New Petrol Octavia Estate. 1.8 L & K or 2.0 vRS DSG?

[loadswine]

Well, I would have to say to the OP, that I wouldn't swap my VRS for the 1.8. The engine is an absolute peach, in terms of power delivery and general grunt. 40 plus on a run, is not too bad. The handling tweaks and larger brakes, all add to the package for me, so all in all, very pleased with the VRS.

Just my viewpoint, some obviously prefer the 1.8 package. I would say to the OP, its a matter of what the biggest priorities are, for the main driver.

[lol-lol]

Well, I would have to say to the OP, that I wouldn't swap my VRS for the 1.8. The engine is an absolute peach, in terms of power delivery and general grunt. 40 plus on a run, is not too bad. The handling tweaks and larger brakes, all add to the package for me, so all in all, very pleased with the VRS.  Just my viewpoint, some obviously prefer the 1.8 package. I would say to the OP, its a matter of what the biggest priorities are, for the main driver.

 

I was running these two at the same time in Mk2 Face Lift versions.  The petrol VRS was OK but the engine ran out of revs to quick and I found that the half a second quicker 0-60 did not justify the 100 miles less range than the 1..8 TSI L&K DSG.  The nicer interior with the Alcantara leather, heated seats, adaptive headlights were more of a draw than lowered suspension, one inch bigger wheels to me do lots of miles.

 

I think the same appears to be true in the Mark 3s but I was worried about losing 5 litres off the fuel tank size and whether the quoted improvement was true or VAG b*llsh*t on the supposed and quoted MPG improvement or whether the true range of the vehicle had actually decreased from Mk 2 to 3.

[pipsyp]

To be fair the 220 is quite a move on from the 200....lots more torque....and quite a bit more beefy than the current 1.8.

The 1.8 is sweet and revs well but then Im pretty sure the 2.0 now revs nearly as hard.....the 230 has a 7 or 7.2k cut out now.

Agree on the range though.....my GTD might crack 450 miles if run right down....my previous 170 CR Octavia could do 500 without much effort. I think it would be better if the light came on with just a few litres left rather than the several it does so now....truth is you could probably quite easily eek out another 70/80 miles from a TDI once the range is at zero but who is going to want to do it?

[old newbie2]

It is that the DQ250, in the mark 2 and 3 Octavia, makes the car thirstier, slower, higher CO2 compared to the manual.  Also had 3 DQ250s, thought it a good choice over the 5 speed manual matched with the old 1.9 PD.

 

With the DQ200, sadly only matched to the similar but shorter stroke higher revving EA888, the 7 speed box makes the car more economical, lower CO2 and more relaxed cruising than the manual.

 

It has been known for a decade or more that 7/8 speed boxes have advantageous in economy/performance over 6 speed ones and it is typical of VAG to not pass on the better tech to the Skoda brand.

 

I do not mind stopping every 300 miles/3 hours (or so) but to go back in to the fuel pumps is a pain.  Sometimes I will get hassle with processing my fuel car transaction as the system thinks I cannot possibly be buying fuel so soon so I have to go through extra verification of identity.

Interesting points, but we happily live with the minor real-world sacrifices re. performance, fuel consumption & emissions, for the relaxed drive that any good automatic provides. 

Very few drivers can replicate road-test performance figures, or would actually want in their own car, whereas in an automatic, is it little easier............. 

 

The newer DQ500 7-speed (600 Nm limit) would be nice to have in a Skoda, but yes, VAG are unlikely to let the budget brand have the new technology just yet.

 

I can't really think I could / would want to average 100 mph for three hours in any car, even where it's legal / possible, it's not the way I want to die.............& if you do have problems

buying so much fuel maybe you could use cash or another bank card?

 

Just a thought, maybe there is something to be said for Skoda to use older technology, if it still works, they aren't going to upset their economy-minded customers? 

[lol-lol]

To be fair the 220 is quite a move on from the 200....lots more torque....and quite a bit more beefy than the current 1.8.   The 1.8 is sweet and revs well but then Im pretty sure the 2.0 now revs nearly as hard.....the 230 has a 7 or 7.2k cut out now.  Agree on the range though.....my GTD might crack 450 miles if run right down....my previous 170 CR Octavia could do 500 without much effort. I think it would be better if the light came on with just a few litres left rather than the several it does so now....truth is you could probably quite easily eek out another 70/80 miles from a TDI once the range is at zero but who is going to want to do it?

 

The MQB chassis and a host of other improvements, probably actually worth £3.5 to £4K were very welcome and although the manual (petrol) VRS is PDQ and gets in to the sixes for the 0-60 (in controlled average conditions) what steered me away from continue the Mk1 through Mk 2 VRSs to a mark 3 was that I wanted an auto, wanted a car with 450/500 mile range and wanted a cracking deal.  The Mk 2 FL VRS cost £17K I recall.  

A Mk 3 VRS was going to cost thousands more and I was not hearing that the fuel consumption was actually 10% better than the 10% smaller fuel tank.  Bought a Fabia 2 VRS in late 11 and you could get 50 litres of fuel in that, all be it 98 octane, and I use to get 450 miles from that easily and got over 600 miles on a trip back and forth to Scotland.  

 

I have run the Fabia VRS nearly 20 miles past zero miles and I gather some have done 40 miles on other Skodas but unless you are Clarkson with backup crew who would risk it.  For those reasons I was out.  Still would consider a Fabia 3 VRS with a 192hp 1.8 TSI or a Superb with the 192 hp 1.8 TSI if they did them again in the UK.  

Edited 17 December, 2015 by lol-lol

[flybynite]

I think it all falls down to priorities and what the car is used for, as has been mentioned above.

 

For me petrol and 4x4 were higher up the list than what was fitted to the vRS, so that ruled out the vRS for me (and still does) If they ever do a TSi 4x4 VRS then that may be different.

 

As for the engine, I would have taken the 2.0 given the choice, but do I miss it or regret that choice, no, the 1.8 is a very good engine and I have not found it lacking for what I do, and with hindsight probably the better choice for me.

 

For the suspension, it has the multilink and AFAIK the 1.8 L&K does too. That was the greatest benefit. With it the car rides well on the 18s and is a pretty good allrounder as is. The standard multilink sits between the Scout and the VRS. It rides the potholed roads pretty well, yet still feels composed round corners. But....

 

The one thing I do notice is the steering. the variable ratio steering on the VRS is an improvement to the feel of the car. Although it was down the list of priorities it is something I feel lets the standard car down and something I do notice every now and again.

 

If all other things were equal, I would get the VRS for the steering alone, trouble is things were not equal and they rarely are. As it stands for me it is a small sacrifice for what is an extremely capable car.

[lol-lol]

Interesting points, but we happily live with the minor real-world sacrifices re. performance, fuel consumption & emissions, for the relaxed drive that any good automatic provides.   Very few drivers can replicate road-test performance figures, or would actually want in their own car, whereas in an automatic, is it little easier....The newer DQ500 7-speed (600 Nm limit) would be nice to have in a Skoda, but yes, VAG are unlikely to let the budget brand have the new technology just yet.   I can't really think I could / would want to average 100 mph for three hours in any car, even where it's legal / possible, it's not the way I want to die.............& if you do have problems

buying so much fuel maybe you could use cash or another bank card?  Just a thought, maybe there is something to be said for Skoda to use older technology, if it still works, they aren't going to upset their economy-minded customers? 

 

Agree with much of what you say. As I do a huge amount of miles, oft in the congested SE of England, an auto is a near must even with the buy penalty and the fuel etc penalties with some auto boxes but there are many other ie DQ200, ZF boxes ie BMWs, Jaag etc, where you do not have to put up with old tech like the DQ250 and the vehicle marque prices are closer than they have been  for years. 

Advice is that one should stop every two hours but, again like many, I have done it a few times when crusing in the upper 70s mph in the UK and driving straight for about four hours, sips of Red Bull etc keeping one going.  Similarly driving in France at 140/145 kph on the national routes (taking car not to arrive too early at the next toll both).  Driving, or worse being driven, at 200 kph plus, once in a tiny A class, are things I would rather not repeat but ground gets covered quickly but fuel does go at an alarming rate due to the cube law.  

Also, like many people, it is not actually a choice to use fuel cards, other cards or cash as to use the fuel card means company pays for the fuel and I just get hit with Benefit in Kind ie petrol is less than 40 p per litre, rather than a quid if I directly used my own money.  

  

Fortunately Renault/Dacia use dry clutches in their EDC setup like the VAG DQ200, good video from Renault as to reasons to be cheerful rather than the more energy sapping wet multi-plate clutch setups.

 

Edited 17 December, 2015 by lol-lol

[Gromle]

The 2wd 1.8tsi has the 7speed Dsg doesnt it?

Should get fairly decent mpg.

[lol-lol]

The 2wd 1.8tsi has the 7speed Dsg doesnt it?

Should get fairly decent mpg.

 

Linked to the third (or second) generation EA888 engine then DQ200 is a great combo.   Even with my second gen EA888 and DQ200 and "only" 160 hp it was good it so many ways.  Usually got well over 500 miles on a tankful.  0-60 in 7.5 seconds made it so much fun out pacing most of the two litre diesel cars and yet in 7th gear and max power at 4500 rpm, with a 7K red line, purring along in top gear at 70 mph with the tacho only just over a third way up the rev range (much like the 1.4L dual charge with the 7 speed DSG too) was an absolute pleasure.

 

Think my record was over 630 miles with both the 1.8 TSI Octy and the Fabia 2 VRS.   Seen so little feedback on the mpg and range of the mark three Octys which I take as not many seeing this aspect as somewhat disappointing.

 

Would still considering a 1.8 TSI L&K DSG as a motorway car if I could get 20% discount and figure out how to get 50 litres plus in the tank like I could venting the Fabia 2 VRS tank.    

Edited 18 December, 2015 by lol-lol

[Gerrycan]

Linked to the third (or second) generation EA888 engine then DQ200 is a great combo.   Even with my second gen EA888 and DQ200 and "only" 160 hp it was good it so many ways.  Usually got well over 500 miles on a tankful.  0-60 in 7.5 seconds made it so much fun out pacing most of the two litre diesel cars and yet in 7th gear and max power at 4500 rpm, with a 7K red line, purring along in top gear at 70 mph with the tacho only just over a third way up the rev range (much like the 1.4L dual charge with the 7 speed DSG too) was an absolute pleasure.

 

Think my record was over 630 miles with both the 1.8 TSI Octy and the Fabia 2 VRS.   Seen so little feedback on the mpg and range of the mark three Octys which I take as not many seeing this aspect as somewhat disappointing.

 

Would still considering a 1.8 TSI L&K DSG as a motorway car if I could get 20% discount and figure out how to get 50 litres plus in the tank like I could venting the Fabia 2 VRS tank.    

There have been a lot of posts on the mk3 tank capacity and lots of consumption claims for diesels and the 1.4tsi but I cannot recall any for the 1.8tsi.

In summary the 50 litre tank in the mk3 can take at least 55 litres, My last fill was just over 52 litres and got 860km (1.4tsi). Diesel owners complain that they get prompted to fill to early and then only get 40 to 45 litres in.

I would think the 1.8tsi with 7spd DSG would return similar economy at 70mph to my manual 1.4tsi because my rpm is fairly high at 2500 at that speed and I believe the 7 speed knocks 200 or 300 rpm off that.

At a steady smidge under 70mph (110kph) I get 48mpg.

Hopefully Mk3 1.8tsi owners can share theirs.

Edited 18 December, 2015 by Gerrycan

[lol-lol]

There have been a lot of posts on the mk3 tank capacity and lots of consumption claims for diesels and the 1.4tsi but I cannot recall any for the 1.8tsi.

In summary the 50 litre tank in the mk3 can take at least 55 litres, My last fill was just over 52 litres and got 860km (1.4tsi). Diesel owners complain that they get prompted to fill to early and then only get 40 to 45 litres in.  I would think the 1.8tsi with 7spd DSG would return similar economy at 70mph to my manual 1.4tsi because my rpm is fairly high at 2500 at that speed and I believe the 7 speed knocks 200 or 300 rpm off that.  At a steady smidge under 70mph (110kph) I get 48mpg.

Hopefully Mk3 1.8tsi owners can share theirs.

 

So how do you do it?  How do you get that extra 5 litres or so in the Mk 3 Octy?

 

With the Fabia 2 VRS you simply leaned the shoulder of the fuel filling head against the button on the right side of the car's filler neck where the valve is, you could hear it venting when you did, and then keep filling to it switched off and hence get 51 litres in a nominally 45 litre tank.  Worked fine many dozens of time if I was just heading out for a 100m/150km journey at least.    Thought the Octy 3 did not have the vent-expansion connector valve accessible when filling?  Is it just shear patience on filling?

 

Indeed must have been doing around 50 mpg to get over 600 miles/1000 km out of Mk 2 tank.  Fairly ideal conditions ie very long journey, ie 300-400 km to overcome the first 10 km usual rubbish starting MPG. Not is a rush, probably cruising 100-115 kph, some variable speed area controlled down to 80 kph, sensible 205 tyres set at around 2.5 bar ie not the 225 option guzzlers.  630 miles from the Fabia 2 VRS I am most proud of.

 

If I knew I could get 52-55 litres in the Octy 3, and SUK played ball on prices like they use to 5 years ago, then I would be more tempted.  

Edited 18 December, 2015 by lol-lol

[vRSAnt]

I think they are very similar choices, the L&K being better overall obviously (my fathers L&K is above any beyond mine in almost all areas, but not as quick).

 

I'd still have his over mine though, despite being a tadge quicker ( standard ), its better in almost every way, although the vRS certainly has its own character and is one hell of a car too.

 

But I don't think there is that much less in it between the 1.8 and 2.0 (and other models like the 1.4 where the performance differences are more notable), you will hardly miss it IMO and the benefits of the L&K are above any beyond justification, unless you are really looking for all out performance I'd say.

[old newbie2]

Thanks very much for all of your interesting & helpful advice.

 

Since this is to be a replacement for 't wife's 4 year old Octy vRS, then we are.not too worried about extended range & fuel consumption, more that

any new car should be "better" than her existing car without any real loss of performance.

 

F.W.I.W. her car has covered 10k miles in the 32 months that she has owned it, has been re-mapped to 257 bhp &  298 ft/lbs, but is returning 36 mpg.

So, she does not push the car very hard, but likes to have a little performance in hand when it's needed................  

 

What we do want is perhaps hard to find, but it's worth a try, & since we both like Skoda's it's worth investigating the current Octavia.

 

Other options could include a Golf GTi, which she quite likes, but it is quite expensive for a small car with a small boot.

(We have one of those already, it's called an Eos..........) 

 

A Leon ST would work too, but the interior is so drab, an Audi is out of the question maybe a Focus ST but maybe a little too hard-core, & an A class Mercedes 

is just too expensive.

 

The Octy vRS 230 does tick many of the boxes, especially with memory seats, & built-in nav, but has Tonka-Toy wheels.........

 

So, maybe a L & K, or a well-optioned vRS will do?

 

Thanks again folks.

 

 

David C

[lol-lol]

Thanks very much for all of your interesting & helpful advice.  Since this is to be a replacement for 't wife's 4 year old Octy vRS, then we are.not too worried about extended range & fuel consumption, more that any new car should be "better" than her existing car without any real loss of performance.  F.W.I.W. her car has covered 10k miles in the 32 months that she has owned it, has been re-mapped to 257 bhp &  298 ft/lbs, but is returning 36 mpg. So, she does not push the car very hard, but likes to have a little performance in hand when it's needed................  

 

What we do want is perhaps hard to find, but it's worth a try, & since we both like Skoda's it's worth investigating the current Octavia.

Other options could include a Golf GTi, which she quite likes, but it is quite expensive for a small car with a small boot.

(We have one of those already, it's called an Eos..........)  A Leon ST would work too, but the interior is so drab, an Audi is out of the question maybe a Focus ST but maybe a little too hard-core, & an A class Mercedes is just too expensive.

The Octy vRS 230 does tick many of the boxes, especially with memory seats, & built-in nav, but has Tonka-Toy wheels.........

So, maybe a L & K, or a well-optioned vRS will do?

Thanks again folks.

David C

 

Chipping the 1.8TSI is very effective as it produces peak power in the mid range in standard tune.

 

240-250 hp and 0-60 in less than 7 seconds.

 

7 speed will take 380 NM apparently though 400k km life may be shortened proporationally.  Even a no more torque but more power through revs can still give the above sort of power. 

 

https://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_18tsi_gen3_trans.html

Edited 18 December, 2015 by lol-lol

[pipsyp]

Leasing a Golf R estate wouldnt be a bad way to go. Some reasonable deals and could represent fairly cheap 2 or 3 years of motoring for what you get.

300 horses...wont need tuning, all weather traction and v practical....doesnt exactly want for equipment stock either....10k over nearlh 3 years would suggest to me that Sat Nav isnt a necessity.

Its worth considering DC... if I find myself in the right set of circumstances (i.e Im shot of my Octavia and perhaps dont happen to have my company Mk7 GTD anymore) i'll be leasing one for the wife as our family car and for me to enjoy as and when.

[old newbie2]

Chipping the 1.8TSI is very effective as it produces peak power in the mid range in standard tune.

 

240-250 hp and 0-60 in less than 7 seconds.

 

7 speed will take 380 NM apparently though 400k km life may be shortened proporationally.  Even a no more torque but more power through revs can still give the above sort of power. 

 

https://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_18tsi_gen3_trans.html

According to the July '15 Octy brochure, the 1.8 TSi produces 180 ps from 5100 to 6200 rpm.

That's mid-range? (I think the red-line is at 6500 rpm.)

From the same brochure the 2.0 TSi produces 220 ps from 4500 to 6200rpm, & that seems to be a little more mid-range than the 1.8.

Not really surprising, in 2.0 form it's a long stroke engine & they generally more torquey...........

 

Her current car makes 220 bhp from app. 4000 to 6500 rpm, & 210 ft/lbs from 2500 to 5900 rpm, so it's quite flexible & manages quite well with the 6-speed DSG......

 

A tweaked 1.8 could be good fun, but I would have qualms about the longevity of the transmission, & any issues that might result during the warranty period.

 

Maybe better to choose a vRS 230, & leave the remapping until it's out of warranty.

There are a few used 230's out there, ex demonstrators, might be worth making enquiries.

 

DC

 

Leasing a Golf R estate wouldnt be a bad way to go. Some reasonable deals and could represent fairly cheap 2 or 3 years of motoring for what you get.

300 horses...wont need tuning, all weather traction and v practical....doesnt exactly want for equipment stock either....10k over nearlh 3 years would suggest to me that Sat Nav isnt a necessity.

Its worth considering DC... if I find myself in the right set of circumstances (i.e Im shot of my Octavia and perhaps dont happen to have my company Mk7 GTD anymore) i'll be leasing one for the wife as our family car and for me to enjoy as and when.

Good point, she did enjoy the test drive in an R hatch-back.

 

Where do you start with non-business leasing, + we would like to P/X her current car, which is possibly difficult?

 

DC

[lol-lol]

According to the July '15 Octy brochure, the 1.8 TSi produces 180 ps from 5100 to 6200 rpm.  That's mid-range? (I think the red-line is at 6500 rpm.)

From the same brochure the 2.0 TSi produces 220 ps from 4500 to 6200rpm, & that seems to be a little more mid-range than the 1.8.

Not really surprising, in 2.0 form it's a long stroke engine & they generally more torquey...........

Her current car makes 220 bhp from app. 4000 to 6500 rpm, & 210 ft/lbs from 2500 to 5900 rpm, so it's quite flexible & manages quite well with the 6-speed DSG......

A tweaked 1.8 could be good fun, but I would have qualms about the longevity of the transmission, & any issues that might result during the warranty period.

Maybe better to choose a vRS 230, & leave the remapping until it's out of warranty.

There are a few used 230's out there, ex demonstrators, might be worth making enquiries.

DC

 

It is odd, that was is basically the same EA888 engine, Gen2 against Gen3,  the red line has been moved down by 500 rpm  for Gen 3!

 

The 1.8 TSI, based on the Skoda brochure figures is producing 176 hp at 5k revs and 160 hp at 4.5 revs according to 2 x Pi x N x T so same as my Gen 2 engine but rolling road measurement below shows torque and power actually measured as higher and the peak power in both standard and tuned modes as occurring at 5300 rpm.  Being interesting to see where the DSG box actually changes the revs but to see that on an digital tacho rather than the analogue one in the car which would be inaccurate like any such dial.  Even keeping the torque at 250NM it would produce 220 hp at 6100.  

If VAG use the similar crank dimensions, and both being EA888s it implies so, then the 1.8TSI would probably be stronger with the shorter stroke.  I seem to remember the fastest times at the GTI Int was a 1.8T !  

 

Edited 19 December, 2015 by lol-lol

[Gerrycan]

There are no tricks to getting 'more' in the Mk3 50L tank, after the first click I slow fill for about a 1 minute to get another 2 or so litres in.

The warning light on my car comes on after about 48 litres are used and I know there is at least 7L left in the tank (another Euro based contributor once showed photo evidence off having squeezed over 55L of petrol in.... and he must have driven it onto the forecourt to do so).

It seems standard for VAG vehicles to be able to hold at least 5 litres more than specified.

The Mk2 was officially 55L but there was one claim where someone actually put 64L in.

The other alternative to get a bigger tank in an Octavia is to get an AWD version, which is supposed to be 55L (so 60L).

 

Picking up on another theme here about the 1.8T. The 2WD version run at 250Nm of torque and uses the lower rated 7 speed dry DSG.

The Scout is available here in Australia with 1.8T producing 280Nm and equipped with the higher rated 6 speed wet DSG so there are RHD versions produced.

I know it is not available in the UK yet but presume that with diesel going environmentally 'out of fashion' it may happen sooner than later.

It would be a good basis for tuning, with better traction and the larger fuel tank. Or Skoda could just produce an AWD petrol vRS and then everyone would be happy.

[old newbie2]

Leasing a Golf R estate wouldnt be a bad way to go. Some reasonable deals and could represent fairly cheap 2 or 3 years of motoring for what you get.

300 horses...wont need tuning, all weather traction and v practical....doesnt exactly want for equipment stock either....10k over nearlh 3 years would suggest to me that Sat Nav isnt a necessity.

Its worth considering DC... if I find myself in the right set of circumstances (i.e Im shot of my Octavia and perhaps dont happen to have my company Mk7 GTD anymore) i'll be leasing one for the wife as our family car and for me to enjoy as and when.

It's something of a left-field thought, but a 280ps, AWD Superb Estate in SE-L trim is probably cheaper (£32k'ish) than a Golf R wagon, has a 66 litre fuel tank & decent build quality.

 

T' is a bit large for a shopping trolley though...............

 

DC

[lol-lol]

It's something of a left-field thought, but a 280ps, AWD Superb Estate in SE-L trim is probably cheaper (£32k'ish) than a Golf R wagon, has a 66 litre fuel tank & decent build quality.

T' is a bit large for a shopping trolley though...............

DC

 

So many advantages for the Superb and especially the 280hp AWD, it is just the £36K price tag but a huge discount for the great machine and I expect the cops to be lining up for them to replace their V6 Superbs.

 

With the 155mph/250kph limiter removed 165 mph is possible for Germany and pursuits.

 

Surprise Skoda/VAG have not come out with "we pay the VAT" type deals to rejuvenate sales after the emission fiasco.    

[pipsyp]

Sat in a Superb at the dealers yesterday.....didnt go into detail to check exactly what model it was but was either a spec'd up SE-L Exec or a stock L&K. Had full leather, electric memory seats, Canton, power tailgate etc.

It was v nice and immediately could appreciate that it just felt that bit more robust and substantial than the Octavia....more a quality product.

Things like the boot torneau cover that was spring loaded with half way retraction and the interior was v nice.

I however couldnt stomach paying over £30k for one...the reality is that it represents alot of car for the money but I still just could not bring myself to pay pseudo-exec car money for a Skoda....I just cant rationalise it.

I guess you cant really compare a Superb 280 to an R either really.....the Superb will be quick for a big car but will be nothing like as fun or immersive to drive. I suppose if you value size and toys over outright performance and driving experience (i.e want something quick to waft about in rather than something v quick that is a real drivers car) then the Superb makes alot of sense.....Id want a massive discount on it though.

[glosrich]

According to the July '15 Octy brochure, the 1.8 TSi produces 180 ps from 5100 to 6200 rpm.

That's mid-range? (I think the red-line is at 6500 rpm.)

From the same brochure the 2.0 TSi produces 220 ps from 4500 to 6200rpm, & that seems to be a little more mid-range than the 1.8.

Not really surprising, in 2.0 form it's a long stroke engine & they generally more torquey...........

Her current car makes 220 bhp from app. 4000 to 6500 rpm, & 210 ft/lbs from 2500 to 5900 rpm, so it's quite flexible & manages quite well with the 6-speed DSG......

A tweaked 1.8 could be good fun, but I would have qualms about the longevity of the transmission, & any issues that might result during the warranty period.

Maybe better to choose a vRS 230, & leave the remapping until it's out of warranty.

There are a few used 230's out there, ex demonstrators, might be worth making enquiries.

DC

Good point, she did enjoy the test drive in an R hatch-back.

Where do you start with non-business leasing, + we would like to P/X her current car, which is possibly difficult?

DC

Many personal leasing firms around now. What car has a load listed in the back pages.

Nationwide vehicle contracts has a good website also.

Check we buy any car website for a guide on your px price.

Edited 20 December, 2015 by glosrich

[old newbie2]

Many personal leasing firms around now. What car has a load listed in the back pages.

Nationwide vehicle contracts has a good website also.

Check we buy any car website for a guide on your px price.

Thanks, will make some enquiries.

 

DC

[Gromle]

Regarding fuelconsumption, Ive just read an article about the official consumption and how they deviate from real life consumption.

They tested over 200 cars, and the 1.8Tsi dsg7 was one of the best in its class. Only 3% higher real life consumption than the official consumption.

The vRS was not in the test.

[lol-lol]

Regarding fuelconsumption, Ive just read an article about the official consumption and how they deviate from real life consumption.

They tested over 200 cars, and the 1.8Tsi dsg7 was one of the best in its class. Only 3% higher real life consumption than the official consumption.

The vRS was not in the test.

 

We have several sites in the UK usually tagged with either "Real" or "True" MPG" which make very interesting reading ie Fuelly, HonestJohn and Whatcar.  

 

Mark 7 Golf platformed cars seem to report achieving about 80-85% of the published figures.

 

DSG are almost hard to be bad at getting the best from unless you forget and leave in Sports for too long and it is "only" in 6th gear instead of 7th.

 

Octy 3 TSI VRS not too great at 73% of quoted http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/skoda/octavia-vrs-2013 ie 34 mpg.

 

Similar Chassis-Engined A3 managed 45 mpg in the real mpg feedback http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/audi/a3-saloon-2013/18-tfsi-s-tronic

 

As I mentioned, having had both in Mark 2s, the 1.8 TSI DSG doing a hundred miles more range for half a second less acceleration, easy choice for me to go for L&K 1.8.

Edited 21 December, 2015 by lol-lol