As per the legal requirement manufacturers have to give wltp fuel consumption figures which at last seem achievable and real. Although I don't think they have built in DPF regens into the diesels as far as I can tell. If not its still over the top for diesels. 

 

TSI VRS manual = 36.7 - 39.2.   auto = 35.8 - 38.2

TDI VRS auto = 47.1 - 50.4.  4x4 = 40.4 - 45.6

 

CO2 figures are still NEDC derived and inaccurate. Have to wait until next year to get the true CO2 figures, and be taxed on them! 

Auto DSG 1.5 tsi looks a poor economy choice.  manual gets 40.4 - 47.1 auto gets 35.2 - 37.2 !! thats a hell of drop or a web site typo? You can see the wltp CO2 on this model is going to go up massively. At last though, we can see as we always knew, economy hasn't changed by much if anything at all in the last 20 odd years. power has gone up dramatically, while economy on your average medium sized 2.0 tdi is pretty much the same as it was pushing 20 years ago, about 50 mpg. Or worse with regens thrown in.

 

The Superb 280 4x4 is a bit scary on the fuel, 30 odd.

 

 

Edited 4 January, 20197 yr by teescom09

Not far from reality for a TSI, but I must admit for this WLTP mpg you really must drive like a grandpa. Check my signature.

A big difference between the previous figures and the WLTP. 50mpg is more like I used to get with my VRS diesel but had to tickle the throttle to get that though, which was disappointing. The current BMW and Mondeo prior to the Octavia were much more economical, both achieving over 60mpg easily.

 

It will be interesting to see the other manufacturers WLTP figures and much they vary from the previous ones.

 

TSI VRS manual = 36.7 - 39.2.   auto = 35.8 - 38.2

 

This is very similar to what I have been seeing in my 2 weeks of ownership, albeit most of my driving has been at 70mph on cruise in my DSG. Come home from work earlier this week, M25 and M3, A331 for about 26 miles, I did get 41.4mpg based upon the on board computer, but suspect the "real actual" figure is closer to the above.

 

Still, seen just under 450 miles for my first full tank of Tesco 99 and cost me about £55 to fill it.

 

 

My long term average in my VRS TSI DSG is 37.8mpg tracked over 13k miles and just under a year so those new figures are definitely more realistic.

11 minutes ago, Chris245 said:

 

TSI VRS manual = 36.7 - 39.2.   auto = 35.8 - 38.2

 

This is very similar to what I have been seeing in my 2 weeks of ownership, albeit most of my driving has been at 70mph on cruise in my DSG. Come home from work earlier this week, M25 and M3, A331 for about 26 miles, I did get 41.4mpg based upon the on board computer, but suspect the "real actual" figure is closer to the above.

 

Still, seen just under 450 miles for my first full tank of Tesco 99 and cost me about £55 to fill it.

 

 

I find the OBC actually under reports by about 1mpg long term versus my pump measurements. 

 

Over the 8,000 miles I've had the car, I've measured 39mpg average, that's in a 2017 245 DSG. 

Figures seem more realistic to my MY19 2018 245 DSG. I got 39.1mpg for a longer motorway/dual carridgeway trip on new years day. Only my Mrs has topped 40mpg with a similar trip a few weeks back and got 42.5mpg. I really have to drive carefully and smoothly, use cruise and set the speed to the limit to get it this high lol My normal driving I'm closer to mid 30s mpg which seems to match the bottom end of the WLTP figures above.

My long term average remains in the low 30s.   I know from those motorway 50mph limits that over 40 is possible, but I didn't buy a VRS to drive like that.   

Interesting that the new figures suggest the 7 speed DSG uses more fuel than the manual (6 gears). This contradicts the previous NEDC figures which had the auto as more economical. My trip computer is also pessimistic suggesting I am averaging 38.5mpg when the reality is 41mpg (like Chris245 getting 450 miles per 50 litre tank).

3 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Interesting that the new figures suggest the 7 speed DSG uses more fuel than the manual (6 gears). This contradicts the previous NEDC figures which had the auto as more economical. My trip computer is also pessimistic suggesting I am averaging 38.5mpg when the reality is 41mpg (like Chris245 getting 450 miles per 50 litre tank).

Yes always thought the claim an auto was more economical than a manual was doubtful. Pretty much all autos now listed as less economical than equivalent manual, same with Ford. It also lests you see more accurately the difference between manufacturers. The Ford 2.0 tdi 150 in a focus is considerably better than the the equivalent vag unit in anOcty.  M4 dct has dropped to 28 mpg from 34 interestingly the manual has dropped from about 31 to almost the same. So theve been conning us with autos too.

You're all pussaying them vRS's

 

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/skoda/octavia/2017/themanwithnoaim/656953

 

Driven like I just stole it !!!!

 

21 minutes ago, themanwithnoaim said:

You're all pussaying them vRS's

 

 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/skoda/octavia/2017/themanwithnoaim/656953

 

Driven like I just stole it !!!!

 

 

You really love collecting those Nectar points 

4 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

You really love collecting those Nectar points 

Haven't got one, I'm a Postie therefore, I Fn hate junk mail & those Tommy Tuckers (yes that is rhyming slang) of the supermarkets always send their junk mail for Saturday delivery.

 

Postie's Fn hate supermarkets 

1 hour ago, teescom09 said:

Yes always thought the claim an auto was more economical than a manual was doubtful. Pretty much all autos now listed as less economical than equivalent manual, same with Ford. It also lests you see more accurately the difference between manufacturers. The Ford 2.0 tdi 150 in a focus is considerably better than the the equivalent vag unit in anOcty.  M4 dct has dropped to 28 mpg from 34 interestingly the manual has dropped from about 31 to almost the same. So theve been conning us with autos too.

Give it 5 years so they can fine tune gear ratios and changes to the new test cycle and you'll see the autos creep back in front as they offer more opportunities to game the tests compared to the manuals which have to change according to a formula. 

 

As it is, everyone has developed their auto box software to do well on NEDC, which means they're completely mismatched to WLTP, possibly even performing worse than in 'real life'. 

11 hours ago, teescom09 said:

Auto DSG 1.5 tsi looks a poor economy choice.  manual gets 40.4 - 47.1 auto gets 35.2 - 37.2 !! thats a hell of drop or a web site typo? You can see the wltp CO2 on this model is going to go up massively. At last though, we can see as we always knew, economy hasn't changed by much if anything at all in the last 20 odd years. power has gone up dramatically, while economy on your average medium sized 2.0 tdi is pretty much the same as it was pushing 20 years ago, about 50 mpg. Or worse with regens thrown in.

 

The Superb 280 4x4 is a bit scary on the fuel, 30 odd.

 

 

My 1.5 Tsi dsg gets around 40 - 44mpg, my driving is not particularly economical and I just leave it in sport mode. 

10 hours ago, ian_feel_keepin_it_reel said:

My 1.5 Tsi dsg gets around 40 - 44mpg, my driving is not particularly economical and I just leave it in sport mode. 

Wife's Karoq (worse aero) has the 1.5Tsi engine with a manual gearbox and her 26 mile commute takes 1 hour each way. She doesn't drive for economy but since January 2018 and 11,000 miles her car has averaged exactly 46MPG.

13 hours ago, Kenai said:

Give it 5 years so they can fine tune gear ratios and changes to the new test cycle and you'll see the autos creep back in front as they offer more opportunities to game the tests compared to the manuals which have to change according to a formula. 

 

As it is, everyone has developed their auto box software to do well on NEDC, which means they're completely mismatched to WLTP, possibly even performing worse than in 'real life'. 

But, the cars haven't changed, just measuring the fuel consumption in line with actual use. They have never been more economical in this case? If they do tune the boxes to suit the test, won't that be another con and "gate"

The 1.5 tsi auto figure is odd as the the Golf version is about 44 mpg. Seat are still using old NEDC figures on their website, now illegal. 

34 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

But, the cars haven't changed, just measuring the fuel consumption in line with actual use. They have never been more economical in this case? If they do tune the boxes to suit the test, won't that be another con and "gate"

The cars have changed in order to comply with standards when measured in a different way.
And these days I think it's more about emissions than fuel consumption.

For instance I believe all diesel Octavias now require Ad Blue?

They haven't changed from December 31st? WLTP approval was legally required from 1st September. Sadly a lot of people bought cars thinking that the figures quoted after 1st September were the new accurate wltp figures, which the weren't. They may well have bought another version if they had the true facts. The true wltp figures were available but most manufacturers chose to only use NEDC figures to their customers rather than both. 

 

Some shocking statistics, some 1.5 diesels that used to claim approx. 85 mpg are now around 55 under wltp, or rather, tested properly. that's -30 mpg!  Just shows how massive the con was and the times I have stood in front of a salesman with him stating these ludicrous figures I lost count, including the motoring press until recently, wouldn't be so bad if they had covered themselves. But lets be honest, most of us always knew that, some were maybe more gullible. 

 

 

36 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

But, the cars haven't changed, just measuring the fuel consumption in line with actual use. They have never been more economical in this case? If they do tune the boxes to suit the test, won't that be another con and "gate"

Precisely, the cars haven't changed, they've just switched from one arbitrary test cycle to another. All the software would have been tuned to suit the old test, there is nothing wrong with this in terms of legality, as long as what runs in the test is what it runs on the road. In 5 years time they'll all be supplying different software tuned to the new test and you'll see autos improve in the new tests again, as they can't do this as much with a manual. There is absolutely nothing stopping a manufacturer tuning software or hardware to suit the tests, as long as that software and hardware is what is used on the road - where VW fell foul with dieselgate was a system designed to detect it was on a test and run specific software that could never be activated on a road. On an actual road, doing your normal commute, neither manual or auto will likely present any noticeable difference at all.

 

Whilst WLTP keeps getting touted as 'real world testing' or 'actual use' in reality it's not that much different, it's still conducted on a dyno, with resistance factors plumbed in to account for rolling resistance of tyres, aerodynamic drag etc. etc. etc. - it's just the prescribed 'cycle' is deemed to be more reflective of modern driving than the NEDC ended up being (it was conceived in the early 80s I think, last updated in late 90s, it wasn't reflective of modern cars or driving patterns).

 

The numbers from WLTP in the end are only going to be more accurate than NEDC because the driving pattern is more reflective of modern power levels and traffic conditions - beyond that there is still going to be the same opportunity for the manufacturers to play games with the way they design and setup cars and in a few years time they'll be nearly as pointless as NEDC numbers became. I'll be amazed if by the time we see a facelift Octavia Mk4 the auto isn't showing better figures than the manual, despite there likely being no real world difference for you or I.

2 minutes ago, Kenai said:

Precisely, the cars haven't changed, they've just switched from one arbitrary test cycle to another. All the software would have been tuned to suit the old test, there is nothing wrong with this in terms of legality, as long as what runs in the test is what it runs on the road. In 5 years time they'll all be supplying different software tuned to the new test and you'll see autos improve in the new tests again, as they can't do this as much with a manual. There is absolutely nothing stopping a manufacturer tuning software or hardware to suit the tests, as long as that software and hardware is what is used on the road - where VW fell foul with dieselgate was a system designed to detect it was on a test and run specific software that could never be activated on a road. On an actual road, doing your normal commute, neither manual or auto will likely present any noticeable difference at all.

 

Whilst WLTP keeps getting touted as 'real world testing' or 'actual use' in reality it's not that much different, it's still conducted on a dyno, with resistance factors plumbed in to account for rolling resistance of tyres, aerodynamic drag etc. etc. etc. - it's just the prescribed 'cycle' is deemed to be more reflective of modern driving than the NEDC ended up being (it was conceived in the early 80s I think, last updated in late 90s, it wasn't reflective of modern cars or driving patterns).

 

The numbers from WLTP in the end are only going to be more accurate than NEDC because the driving pattern is more reflective of modern power levels and traffic conditions - beyond that there is still going to be the same opportunity for the manufacturers to play games with the way they design and setup cars and in a few years time they'll be nearly as pointless as NEDC numbers became. I'll be amazed if by the time we see a facelift Octavia Mk4 the auto isn't showing better figures than the manual, despite there likely being no real world difference for you or I.

I am sure they will, but effectively it will be difficult as the test reflects real driving. It will be even more interesting when the new CO2 testing starts next year, that is done "on the road" ! 

I bought my 245 based upon a road test in Auto Express which compared it to a Focus ST and Golf GTi PP and the Octavia had the best average on test at 38.9MPG which I knew I could at least match but in reality beat. The old NEDC figure for my manual car was 42.8MPG but I've managed 41MPG over 18,500 miles, which confirms my original thoughts from the magazine test.

22 minutes ago, DavidY said:

The cars have changed in order to comply with standards when measured in a different way.
And these days I think it's more about emissions than fuel consumption.

For instance I believe all diesel Octavias now require Ad Blue?

The CO2 is going to increase massively when the true numbers are made public next year. CO2 is directly proportional to fuel consumption. Not sure all Diesels are getting ad blue, the larger ones yes. The ad blue is for nox reduction not CO2.