engine then also later with the 1500kg 1.9d mk2 Octavia.9

The 1.4tsi is far less effective on a vehicle of only 1350kg. It is not really an issue with modern brakes but I still have habits retained from driving cars with drum brakes all round so I guess I just have to get with the times.

Had a rare run along the M6/42 using ACC in Eco mode in my 1.4 TSI,  set the ACC to all the speed limits along the way and drove as fast as the traffic and limit would allow.

 

Out 55 mpg on the way back through heavier traffic (breakdowns and accidents) the car registered 60.1 mpg at on point and ended up at 55.7 thanks to a broken down lorry.

 

I am happy with the mpg using ACC - as good as my manual 1.6TDI Fabia with standard CC.

Motorway with fairly heavy but moving traffic is probably ideal for ACC, you would struggle to better it yourself.

But now you have to do the same trip again a number of times using ACC and the other modes and final run without ACC just to compare :=)

When I went back to the UK after quite a few years away I was astounded by the increase in traffic (and especially the number of continental semis) and how much closer vehicles travel nose-to-tail at speed, than I remembered. Initially quite scary but probably ideal conditions for good fuel consumption from the drafting effect.