Hi All

 

I have come across this car on autotrader

 

Skoda Octavia ELEGANCE TSI DSG Automatic 1.8 5dr

 

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201609137699178

 

 

This is pretty much what ive been after and the mileage is low. However from looking around i was under the impression that you could only get a petrol Elegance with a 1.4 tsi engine and this one appears to be a 1.8.

 

I thought it might be an older model but it does appear to have the diagonal lines by the number plate which i thought meant it was a mark 3.

 

Maybe an early mark 3?

 

It seems to have the main spec and be reasonably priced albeit not from an authorised dealer.

 

Am i missing anything obvious with this one?

 

 

 

It's a MKIII  :yes:

ok cool, thanks for that.  shows you how good my researching skills are.

DVLA says it's a 1.4, not a 1.8.

 

MOT is due in September 2017.

 

I'd be wondering why the mileage is SO low.

Edited 19 September, 20169 yr by FlyingGecko

Incorrectly listed by the dealer.

 

Reg plate comes back to a 1.4 engined vehicle.

Thanks all, thats some very useful info. Makes more sense as a 1.4 i suppose.

 

Of course its in Norwich and im in london but thats not insurmountable. I'd want to get someone to give the car a once over before i considered going down there but the deal looks pretty good.

 

I would definitely want to know why the mileage was so low.

 

Any other pertinent questions i should be asking when i speak to them tomorrow?

Drop into the local member section for that part of the world, and see if someone is nearby and can pop down

The 1.4 Tsi is a great wee engine and can be fairly frugal if you don't boot it. I got an indicated 59mpg from Perth to Inverness a few months ago-had it on adaptive cruise as it's average speed cameras for about 80 miles. Even 50 I would have been happy with

I think the 1.8Tsi is almost exclusively the L&K on the Mk3 ( father has one). Whilst on the Mk2 commonly possible on the Elegance.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd imagine the 1.8 mk3 other than L&K is rare to none-existant, so if you were looking for one you might be looking for rocking horse poo.

 

They are more expensive than a vRS too ! ( being the proper "top of the range" Octavia besides performance).

As yanto says - the 1.4 is a very good and frugal engine, and the DSG works well with it. Ignore scare stories about the DSG - reliability is on a par with any other auto box. VAG had it sorted before 2013.

 

The 1.4 is more than capable of shifting the Octavia - look at the performance figures on the Skoda site - the 1.5 offers only marginal gains. I only swopped my 1.4 for a vRS because I'd come from a Saab 9-5 with 220 bhp and was used to the better high speed acceleration, but under normal (cough) road use the 1.4 is very good, even with four up and a full boot.

 

You'll be getting lots of toys on the Elegance too, and a set of decent wheels. The dealer's an old family owned business with several franchises, so should be safe to do business with.

 

 

Dunno which side of London you are, but if you're northeast-ish I did a similar length trip twice when I got my old Saab, Liverpool to Birmingham once to look at it and a week later to collect.

I have no worries about the 1.4. I'm a pretty boring driver so I dont need anything too crazy. I'm going to give the dealer's a call in the morning to check they haven't got anything else wrong in the advert.

If it all checks out I'll find someone to give it a once over then hopefully arrange a visit.

I'm just north of London (borehamwood) so it wouldn't be too bad and well worth it if everything looks good

Don't worry about it needing more power, slap a tuning box and a Pedal box on it and it'll be faster than the 1.8

BUT and it's a big but, it won't be frugal unless you're driving miss Daisy

I find that very hard to believe.

Engine specs here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0koda_Octavia

 

0-60 1.8 is 7.3s,

versus 8.5 on the 1.4, almost a second slower.

 

Stage 1 apr on the 1.4 is 145 horsepower and 198lb-ft (the engine must already be quite stretched for a 1.4 and APR aren't keen to go heavy on improving on that for just 5hp !!).

They are already squeezing the same torque out the 1.4 TSi as the 1.8TSi so can't be that much headroom for improvement.

 

Standard 1.8 is 180hp (unmodified)!! So likelihood is the better engine to map is the 1.8 ( I think APR have that up to 234)

So clearly the 1.8 is the better engine.

 

Please explain to me where this myserious extra power is coming from! Unless you want to gamble reliability on pushing an already small engine even more than it already is. Not faster than the 1.8, thats ridiculous claim.

The 1.4 is by no means slow, its along the par of lots of "warm"ish hatches on the road like suzuki swift sport, mini cooper 1.6, most of that sort of thing.

So perfectly adequate at shifting the octy around, on the basis of what you were saying you need for sounds perfectly fine to tick your boxes.

 

Probably more frugal (esp for shorter journeys) but not as fast, as the bigger TSi engines

I find that very hard to believe.

Engine specs here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0koda_Octavia

 

0-60 1.8 is 7.3s,

versus 8.5 on the 1.4, almost a second slower.

 

Stage 1 apr on the 1.4 is 145 horsepower and 198lb-ft (the engine must already be quite stretched for a 1.4 and APR aren't keen to go heavy on improving on that for just 5hp !!).

They are already squeezing the same torque out the 1.4 TSi as the 1.8TSi so can't be that much headroom for improvement.

 

Standard 1.8 is 180hp (unmodified)!! So likelihood is the better engine to map is the 1.8 ( I think APR have that up to 234)

So clearly the 1.8 is the better engine.

 

Please explain to me where this myserious extra power is coming from! Unless you want to gamble reliability on pushing an already small engine even more than it already is. Not faster than the 1.8, thats ridiculous claim.

 

I think you might be mixing your PS and KW there. Most people reckon they will get around 180 bhp from the 1.4 with a box or remap. Whether that will be quicker than the stock 1.8 I don't know but probably be not that far off. (REVO do quote up to 200ps/147 KW)

 

If there is a 1.4 kicking out 147KW I certainly would not put money on mine beating it. (unless its wet !) 

There is one link here for the 1.4 - suggesting 145 but maybe I got the wrong one but its all APR mention

http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/ecu_upgrade_14tsi.html

 

Even the newer Golf 7 platform, which might be closer to the same engine, they are only pushing to 161 hp (on Ron 95).

http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/ecu_upgrade_14tsi_ea211.html

 

But in my opinion In real world terms its pretty foolish to take an already pushed turbocharged, small engine and map it even further beyond manufacturer limits, the 1.8 would make more sense to map.
 

And the 1.8 actually got more untapped power - is the point so its pretty pointless to go engine a is faster than engine b with mods to suite your argument, really.

The key point here is, if you want the slightly less power, more efficient model, get the 1.4.

 

Basically -If you want more power, get the 1.8, or even the vRS. If you want economy, get the 1.4. Simples.

I find that very hard to believe.

Engine specs here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0koda_Octavia

 

0-60 1.8 is 7.3s,

versus 8.5 on the 1.4, almost a second slower.

 

Stage 1 apr on the 1.4 is 145 horsepower and 198lb-ft (the engine must already be quite stretched for a 1.4 and APR aren't keen to go heavy on improving on that for just 5hp !!).

They are already squeezing the same torque out the 1.4 TSi as the 1.8TSi so can't be that much headroom for improvement.

 

Standard 1.8 is 180hp (unmodified)!! So likelihood is the better engine to map is the 1.8 ( I think APR have that up to 234)

So clearly the 1.8 is the better engine.

 

Please explain to me where this myserious extra power is coming from! Unless you want to gamble reliability on pushing an already small engine even more than it already is. Not faster than the 1.8, thats ridiculous claim.

 

To get back on course , the original post wasn't discussing tuning, and 0-60 doesn't have much relevance in the real world except in the traffic light grand prix.

Acceleration ability at 50-70 and 60-80 are more relevant, and that's where the 1.4 loses out to the likes of the vRS (and of course the 1.8, but to a lesser degree), but not by any degree to cause concern. The greater reserves of power in the bigger engines also show at the higher speeds. But the 1.4 is not underpowered for the Octy body, which I suspect was a query in DonDan27's mind.

As already mentioned in #15, hardly back on course, just repeating what I already said.

 

I was just addressing the point about the capability of the 1.4, being somewhat exhaggerated.

As already mentioned in #15, hardly back on course, just repeating what I already said.

 

I was just addressing the point about the capability of the 1.4, being somewhat exhaggerated.

 

 

I agree 100% with #15.

 

And it's economical on long trips too - 54 mpg on a fast 600 mile round trip from Cheshire to Kent with 60 stones of adult, luggage for four, and lots of pottering round the cinq ports.

I had an actual (Mk 2) 1.8 TSi (manual) Elegance and now have a 1.4 TSi. The performance feels hardly any different so long as you keep the revs up in the 1.4 (and I don't mean very high revs, just higher than you might need in the 1.8) 

 

I must say that on balance I preferred the Mk. 2 in a lot of ways, and if there had been a reasonable priced Mk.3 1.8 I'd probably have gone for that, but the 1.4 is very economic in tax, mpg and various other things, and I am happy with it.

 

p.s. how could the dealer get it so wrong !!?

According to the dealer it was something weird on the Autotrader website that changed it to being a 1.8

I see it frequently on AutoTrader. Dealers don't seem to double-check and proof read adverts!

 

I had an actual (Mk 2) 1.8 TSi (manual) Elegance and now have a 1.4 TSi. The performance feels hardly any different so long as you keep the revs up in the 1.4 (and I don't mean very high revs, just higher than you might need in the 1.8) 

 

I must say that on balance I preferred the Mk. 2 in a lot of ways, and if there had been a reasonable priced Mk.3 1.8 I'd probably have gone for that, but the 1.4 is very economic in tax, mpg and various other things, and I am happy with it.

 

Out of interest, how does economy compare - between the Mk2 1.8TSi and the Mk3 1.4TSi ?

According to the dealer it was something weird on the Autotrader website that changed it to being a 1.8

Weird = finger trouble

Weird indeed.

 

However, not being one to let a little finger trouble get in the way, i decided to go for it. Deposit paid and hopefully viewing/picking up on Saturday