Hey guys! I am interested in buying an vRS. The economy is very important for me because of the 50-60k kilometers I do with my car per a year...Yes I am a car guy and I love the TSI...What do you think about the 2.0 TDI 184ps performance? I drove an octavia vRS 2 TFSI and it was amazing! Will I love the diesel too?  Thank you!

I went from a VRS TSI to TDI, it was massively deflating and that 40PS makes quite a lot of difference.

 

Although really my main gripe about the TDI is the constant regens resulting in a tank to tank mpg averaging 32mpg over 12 months and 12k miles.

 

Now you said that fuel economy is important and with the mileage you do (I'm guessing frequent long trips) you should get far better figures than me.

 

i must stress that the reasons you loved the way the TSI drives probably won't be there for the TDI, obviously it's going to deliver power differently being an oil burner.

 

I'm actually trading in my VRS diesel in a few weeks as my new Cupra was loaded onto the boat last week.

 

If you are doing a lot of high speed miles then you really have to get a tdi.

If the relative lack of performance outside the highway is an issue for you then you can always get it chipped or a tuning box fitted for that extra urge.

Brits don't have high speed limits so the tsi consumption is generally acceptable to them.

Edited 14 March, 20179 yr by Gerrycan

It all Depends on the trips. If they are with a lot of slow moving traffic and stops then get tsi, if they consist of long stretches of road with high constant speed then get the tdi. In my octy (181hp dsg 4x4) trips with average speed of 40km/h are about 5.4l/100, but trips in heavy traffic (6km/h avg ....... 80m of traveling) are 10.5/100.

On the highway at 140-180km/h 5.6l/100 avg and at 190km/h i had 6.4l/100 . Its a great car just needs to properly heat up .. so short trips suck.

Edited 14 March, 20179 yr by Skiver

I'm sure compared to the Tsi, the Tdi would seem sluggish, no arguments there but viewed on its own, I don't think it's too bad at all.

 

Given your anticipated mileage, I'm guessing a lot of Motorway / Fast, good roads will be used and I would think that's where the Tdi comes into its own.

 

Mine seems to deliver best economy at about 75-80mph and at that speed it's effortless.

 

As Gerrycan rightly points out, a tuning box from someone such as DTUK will give you Tsi power.

9 hours ago, LewJo said:

I went from a VRS TSI to TDI, it was massively deflating and that 40PS makes quite a lot of difference.

 

Although really my main gripe about the TDI is the constant regens resulting in a tank to tank mpg averaging 32mpg over 12 months and 12k miles.

 

 

I've gone the other way, Tdi to Tsi. 

 

Both Cars are fantastic in there own way. I swopped over to petrol due to very low miles in theTdi and as Lwejo stated " Constent regent "

 

I now have a Tsi 230Vrs but I would have the Tdi version tomorrow.

 

You need to test drive both

 

 

Edited 14 March, 20179 yr by Auric Goldfinger

I drive around 40k km a year, mainly highway during the week & a few long trips at the weekend.

The roads here in Switzerland are never too busy & I was averaging 55mpg before my wife took the car from me.

The TDI is a great mileage muncher although I must admit I'm not interested at all in performance so cannot compare it to a TSI.

10 hours ago, LewJo said:

I went from a VRS TSI to TDI, it was massively deflating and that 40PS makes quite a lot of difference.

 

Although really my main gripe about the TDI is the constant regens resulting in a tank to tank mpg averaging 32mpg over 12 months and 12k miles.

 

Now you said that fuel economy is important and with the mileage you do (I'm guessing frequent long trips) you should get far better figures than me.

 

i must stress that the reasons you loved the way the TSI drives probably won't be there for the TDI, obviously it's going to deliver power differently being an oil burner.

 

I'm actually trading in my VRS diesel in a few weeks as my new Cupra was loaded onto the boat last week.

 

I have owned a MKII FL CR DSG vRS since June 2013 and driven 33K miles, so just over 8K miles per year.  The average mpg over that time and mileage has been just over 43mpg (total mpg not the inaccurate tank-to-tank).  The last couple of years have included many short journeys - less than 6 miles.  I have rarely noticed a re-gen taking place.

 

Due to my now much lower miles ( I covered 14K in the first year with the CR) my next car will be a petrol.  However, I will miss the low down torque of the CR.

I've had 2 TSI's and now own a TDI. Not noticed the difference to be fair. Maybe a seconds or so 0-60 but who notices that unless you're on a track? I get on average 45 to 50mpg with a mixture of stop start town and a little bit of motorway. 

 

Regens aren't an issue. They just run in their own time.

Edited 14 March, 20179 yr by shanemeh

Thank you for the answers!

 

5 hours ago, Mence said:

I'm sure compared to the Tsi, the Tdi would seem sluggish, no arguments there but viewed on its own, I don't think it's too bad at all.

 

Given your anticipated mileage, I'm guessing a lot of Motorway / Fast, good roads will be used and I would think that's where the Tdi comes into its own.

 

Mine seems to deliver best economy at about 75-80mph and at that speed it's effortless.

 

As Gerrycan rightly points out, a tuning box from someone such as DTUK will give you Tsi power.

Remap or tuning box? Which is better 

 

What about the reliability of the engine? Any problems after 150k?

Is there a different feeling when driving at low rpm beacuse the tdi has only 30NM  more... I will need that diesel torque for overtaking. :(

Have a VRs 4 x 4 TDi and fuel consumption is the only disappointing aspect of the car. Averaging 44mpg on my 30 mile each way commute on the M8 where speed varies from 50mph to 75mph. It can vary greatly on seemingly similar runs from 39mpg to 49mpg, perhaps due to DPF regen. Steady 70 - 75mph only seems to average 39mpg without any spirited acceleration or braking.

Rest of the car is terrific after 6,000 miles.

 

30nm shouldn't be such a difference.

 

Petrol has it's 350nm for much wider rev range and should be safer for overtaking IMHO.

 

I believe your choise is between performance, which is definately the petrol ( less weight, more capable when cornering, sportier rev range, etc) against the fuel economy (if it's highway and not B roads the weight will not make difference anyway b/n both).

 

Check this video for the difference suapension and weight wise.

 

 

Long distance trips will be around 3l/100km for the diesel (if driving according to the legal limits), for higher speeds can be significant difference. You can calculate 150k km what you save and how much is the purchase delta.

 

BTW regens are frustrating even when doing highway driving. Due to high speed cold air does not allow the DPF to heat enough, and once the speed is lowered to 80-90km/h or less then the regen starts. You can imagine how you start shouting...few hundred kilometers of fast driving and DPF regen starts when you enter city area.

 

Good luck!

 

Edited 14 March, 20179 yr by TTodorov

5 minutes ago, TTodorov said:

30nm shouldn't be such a difference.

 

Petrol has it's 350nm for much wider rev range and should be safer for overtaking IMHO.

 

I believe your choise is between performance, which is definately the petrol ( less weight, more capable when cornering, sportier rev range, etc) against the fuel economy (if it's highway and not B roads the weight will not make difference anyway b/n both).

 

Check this video for the difference suapension and weight wise.

 

 

Long distance trips will be around 3l/100km for the diesel (if driving according to the legal limits), for higher speeds can be significant difference. You can calculate 150k km what you save and how much is the purchase delta.

 

BTW regens are frustrating even when doing highway driving. Due to high speed cold air does not allow the DPF to heat enough, and once the speed is lowered to 80-90km/h or less then the regen starts. You can imagine how you start shouting...few hundred kilometers of fast driving and DPF regen starts when you enter city area.

 

Good luck!

 

 

The 4x4 181hp tdi 0-100 is 7.1 and the consumption is about 4l if you drive normally at 130--140 and not approach 200 as i do.... accelaration at 150-200 is deffinately not 30s ..... believe me I have overtaken while going from 170 to 220. Also I felt you mentioning legal limits was concerning my post

2 hours ago, TTodorov said:

Long distance trips will be around 3l/100km for the diesel (if driving according to the legal limits),

 

 

Nonsense.

 

3l / 100km equates to 94.7mpg unless my maths is shaky.

 

100km = 62.5 miles.

 

3l = 0.66 of a gallon.

 

Nope, my maths is sound.

 

Please don't dupe potential buyers into believing they'll get astounding fuel economy; they won't.

 

43mpg tops is the best they can hope for.

 

 

32 minutes ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

 

 

43mpg tops is the best they can hope for.

 

 

 

i disagree

 

mainly motorways long distances with some interesting roads in north yorkshire every so often, i average around 55mpg and has been as low as 35 (not very often) and as high as 62

 

3l is the average delta between diesel vRS consumption and petrol vRS when driving at normal speeds.

 

didn't write it right (doing it from the mobile).

 

I've seen only once 3.2/100, when driving 200km with speed of 80km/h and no takeovers (2.0 TDI 150hp front). Again I was pointing the delta, average.

 

@Skiver , not sure the author asked for 4x4 which is better for sure than the FWD (at least for me). Anyway I think if someone wants vRS for the sport spirit should be petrol. If one wants smart car with some sport look then diesel. Just my view...

 

1 hour ago, johnrowley said:

 

mainly motorways long distances with some interesting roads in north yorkshire every so often, i average around 55mpg and has been as low as 35 (not very often) and as high as 62

 

 

Hat off to you; you must drive like a saint! I've had mine a year and done 18k. Never done over 50mpg and my average is probably about 45. Most of my miles are motorways but admittedly i might on occasion creep over 70

 

You couldn't call the TDi slow, but it's not exactly fast either. I notice it most in the 60-80 pull, were i feel it's left wanting. Admittedly this is by comparison to my e39, but still. I do think a remap would make a massive difference 

3 minutes ago, village said:

 

Hat off to you; you must drive like a saint! I've had mine a year and done 18k. Never done over 50mpg and my average is probably about 45. Most of my miles are motorways but admittedly i might on occasion creep over 70

 

You couldn't call the TDi slow, but it's not exactly fast either. I notice it most in the 60-80 pull, were i feel it's left wanting. Admittedly this is by comparison to my e39, but still. I do think a remap would make a massive difference 

 

thank that is very kind, generally cruise between 70 and 80 depending on traffic. yes snap with the merc (almost) i came from an E55 estate and the VRS is breathless in comparison, especially over the ton (where permitted) , but the VRS is so much more fun to drive!

1 minute ago, johnrowley said:

 

thank that is very kind, generally cruise between 70 and 80 depending on traffic. yes snap with the merc (almost) i came from an E55 estate and the VRS is breathless in comparison, especially over the ton (where permitted) , but the VRS is so much more fun to drive!

man, I love AMG wagons!

 

Why so little fun to drive though? The VRS is easy and effortless to drive, and i do love it as an all round package, but in terms of real fun to drive, the e39 absolutely nails it

5 hours ago, redcat said:

Have a VRs 4 x 4 TDi and fuel consumption is the only disappointing aspect of the car. Averaging 44mpg on my 30 mile each way commute on the M8 where speed varies from 50mph to 75mph. It can vary greatly on seemingly similar runs from 39mpg to 49mpg, perhaps due to DPF regen. Steady 70 - 75mph only seems to average 39mpg without any spirited acceleration or braking.

Rest of the car is terrific after 6,000 miles.

 

That is very poor consumption for near ideal diesel conditions really.

Have you returned to the dealer to have it checked out ?

9 minutes ago, village said:

man, I love AMG wagons!

 

yep me too !!

 

the big merc really too big to be nimble like the vrs, and yes performance wise more like a low flying aircraft (quote from the magistrate) and yes i agree with you as an all round package it absolutely excels. 

6 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

That is very poor consumption for near ideal diesel conditions really.

Have you returned to the dealer to have it checked out ?

I dont really think its ideal ... as far as I can remember M8 had a lot of traffic and sometimes its like driving in town.

58 minutes ago, Skiver said:

I dont really think its ideal ... as far as I can remember M8 had a lot of traffic and sometimes its like driving in town.

I did put the get out  'near' in front of the 'ideal but I bow to your M8 knowledge.

However 70 to 75 mph averaging 39mpg is abysmal, especially compared to your own figures.

 

If it was occurring to me then I would be compiling a bucket load of evidence and even renting/borrowing/demanding a similar vehicle to perform comparative tests to support my claims for a failure, or issues with that particular vehicle.

@Orville showed that with excellent preparation and dogged determination (with his defective clutch) you can beat 'City Hall' or in this case the Skoda dealer and SUK.

 

Look, I can understand why dealers shudder when a customer complains about poor consumption and there are no error codes because driving environment and driving style can hugely influence results and determining the actual reason could be any one of a dozen reasons, but the fact is that there have been far too many claims from diesel owners of poor consumption in otherwise good driving conditions.

The fact there are some who get really good (sometimes sensational) returns illustrates that when the engines are functioning correctly they are perfectly acceptable.

I cannot believe that some people complain incessantly in this Forum of poor consumption and were/are not prepared to get off their posterior and actually do something themselves to get it officially recognised and rectified. Note this rant is not aimed at @Redcat because as far as I know this is the first time he has raised it .

Edited 15 March, 20179 yr by Gerrycan