According to auto express the 1.4 act petrol engine is implemented. Skoda only have that in the new superb don't they.

That's correct.

I'm new to the forum, so bear with me.  Can I be sure that my Octavia III 1.4 TSI SE L TSG 150PS hatchback delivered in August this year does NOT have one of the petrol engines affected by the recent VW admission that the carbon dioxide emissions are higher and the mpg is lower than stated in their brochure?

I'm new to the forum, so bear with me.  Can I be sure that my Octavia III 1.4 TSI SE L TSG 150PS hatchback delivered in August this year does NOT have one of the petrol engines affected by the recent VW admission that the carbon dioxide emissions are higher and the mpg is lower than stated in their brochure?

 

Who knows what will come out next, but at this point you and I, with the 1.4tsi used by Skoda, seem to be in the clear.

As I have already said above, I am quite happy with the consumption I am currently getting so do not expect that if they announce it is affected, that my view will change.

I mean I drove 15 km home tonight (Adelaide suburbs), caught a few red lights but otherwise just obeyed the urban speed limits and got 4.4l/100 (64 imperial mpg) and could probably have done better if I tried.

The 1.4tsi sold in Australia does not have stop/start technology fitted.

The  1.4tsi versions with active cylinder deactivation are the ones at fault (not used in the Octavia) and I must admit that I thought their claims for the improved consumption it gives might be a bit optimistic given that the frictional losses of the standard engine seem to be so low anyway.

At a steady 70kph (on the flat, no wind, no accessories etc) my car will consume an indicated 3.7 l/100 (75 mpg), yet VW claimed I could get 0.7 l/100 improvement at that speed with an ACT engine, which is about 95 mpg and maybe just a bit optimistic?

After all those two cylinders that are not working still have to be turned over and anyone that has had an engine that won't fire knows, a reasonable amount of energy is required to turn the engine over.

I've just got an ACT engine (in a Leon) and the instantaneous MPG figure does jump up significantly as soon as it goes into 2 cylinder mode - holding a reasonably steady speed shows it going from high 60's to mid/high 80's mpg at around 70mph, so that disabling of two cylinders (effectively only frictional rather than compression losses; considerably less) does have quite an impact.  To compare, it's got less than 1000 miles on it at the moment and is giving better mpg figures than the Octavia 1.4 I had 18 months ago, and I'm driving it "more energetically" at the moment than I did the Octavia.

I've just got an ACT engine (in a Leon) and the instantaneous MPG figure does jump up significantly as soon as it goes into 2 cylinder mode - holding a reasonably steady speed shows it going from high 60's to mid/high 80's mpg at around 70mph, so that disabling of two cylinders (effectively only frictional rather than compression losses; considerably less) does have quite an impact.  To compare, it's got less than 1000 miles on it at the moment and is giving better mpg figures than the Octavia 1.4 I had 18 months ago, and I'm driving it "more energetically" at the moment than I did the Octavia.

 

This is normal, the MaxiDot SW embeds the cheating SW.  

 

The ACT is probably a good engine and with quit unusual low consumption.

But VAG has probably a bit too much exagerated how low the consuption was. 

Am I the only one to laugh at some of the consumption figures given on here for the petrol. Both ACT and conventional. You arent just in diesel territory, you make the diesel seem thirsty. Some of the figures claimed recently actually beat the official diesel figures. Sorry, I really cannot believe that.

Don't worry about it, they are putting out 5 metric tonnes of CO2 per km according to real life driving tests. Wait until the Govt adjust the VED banding for the engine, you will need to be able to do 80mpg in order to be able to afford to pay the £5000 pa VED.

 

Or maybe all of the above is as accurate as VAGs CO2, mpg and NOx figures

 

Anyone seen a bumper sticker along the lines of 'I can see the trees dying in my rear view mirror ....'?

 

Anyone seen a bumper sticker along the lines of 'I can see the trees dying in my rear view mirror ....'?

 

So thats what a rear view mirror is used for

Don't worry about it, they are putting out 5 metric tonnes of CO2 per km according to real life driving tests. Wait until the Govt adjust the VED banding for the engine, you will need to be able to do 80mpg in order to be able to afford to pay the £5000 pa VED.

Or maybe all of the above is as accurate as VAGs CO2, mpg and NOx figures

Anyone seen a bumper sticker along the lines of 'I can see the trees dying in my rear view mirror ....'?

I was tempted to put a sign in my rear window. 'Beware, diesel car. I am responsible for killing everybody in my wake'

Am I the only one to laugh at some of the consumption figures given on here for the petrol. Both ACT and conventional. You arent just in diesel territory, you make the diesel seem thirsty. Some of the figures claimed recently actually beat the official diesel figures. Sorry, I really cannot believe that.

 

I can understand your disbelief and I should have given some context to my claim.

First off you can see that my average consumption (per fuelly)  matches the claims of many others with 1.4 tsi engines in another thread.

Second, I live in Adelaide and the western coastal suburbs are very flat (like Holland or Norfolk) and our suburbs are unlike English metropolitan areas such as East London which I know well. Generally longer distances between traffic lights and heavily policed low urban speed limits (50/60/80 kph).

My claimed consumption was in near perfect conditions, no wind, about 18 deg C on a Friday night with minimal traffic.so the low claim is really just low speed related.

I can get better consumption on a > 10km Adelaide urban trip than I can get on a long open road at faster speeds. Short < 4km trips from cold just kill economy figures (unfortunately my car does too many of those)

I should add that I 'cheat' by coasting out of gear when the road situation allows. I believe the DSG equipped vehicles can auto freewheel  in Eco mode and is an effective economy technique.

 

I did the exact same journey three years previously in my former Octavia 1.9d  estate and achieved 3.7 l/100 for that journey so I would never claim the petrol is more economical than a diesel. It is just not possible with the inherent advantages of the diesel (assuming everything is performing  normally)

 

Just to rub a little more salt in the wound I managed an even better  4.2 l/100 last night on an 18km cross town trip. However that was East to West and would have been assisted by a steady 60 metre drop in altitude. Just remember this is near best possible so no aircon on, but I did have headlights on

 

Slightly more back on topic if the ACT engine is as good as VW claims on 2 cylinders then logically THE best engine for economy is the Fiat Twinair engine but while it is a nice bit of kit we have not seen Fiat trying to set economy records with it such as that by Peugeot with their three cylinder turbo'd 308.

But it seems that VW may have got carried away by their own enthusiasm for the ACT technology judging by the warnings they have issued about published economy figures.

I am sure they are still better than the normal 1.4tsi engine though.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-engineers-admitted-manipulating-co2-11023327.html

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-engineers-admitted-manipulating-co2-11023327.html

Interesting! So maybe accounts for 4 or 5% difference?

Hyundai were found making similar claims in the US and other countries for all their vehicles for years and that cost them only us$300m in fines and a couple o billion in compensation.

They had to give Pre Paid Fuel Cards to owners in Canada and North America.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-engineers-admitted-manipulating-co2-11023327.html

That might explain how they came up with numbers for my car, Ive never managed to get close to the official consumption.

Official Consumption was never said to be anything to do with driving the car on the road.

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx

They were even cheating the EU Tests for just Comparisons with other vehicles though.

2.0TSI.  I pay montly (~£17) so £200 probably isn't the right amount.  It won't be less, I know that for sure ha

 

I have a mk2

I have a mk2

Ok, but then why are you commenting on the mk3 part of the forum?

Ok, but then why are you commenting on the mk3 part of the forum?

 

Ever so sorry, didn't know mk2 owners were banished from here...

 

Because I searched the forum for threads about the emissions and commented on it without realising it was the MK3 section. The thread is not mk specific so why does it matter?

No beef just would have saved alot of confusion that's all, had a few of of us scratching our heads

So just had a call from the dealer, and was informed mine is affected by the emissions. Vrs tdi combi with dsg! They said they didnt know what fix was yet and would be back in touch in January..

So just had a call from the dealer, and was informed mine is affected by the emissions. Vrs tdi combi with dsg! They said they didnt know what fix was yet and would be back in touch in January..

Not sure if I missed specific model details re this but I put my vin into skoda web site and it said mine wasn't affected, being a 2014 14 plate VRS TDi manual. So reading the above I am confused as why manual is not affected but DSG is????

Mine is a 64 plate, hadnt seen anything to say vrs was part of it. So was quite suprised.

Mine is a 64 plate, hadnt seen anything to say vrs was part of it. So was quite suprised.

So just had a call from the dealer, and was informed mine is affected by the emissions. Vrs tdi combi with dsg! They said they didnt know what fix was yet and would be back in touch in January..

Which supposed cheat is affecting yours? The NoX cheat or this apparent CO2 cheat. Reason being, the Mk3 has a different engine to the engine type we keep hearing about. Dont think ive heard of any Mk3s having been affected yet.