Estate vs Hatchback, Weight and MPG

[Pudq1]

Is the weight of the car a factor in the MPG of the estate or hatchback (Assuming the estate is heavier)? All I can seem to find on autotrader is estates but I dont need the extra room....

[Aspman]

It's probably less than the weight of an adult passenger and you don't think about that. Differences will be minimal or they'd list them.

[KenONeill]

It could be "small but critical"; there are some models where the provision of a spare wheel and tyre rather than a can of gloop takes them into a higher emissions band.

 

I'm not suggesting that this makes a difference that you'll notice "on the road", but I don't know why you're asking other than availability.

[Ootohere]

Checking the data. 

Then check the real world.

 

The Volkswagen way of weighing and emissions / MPG.

Where heavier an estate might still show as lower emissions and better economy and quicker.

(Some say it is the longer roof, at say 30 mph i doubt that.)

The reason being they cost more than a Hatch.

 

A Heavier Audi or VW will be better and faster than a cheaper Skoda or Seat. It is the VW Way.

 

With a Mk2 Fabia vRS Estate it was 5kg lighter than the hatch.  Salespeople boasted.

They put 25 kg ballast on the rear of the hatch though.

Did no good really, the Skoda hatch was still lighter than the sister hatches from VW & Seat.

They even fitted a spare wheel as standard on the Skoda, so 20kg more, and these were extra cost options on the VW, Seat & Audi with the same drive trains.

The Skodas were and are a VED class higher, even though lighter and actually no more emissions, just more from VWG Test Results.

Then there is the 5 doors only 25kg heavier than the 3 doors. sometimes pure fiction.

Vorsprung Durch Technik.  

Only trust the weigh bridge not Volkswagen Group Official Figures.

Edited 13 September, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[langers2k]

Looking at the November 2012 brochure, the estates are 15kg heavier than hatchbacks for the same engine (ignoring 4x4/scouts).

 

As for MPG, it claims there can be a ~2 MPG difference but in most cases should be the same. In the real world, I doubt there is much difference and if there is, it's more likely to be caused by the driver than the car.

[Phil-E]

If you compare a 2.0 CR 140 Hatchback to a 2.0 CR 140 Estate:

 

58mpg vs 57mpg

126 g/km vs 129 g/km

1320kg vs 1335kg

9.2 seconds vs 9.3 seconds to 60

 

So the differences are negligible.

[Ootohere]

But then those test figures can from a Vehicle in a temperature controlled building on a rolling road.

Basic car with no options and one example was tested even though it might not be representative, and it had no passengers or luggage.

Tests done at Kerb / Unladen weights. 

ie Fiction not friction.

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

 

Then 12 months ago VW were caught out, Defeat Devices in 11 million TDI's World Wide.

Then they were caught again.  CO2 Irregularities and cars 'Tested Mistakenly', and VED classes changed.

 

So pinch of salt required with All VW Group Vehicles Test Figures.

Now maybe time revised figures 'Post THE FIX',  should be published. 

Even ones in Temperature Controlled Buildings with Rolling Roads & friendly test establishments & Government Agencies.

Edited 13 September, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[Phil-E]

Yes but both were tested under the same conditions so it's a fair comparison between them... just not a fair representation of real world driving.

[Ootohere]

Really Fair?.  Or accurate, or honest. No more Das Auto!

 

Odd that CO2 Irregularities were on the VW, Audi & Seat vehicles and these had  various model figures changed.

Skoda had not to revise their test results.  As far as was announced.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-34712435

 

After mid December you will see the List of vehicles cheated or mis-tested Co2 results for vehicles from VW, Seat, Audi but it was like getting blood from a stone finding the complete list clearly showing all VW Group affected vehicles on one list.

Drip drip and announce slowly and at times to confuse the media with the NoX issues & Defeat Devices.

Edited 13 September, 2016 by GoneOffSKi

[Jevpls]

Interior space? Don't be fooled by the shape of the car. The estate and hatch are identical in length, the only difference is the roof height in the last couple of feet of the body length, and when you factor in a raised boot floor in the estate, trust me there is actually more usable space in the hatchback.

I find it hard to agree. I've driven both and even if the usual space is ~ the same then estate can be easily used for transporting larger goods (washing machine, fridge, furniture etc.).

I agree about other things you mentioned - easier parking etc.

 

These both types shouldn't be very different in fuel figures etc. I'd suggest an estate. It looks better. You say you don't need that additional space? You might not in an ordinary day but maybe once or twice per year you might need it and then you won't regret the estate you bought. You wouldn't believe what I've carried in my estate

[Jevpls]

Why the hell should I use that crappy false floor? It's ruining the idea of Octavia - it's all about the large boot

I had one when I bought my car but luckily I found one who bought that... a rubber mat to avoid dirt and that's all what I need.

Last week I carried a child bicycle, a child carriage, 4 new wheels, my little daugther and wife with me in the car. Seems like I could have have one more passenger as well. And all that without any particular trying to make everything as compact as possible.

[Jevpls]

Personally, although I agree it does take off some boot volume, I find the false boot floor incredibly useful and the area under mine is usually full. Absolutely ideal for storing two folded up dog cages, fold up camping chairs, dog bowls etc and anything else that would otherwise be rolling about in the boot. I'm looking for a false floor to put into the new hatch............

 

Mike

 

You gonna be kidding! It doesn't take some. It takes A LOT.

I don't find the place under the floor handy for storing stuff but whatever. If it's fine for you - that's good

OK, le'ts not bring this topic into nowhere. Probably this arguing won't help anyone.

[skinnyman]

I'm glad I bought the estate.  I had a Mk1 hatch for years and I find the added practicality of the estate worth the hassle of finding a good one in the first place.  It's great for throwing stuff in and the kids have even had a picnic in the boot one rainy day!

As for running costs, I'm averaging exactly 36mpg on Fuelly over a total of 5488 miles.  This doesn't compare favourably to a diesel variant I know, but I'm happy with that figure.  I think the estate is a nicer car to look at and people are quite surprised when it occasionally puts on a bit of a speed.  I'm with Mike on a remap making the car more flexible and improving MPG so I'm currently saving up for a custom map.  With this and a few other simple mods it'll be a great family car with enough poke to be entertaining when needed.

Edited 13 September, 2016 by skinnyman

[2goat]

Thanks for all the post on this. I was going to trade my hatch thinking I really needed an estate. I was hovering around thinking they have the same length and so it is. I'v even slept in the back of mine when I was camping and got naffed off with the tent in rain. I put a board along half the boot to bring it to the level of the lip at the back of the seat. Then lay a lounger mattress and slept full stretch no problem. I'm 6', 16 stone. Also had it loaded with lot's of kit. It's in good condition and being the first Skoda I'v had it's won me over no end. 

So instead of now looking for an estate I'll be keeping this and saving for a newer model Skoda next year. ( I'v had a quick go of a mates 2014 estate, 1.6 stop start but can see me going for a hatch again ) 

I'v had over 55mpg on long run's. I do think the hatch looks better than the estate also. Mates have been shocked at how big the boot is when I'v opened the tailgate. 

[Gerrycan]

I had a 1.9D mk2 Octavia estate and loved that car for all the reasons you offered.

There is very little weight difference (maybe 20kg) between estate and sedan/hatch for either mk2 or mk3 but the estate versions both have very slightly worse drag figures ('.01').

As stated by others above, in real life it would be difficult to register any difference for actual consumption between the two styles.

I'd agree about the more useful internal capacity and vision of the estate (assuming both are fitted with or without false floors).

Water does not run inside the boot area when you open the rear access of the estate.

You don't get roof rails on the sedan, and while I don't use them much they are so handy when I do.

 

Having said all that the Octavia sedan is a great car and infinitely more versatile than most other non-hatched sedans.

 

I was so happy with the 1.9D (no PDF equipped), even with the low 77kw power, I swore I would never by another petrol car, but when the Mk3 was released here in Australia the price premium for the diesel engine versions was much higher so I tried the base (here) 1.4tsi 103kw version.

To cut a long story short the test drives blew me and my wife away for performance (this is compared to the 1.9D of course) and we bought one.

There are a few people on the Mk3 forum who post their fuel consumption in their signatures and the three 1.4tsi users I remember are all showing long term averages of 45 to 47 mpg like mine. This compares quite favourably with many diesel averages which may be severely affected by too many short journeys and dpf regens.

Overall I'm getting about 5mpg less than what I got on the diesel for longer journeys and overall average.

I do a lot of short, low speed urban journeys which are totally unsuitable for a dpf equipped diesel.

In the interest of fair reporting there is one 1.4tsi owner who only gets 30mpg, a self confessed leadfoot who is still happy with the result ('TMWNA' or the 'themanwithnoaim' has a certain.. ummm.... notoriety in the Mk3 forum).

 

At least try one when you go shopping for a newer car.

Edited 14 September, 2016 by Gerrycan

[Pudq1]

If I'm having trouble finding a 1.9 diesel (mk2), what would the next best diesel engine to buy be?? the 1.6 (engine to small and sluggish?) or 2.0?? I really dont want to have to sway from buying a 1.9 but I might just have to if nothing comes up....

[Gerrycan]

If I'm having trouble finding a 1.9 diesel (mk2), what would the next best diesel engine to buy be?? the 1.6 (engine to small and sluggish?) or 2.0?? I really dont want to have to sway from buying a 1.9 but I might just have to if nothing comes up....

The 1.9D performance figures are, or were, quite modest really, but it had a fair low down punch. I've no experience of the 1.6D  (not available here in Australia) but the figures for it seem to offer similar performance but the delivery is different requiring more revs.

One of the overseas posts was complaining of poor performance and economy from his new 1.6D but things improved a lot when he revved it a bit more.

From others reports the 1.6D can give very good economy but nowhere near the official claims.

[softscoop]

I would be surprised if you're struggling to find a decent 1.9 TDI.

 

There are a lot of them about, and you can afford to be picky.

 

I'd definitely go straight for an estate again. The car is exactly the same dimensions as a hatch, but infinitely more practical.

 

I'm with Mike on the false floor. Mine has folding crates, shopping bags, de-icer, jump leads etc. All completely out of the way leaving the rest of the boot free for the shopping to roll around in.

Edited 14 September, 2016 by softscoop

[Jevpls]

If I'm having trouble finding a 1.9 diesel (mk2), what would the next best diesel engine to buy be?? the 1.6 (engine to small and sluggish?) or 2.0?? I really dont want to have to sway from buying a 1.9 but I might just have to if nothing comes up....

 

According to information on internet, 1.6 offers the same performance as 1.9 does.

Power: 105 hp;

Torque: 250 Nm;

Max torque: 1900 rpm;

The only difference: for 1.6 max power is at 4400 rpm. For 1.9 it is @ 4000 rpm. Not a big deal I'd say.

 

2.0 is a different thing. 140 hp, 320 Nm torque.

[Ootohere]

If they do currently maybe best not put a 1.6 TDI CR in for 'The Fix'.

or maybe do and then invoice Skoda / VW next time there is a EGR Valve issue.