^^^ How good is that theory, pity that the real world is different.

Reason for the new VW 1.5TSI ACT 150ps is that the 1.4TSI ACT 150ps was given kidology figures.

Then there is real real world which is not the figures from a temperature controlled building and some sample vehicle doing very unreal driving programmes.

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

2 hours ago, Awayoffski said:

^^^ How good is that theory, pity that the real world is different.

Reason for the new VW 1.5TSI ACT 150ps is that the 1.4TSI ACT 150ps was given kidology figures.

Then there is real real world which is not the figures from a temperature controlled building and some sample vehicle doing very unreal driving programmes.

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

 

Hardly headline news is it. Only a complete idiot would believe the official figures.

 

And its not just Skoda, none of the published figures are realistic.

 

We averaged a calculated 45mpg in the 1.4 TSi 140 PS Leon over almost 4 years. So far the Superb 1.4 TSi 150 PS Superb is averaging about 43 mpg. I expected less since the Superb is bigger and heavier but considering its still got some loosening up to do that figure makes me very happy.

 

Just consider that the 2.0 TDCi 140 PS  Mondeo  we had which was used in exactly the same way averaged about 39 mpg over the 3 years we had it. The Mondeo was about the same size as the Superb and probably had similar performance. For a petrol which has far better road manners and is way more refined to be averaging better MPG so early in its life shows haw good the 1.4 TSi really is.

 

If the new 1.5 TSi is really going to be better on mpg or just cleaner and meet future EURO regs remains to be seen. I for one am more than happy with the 1.4 TSi.

It is hardly headline news, or even rocket science that different drivers have different needs and wishes and locations to drive and loads to carry and can drive efficiently or just as they wish on different days, or even the same days in different ways.

MPG is all about what you want, just like driving petrols or diesels are. What you want or need or a little of what you fancy.

 

PS

Plenty complete idiots buy cars and then say they are not meeting the published figures, they even come on Briskoda sometime moaning about the poor MPG they get. 

Edited 6 April, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

"Kidologic" figures or not, the 1.4tsi is being reported by many Superb/Octavia users as averaging mid 40s which is a figure the 2.0tsi only seems capable of matching in the best of conditions.

So it comes down to the smaller definitely more economic engine or the larger more powerful but less economic engine.

The point raised by many 2.0tsi owners is the 1.4tsi output is inadequate which is another point of dispute.

 

The 1.4tsi nominal 25Nm torque output is across a 2000 to 4000 rpm range, if you compare that to an equivalent decent aspirated engine then it makes interesting reading.

At 2k rpm you would probably need a 3 Litre NA engine for equivalent torque at equivalent revs

At 3.5k rpm a 2.5 Litre NA engine for equivalent at equivalent revs

At 5k rpm the 1.4tsi torque output has dropped significantly so it is only comparable to a 1.8 Litre NA engine.

 

So if you drive around rarely exceeding 4k rpm as I and most others on the street do then again I say the 1.4tsi is likely to meet most needs, but possibly not the 'desires'  of some.

 

 

*25Nm should of course been 250Nm.

Sorry

In the UK the 1.4TSI is 250nm from 1500-3500rpm, the 2.0TSI is 350nm from 1500-4400rpm so 40% more torque over a wider rev range and 47% higher peak power also over a wider rev range. Overall fuel consumption for the 2.0 is 23% higher which seems worth it if you can afford it, not forgetting that neither will get near the "official" figures (my 2.0TSI DSG Estate averages about 34mpg which is about 75% of the published number, which is fairly normal).

You see there we go again.  There are no 'Published Numbers' for a car outside on a road, just EU Testing ones.

Your car might very well achieve the Published Figures if you drive on a rolling road inside a building going no place. Just look at a screen.

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

Actually the 1.4tsi can get near the official figures, if you drive like the official test, or if the conditions are right then better them.

And yes I know the 2.0tsi is umpteen percent more powerful and a lovely engine to boot (and I mean it) but if the vehicle is a FWD then a lot of that excessive torque has to be moderated in 1st and 2nd gears to avoid wheelspin and a few revs in even 3rd gear gets you well into loss of license territory.

Excess is nice on a track but on heavily congested UK roads surely we are talking want over need?

Our 'other' car is a 14 yo 1.3L NA manual Echo and given its head it can exceed our nominal max national speed limits by 50% but the last time I saw an almost identical car actually doing that it was closely pursued by a cop car. Ultimately amusing to watch as it did end safely although probably at some expense.

14 minutes ago, Awayoffski said:

You see there we go again.  There are no 'Published Numbers' for a car outside on a road, just EU Testing ones.

Your car might very well achieve the Published Figures if you drive on a rolling road inside a building going no place. Just look at a screen.

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

You are missing the point we, as in the other contributors to this thread, are talking about our real life consumption, you are just bumping up your incredible number of posts by endless repetition.

Actually i was addressing what skidpan posted earlier up the page about 'Only a complete idiot would believe the official figures'

or 'Published figures',   somebody could maybe link 'Published figures from anyone for driving on a road'.

There are no Official on the road figures.

http://carbuyer.co.uk/news/86366/audi-economy-information-'misleading' 

 

As you say some can get the EU Test figures in the real world and do often, as some of us say quite often.

As to getting them from a 1.4 TSI loaded to revenue weight, then that is driver dependent, as lots of us drive 1.4TSI at various times and some have even more than 250Nm or greater than 150ps we know how weather conditions can affect a TSI especially a 1.4TSI,

ones that have enough power to weight but not exactly anything special, not in a loaded Octavia or other Taxi sized vehicles.  

Edited 7 April, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

You had already responded to skidpan so I'm not quite sure why you had to repeat it.

 

 

What are you forum police?

 

Someone else mentions 'Official Figures published' when there are no On the road ones published.

 

Advertising Standards Authority takes issue with Audi’s MPG claims _ Hypermiling _ Fuel saving Tips _ Industry News _ Forum.mhtml

Edited 7 April, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

As far as I can see no one mentioned On Road Published figures except you? I'm just not getting your point or who you are addressing.

When the new consumption tests are formulated which are supposed to be more representative of 'real life' I still expect them to be conducted in laboratory conditions.

Before we had the EU tests I seem to remember we had the even more absurd steady speed consumption reports (90 and 120kph?)

 

Err. Semantics or what? The figures are indicative and actually always have been in any published data even way before the current method of estimating them. Nothing to get geeky about is it? Much better to just get out and enjoy the car, whichever one you prefer 

The only thing you can do with the official figures is to compare different cars. Just forget about the figures being achievable and look at the difference between various cars.

A good rule of thumb is to use 80% of the "overall mpg" figure from the manufacturer. This is typically what the databases of real-life fuel consumption show (e.g. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ ), my last three (very different) cars have all been within 5% of this.

 

Of course if you drive in a "non-average" way YMMV...

On 4/4/2017 at 19:05, Gizmo68 said:

 

 

Hate to think what 125 hp in a Kodiaq is like then.

 

Obviously it is all subjective to what you need / want, but I’m concerned that 180 hp in a Kodiaq will not be ‘enough'

 

On 4/4/2017 at 20:01, old newbie2 said:

In our humble opinion after driving a a 180ps Tiguan, it won't be enough, especially since the Kodiaq is larger / heavier than the current Tiguan.

 

DC

I have to say I agree that it is not enough if you go for the 180 TSi in a Kodiaq.  I was seriously looking at a Kodiaq before I bought the Superb.  In reality I ordered the Superb before the launch in the UK of the Kodiaq.  I too test drove a 180 TSi Tiguan and found it lacking.  I suspect a 190 TDi would be a much better engine choice however I have no need for a diesel since i only do about 7-8K miles a year in the main car.  

 

I have driven a TSi 150 ACT in an Octavia 3 estate, and I found it a great engine with the manual box.  Zipped along nicely and very smooth.  

 

Not tried one in a Superb, think it might be a bit overwhelmed if I am honest.  Try one and make sure you have passengers so there is some added weight.  You don't want it to feel sprightly when its only you driving then when you stick a couple of passengers in it and maybe luggage for a holiday, you are at your wits end.  

 

I think a 220TSi would be a better engine, drove one and they drive great.  

The common fact appears to be the posters who say the 1.4 TSi 150 PS is not powerful enough for the Superb do not actually own one yet all the posters who actually own one say its fine.

 

When I was a prospective buyer my first port of call was a dealer for a test drive (got it for 2 hours and drove on motorways, town and into the hills). I had the benefit of already owning a 1.4 TSI but if I was new to the engine I would then take on board what the posters who own a 1.4 TSi say.

 

No point in me posting about a 150 PS diesel since I have never driven one or owned one, any comment would be meaningless.

1 hour ago, skidpan said:

The common fact appears to be the posters who say the 1.4 TSi 150 PS is not powerful enough for the Superb do not actually own one yet all the posters who actually own one say its fine.

 

When I was a prospective buyer my first port of call was a dealer for a test drive (got it for 2 hours and drove on motorways, town and into the hills). I had the benefit of already owning a 1.4 TSI but if I was new to the engine I would then take on board what the posters who own a 1.4 TSi say.

 

No point in me posting about a 150 PS diesel since I have never driven one or owned one, any comment would be meaningless.

 

 

Argee.. but driving a 150 1.4tsi octy last week and getting just 30mpg and feeling the car felt underpowered... I can't help but think in a fully loaded superb it would be not fun.

 

on the other hand driving my 150bhp tdi fully loaded... you feel the weight is there but it still pulls along...

 

as as said above.. people need to test drive.

 

horses for course and all !!!!!,

Load the car fully if you get to testdrive, seriously, put 5 people in the car. Then you'll know for sure what to expect.

7 hours ago, RickTT said:

 

 

Argee.. but driving a 150 1.4tsi octy last week and getting just 30mpg and feeling the car felt underpowered... I can't help but think in a fully loaded superb it would be not fun.

 

My comments are based on almost 4 years experience with a Leon 1.4 TSi and 6 weeks experience with the Superb 1.4 TSi and not the short use of a car.

 

The Superb is slightly heavier than the Leon but the Superb is slightly better aerodynamically. When fully loaded with people, pets and luggage for a holiday trip the %age difference in weight will be minimal. On our twice a year trip to the lodge in Scotland the Leon performed better than any car we have previously used for the trip other than it was a struggle getting all the people, pets and luggage in (we managed it with some inventive packing) but in fairness to the car it was not bought to do that trip. Overtakes on the A9 were easily accomplished, better than any previous car we have done the trip in.

 

More power would not make that trip any quicker. 25 years ago we had a dog slow Nissan Bluebird 1800 petrol. On the exact same 430 mile route it took about 7 1/4 hours driving time, the exact same time that it took last September in the Leon. We drive at the legal limits plus a bit, to get there any quicker you would collect enough Argos points to furnish a house with the cameras on the route. But the Bluebird did 35 mpg, the Leon did 53 mpg. Come May providing the traffic is kind it will take 7 1/4 hours driving time to cover the 430 miles, I will tell you the mpg when we get back but I expect it to be about 50 mpg.

Obviously trips up the A9 are difficult to be made quicker with 110 miles of Average Speed cameras so 60 mph max on single carriageway and crawler lanes with no separation in the centre and 70 mph on dual carriageway where HGVs are not Elephant Racing in both lanes

(Thats from someone that has done it from being on 50cc mopeds and then 60-400bhp vehicles are it takes longer now to travel it even during the night 

than it did in the 1970's.)

Edited 9 April, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

I haven't  used the 1.4tsi Superb, but used to have the 152bhp 1.8tsi SE+ with similar power and torque. I now have the 220tsi mk3 and the difference is amazing. I have just completed a 650 mile trip fully laden.....4 people plus full boot and roofbox with six pairs of skis. The performance of the 220 was so 

effortless  compared with the 1.8.  

The 1.8 had enough performance, but the 220 was better. Even my technophobe wife noticed.

38 minutes ago, 100andthirty said:

I haven't  used the 1.4tsi Superb, but used to have the 152bhp 1.8tsi SE+ with similar power and torque. I now have the 220tsi mk3 and the difference is amazing. I have just completed a 650 mile trip fully laden.....4 people plus full boot and roofbox with six pairs of skis. The performance of the 220 was so 

effortless  compared with the 1.8.  

The 1.8 had enough performance, but the 220 was better. Even my technophobe wife noticed.

 

Can you please post more info?

 

I'm really thinking 1.4 to 1.8 is not such a big difference, and 2.0 makes much more power and torque.

 

But never had long experience and will be glad to read pros/cons of those three engines.

8 hours ago, 100andthirty said:

I haven't  used the 1.4tsi Superb, but used to have the 152bhp 1.8tsi SE+ with similar power and torque. I now have the 220tsi mk3 and the difference is amazing. I have just completed a 650 mile trip fully laden.....4 people plus full boot and roofbox with six pairs of skis. The performance of the 220 was so 

effortless  compared with the 1.8.  

The 1.8 had enough performance, but the 220 was better. Even my technophobe wife noticed.

Quite reasonable comments in the circumstances described.

Would be interesting to know where, continent or UK, speeds and consumption.

If this type of journey was frequent then possibly a diesel would be an even better choice of engine?

In similar circumstances ( of speed, load and extra aero drag) I would expect the 1.4tsi power deficit to show through and consumption to be poor, possibly worse than a 2.0tsi.