Octavia 1.0 SE Estate

[Geek42]

You are probably right about DI but while I can understand higher nox from DI it seems a bit counterintuitive that a more efficient engine will produce more particulates.

 

I think the particulates are related to heavy load usage as you suggest. I think someone even told me that they inject fuel in the 'wrong' part of the cycle which remains unburned but acts as a coolant, and this is part of the issue, but I might have dreamt that!

 

The next marketing bonanza may well relate to compression ratios and engine capacities might become less talked about, but really I can't help but think that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Don't get me wrong, the 1.4TSi is a massively better engine in every respect than the normally aspirated 8v 2.0l that I had from the 1990's - it's pokier, more flexible, more efficient even in the real world - so downsizing has made improvements, but if the government encourages vehicle makers to target a specific test, or a specific exhaust substance then they will relentlessly focus on it to the detriment of non-regulated effects.

[Phil-E]

I think the particulates are related to heavy load usage as you suggest. I think someone even told me that they inject fuel in the 'wrong' part of the cycle which remains unburned but acts as a coolant, and this is part of the issue, but I might have dreamt that!

 

I believe you're right there. Most modern DI engine have an additional injector in the intake to inject additional fuel outside the injection cycle to keep the head and valves clean . Old indirect injection engines would have fuel passing past the valves to keep them clean and prevent carbon build up so an additional injector is added to combat this problem in DI engines.

[Geek42]

But there are some down sides to these little engines. One has been pointed out above... great for passing the lab tests for economy etc but the real world economy is way lower no matter how economically you try and drive it as it constantly needs to be revved to keep it going up hills etc.

 

This is contrary to every experience that I have had with modern down-sized engines. The turbos are small, light-pressure designs that give a decent torque boost at low-mid revs, but they run out of puff at the top. There seems to me to be little point in revving them too high, as the performance is actually better lower down (almost a bit diesel like compared to older petrol, where you really did have to work them to get the performance).

 

As for lab tests vs. real world, I think this applies to all cars. My last car was a diesel in which I could get the quoted figures if I drove like someone's Nan but not if I pressed on. In my current down-sized petrol car I can beat the quoted figures if I drive like someone's Nan, but generally don't, in much the same way as with the diesel.

[Ootohere]

Time will tell what happens obviously.

So many have a vested interest like Car Manufacturers & Component Manufacturers,

and that does not mean the customer or even the non driving public are their main concern, just their bank balances.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/414311-downsizining-of-engines-soon-to-be-reversed

 

[Phil-E]

The Audi SQ7 TDI has twin turbos (small and large) and a 48v electric supercharger too. Seems like it's the way forward.

 

An electric supercharger for instant on demand boost, then a little turbo that gets spinning quickly to take over from the supercharger and then a big turbo to take over once the little one runs out of puff. Instant boost across the whole rev range, no lag and no more dumping loads of fuel into the engine to get the turbo spooling!

[Gerrycan]

I drove a 1.0L Ford Focus estate last year when visiting the UK.

A nice enough car to drive and quite reasonable performance but I was disappointed with the economy results of being about 5mpg lower compared to similar driving in my own 1.4tsi.

When I tried to hold a steady 50 mph (long stretch of Motorway road works) it seemed to be either slightly on boost, and slowly accelerating showing 45 mpg or if I eased off then slightly decelerating showing 60mpg. I just could not get a consistent steady economical speed.

I was not sure if it was me or the car, but I was very happy again when I got back home to my car.

Surprisingly good sound system in the Focus though, better than mine.

 

That is mainly why I am really interested in how the 1.0tsi goes in the lighter Octavia.

Skoda is not likely to introduce it here though, unless a new car tax regime is introduced here (unlikely) or petrol prices rise severely.

Australians do love their big engine vehicles though, possibly to over-compensate for an inferiority complex

Edited 1 November, 2016 by Gerrycan

[Geek42]

Well, my father-in-law has a 1.0 fiesta eco-boost, so I could ask him what mpg he gets, but I already know the answer and it wouldn't inform the debate (we'd start with "what's mpg?" and end with "what on board computer?" via "how do I work that out?").

[brettikivi]

Hello,

 

first post

 

We currently run two cars with 1.0 turbo petrol engines. One is a Fiesta Ecoboost, the other a new (2000km old) Octy 1.0 TSI.

 

Fuel is the interesting bit. The Fi gets used a lot around town, fair enough. Mostly cold, too, but even "short" trips give it the opportunity to warm through. Test figures for that are 4.2l/100km. Real life says 7.4 at the moment. That's a long term average over 1 year of use and 7000km. 

 

The Octy has been with us just over four weeks and has racked up a tick over 2000km, of which a good 400km were to Helsinki and back at 120km/h or so, another 900 or so was a trip up north the other week and the last 400 have been to Helsinki and back at 100km/h (because it's winter soon, we have winter speed limits). Test figures for that car say 4.7l/100km or so. Real life says current long term average is 5.3, despite serious Webasto / auxiliary heating use, and winter tyres after the first week. 120km/h runs to Helsinki seem to average around 5.3-5.4, 100km/h around 4.7. That's quite a difference, around 12% better numbers, though the winter tyres will also add on something, making it very hard to calculate right now.

 

Now it's run in, the Octy feels almost sprightlier than the Fi. It's more willing to rev, the Fi is unhappy over 3500. The gearing on the Octy is awesome. 5th at 40mph - no problem. 6th? yeah, why not. The Fi has much bigger changes between gears and boy, does it show. But you have to push the Octy loud pedal *all* the way down to get movement and then be prepared to change... overtaking on "A" roads is easy - drop to four, indicate, go, realise you're already doing 130... Very different to the rev orgy in the A2.

 

So yes, this is a vaguely unfair comparison. Except that the Octy weighs a chunk more than the Fi and is far larger inside. Notwithstanding the excessive town use, the Fi drinks way too much like a fish for my liking. The long term average on the Audi A2, as a single car, was / is around 6.9. That car is in the mean time 15 years old....

 

We had a 2.0TDI Octy Estate in Europe in the summer as a rental. I got around 5l/100 from that over 4000kms, which I thought was pretty good, but this 1.0 is really quite impressive. I'd also expect it to get better in terms of power and economy when it's really run in, with 15-20k on the clock. I had a 1,4ACT Seat Leon ST rental in June at one point, that also got 6.5l/100. Both the rentals were at least partly on Autobahns and were therefore keeping up with the traffic for some time at >180km/h. Seat didn't want to do more than 198, the traffic was too much for the diesel to do more than 195. Both were sluggish the far side of 170km/h, which is unsurprising.

 

For those who prefer mpg to l/100: 6,5l/100 is around 43mpg. 5.3l/100 is around 53.5 mpg. 4.7l/100 is circa 60mpg. 

 

 - Bret

[FlyingGecko]

Hello,

 

first post

 

 

...

 

 

For those who prefer mpg to l/100: 6,5l/100 is around 43mpg. 5.3l/100 is around 53.5 mpg. 4.7l/100 is circa 60mpg. 

 

 - Bret

 

Welcome!

And yes, most of us here still prefer working in mpg - so thanks for the heads up.

[bigjohn]

I am looking forward to some user reviews and consumption figures for the 1.0tsi.

There was a suggestion in a recent article that changes to the official consumption tests to be more representative of 'real life driving conditions' would promote the larger capacity turbo engines

 

I was worried about "real life" economy figure of my small capacity 1.4tsi before I bought it so took for an extended test drive(involving part of my commute)  - was better than I expected

 

I think my official combined is 47.9mpg  - my real life overall mpg is 46mpg , measured tank-take since last October. I managed 53mpg on a long journey this weekend!

 

I might ask to try the Octavia 1.0 myself

[Gerrycan]

Nice write up Bret.

 

I'm pleased with my 1.4tsi car's fuel return but I could not get anywhere near what you are reporting for those speeds and conditions.

 

With such sensational returns you might be being a bit greedy expecting even further improvements after more kilometres

 

That will be wetting the appetite of those in the UK with the 1.0L tsi car on order.

 

Is that a manual or auto by the way?

[Gerrycan]

I was worried about "real life" economy figure of my small capacity 1.4tsi before I bought it so took for an extended test drive(involving part of my commute)  - was better than I expected

 

I think my official combined is 47.9mpg  - my real life overall mpg is 46mpg , measured tank-take since last October. I managed 53mpg on a long journey this weekend!

 

I might ask to try the Octavia 1.0 myself

I and other 1.4tsi users are reporting similar consistent mid 40's mpg average consumption. Ignoring TWMNA of course

Pretty good for a petrol engine in a medium sized car.

 

My experience with the 1.0L Focus suggested that small an engine might be the tipping point for efficiency, but Bret's write up of his Octavia certainly justifies a rethink.

We'll need more anecdotal and statistical input from owners I think.

[brettikivi]

Hi,

 

I'm also really surprised by the difference between the two cars. I drive both, and yes, the town work does screw with the numbers, but there is a significant positive towards the Octy in terms of drivability, sensible gearing and the consumption numbers. The engine feels revvy and ready to go, and still has some decent pickup - the turbo kicks in, YO!, at around 1500 and the car does surge forwards nicely. It's rapid, it's not fast. Keeping up with the traffic is easy.

 

Please be aware, though, that these numbers from me are real-life but also under very good conditions. I'm not driving slowly, it's limit +2km/h, GPS; lights are generally on at this time of year, but as a rule there's minimal traffic which improves things. Helsinki itself is a different story, and I'm sure I saw the average for that town traffic last night at around 6l before dropping under 5 by the time I got home. Cruise control is a lovely thing....

 

I'll be keeping an eye on the numbers over the next months. Shouldn't be too many miles, though, just another trip out to Kouvola and a couple to Helsinki planned before Christmas. Then it's tracktime in January

 

 - Bret

[cheezemonkhai]

I drove a 1.0L Ford Focus estate last year when visiting the UK.

A nice enough car to drive and quite reasonable performance but I was disappointed with the economy results of being about 5mpg lower compared to similar driving in my own 1.4tsi.

When I tried to hold a steady 50 mph (long stretch of Motorway road works) it seemed to be either slightly on boost, and slowly accelerating showing 45 mpg or if I eased off then slightly decelerating showing 60mpg. I just could not get a consistent steady economical speed.

I was not sure if it was me or the car, but I was very happy again when I got back home to my car.

Surprisingly good sound system in the Focus though, better than mine.

 

That is mainly why I am really interested in how the 1.0tsi goes in the lighter Octavia.

Skoda is not likely to introduce it here though, unless a new car tax regime is introduced here (unlikely) or petrol prices rise severely.

Australians do love their big engine vehicles though, possibly to over-compensate for an inferiority complex

If you look on the internet for problems with that engine, you'll find there are many complaints to ford about it.

[brettikivi]

The kerb weight according to my insurance company is around 1250kg. That's not too shabby at all for such a cavernous interior. It's also only around 150 more than the Fi, which theoretically hits 5.4l/100 around town... yeah, right.

 

Anyway, it snowed today for the first time in Helsinki so it's pretty chaotic down there. I'm now driving back tomorrow morning - Aux heater is set....we shall see just how much more snow comes down tonight. Should only be another 5cm or so.

 

 - Bret

[brettikivi]

Aux heater is awesome.

 

115km x 6 means I still have a quarter tank / 200km of range left. I'm impressed! Long-term average is now 4.9l for this tank. And the car is filthy on the outside....:(

 

 - Bret

[Gerrycan]

The maths don't quite work out.

Better check real consumption against the display when you refill. To many variables to rely entirely on the display unless confirmed..

 

Still exceptional though considering the winter conditions you ae experiencing.

Cold (and particularly your very cold weather) has a noticeable adverse effect on consumption even on long distance travel.

[brettikivi]

Yep, the Webasto has been in use, though, so I'm wondering just how much it uses. I know from other VAG group cars that integrated systems do tend to mean their consumption is taken into account.... and that would imply I've used around 5l worth of fuel for it over the course of this tank. When I've filled it, I'll come back...

 

 - Bret

[Gromle]

Still exceptional though considering the winter conditions you ae experiencing.

Cold (and particularly your very cold weather) has a noticeable adverse effect on consumption even on long distance travel.

I dont quite agree with that.

Yes, cold weather kills my mpg on short trips. But on longer trips I cant really say Ive noticed a significant difference. Not even when the temp creeps below -30 degrees celsius.

[Gerrycan]

For a couple of years we were doing a weekly winter commute around a local peninsular (50km distant across the gulf, but 200km by road) to watch our son play Australian Rules Football.

We often had conditions with a high pressure system over us so clear with next to no wind.

The trip there was always at around midday with temperatures about 15 to 20 degrees. The trip back was after the sun set and the temperature would drop to around 5 to 10  degrees.

Never got as good consumption coming back in the cold as going and both the finish and end were usually at sea level.

Noticeable on the current car because at around 20 degree ambient I get 5.7 L/100 in the petrol at a true 110 kph and that would drop to 6.0L/100 at 5 degrees.

Running the headlights would have added a small contribution to the difference but in more clement nighttime summer temperatures I get the better consumption even with headlights on.

 

I was curious at the time and did find a good web site that confirmed it as 'known thing' but cannot find it right now.

 

I assumed that at your really low temperatures the effect would be quite apparent but your experience says otherwise.

[Gromle]

I did notice some difference with my diesel Mondeo, but it could be contributed to auxillary heating. The diesel needed it while driving, not just to heat up faster.

I get the same mpg with the Octy. Only slightly worse when the roadconditions are bad (much snow, water or both).

It might be a bigger difference in countries with higher speedlimits, colder air is more dense aint it?

[rothair]

ordered

[brettikivi]

nice! 

Last tank appears to be around 49mpg or 5.7l/100. That's a chunk more than the car says, which is mildly disappointing, but I have been using teh aux heater a lot, which may well account for a large proportion of it.

 

Pretty impressed so far. Pleasantly difficult to slide in the snow, too. Will have to work on that one...

 

 - Bret

[Gromle]

nice!

Last tank appears to be around 49mpg or 5.7l/100. That's a chunk more than the car says, which is mildly disappointing, but I have been using teh aux heater a lot, which may well account for a large proportion of it.

Pretty impressed so far. Pleasantly difficult to slide in the snow, too. Will have to work on that one...

- Bret

Have you seen any numbers how much the aux heater really consume?

[brettikivi]

No, bit I'd suspect around 0,5l/h based on Webasto's numbers. Taking into account the fact that I did not fill 100% on the last tank, the missing 5l or so appears, dropping the numbers to far closer to the car's estimate of 5.2l/100.

 

I will keep an eye on this. Just added up how much I used the Webasto last week - probably around 5 hours (!). 

 

 - Bret