9 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

 

1) The speed limit, officer.

2) None, except for squeezing past blind spots and past annoying drivers (I used ACC). If I wasn't using ACC it'd be just a few mm of travel, as you barely have to press the throttle to maintain 70/80 on a run. Not sure how relevant that is though?

3) I don't really see what difference DCC makes to handing the power so to speak. I can light the front wheels up if I try, and occasionally on wet roundabouts if pulling out with too much right foot at the same time as applying a sharp steering angle, but 99% of the time it's spot on. Handling is very decent for its size and weight, and it handles corners at speed very well. For good handling you want to focus on quality tyres and driver training, rather than DCC or 4x4. A well trained driver on premium (winter where applicable) tyres will go (and stop!) many places 4x4 won't take you.

 

What's your annual (or weekly) mileage driven on average? Also, I know you said you get 40mpg (to a tank?) but what about local short trips and 'on a run'? I do mostly city driving, from cold, for short journeys (mostly less than 2 miles) and we get 32mpg to a tank. When I'm driving properly I average closer to 38mpg a tank. It's almost impossible to give comparisons as everyone's driving conditions and driving style are so vastly different. Temperatures play a big role too, and winter will see much reduced economy (so today I got early 40s after about half an hour on the motorway, but in summer would easily get mid 40s very quickly without trying). As a general rule our 220 is as economical on the motorway (and sometimes better!) than our previous 2.0 CTDI 165ps, though that was a particularly poor engine imho. Around town on short journeys it's a little worse perhaps (early 30s), but if we go any distance (e.g. 5 miles across town) it's mid to late 30s depending on the weather and traffic.

 

During this cold weather we get about 38 mpg at a steady 80mph cruise on the motorway (having spent the first 5 miles on A and B roads from a dead cold start). Driving at 70mph (which I tend to do, especially with kids in the car) it's early to mid 40s mpg all day long. The 220 is fairly long geared compared to the 280, and is really very economical compared to other similar engines (e.g. the EcoBoost). For example 70mph in top gear is about 1,800rpm and 80mph is about 1,900rpm. There's literally a hair in it. Once it's warm - oil, not the water - it's a very economical beast. Bursts of acceleration don't really dip the economy once it's properly hot, and if they do it recovers in a few seconds. You can cruise at 80 with bursts of 90 or so and still be tipping 40mpg. This is all assuming journeys of an hour or less. Longer journeys are, predictably, even more economical again.

 

It's not just about the cost of fuel, it's the refinement, pace, comfort and pleasure the engine brings. Unless you do moon miles and lots of town work, you'd probably not notice the difference! That's especially true coming from a 4x4. I must admit I'm a cured/reformed MPG watcher. I'd had mostly diesels until a couple of years ago, but my next car is going to be a 5.0 supercharged V8... You're a long time dead.

Thanks for the reply rainmaker I've always enjoyed your posts, the 40 I quoted is a rough est,I would say 32 ish in town 42 ish at 80mph motaway. Late 40s warm on a Sunday drive,outside temperature makes a massive difference.as for handling/steering, wonder if it is any better than my mk2? Which is ok at  up to 50-60% push any harder and it's past it's limits.but That's not the point.nobody is gonna buy the superb for its handling, it's the alround package I suppose.looking forward to your posts when you get your V8 lol

 

On 2/2/2017 at 07:55, penguin17 said:

If I didn't have to worry about doing 25K a year then I wouldn't even give it a second thought.  Hopefully by the time I'm ready for a new car I won't be doing as many miles.  Going to go for a full fat petrol next, for sure! 

 

Did you get your car from Trans City?  Warren and Terry sold me my first Skoda, Mk2 Octy vRS.  Watching them get it down from the top floor showroom was like a game of Tetris

 

30k miles pa here and I still got the 280. Although I seem to be getting 400 miles from a tank. Pretty impressive considering the power on tap and the mixed driving I do.

9 minutes ago, indyjukebox said:

 

30k miles pa here and I still got the 280. Although I seem to be getting 400 miles from a tank. Pretty impressive considering the power on tap and the mixed driving I do.

Do you pay your own fuel bills? If so, wow!  

 

I got sick (and skint) of filling up my petrol Octy vRS every 3-4 days.  If I can get my milage to <15K in the next few years then I'm going back to petrol. 

17 minutes ago, penguin17 said:

Do you pay your own fuel bills? If so, wow!  

 

I got sick (and skint) of filling up my petrol Octy vRS every 3-4 days.  If I can get my milage to <15K in the next few years then I'm going back to petrol. 

 

Well, I get a small amount of business miles paid back. If you think this is bad, I had a Focus ST a few years ago. That used to gulp petrol and I was doing about 35k pa.

 

Have tried the diesel route in the past and really hated the whole experience. Including getting my hands dirty every time I filled up. Yuck!

6 hours ago, penguin17 said:

Do you pay your own fuel bills? If so, wow!  

 

I got sick (and skint) of filling up my petrol Octy vRS every 3-4 days.  If I can get my milage to <15K in the next few years then I'm going back to petrol. 

 

No offence to indyjukebox, as he made an excellent choice... However, I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a 'wow!' decision. Even being conservative and allocating the 280 at 35mpg combined (it'd be closer to 40 with a lot of motorway), and 45mpg for a similar derv, the saving works out under £1,000pa or £20 a week. Now then, a big juicy petrol... or a flat dreary dagdag to save myself two packs of fags a week? Bring on the super unleaded... 

4 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

 

No offence to indyjukebox, as he made an excellent choice... However, I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a 'wow!' decision. Even being conservative and allocating the 280 at 35mpg combined (it'd be closer to 40 with a lot of motorway), and 45mpg for a similar derv, the saving works out under £1,000pa or £20 a week. Now then, a big juicy petrol... or a flat dreary dagdag to save myself two packs of fags a week? Bring on the super unleaded... 

I'll admit it; I wish I got the 280.  Happy now! 

 

TBF though, my Leon has 232BHP and 500Nm of torque so it's not exactly a slouch for a "flat dreary dagdag".  It's left a few Golf R's wondering 'WTF just happened?!' 

41 minutes ago, penguin17 said:

I'll admit it; I wish I got the 280.  Happy now! 

 

TBF though, my Leon has 232BHP and 500Nm of torque so it's not exactly a slouch for a "flat dreary dagdag".  It's left a few Golf R's wondering 'WTF just happened?!' 

 

Haha I was being fatuous/sarcastic, of course... But still, it's not just headline figures. It's the area under the torque curve, the power band and the gearing. I don't care if a car has 1000Nm of torque if it lasts for 300rpm starting at 5,000rpm. My last diesel (ever) had 450Nm of torque, which sounds great until you realise it's from 1,750rpm to 2,200rpm. Bland, boring, monotonous, and not even good on fuel. Compare that to even 350Nm from 1,500rpm to 4,500rpm, or better yet a large NA which winds out to 8k rpm and just screams the whole way...  But then, we all drive petrols in here, so you already know that. If I wanted a simple motorway mile muncher / GT car and couldn't afford a flat 6 or V8 etc, I'd settle for a large 3.0+ 6 cylinder plus diesel, but it would be just that; a compromise.

 

Of course in an ideal world I'd be rich, and have a small low-powered RWD lightweight for the B roads, an AWD 2 seat or 2+2 seat NA sports coupe for blatting about in, and a large RWD 5.0 litre plus V8 (or above) for GTing. Back in the real world I have to compromise (there's that word again). Oh well.  

56 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

 

No offence to indyjukebox, as he made an excellent choice... However, I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a 'wow!' decision. Even being conservative and allocating the 280 at 35mpg combined (it'd be closer to 40 with a lot of motorway), and 45mpg for a similar derv, the saving works out under £1,000pa or £20 a week. Now then, a big juicy petrol... or a flat dreary dagdag to save myself two packs of fags a week? Bring on the super unleaded... 

 

My figures show a different story,  going on 400 miles to a tank (65 litres) in indy’s 280 that averages 28mpg:

 

8 hours ago, indyjukebox said:

 

30k miles pa here and I still got the 280. Although I seem to be getting 400 miles from a tank. Pretty impressive considering the power on tap and the mixed driving I do.

 

and I can easily get 700 miles from a tank (so an average of 48 mpg) that makes it an extra 2,024 litres PA so roughly £2.5K more (more than that if super unleaded is used)

 

I don’t care what the car revs to as the DSG changes the gears for me, yes in a manual then I may be interested in it revving higher, all I care about is how it gets from A to B,

 

The mileage I do (20k) would mean it’s still just under £2K PA dearer to run a petrol and as long as I am paying for the fuel that makes a big difference

@Gizmo68 It depends on driving style of course, but as indy himself said it's mixed driving. I'd be amazed if it wasn't significantly higher on the motorway, as our 220 (albeit longer geared) easily does mid 40s plus on a run and averages late 30s with a lot of city driving. It's horses for courses of course, and does depend on your wallet and your mileage. My point stands that like for like the petrol is the better drive and the money involved isn't massive. I'm assuming your 700 mile/tank, £2.5k cheaper PA car isn't putting out the best part of 300 horsepower, so it's not really a valid comparison. If I was on a budget and needed something better on my wallet I'd just get something like the 1.4 TSi or another 2.0 SkyActive NA petrol. As I said earlier our next car is very likely to be a 5.0 V8, but our mileage is so low (less than 15k a year) that it doesn't matter.  As an appliance I can well appreciate why diesels are so popular with the masses who don't give a jot about experience, NVH or driving dynamics. But that's not what I was talking about.  

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

@Gizmo68 It depends on driving style of course, but as indy himself said it's mixed driving. I'd be amazed if it wasn't significantly higher on the motorway,

 

If you read the official Skoda figures then they should ALL be much higher.

 

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

I'm assuming your 700 mile/tank, £2.5k cheaper PA car isn't putting out the best part of 300 horsepower, so it's not really a valid comparison. 

 

Agreed not quite, it’s ‘only’ 220 / 505Nm (actual dyno figures) but apart from traction (mine is only fwd) I doubt there would be much between the two on everyday driving (not talking about the traffic light grand prix).

 

I did seriously consider the 280, but didn’t really want 4x4 (that was a mistake) and the fuel economy just made it impractical for me, my 20K is mainly commuting on fast A roads / dual carriageways so on my commute there would be little benefit (not to mention some of the 2Ltr TSi engines are not exactly renowned for their quietness.)

5 hours ago, Gizmo68 said:

 

My figures show a different story,  going on 400 miles to a tank (65 litres) in indy’s 280 that averages 28mpg:

 

 

and I can easily get 700 miles from a tank (so an average of 48 mpg) that makes it an extra 2,024 litres PA so roughly £2.5K more (more than that if super unleaded is used)

 

I don’t care what the car revs to as the DSG changes the gears for me, yes in a manual then I may be interested in it revving higher, all I care about is how it gets from A to B,

 

The mileage I do (20k) would mean it’s still just under £2K PA dearer to run a petrol and as long as I am paying for the fuel that makes a big difference

 

Ok, I didnt quite run it dry before refilling. More like 58L and 400 miles with mixed driving. So 32 mpg I think. I was pleasantly surprised, thought it would be a lot worse.

 

To be fair though, I am slightly odd in that I am willing to take the financial hit in exchange for a car that I really enjoy driving. I did contemplate a V8 Mustang, but had to say no as it wouldnt fit my family! Now that might have hurt the wallet a bit more!

 

I have had a Volvo D5 and a BMW 335d in the past. Both fast effortless cruisers, but ultimately lacking something. Plus add in the diesel NVH issues, lack of fun and I dont think I would ever want to go back to a diesel. Driving to work today through the twisty back roads of Sussex made me realise how nice the 280 is and how slick the DSG is in manual mode.

 

But I completely accept that 99.9% of people would choose the sensible diesel over the 280. I am just the odd one out. I did drive a 220 as well and it was very nice too!

Edited 8 February, 20179 yr by indyjukebox

2 hours ago, indyjukebox said:

 

I am just the odd one out.

 

We're a dying breed, but who cares? I'd think nothing of doubling our fuel bill if it meant a nicer car. Get yourself a RaceChip Response Control pedal box if you really want to see the back roads come alive, it really helps on the higher limit A roads as well. A few of us 220 and 280 owners have them. 

 

The Mustang is a fantastic bit of kit for the money, lovely engines; but as you say it's a 2+2 and not great for family life as such. I'm going after a used Jaguar XFR (5.0 supercharged V8, 510ps, 8 speed ZF) next I think, though I'm open to a nearly new 530i or 540i or similar. I miss having a manual when I'm not in the city centre, but we'll see. I do love the balance of the Jags though, excellent chassis and handling but very luxurious and understated. Judging from the real world economy on both cars, I should expect to pay maybe an extra £20 to £30 a week on fuel compared to what we do now, which is nothing. You can't spend it when you're dead! 

 

I went out for a hoon tonight for a couple of hours, just got back in. It's always good to blow out the cobwebs once a week or so; mine and the car's! It's exactly 0 degrees here atm, so the country roads (NSL, unlit, ditches either side of the lanes) were good fun on the bends in the icy darkness!  It's quite mentally tiring after a couple of hours, you don't realise until you stop! Bloody good fun though, and the car really carries its weight well on the back roads so long as you balance it right on the throttle before you drive through. I got some great overtakes in, also. King of the road. 

Edited 9 February, 20179 yr by Rainmaker
Formatting derp...

8 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

The Mustang is a fantastic bit of kit for the money...

I couldn’t disagree more: I think it looks cheap, feels cheap, drives cheap and it actually isn’t cheap enough for all its cheapness.

But of course, these choices are all (sometimes big) compromises. In my case, and despite doing 20k or more a year, I’m still very pleased I went for petrol after 20 years of diesel. So, fully in agreement with you there, Rainmaker.

I would have bought a Mustang if they had been more available. Red. I grew up in California and, as a teenager working in McDonald's®, remember watching the rich kid pull into the parking lot every Friday night in his Boss 302 Mustang. I've wanted one ever since. 

 

But, I talked myself out of the purchase by convincing myself it was too wide for London streets. I thought the Brera was too wide and the Mustang is 3.34" wider. Easy to talk yourself out of something when you can't have it anyway.

 

So, I bought a Sportline. Um, which is only 1.5" wider than the Brera. Oddly, it doesn't seem wide. Maybe because I'm sitting higher? Dunno...

 

I don't put many miles on my car and do a lot of short trips, so a diesel is out of the question. In any case, the asthmatic mayor of London is probably going to ban or penalise diesel cars in the not too distant future. I'm asthmatic, too, so good on 'im.

I need to report this post to the mods.  You're all fuelist 

I am currently driving a 2.0 petrol Mondeo TitX it is on a 57 plate with quite a few toys, converse+, blue tooth phone, nav and ACC however the ACC although good, and I do use it a lot even down to the 20 mph threshold, doesn't really go with a manual box.  

 

Also the Mondeo is about 150 BHP max so really looking forward to the step up of the 220 and ACC on the DSG, does it mean I am getting old and lazy no I am expecting an involved driving experience with improvements all round.

 

I get hovering around 30 mpg, and have done for the last 120k miles, so am hoping that this will improve with the S3, although as already expressed by others I am not only interested in fuel economy therefore have discounted a diesel.  Furthermore I had a barge in the early nineties and do not see me going back, especially with the increasing concern over emissions oh and the smell.

11 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

You can't spend it when you're dead! 

 

 

and you can't spend it if you don't have it....

17 minutes ago, Wet Kipper said:

 

and you can't spend it if you don't have it....

 

Very true indeed, been there! Most people who would struggle for an extra £10 or even £20 a week aren't driving brand new cars though.

@ Bud: What's wrong with old and lazy?

 

My TSI 220 DSG estate has averaged about 33mpg (official figure 44.8mpg, Honest John real figure 34.5mpg) over the last couple of thousand miles, mixture of quite a lot of London traffic and ~80mph motorway runs to work. For comparison I used to have an E300 diesel hybrid which averaged 43mpg (official figure 62.8mpg, Honest John real figure 47mpg) with about 50% more motorway driving because work used to be further away...

Edited 9 February, 20179 yr by IanJD

Cheers Ian so for diesel and petrol the ratio of real world to official figures is about 75% although the route mix was different.  

 

In terms of considering what to do I suppose you could do loads of analysis and develop your own algorithm for your usage scenarios and then plug in cost to buy, capital outlay for car and cost per litre versus resale value, capital recovery, and work out that you have saved tuppence ha'penny by doing option A over option H.

 

Or you could just think F*** it buy what you want and enjoy it

 

I also have motorbike that I will fill the tank, ~20 litres and just ride, possibly to buy fish and chips in a far away place and sit and get molested by the seagulls as I do it.  But I think I see situation as vehicles not just being tools but trying to get something you're happy with.  

 

I am trying to put a route together for when I get my car so I can go out and do 200-250, possibly more, mixed miles to get to know it and see how it works.  Not just going out because you have to go somewhere but going out for the enjoyment, don't think it would be the same in an old chugger.

 

BTW how much is a round of golf, or 20 fags, or a ticket to premiership football nowadays?

 

@freelunch  I do not think I am either old or lazy but there may be others that consider that to be the case.

@Wet Kipper Unfortunately many do spend what they do not have.

@ Bud: I also have a bike, though I mostly use it for touring rather than pleasure rides. But I know what you mean about just riding/driving for the pleasure of it. I don't think you will miss your manual at all. I find myself using the stick (push it to the left, it's in manual) more than the paddles as that's what I'm used to. Even in town, hills are better in manual as the auto can start to "hunt" a bit is some situations. 

 

But, if you're sitting in stop and go, rush hour traffic, the lazy old man auto works a treat.

5 hours ago, freelunch said:

@ Bud: What's wrong with old and lazy?

 

Nothing at all, I used to be young (er) & busy, but that was a while ago........

 

Retirement means Retirement...

 

DC

3 hours ago, Bud said:

Cheers Ian so for diesel and petrol the ratio of real world to official figures is about 75% although the route mix was different.  

 

In terms of considering what to do I suppose you could do loads of analysis and develop your own algorithm for your usage scenarios and then plug in cost to buy, capital outlay for car and cost per litre versus resale value, capital recovery, and work out that you have saved tuppence ha'penny by doing option A over option H.

 

Or you could just think F*** it buy what you want and enjoy it

 

I also have motorbike that I will fill the tank, ~20 litres and just ride, possibly to buy fish and chips in a far away place and sit and get molested by the seagulls as I do it.  But I think I see situation as vehicles not just being tools but trying to get something you're happy with.  

 

I am trying to put a route together for when I get my car so I can go out and do 200-250, possibly more, mixed miles to get to know it and see how it works.  Not just going out because you have to go somewhere but going out for the enjoyment, don't think it would be the same in an old chugger.

 

BTW how much is a round of golf, or 20 fags, or a ticket to premiership football nowadays?

 

@freelunch  I do not think I am either old or lazy but there may be others that consider that to be the case.

@Wet Kipper Unfortunately many do spend what they do not have.

"We're here for a good time, not a long time."

 

Enjoy all your wheels while you can.

 

Cheers, DC

On 2/8/2017 at 16:34, Rainmaker said:

 

No offence to indyjukebox, as he made an excellent choice... However, I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a 'wow!' decision. Even being conservative and allocating the 280 at 35mpg combined (it'd be closer to 40 with a lot of motorway), and 45mpg for a similar derv, the saving works out under £1,000pa or £20 a week. Now then, a big juicy petrol... or a flat dreary dagdag to save myself two packs of fags a week? Bring on the super unleaded... 

We could have bought a GTD Golf wagon, but we chose the R, 'cos it's more fun, & at our age we need the fun.......

 

DC