Hi All,

 

I've got £2-4k to spend on a 2nd hand Octavia estate and I'm after a bit of help figuring out which year/engine to go for - what to check and what to avoid. 

 

Main use will be long trips in Europe where I'll mostly be going 70-80mph. So my main priorities are reliability and fuel economy first, then next is being a quiet ride and being a bit fun on the autobahn/overtaking and having cruise control.

 

The scout looks good, 4wd and a little bit more rugged might be useful for the occasional off-road track or beach trip. 

Cheers, all help appreciated, or if this questions already been asked somewhere sorry! i did have a search for buyers guides.

 

ob 

For Reliability/Economy you can't beat a 1.9PD octavia. Took mine over to Germany back in the summer of 2014, the car had a Tent (old canvas and frame style) and all equipment needed for 2 weeks, plus myself and my wife in the front. Mainly doing 80-90mph and driving from Cambridge to Frankfurt to Frieburg (SW Germany) then a day trip to Neuschwanstein (SW Germany) and back to the UK it averaged about 60mpg! (I found the PD really likes the 75-85mph window for economy). Though for overtaking on autobahns you may want to get a remap to bring the power from 105bhp up to the 130-140 mark.

The scout with its higher ride height and 4wd isn't going to get the same kind of MPG just due to physics working as they do.

As for Quietness and cruise control, your best bet there is the range topping L&K model. Though an elegance also has Cruise control, but the L&K gives you electrically adjustable leather seats (which are also heated and I found much more adjustable and comfortable over 'normal' octavia seats). But most things can be retrofitted with the know-how and know-who.

Hope that helps!

 

For europe, you might skip a diesel. For MPG and reliability, the 1.9PD is king, but for many cities you need permits which usually deny older diesels. 

At this moment, for example Germany only allows diesels >2006 (which have a DPF fitted) (A green environmental sticker, the umweltplakette is required, but any >2006 diesel will get an orange at best), but I expect this to increase even more.

 

Same applies to eg Paris and some other French cities, Antwerp in Belgium, and some cities in my country (NL) start to implement similar rules. 

 

 

Also, you'll notice the fuel prices, especially for diesel, are continuing to increase. In some EU countries they are equal to gasoline, in some diesel is even above the price of gasoline.

 

If your main target is EU mainland, and you're planning on driving the car for 5+ years, I think its better not to go for a diesel.

Edited 14 June, 20197 yr by DJSmiley

1 hour ago, DJSmiley said:

For europe, you might skip a diesel. For MPG and reliability, the 1.9PD is king, but for many cities you need permits which usually deny older diesels. 

At this moment, for example Germany only allows diesels >2006 (which have a DPF fitted) (A green environmental sticker, the umweltplakette is required, but any >2006 diesel will get an orange at best), but I expect this to increase even more.

 

 

My 1.9PD is on a 55 plate (registered Feb 2006) but got the green UWP sticker and could park right in the middle of Frankfurt. Though they may have changed colours since 2014! Think it was a Euro4.

14 minutes ago, robt100 said:

My 1.9PD is on a 55 plate (registered Feb 2006) but got the green UWP sticker and could park right in the middle of Frankfurt. Though they may have changed colours since 2014! Think it was a Euro4.

 

You are right, a 2006 will get a green one. I ment any <2006 will get an orange one (typo error...)

 

For a 2006-onwards you are, at the moment, fine, but for example for Germany there are plans to introduce a blue one, which should be only for euro6 or euro6b. And for other countrys I expect something similar in the upcoming years.

 

At least for the dutch models afaik, <2006 is an euro4 (like my 2005 O2), which are the engines without DPF. 2006> is euro5 and has a DPF (and, for now, will be allowed in eg Germany, and receive a green sticker)

 

 

Your choice of Octavia depends on your priorities.

 

If you are looking for a vehicle with most of the 'Bells and Whistles' then you are looking at Elegance or  L&K .

 

If you want 4x4 then you are looking at 4x4 or Scout.

 

For fuel economy you are looking at Greenline, but it's a bit basic.

 

For sportiness then vRS.

 

According to the January 2010 brochure I have, non DPF 1.9TDi (105) PD's  were still being sold in S, SE, Elegance and 4x4 spec up until March 2010.  The L&K was also  available with a non DPF 2.0TDi (140) PD.  The CR (Common Rail) DPF fitted diesel engine replaced the PD (Pump Dusse - there are various spellings for this!) diesel engine DPF fitted or not, in approximately August/September 2010.

 

The Scout, vRS and Greenline only came with DPF fitted diesel engines.

 

As regards cambelt maintenance, vehicles registered from September 2010 require a theirs changed every 5 years.  For those built before then it is every 4 years, regardless if it is CR or PD.

 

From what I have read on here, the PD enging was never designed to be fitted with a DPF, whereas the CR engine was, and can be prone to issues if used mainly for short journeys.  Having said that, my daily commute has changed from 50 miles each way, to approximately 3 and my PD Scout has just passed its most recent (7th) MoT at 9 yearls old and 110k on the clock, well within emission tolerances.  So go figure

 

If you are keen on the 4x4 or Scout;

 

The 17mm bigger ride height the Scout has over the 4x4 is purely down to the larger tyre wall on the 17" wheel over the 15" fitted to the 4x4.  As well as a few fancy exterior add ons, the Scout comes with a lot more kit fitted as standard; rear parking sensors, cruise control, Hill Hold Assist, tinted glass and automatic lights. 

 

Both the 4x4 and Scout require the Haldex oil to be changed every 3 years or 37.5k miles at a cost of approximately £65.

 

The pre Face Lift MkII Octy Scout was fitted with Haldex 2 which is a 'reactive' system, the loss of traction has already occurred before the system kicks in.

The Face Lifted MkII Octy Scout came fitted with Haldex 4 which is a 'proactive' system, it kicks in before loss of traction occurs.

Be aware for a few months there was a Pre FL/FL hybrid Scout which came with the Pre FL exterior, but the FL interior.  I'm not sure what haldex system was fitted to this.

 

The main issue you will have to take into account is nobody can predict the future.  Glasgow announced in 2017 it is introducing a ULEZ by 2022, which will ban diesels built before 2013, and petrols built before 2006 from entering the city centre.  Other cities will and are following with similar.  Edinburgh is talking about bringing theirs in well ahead of schedule

 

If I had known then what I know now, I would have purchased a petrol Scout instead of diesel, but apparently even the petrol engines have have their own issues.

I'd be surprised if anyone (excluding persons with hearing problems) would describe the PD as a quiet ride........IMO it is anything but.

However, it is purely a matter of opinion........

 

IMO If you want a diesel and a quieter ride, then I would say go Common Rail, or a car with better sound insulation and running gear, or both.

 

I had a Saab 9-3 Common Rail. It was a nice quiet-ish ride, though it was not good for crawling to roundabouts in 2nd. If the revs were low it wouldn't go anywhere. The PD is much better for this I think (tho I have DSG).

My PD was reasonably quiet in 105 hp form but now after a remapped ECU its growly to drive.

 

The MK1 110hp mechanical injection engine was smoother and more refined even after 325000 miles.

Just buy this one...

 

 

best to avoid the 1.8tsi scout as the 1.8tsi is known to have high oil consumption with age

On 15/06/2019 at 00:22, Fin69 said:

The Scout, vRS and Greenline only came with DPF fitted diesel engines.

 

 

You can add the 2.0 TDi 4x4 to the above list as well.

Edited 16 June, 20197 yr by skomaz

Thanks all for the advices!

 

Decided on probably a 1.9 TDI at at least Ambience trim level, probably Elegance. There are a few good L&K's around but they get priced so high and I'm not too bothered about leather seats or electric seat control.

 

I really really enjoy the extra bit of oomf from the 2.0 so kind of depends what I find first that's in my price range and seems decent.

 

Seems like the reputation of the 2.0 TDI isn't nearly as good as the 1.9 TDI so I'm wondering why that is and what I should be looking for if I'm looking at 2.0's? But I started collecting that in another thread here:

 

Cheers

 

ob

On 15/06/2019 at 23:42, wiilydog said:

best to avoid the 1.8tsi scout as the 1.8tsi is known to have high oil consumption with age

 

+1 ..... I found out the hard way!

 

On 14/06/2019 at 17:15, oldbloke said:

Hi All,

 

The scout looks good, 4wd and a little bit more rugged might be useful for the occasional off-road track or beach trip. 

Cheers, all help appreciated, or if this questions already been asked somewhere sorry! i did have a search for buyers guides.

 

ob 

 

I had a 2010 Scout, CR engine and Loved it.  Did about 50k in it whilst I had it.  So,d with 125k on it and had the DPF light come on once after an long start stop slow journey across London. 10 mins at motorway speeds and it cleared.

On 14/06/2019 at 19:46, robt100 said:

The scout with its higher ride height and 4wd isn't going to get the same kind of MPG just due to physics working as they do.

I bought my 2008 pre FL Scout 2.0TDi earlier this year for £2400.

Nice car, but even when I drive it really carefully, keeping the revs below 2000rpm, and using the cruise control for those long motorway runs at 65mph, it still returns worse consumption then my old 2001 Octy 1.9tdi estate. My averages seem to be in that 40-45mpg per tank, whereas the old Mk1 was still getting 55+mpg per tank doing the same trips.

 

I only bought the Scout as the mk1's turbo has failed and I needed another cheap car for work. This one was really cheap and gave me 4x4 and a little more ground clearance for loading and towing on rough tracks.

1 hour ago, Maker_of_Things said:

even when I drive it really carefully, keeping the revs below 2000rpm, and using the cruise control for those long motorway runs at 65mph, it still returns worse consumption then my old 2001 Octy 1.9tdi estate. My averages seem to be in that 40-45mpg per tank, whereas the old Mk1 was still getting 55+mpg per tank doing the same trips.

 

I used to get between 45-55 mpg on our mk1 (1.9tdi diesel estate pd80 - the taxi motor) although our son-in-law did manage to achieve 67 mpg mooching around back roads on holiday in Scotland.

 

We have an '07 1.9tdi mk2 estate that the previous owner claims used to average 68mpg - 'little old lady' - but I haven't put it back on the road yet so I can't confirm that.  There are many others on here who can report high mpg figures for the 1.9tdi engine so I can quite believe it.

 

Our '07 2.0tdi 4x4 mk2 estate averages a pretty steady 43mpg on mixed motoring although I did manage to work it up to 52mpg on a recent motorway run of 30 miles or so at 65mph on a steady throttle.  In 5th that's about 2500 rpm IIRC.

 

I don't know whether the slightly higher profile of the Scout has any real impact on mpg - hopefully others from the Scouting movement can help here.

 

Best I've ever got was 51.7mpg- all motorway. 

Worst 34.33mpg - mostly short journeys of 3 miles or less. 

 

Average is 43.4mpg.

 

That's over 100,252 miles,  using 10,511 litres and over 208 fill ups. 

 

These mpg figures are on a par with what I was getting with my 2002 1.6 VTEC Honda Civic,  so considering the Scout is bigger,  heavier and 4x4, I'm fairly impressed with these figures.

Edited 9 July, 20196 yr by Guest
FFS

If it were permanent 4WD I could understand the difference but my understanding is that the Haldex coupling is disconnected unless there is traction loss.

 

Can the rear driveshafts, differential and propshaft freewheeling make that much difference?

 

Ive had 2.0 injected Sierra Estates in the past both 2wd and 4wd and there was nowhere near the difference in fuel consumptions.

 

My chauffeur mate sold me the 2002 MK1 1.9 Tdi  and he did 188000 miles getting between 55 and 65mpg, he replaced it with a 2005 Touran 2.0 PD 170 with DSG box, we both drove from my place to the Dieppe ferry in convoy, same speed same acceleration, he got a higher indicated MPG than I did but of course I dont know hich cars fuel computer was exaggerating the most.

I have a brochure for the 2009 Octavia facelift model. Official combined mpg figures for diesel estates are 55.4 for the 2WD 1.9 TDI PD 105 bhp, 47.1 for the 4x4 and 47.9 for DSG with same engine, 51.4 for the 2WD 2.0 TDI PD 140 bhp , 44.8 for 4x4 and 44.1 for DSG with same engine. The figure for the 2.0 140 bhp Scout is 44.1, and VRS 170 bhp is 47.9 for manual and 47.1 for DSG, but as the Scout and VRS have DPFs I would be inclined to avoid them.

 

The official mpg figures may not always be achievable in real life, but may be useful for purposes of comparison between the different model variants. We have 44.8 mpg for the regular 2.0 4x4 compared to 44.1 for the 2.0 Scout, so not much difference, suggesting in answer to StickyMicky's question that the higher profile of the Scout doesn't make much difference to mpg. Given that the Scout has a DPF, but the standard 4x4 doesn't, I think we might have expected to see a bigger difference here, so maybe some other factors are involved. I would guess that the engine might have needed some modifications to accommodate the addition of the DPF, and these could have had a beneficial effect on mpg. Whatever the reason it seems that there is not much difference in mpg between the Scout and the regular 4x4. I also see there is a small difference in 0-62 times: 9.9 secs for the 4x4 and 10.2 secs for the Scout, probably not enough to be noticeable in real life.

 

7 hours ago, J.R. said:

If it were permanent 4WD I could understand the difference but my understanding is that the Haldex coupling is disconnected unless there is traction loss.

I have often wondered about that, and the official figures as stated above are 55.4 for 1.9 2WD compared to 47.1 for 1.9 4x4, and 51.4 for 2.0 2WD compared to 44.8 for 2.0 4x4.

 

On 08/07/2019 at 17:52, oldbloke said:

Seems like the reputation of the 2.0 TDI isn't nearly as good as the 1.9 TDI so I'm wondering why that is

I have had a 2007 2.0 TDI Elegance estate since it was new. Originally it was my company car. I bought it from the company when I retired, and decided to keep it as a second car when I purchased a nearly new Octavia Scout in late 2015. I have only done about 90,000 miles in this car, not that much in nearly 12 years perhaps, but in my opinion it is an excellent car, and if the 2.0 engine has a bad reputation then I don't know why that should be, as my engine has been perfectly fine.

 

I also have some experience of the 1.9 engine from driving my late father's car on several occasions. Although the official mpg was higher for the 1.9, I never found the real life mpg to be any higher than what I could get in my 2.0 car. I enjoy the 140 bhp of power and the 2.0 car has a 6 speed gearbox rather than the 5 speed of the 1.9. I have never regretted choosing the 2.0 TDI.

 

10 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

I have often wondered about that, and the official figures as stated above are 55.4 for 1.9 2WD compared to 47.1 for 1.9 4x4, and 51.4 for 2.0 2WD compared to 44.8 for 2.0 4x4.

  

 

That bears out what people are reporting but is an astounding difference!

On 10/07/2019 at 11:12, J.R. said:

That bears out what people are reporting but is an astounding difference!

 

Measured every fill up since I bought 2012 4x4 Estate 2.0CR Tdi, averaged 43 -48 pre remap.... had the roll back and Stage 1 tune (185-90bhp 400nm) now average 40 - 45 with mixed driving and mixed roads.

The fuel computer reading is not trustworthy and if you get a remap, it will be even further out, tank to tank is really the most accurate.

 

 

Completed several fully loaded camping trips and the car just eats the road up. The basic estate 4x4 is very understated BUT can comfortably hold off the Audis/Bmw trying to push past on the autobahn. The twisites are fun too you feel the Haldex bite as you accelerate through and out of the bends.

On the motorways and autoroutes etc is where this car excells, I'd say that the power from 40 -80mph is the most useable of any diesel car I've owned.

The road holding (4th Haldex) is as good or better IMO, than the old UR Quattro & 80/ 90 Quattro 5cyl of old, feels very safe and predictable when pressing on a bit.

 

Regards noise levels, it just isn't an audi or vw, I don't mind the odd rattles and a lack of sound proofing because I am paying a heck of a lot less when I take it to the garage.

It is noisey compared to an Audi a4 Avant, I've driven all regularly and the Octavia is the noisey compared.

 

Comfort, suspension....I opted  for uprated rear shocks and regret it when not carrying camping gear and love it when I am...

The tyres made the biggest difference in discomfort, I went for Michelin xclimates with the xduty sidewalll (15), brilliant tyre in all conditions so far but for the harshness of ride.

But, when the car is loaded for family camping etc..its as plush as an Audi or anthing else I can compare it with.

 

The haldex has given me a few inital scares but I'm at ease with it now and I diy change the oil every 10k..

 

Seats are basic in mine SE...but seem to be holding up well to busy life...I might say they could be a bit better for comfort but I could easily change to some audi/vw at some point.

 

Skoda for me, have always exceeded my expectations..I even won a rally in one many years ago. My mum had a felicia and that went great for many years...

they are really great cars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 11 July, 20196 yr by harryrope
slepping mastike

If you have accurate figures and you know what the fuel computer is telling you at the same time then its very easy to recalibrate the system using VCDS and it will be 100% accurate.

 

It may be teaching many to suck eggs but worth repeating nonetheless, if your trip computer is over-reading by 10% then the correction factor to put into VCDS is 91% and not 90%, in my case 88 or 89% for a 13% over-read, 88.5% would have been the exact figure but too many decimal places.

On 08/07/2019 at 17:52, oldbloke said:

Seems like the reputation of the 2.0 TDI isn't nearly as good as the 1.9 TDI so I'm wondering why that is and what I should be looking for if I'm looking at 2.0's?

 

Don't really know why either...

 

I know the 2.0 has a very different torque delivery but I don't think it has many problems and does much better with a DPF than the 1.9 did. The biggest problem these days is probably those who've had the EA189 emissions 'fix' which can cause premature failure of the EGR if it was partially clogged up prior to the fix.

 

My CR140 is on 173k miles and doesn't feel much different to how it did at 48k when I bought it. Never had a DPF light and the only problem I've had was a chaffed wire for the EGR cooler bypass valve, 5 minute fix as it was located at the top front of the engine.

 

The official consumption figures are:

- Urban 46.3mpg

- Extra urban 70.6mpg

- Combined 58.9mpg

 

 

To be honest, I don't think they are that far off. My cluster is calibrated within 2mpg and I've averaged 70mpg+ a few times on relaxed journeys. My normal commute is probably ~30 mins city/village/queues and 40-45 mins A roads and my average mpg over the last ten fill-ups is 58.7mpg. I've had four tanks with averages over 62mpg with the best at 63.2mpg

 

What do people reckon about a younger but very high mileage car. I've just found a 2.0 TDI CR, 2014 with 170k miles on, but full dealership service history (allegedly) and company car that looks like it's had a solid 30k/year on it so assuming that was just a long commute and engine has been taken care of, could be a good deal?

 

It's a bit over my budget but for peace of mind, and assuming the major stuff has been taken care of by a dealership could be a good deal?

 

Cheers!

 

2 hours ago, oldbloke said:

What do people reckon about a younger but very high mileage car. I've just found a 2.0 TDI CR, 2014 with 170k miles on, but full dealership service history (allegedly) and company car that looks like it's had a solid 30k/year on it so assuming that was just a long commute and engine has been taken care of, could be a good deal?

 

It's a bit over my budget but for peace of mind, and assuming the major stuff has been taken care of by a dealership could be a good deal?

 

Cheers!

 

just found out it's off a Leaseplan lease. not main dealer service, but regularly serviced and cambeltjust done. FSH given from leaseplan although it doesn't go into detail

 

in last 20k miles it's got 'READ ECU FAULT CODES' around the time of the last MOT, and 'TESTING AND DIAGNOSIS' twice around the time of this MOT which was just done in June

 

Edited 12 July, 20196 yr by oldbloke

There are many examples of high mileage Octavias around, and high mileage is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but some people might say that the build quality of the mark 3 is not as good as the earlier models. The DPF will be nearer the end of its life and a replacement will be costly. The fuel economy will be better on a newer car and the infotainment will be more advanced. Bonnet release is on the drivers side in mark 2 but passenger side in mark 3 - may be a problem if you don't have room to open the door. Leather steering wheel rim on 2007 elegance is better texture than on my 2015 Scout. The mark 3 is a bit bigger than the mark 2, so can carry more stuff but will not be as easy to park, but parking sensors and rear view camera can be a big help if you have them on your particular car.