Octavia 1.0 SE Estate

[Gerrycan]

Bret, out of curiosity but what does your display show as L/hour consumption when warmed up and at idle with no ancillaries or lights active

 

My 1.4tsi is usually 0.5L/hour but occasionally flicking down to 0.4L/hour for a while.

I thought that was very good but seeing as how you have 25% fewer cylinders and 28.5% lower capacity I am prepared to be humbled

[brettikivi]

I'll check when I have an opportunity, it's a bit chilly at home at the moment which means any numbers will be mildly inflated

 

 - Bret

[brettikivi]

at -8C ambient, it says 0.6l/h. Nothing on except the fan at 1 bar, though that was not completely warmed through. Will have a check tomorrow after work, that car park is normally at 15C, which should be more accurate.

 

 - Bret

[brettikivi]

... and this last tank has been, according to the pumps, 5.8l/100. 

 

Now on >3000km. Wasn't supposed to be like this... anyway, the engine has loosened up nicely and it pulls acceptably well. Less than 6l/100 for a car this big is more than acceptable.

 

 - Bret

[Gerrycan]

I guess we will have to wait until your warmer weather comes back to see if the really good figures you had initially are repeated.

The 1.0L turbo has just been released here in Australia in the base Audi A3 priced just a few $k short of the price of an Octavia RS.

 

I hate cold weather!

[brettikivi]

there are a couple of minor "issues" with the last tank: I've been to Helsinki, out to Kouvola, and a bit of local stuff. But the traffic on teh way into Helsinki has been awful. Add some snow in and there's a certain amount of extra consumption there without trying - the traffic has been 15 minutes or more of real stop and go at crawling speeds and I've seen that on all journeys to the office. Meh :/

 

Computer still says something like 5.3l, though, which is wierd. I would have thought the Webasto consumption would have been taken into account, maybe it isn't. 

 

 - Bret

[Riolux]

So, I got my 1.0 this weekend. I haven't driven it that fast/hard yet (because of new studded tyres), but the engine is an improvement over the 1.2.

Tourque is avaliable from much lower revs, and it doesn't have the same amount of turbo lag as the 1.2. It feels like less of an effort for the engine, and you can barely hear it. It's a manual, and if I follow the shift indicator, i find myself at around 1400 rpm which feels a bit slow for some situations, the engine seems more comfortable from 1800 rpm and up. When idleing there's a bit more vibration in the shifter than before, but nothing massive.

[brettikivi]

Update: 

Running around in the cold - -10 or so - around town gives us around 7l/100. The standing still at tickover doesn't seem to be included in the consumption numbers. 

Webasto is absolutely awesome. So, so good in the cold. Decent numbers in the cold for the trips to the office / airport, but it's not as good as in the warm.

 

Very happy at the moment, though if there's too much snow on the bootlid, it does drop into the boot :/

 

And the rear screen is impossible to keep clean of snow unless you remove *everything* from the roof.

 

 - Bret

[brettikivi]

Update: now over 4000km on the clock. Things have loosened up nicely - the trip to Helsinki and back yesterday gave me a trip computer number of 4.9l/100 (a hair under 58mpg), with lights on, mirrors heated ('cos I'd forgotten to turn them off, d'oh!) and some stop-start traffic at the Helsinki end in both directions. I'm impressed. I fully expect a trip to Kuopio would now give me better than 4.5, especially at these temperatures of a hair above freezing. Car is brown again, though... <sigh>.

 

Mild irritation with the auto high-beam, that I don't find it intuitive to turn it back off again. Auto dim interior stuff works well, need to change the footwell bulbs to LED because I find 20% to be irritating and 10% is not really visible.

 

I've also now removed everything from the maxidot except range, speed and oil temp. Much faster to flick through that way. 

 

Also had to fill the screenwash yesterday for the first time - 2l of down to -18C or so should be enough for the time being. I'll add some more wash in shortly.

 

Quite happy with the grip on snow and ice. It's difficult to get the back end loose with ASR on, but turn it off and things get jiggy very quickly. Surprising amount of electronic "interference" which I don't see but sure as hell can feel. Tried driving up a serious gradient yesterday and nearly stopped at the top, restart was no problem. ASR also limits power such that you won't go over 4000 rpm on slippy stuff with full throttle, so pulling out of a junction or so on snow is faster with it turned off *if* you've got the space to slide. 

 

Track coming up in a few weeks, I'll be taking some time out to video some stuff. The question is what.... probably a start with and without ASR. Slalom with and without ASR. Elktest at 80. Will have to think what else.

 

 - Bret

[vc-10]

58 mpg... bloody hell. I've never seen that high in my smaller, lighter, less powerful Fabia!

[brettikivi]

I might brim it for tomorrow. We're off back to Ikea at Vantaa, then to the office, and then back again. If I brim at Karisto and again with the same pump in the evening, there should be some vaguely accurate numbers available. I think the computer is a little optimistic.

That should be a 220km round trip with minimal traffic, though some, and a lot of 103km/h cruise. 

 

 - Bret

[POWYSWALES]

58 mpg... bloody hell. I've never seen that high in my smaller, lighter, less powerful Fabia!

I think a lot of people would struggle to see these figures even out of the 1.6 tdi, although I will be hoping to get in the 60s after getting 66mpg out if my previous 1.4tdi fabia mk3.

[brettikivi]

Brim to brim - first click only - and pump to same pump... computer says 4.8. Pump says 4.7x and converted I get 59.5mpg.

 

That's at around 4C. Lights on. A/C off, Auto on @ 21C. No notable aux heater use. Car in the office underground car park for a couple of hours (that's at around 10-15C, so it was >50C when I got back in). Hard acceleration down the on-ramp at Karisto - truck and >70C oil temp - and quite a bit of stop-and-go around Runeberginkatu in Helsinki on the way home. So 20km of mild traffic, 90km of motorway each way.

 

I'm impressed. I wasn't even trying, this is two-up with minimal luggage; we did Karisto - Ikea - Ruoholahti - Karisto.

 

It's mildly over-positive because the engine was almost warmed up in both directions. It's not as positive as it might be as there's be no check of tyre pressures, and this is on winter tyres (!!). If this is the way things are going, I'd expect to see a 3 before the comma in the summer when lightly loaded, on summer tyres and on 80km/h limits.

 

 - Bret

[glosrich]

Sounds like the 1.0 is noticeably more efficient than the 1.2 110.

I get approx. 52mpg on a similar journey.

[BoxerBoy]

Test driving it tomorrow - am I mad?

 

Usually do runs around town with a long run once every 8-10 weeks...

 

No need to tow anything - just ferry wife, two kids and associated kit on the longer trips

 

Any advice gratefully accepted...

 

Yep! My bike has a bigger engine!

 

It might be "all the car you'll ever need", but some of us like/need a bit more grunt.

Edited 22 December, 2016 by BoxerBoy

[rothair]

And hats off to you Boxer Boy if you need or like a little more grunt!

 

I'll let you know how I get on if I ever get my hands on it - still stuck in status 10! Now quoting February for delivery...

[Gerrycan]

You should do better over summer, I find the increased air temperature is beneficial, small but noticeable.

Lower warm-ups required obviously and I assume is due to lower air density, less drag and lower fuelling requirement?

Do winter tyres have significantly higher rolling resistance?

 

I am really impressed by your winter results and await spring/summer figures.

Like some other 1.0tsi owners to confirm their experiences.

 

Christmas Day in Adelaide is forecast at 40 degrees Centigrade so I might be foregoing the early morning Christmas day fun-run, but definitely not the traditional swim and the air-con will on in the car all day especially for all the ferrying of elderly relatives.

Might be my worst consumption ever.

[ahenners]

Sounds like the 1.0 is noticeably more efficient than the 1.2 110.

I get approx. 52mpg on a similar journey.

I borrowed a 1.2 110 fabia DSG for a couple of days and found the economy hit and miss. Was great compared to my VRS Tsi DSG round town with start stop driving (30 mpg vs 42 mpg) but then on my motorway commute the gap was much smaller (42mpg vs 47mpg). I'd expected over 50mpg with the fabia being much smaller, lighter and having half the power.

[Gerrycan]

Higher speeds tend to even things out between large and small cars.

A few years back I had a  (Australian made) Ford Falcon company car 4 Litre, 6 cylinder, 4 speed auto slush box weighing about 1600kg.

It drank fuel around town like a sailor on shore leave (to borrow a simile) despite my best efforts, but it would return over 40 mpg on the open road.

 

So impressed with @brettikivi's returns. When he first had the car and the weather was warmer and he was running at their higher allowed summer speeds he seemed to be getting markedly better returns than I would get in my 1.4tsi.

Apart from the engine/transmissions the two cars would have near identical drag and weight so the improvements are almost wholly due to the improved efficiency of the drivetrain, which is some achievement.

His 16inch against my 17 inch wheels would also make a contribution but not as much as the apparent difference.

[Phil-E]

Seriously impressive figures there. Especially taking into consideration the lower temperatures and winter tyres.

Higher speeds tend to even things out between large and small cars.

A few years back I had a  (Australian made) Ford Falcon company car 4 Litre, 6 cylinder, 4 speed auto slush box weighing about 1600kg.

It drank fuel around town like a sailor on shore leave (to borrow a simile) despite my best efforts, but it would return over 40 mpg on the open road.

 

Most "slush" (torque converter) autos are a little thirsty round town. Even diesels are thirsty round town- I know as mine is a little thirsty and will only manage a max of around 35mpg round town as the torque converter spends a lot of time without the lock-up engaged so a lot of energy is wasted pumping fluid around. Once you're up to speed the torque converter is locked up and so no losses in there.

[rothair]

Call from the dealership to say it is finally being built this week! Just hope the Skoda operatives don't have the January blues...

 

Dealership suggest it could be ready for pickup at the start of February - does that look right?

[vc-10]

I borrowed a 1.2 110 fabia DSG for a couple of days and found the economy hit and miss. Was great compared to my VRS Tsi DSG round town with start stop driving (30 mpg vs 42 mpg) but then on my motorway commute the gap was much smaller (42mpg vs 47mpg). I'd expected over 50mpg with the fabia being much smaller, lighter and having half the power.

 

The Fabia though has pretty terrible aerodynamics compared to an Octavia. At motorway speeds the aerodynamics become massively important. The Octy vRS hatch's drag coefficient is 0.0298, while the Fabia 110 DSG's coefficient is 0.325. This is due to the length of the car- little bricks are draggy! The Fabia estate is noticeably better- the estate 110 DSG's coefficient is 0.309.

 

The calculations for drag are also based on frontal area- which probably doesn't change much between an Octavia and a Fabia (the Fabia is in fact taller than the Octavia by a few mm!).

[Geek42]

Interesting about the drag coefficients. Do you have a good source for this information, and also gear ratios would be interesting as well?

[Geek42]

Actually, I've always thought that it would be very useful for high milers to have the fuel economy quoted at a constant 80mph, as well as with various official cycles (just for reference, I would never do that on a UK road, obviously). On a long run the slow bit at either end is not the most significant part, for example on a 500 mile round trip from the Thames Valley to southern Yorkshire and back.....actually forget I said anything. You can't get up to cruising speed on the M1 these days anyway!

[Phil-E]

Yes manufacturers should have to do more real-world like tests. So part of the test includes accelerating at full throttle up to 70mph and sitting at that more so many miles as it's the economy at 70mph or 80mph (if you're travelling on the continent) that will matter to many.

 

Also bear in mind that the drag coefficient is then relative to the frontal area of the car. So a Fabia may have a higher number than an Octavia but it's then smaller.