1.5 TSI disappeared

[shyVRS245]

1 hour ago, Gmac983 said:

So that would be a theoretical 775 miles on 70 litres of fuel going by your projected fuel range. Which would work out at 50.4mpg I presume the 64.6mpg you mention is just of the trip computer and not manually worked out? Just trying to work it all out. 

Long term maxidot shows 48.8mpg but last full tank was exactly 50mpg calculated. Skoda NEDC figure which was relevant when the car was new 19 months ago claims 51.4mpg so pretty close. My 2017 Vrs245 manual NEDC figure is 42.8mpg and calculated over 24,600 miles actual figure is 40.55mpg.

[silver1011]

3 hours ago, Gmac983 said:

It all really depends on what you expect from the car. If you value economy over everything else then you may be quite satisfied with the 1.5tsi However if you wish to trade of a little economy for a lot more performance (whether your a speedster or tow things or whatever) then you won't be disappointed with the larger engine or its economy. I found the 1.5tsi to be a little gutless and that was sampled in the octavia not the larger/heavier kodiaq. 

 

Not necessarily, fuel economy never factored into my purchase decision, doing less than 10,000 miles per year the difference between 35mpg and 50mpg is a few hundred pounds.

 

I test drove the 1.4 TSI and 2.0 TSI and for our needs the extra 40bhp didn't justify the extra £2,000.

[Gmac983]

19 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

 

Not necessarily, fuel economy never factored into my purchase decision, doing less than 10,000 miles per year the difference between 35mpg and 50mpg is a few hundred pounds.

 

I test drove the 1.4 TSI and 2.0 TSI and for our needs the extra 40bhp didn't justify the extra £2,000.

 

It's funny you should say that. As that was my reasoning to choose the 2.0tsi over any other engine in the kodiaq range. I do around 8k per year so fuel economy wasn't a massive issue for me either really (with in reason I mean). I haven't driven any version of the 1.4tsi so cannot comment on it specifically. However the demonstrator kodiaq I test drove was the 150tdi (that was the car the dealer had with dsg, I hadn't driven a dsg since 2007 so needed to refresh my memory before buying) and I found the 150 tdi to be a bit flat which helped confirm my choice of the 2.0tsi which goes very well indeed. As I said elsewhere I found the 1.5tsi sampled in an octy to be rather gutless, almost as if it's restricted in some way kind of reluctant feeling you might say. I felt I really had to "ring its neck" to make even moderate progress to the detriment of the fuel economy. So IMO the extra 40 bhp and 70 NM of torque make a really difference with 2.0tsi and well worth having. As the old saying goes there "ain't no replacement for displacement". 

[Gmac983]

2 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Long term maxidot shows 48.8mpg but last full tank was exactly 50mpg calculated. Skoda NEDC figure which was relevant when the car was new 19 months ago claims 51.4mpg so pretty close. My 2017 Vrs245 manual NEDC figure is 42.8mpg and calculated over 24,600 miles actual figure is 40.55mpg.

 

So the 64.6mpg you mentioned to begin with. Where did that come from if your calculating 50ish mpg. I wasn't discussing how close to The NEDC figures you were. I just wondered how you came about 64.6mpg in your first post. 

[silver1011]

11 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

As the old saying goes there "ain't no replacement for displacement". 

 

When I read that I thought of this 😂

 

 

A valid phrase back then, less so now.

 

We had the 2.0 TDI 150PS in our previous Octavia Scout, I honestly believe the 1.4 TSI 150PS in my Kodiaq is much more eager.

 

You can't please everyone with a single engine offering, that's why Skoda give us several choices I suppose.

 

Edited 27 August, 2019 by silver1011

[Gmac983]

"just them good 'ol boys

Never meanin' no harm" 😁

[Gmac983]

Perhaps the octy I drove was a bad un'. Who knows? 

[bigjohn]

8 hours ago, BigJase88 said:

its not about rpm's its about engine load

 

my 1.5tsi leon long-term average is 36mpg so its not fantastic either and I'm very disappointed in the fuel economy it can achieve

 

My previous gen 1.4tsi Superb has an overall average of just short of 46mpg and despite being a large barge feels very relaxed indeed on a motorway.  

 

 

[Guest BigJase88]

12 hours ago, DaveMiller said:

> going by official fuel consumption figures I should be achieving 57mpg in my 1.5tsi, I am not getting anywhere near that <

 

Is that the old “extra urban” figure?  Who says you “should” be achieving that?

 

Well, you probably would get close to it .... if you drove according to the way that’s specified.  Do you, for example, always start with a warm engine (which is specified)?  Do you average only 39 mph (which is specified)?  If not, you won’t get similar figures.

Nope that is the new combined mpg not extra urban

and does anybody start on a warm engine or drive at 39mph?

 

I find from the 1.5tsi, real world mixed driving A / B roads your looking at 40mpg

On a motorway I average about 44-45mpg, as soon as you go any faster than 70mph the 1.5 tsi suffers badly with fuel efficiency

[Guest BigJase88]

12 hours ago, krigl said:

Someone once said to me an interesting fact regarding the Ford EcoBoost engines... I feel the exact same is also completeley the same for TSI engines. 

 

There is either Eco or Boost with these engines... You can never have both! 

 

You are eaither a slow and jentle with gas pedal and achieve superb economy or you use the turbine to be quick and anything else than eco. The moment the turbine gives the extra omph, you throw the eco word out of the window. 

couldn't of put it any better myself

you have to drive it like a grandad and nurse it to achieve good mpg

 

believe it or not but hoofing it on a backroad I achieve less mpg than my old 2.0 n/a civic type r, and that is bad, and im having much less fun too 😞

[silver1011]

Firstly, no one buys a Kodiaq to set the tarmac on fire.

 

Secondly, regardless of engine size, no one buys a 150PS variant if their preferred driving style is hoofing it around.

 

Thirdly, the TSI engines are great, super smooth, deadly silent, and in the case of the 1.4 TSI proven to be bullet proof, unlike Ford's smaller capacity EcoBoost engines.

 

When driven normally I get to enjoy all of the above, with the added bonus of great fuel economy. For the other 3% of the time i.e. needing to overtake it'll happily fling itself down the road at a more than capable turn of speed to do the job being asked of it.

 

It should hardly come as a surprise that you can't have your cake and eat it i.e. performance and economy.

[Gmac983]

1 hour ago, silver1011 said:

Firstly, no one buys a Kodiaq to set the tarmac on fire.

 

Secondly, regardless of engine size, no one buys a 150PS variant if their preferred driving style is hoofing it around.

 

Thirdly, the TSI engines are great, super smooth, deadly silent, and in the case of the 1.4 TSI proven to be bullet proof, unlike Ford's smaller capacity EcoBoost engines.

 

When driven normally I get to enjoy all of the above, with the added bonus of great fuel economy. For the other 3% of the time i.e. needing to overtake it'll happily fling itself down the road at a more than capable turn of speed to do the job being asked of it.

 

It should hardly come as a surprise that you can't have your cake and eat it i.e. performance and economy.

 

Just out of curiosity, what's the vrs model for then? 

 

You keep talking about your older 1.4tsi. Isn't this thread about the 1.5tsi? I found the 1.5tsi IMO to be a below par performer. But thats only my opinion and you clearly have yours. Hence as you said, skoda sell their cars with more Than 1 engine option. 

[shyVRS245]

The Kodiaq Vrs at £43,000 retail (no-one actually pays anything near that but road tax is about £455 per year).is purely a marketing exercise and is nice for the Managers at Skoda Towers Milton Keynes to transport their children to school in for the 6 months they get to drive it until the next shiny new car arrives on their drive, because they don't have to pay for servicing or the replacement 20" tyres.

[Gmac983]

😀

Edited 28 August, 2019 by Gmac983
...

[Gmac983]

I'll just have to sell the kids when my 20 inchers need changed. 😁

[silver1011]

The vRS is an SUV with sporty / frilly bits stuck on, just like all current vRS models. And it's diesel.

 

The 1.5 TSI is all but identical to the 1.4 TSI in terms of performance, power and fuel economy, yet they somehow managed to make it worse to drive, so they're essentially the same, at least in the context of this thread i.e. performance vs. economy.

 

I'm not a Skoda fan boy by any stretch, but I still maintain the 1.5 TSI (and therefore the 1.4 TSI) are well suited to the Kodiaq, by hitting the sweet spot between performance and economy.

[Gmac983]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As the "sweet spot" varies person to person and my sweet spot of the kodiaq range is the 2.0tsi 190 and for higher mileage users I would suggest the 190 tdi for a few more mpg. I wouldn't recommend the 1.5tsi for reasons already discussed at length here already and equally I wouldn't recommend the 150 tdi either as in my opinion they just don't have enough mojo regardless of fuel economy. 

[linni]

1 hour ago, Gmac983 said:

I'll just have to sell the kids when my 20 inchers need changed. 😁

 

Actually it`s not so bad.

Just replaced mine to Pirelli Scorpions. 379 euros + VAT for a set. I am prety sure you can get more for your kids 😂

[Gmac983]

Dunno you haven't met my kids 😁