54 minutes ago, MC Bodge said:

That is better than my Mk3 Mondeo TDCI130 could do 10 years ago. 

 

I've resigned to the fact that I can't really justify a diesel car any more, but when I was driving more/longer distances, my MK3 Mondeo 130 and Bora PD130 were mile munchers, regularly getting 74mpg when plodding along at 65mph. 

 

Whilst I miss the pull/torque of those two engines, I definitely don't miss the sounds and smells they kicked out.

Love the performance and economy of myEstate  1.4 TSI. My only regret is not going for the Superb with this engine. I thought that it would be underpowered.

1 hour ago, vade04 said:

Love the performance and economy of myEstate  1.4 TSI. My only regret is not going for the Superb with this engine. I thought that it would be underpowered.

When I was looking for a used estate I was interested in a Superb.

 

The Superbs were far more expensive than the Octavias, though . The biggest loads I carry are when we go camping and with a roof box the Octavia can haul everything we need. 

 

The Octavia is also easier to park than a bigger and wider car in UK parking spaces. 

My previos car was a Superb estate and it was superb.

Out with two pushbikes on a Thule towbar mounted rack. No bother and still got 50mpg plus. Similar rack on my Mk2 diesel hatch cut mpg by 30%.

On 02/06/2019 at 05:31, gregoir said:

Out with two pushbikes on a Thule towbar mounted rack. No bother and still got 50mpg plus. Similar rack on my Mk2 diesel hatch cut mpg by 30%.

I'll agree with you that a rear tow bar mounted bike rack behind an estate or hatch-like body shape does not seem to worsen consumption by much but I am surprised on two counts on by the impact you said it had on your mk2 diesel sedan.

1) Sure the bikes will be in more in the wind on the sedan but worsening consumption by 30% means going from near 60mpg to near 40mpg in actual consumption and that is huge.

2) My experience is that diesels are generally for more 'insensitive' to adverse conditions than petrol. I have variously put queen mattresses and boxes on my 1.9pd mk2 roofracks for long trips while moving my daughter and it had nowhere near as much effect as you relate.

 

The 1.4tsi is the most economical petrol car I have ever owned (the loan Fabia 1.0tsi I had for a week was the most economical I have driven) but like my other previous petrol cars adverse conditions (high speeds, hills, headwinds, towing) have a marked effect on consumption. 

A recent 600km trip (in one direction) with only two of us in the car returned a disappointing 48mpg despite a large proportion of the trip at regulation 100kph speeds on near empty roads. The reason for the relatively poor consumption was a stiff headwind for most of the journey. I would probably have got 60mpg in the other direction.

 

My previous mk2 1.9pd (no DPF) despite only having a 77kw output seemed to just shrug off strong headwinds and hills and aero encumbrances. It really was an exceptional long distance tourer and with its 55+litre fuel tank was ideal for Australian touring. I just wish we had done more in it especially in the Northern Territory where the 130kph speed limits really suited its characteristics.

The 1.4tsi can also easily cruise at 130kph but consumption then drops to about 40mpg, which is still very good.

 

Footnote: The only problem I have with mounting bikes at the back of a car (especially an estate/SUV) is the amount of dirt and grit they attract if the roads are wet. Our two road bikes always go upright inside with quick front wheels and saddles off.

 

 

Going even further back, I had a B5.5 Passat estate 1.9PDI, 100bhp anyway.

Two bikes mounted on tow bar, similar huge drag and reduction in mpg. Maxxed out at 100mph on autobahn and 24mpg indicated before a headlight flashing Mercedes appeared.

18 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

 

The 1.4tsi is the most economical petrol car I have ever owned (the loan Fabia 1.0tsi I had for a week was the most economical I have driven) but like my other previous petrol cars adverse conditions (high speeds, hills, headwinds, towing) have a marked effect on consumption. 

A recent 600km trip (in one direction) with only two of us in the car returned a disappointing 48mpg despite a large proportion of the trip at regulation 100kph speeds on near empty roads. The reason for the relatively poor consumption was a stiff headwind for most of the journey. I would probably have got 60mpg in the other direction.

 

My previous mk2 1.9pd (no DPF) despite only having a 77kw output seemed to just shrug off strong headwinds and hills and aero encumbrances. It really was an exceptional long distance tourer and with its 55+litre fuel tank was ideal for Australian touring. I just wish we had done more in it especially in the Northern Territory where the 130kph speed limits really suited its characteristics.

The 1.4tsi can also easily cruise at 130kph but consumption then drops to about 40mpg, which is still very good.

 

 

 

Likewise I've found my Superb mk II 1.4tsi very economical - usually mid to late 40s mpg but on some runs mid 50s possible however as you mention in adverse conditions (hills, load, very high speed) it can drop into the 30's

 

Previously I owned a pre 1.9pd 100ps Superb mkI that always seemed to ignore adverse conditions and somehow always seemed to average about 50mpg whatever the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

I had a 1.6tdi Seat Arona rental on holiday. Gutsy mid-range, but horrible off the mark and off boost. 

 

The TSI is far nicer. 

Very happy with our 1.4TSI estate.

I've loved my 2014 1.4TSi 140BHP Octy DSG Elegance hatch ever since I got it 2 years ago. Much more torque than my previous 320i though the Beemer was allegedly slightly more powerful (146BHP). It's much more economical too, than my 2 litre naturally aspirated petrol car ever was. I get 50+MPG on long runs and 35+MPG stop-start town driving. The DSG gearbox is lovely too. I had a 130BHP Jag X-Type 2 litre diesel and that was no more economical on long runs than my petrol Octy is and round town the X-type sounded like a knackered Post Office van - yuck!

I had to replace the water pump on my 2014 1.4tsi earlier this year. While it is a common problem on diesels mine is the first reported occurrence I know of in this Forum for the 1.4tsi at least.

It was a bit of a pain because the cause of the water leak was initially misdiagnosed and the dealers needed two tries and nearly a week at fixing it and doubt was initially cast on my story of events until the dealer rep drove my car for a while and experienced the intermittent problem for himself.

While the cost of repair was high I did get a loan new Fabia in which I racked up a very high mileage in the short time I had it (nothing I would not have done in mine if available due to family circumstances at the time).

 

Anyway the point I was coming to was that on that occasion and on a recent major 60k km service different drivers of my car at dealership made a point of remarking on how well it drove.

I was a bit surprised as I would have expected, and been happy with, the usual no reported problems. The guy who drove my car for a few days with the water pump problem was almost embarrassingly effusive about it saying he had forgotten how good the engine was with the manual transmission.

Just seemed a bit odd considering mine is old, just above the most basic spec with few bells and no whistles and they have access to brand new and expensive models, of course it could all be just sales BS but I usually pick up on that so may be they now send their reps to acting schools .

Australians don't buy many manuals, like when the Up was sold here for a while as a manual only (because the auto was considered to naff for us), sales tanked despite rave reviews, so maybe my manual car was a bit of an oddity for them.

 

I did request the old spark plugs from the major 60k km service and I have to say they looked in amazingly good condition with negligible carbon deposits, so it did not surprise me that the car now drives no better or more economically than before the service. I'm not sure how it could drive any better.

 

Skoda were rarity on our roads but this year I'm aware of far more than ever.

I've also now lost my status as the only Skoda in the neighbourhood, which I held for at least 8 years, at one point I was even outnumbered by new Aston Martins. Apart from the sound from the Astons I preferred mine (for our needs) anyway.

Edited 14 June, 20197 yr by Gerrycan

It is not a surprise that the New VW Group Petrol Hybrids will have 1.4 TSI engines and not 1.5 TSI's.

Vorsprung Durch Technik,  not all the latest engines VW Engineers design are actually that good or better than what goes before. 

My 1.4 tsi octavia I am very surprised with the power and economy after having a vw passat 1.9 tdi 130 bhp I thought it was going to be abit under powered but not at all. 

Yesterday was my first long motorway trip on the Vredestein Quatrac 5, since having them fitted last November iirc. Mpg was 54.5mpg indicated overall. This is as good if not better than on the previous oe Michelin Energy and better than my previous 140pdi Mk2. Cruised at 70-75 according to satnav on motorway. M1, A1M ,A66, M6, M74, M73, M80,A9, A90 to Dundee.

Effortless quiet,performance and a relaxed scenic route. 

Wow, this 1.4 tsi from the talk on hear gets good reports. What year did  the 1.5 not so favourable come in. I must see if I'm missing anything with my 2.0 D 150ps.

Very interesting to note that VW appears to have retained the 1.4 TSI for their North American range (not the 1.5 ACT) - great choice in my opinion.

A very good friend of mine in Canada recently bought a 1.4 Jetta., this has an 8-speed auto (not DSG) - I will get a chance to drive it in a few weeks and will post my impressions when I get back.

 

Glad to see VW are looking at something other than DSG. 

3 hours ago, benterrier said:

Glad to see VW are looking at something other than DSG. 

 

An 8 Speed Auto won’t be a patch on a DSG for shifting. My guess it’s a market specific cost/complexity decision.

17 hours ago, KevC_Derby said:

 

An 8 Speed Auto won’t be a patch on a DSG for shifting. My guess it’s a market specific cost/complexity decision.

 

The lack of a normal auto was a negative for me when considering the Octavia versus an older and/or more expensive 5 series or similar. Ultimately it won out for a bunch of different reasons, but if there was a regular auto we would have gone for that over the manual. I tend to keep my cars a good while and the potential reliability issues with the DSG, particularly on the lower horsepower models put me off a bit.

On 19/06/2019 at 17:55, KevC_Derby said:

 

An 8 Speed Auto won’t be a patch on a DSG for shifting. My guess it’s a market specific cost/complexity decision.

 

Not true at all if it's the ZF gearbox used by BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar. Its gear changes are pretty much instantaneous and overall the gearbox is much smoother than the DSG because it has a traditional torque convertor. It's also, certainly in the Beemers more economical and faster to 60 than the manual gearbox. The days of the old "Slushomatic" automatic gearboxes is over. I would have a ZF 8-speed auto over a DSG any day.
 

 

Edited 25 June, 20196 yr by Lingnoi

38 minutes ago, Lingnoi said:

 

Not true at all if it's the ZF gearbox used by BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar. Its gear changes are pretty much instantaneous and overall the gearbox is much smoother than the DSG because it has a traditional torque convertor. It's also, certainly in the Beemers more economical and faster to 60 than the manual gearbox. The days of the old "Slushomatic" automatic gearboxes is over. I would have a ZF 8-speed auto over a DSG any day.
 

 

 

Absolutely my view when I was looking too. I guess for a FWD Octy it would be a 9HP rather than the 8HP gaining all the plaudits in RWD BMWs. I'm assuming they are fairly similar though.