Hi,

 

I'm currently torn between waiting for a sensible Mk4 midrange petrol (whatever they turn out to be, equivalent to the current SE L 1.5 petrol) or diving in at the very tail end of VRS production now. I'd rather wait and get the MK4 VRS but it sounds like it probably won't be available for another year and I can't wait that long. The VRS is obviously quite a bit more expensive but I can just about afford it.

 

Curious to know people's opinions about which would be the wiser choice. I do around 20k miles a year so the fuel economy of the VRS concerns me a little but I've decided I can live with it for the extra fun if need be.

The 1.5 is proving to have quite a few issues.

 

If I was looking new I would be considering the 2.0TSi 190.

7 minutes ago, logiclee said:

The 1.5 is proving to have quite a few issues.

 

If I was looking new I would be considering the 2.0TSi 190.

 

Really? That's good to know. I would consider the 2.0 TSI but it has the worst fuel economy of the entire range according to the specs, which rules it out. Maybe the VRS is the way to go.

The 2.0 TSi 190 DSG combined economy is 47.9mpg. Extra Urban 59mpg

 

The 2.0TSi 245 DSG combined economy is  44.1mpg. Extra Urban 53mpg

 

Owners of the 190 on the forums are getting pretty good economy from it.

Edited 21 August, 20196 yr by logiclee

5 minutes ago, logiclee said:

The 2.0 TSi 190 DSG combined economy is 47.9mpg. Extra Urban 59mpg

 

The 2.0TSi 245 DSG combined economy is  44.1mpg. Extra Urban 53mpg

 

Owners of the 190 on the forums are getting pretty good economy from it.

 

I must be looking in the wrong place for real numbers, I was getting figures from the Skoda spec sheet here: https://az749841.vo.msecnd.net/sitesengb/alv1/88a469d7-0be0-4067-ab26-80cfb956f4c8/SKODA_OCTAVIA_Pricing_and_Spec_AUG19.f4c42c4c76068852fd653b451110f665.pdf

 

Those are both better figures than the PDF. Most of my miles will be on the motorway so the extra urban numbers are better than I was expecting, thanks.

4 minutes ago, justfixthebridgealready said:

 

I must be looking in the wrong place for real numbers, I was getting figures from the Skoda spec sheet here: https://az749841.vo.msecnd.net/sitesengb/alv1/88a469d7-0be0-4067-ab26-80cfb956f4c8/SKODA_OCTAVIA_Pricing_and_Spec_AUG19.f4c42c4c76068852fd653b451110f665.pdf

 

Those are both better figures than the PDF. Most of my miles will be on the motorway so the extra urban numbers are better than I was expecting, thanks.

 

From what I can see the pdf is only listing the 2.0TSi 4x4.

 

Model options are changing on a near monthly basis at the moment so models are being dropped as production ramps down.

Edited 21 August, 20196 yr by logiclee

23 minutes ago, logiclee said:

The 2.0TSi 245 DSG combined economy is  44.1mpg. Extra Urban 53mpg

 

Best tank I've had was 35mpg, to get another 10 out of it would require driving in an incredibly non-VRS fashion IMO.

2 minutes ago, dan245 said:

 

Best tank I've had was 35mpg, to get another 10 out of it would require driving in an incredibly non-VRS fashion IMO.

 

 

Indeed, We can only compare test figures for a direct comparison.

 

The 2.0TSi 190 is a different engine and not just detuned. The reports from owners are surprisingly good economy wise.

12 minutes ago, logiclee said:

 

From what I can see the pdf is only listing the 2.0TSi 4x4.

 

Model options are changing on a near monthly basis at the moment so models are being dropped as production ramps down.

That's why I was getting confused, the 4x4 is the only version available in the configurator now too. Is it not likely to be more or less the same engines available in the Mk4 anyway?

 

I've had a look around but there doesn't seem to be much info yet since it hasn't been unveiled. I just feel like I'd regret it if I don't just suck it up and get a VRS now over a standard Mk4, but without knowing how it will compare it's difficult to make a decision.

 

 

I'm hoping the Mk4 will be a big improvement with Noise and refinement.  Probably the most complained about issue with the Mk3.

 

As the 2.0TSi 190 is a new unit and available across new VAG models it will almost definitely feature in the Mk4.

 

For 20k miles a year (Same as myself) I suspect you do a lot of high speed A road and Motorway work. You need a good test drive in a Mk3 to ensure you are OK with the wind and road noise as well as the ride.

4 minutes ago, logiclee said:

I'm hoping the Mk4 will be a big improvement with Noise and refinement.  Probably the most complained about issue with the Mk3.

 

As the 2.0TSi 190 is a new unit and available across new VAG models it will almost definitely feature in the Mk4.

 

For 20k miles a year (Same as myself) I suspect you do a lot of high speed A road and Motorway work. You need a good test drive in a Mk3 to ensure you are OK with the wind and road noise as well as the ride.

 

Yeah I probably spent 75% of my time on dual carriageways or motorways, which is why the extra urban mpg was a slight concern on the VRS and why I was considering something less thirsty. I tested the 2.0 diesel a week or two ago and it was noticeably quieter than the knackered old Vauxhall Vectra I drive now, so if this is what's considered loud I'm fine with it. Basically anything modern would be a significant upgrade over what I've been using for years, so that sort of thing doesn't concern me. What does bothers me is that if the expected price of the Mk4 is true, ie higher than the Mk3, I probably would've been as well just getting the VRS.

I have done 57k miles in the last 20 months in my vRS TDi and most of that has been with 19’s and I don’t have DCC. I find the ride very good, obviously not the best by really not bad for a car on 19 inch wheels and 35 profile sidewalls. There is a bit of noise but nothing that sound deadening couldn’t fix if it really bothered you. I tend to have the radio set a volume where it doesn’t bother me. Overall if you want a good motorway cruiser you would be better off in a Passat but the vRS has a surprising agility that a Passat doesn’t and for that reason I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend a vRS. If I were in your position I would definitely plump for a vRS because why not? If you want the best out of it comfort wise then go for a 2.0 TSI 190 as they get the IRS like the vRS and you can get 17 inch wheels.

Why not wait a bit to see if Skoda dealers reduce the price of the outgoing VRS to get shut of them when the mark 4 Octavia is released.  You would then be in a better position to make a decision on whether to go for a new mark 4 or an end of line mark 3.

38 minutes ago, justfixthebridgealready said:

 

Yeah I probably spent 75% of my time on dual carriageways or motorways, which is why the extra urban mpg was a slight concern on the VRS and why I was considering something less thirsty. I tested the 2.0 diesel a week or two ago and it was noticeably quieter than the knackered old Vauxhall Vectra I drive now, so if this is what's considered loud I'm fine with it. Basically anything modern would be a significant upgrade over what I've been using for years, so that sort of thing doesn't concern me. What does bothers me is that if the expected price of the Mk4 is true, ie higher than the Mk3, I probably would've been as well just getting the VRS.

 

Yes it's all relative. (I sometimes use a Berlingo Van)

 

We've had Skoda's for years and have had a Mk1 and Mk2 Octavia's as second cars, still actually have a Mk2. But since my commute changed and I've been doing 20k a year for the last 15 years my commuters have been new or nearly new Mondeo's and Passat's. 

I bought a Mk3 TDi last year for my commute but the lack of refinement, harsh ride and poor audio made the car a much less enjoyable commuting experience. I also had some reliability issues and after just 1 year I traded it in.

 

Some other issues to be aware of. The VRS and 2.0TSi 190 get a fairly reliable wet clutch DSG and independent rear suspension. If you go for the 1.5TSi you get the Dry clutch DSG which does not have the best reputation for reliability and torsion beam rear suspension. 

My 190 seems really good on long journeys, but around town there's probably not much in it between 190/230/245.

Edited 21 August, 20196 yr by ItalianJob
Added another picture from another journey

36 minutes ago, SashaGrace said:

I have done 57k miles in the last 20 months in my vRS TDi and most of that has been with 19’s and I don’t have DCC. I find the ride very good, obviously not the best by really not bad for a car on 19 inch wheels and 35 profile sidewalls. There is a bit of noise but nothing that sound deadening couldn’t fix if it really bothered you. I tend to have the radio set a volume where it doesn’t bother me. Overall if you want a good motorway cruiser you would be better off in a Passat but the vRS has a surprising agility that a Passat doesn’t and for that reason I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend a vRS. If I were in your position I would definitely plump for a vRS because why not? If you want the best out of it comfort wise then go for a 2.0 TSI 190 as they get the IRS like the vRS and you can get 17 inch wheels.

 

Crikey that's a lot of driving! I was considering the DCC but decided I can live without it, the ride seemed fine on the one I tested that didn't have it. The 'why not' is the position I'm leaning towards at the moment. Also I find the Passat kind of ugly whereas I'm rather fond of the Octavia's split headlights that so many hate. The 2.0 TSI isn't available as a new build anymore unfortunately. I could probably find one with the specific options I wanted but I had my heart set on a new build.

 

33 minutes ago, nbramwel said:

Why not wait a bit to see if Skoda dealers reduce the price of the outgoing VRS to get shut of them when the mark 4 Octavia is released.  You would then be in a better position to make a decision on whether to go for a new mark 4 or an end of line mark 3.

 

I was considering that for exactly that reason, but I wanted a specific set of options in a specific colour and from looking on Autotrader etc most of them seem to be in white for some reason, which I definitely don't want. It is a good idea but I'm concerned that my options would be too limited if I go that route. They haven't said when the VRS will be completely cut off from factory builds (seems impending?) so if I wait another month for the Frankfurt unveiling it might be too late.

 

9 minutes ago, logiclee said:

 

Yes it's all relative. (I sometimes use a Berlingo Van)

 

We've had Skoda's for years and have had a Mk1 and Mk2 Octavia's as second cars, still actually have a Mk2. But since my commute changed and I've been doing 20k a year for the last 15 years my commuters have been new or nearly new Mondeo's and Passat's. 

I bought a Mk3 TDi last year for my commute but the lack of refinement, harsh ride and poor audio made the car a much less enjoyable commuting experience. I also had some reliability issues and after just 1 year I traded it in.

 

Some other issues to be aware of. The VRS and 2.0TSi 190 get a fairly reliable wet clutch DSG and independent rear suspension. If you go for the 1.5TSi you get the Dry clutch DSG which does not have the best reputation for reliability and torsion beam rear suspension. 

 

Thanks for the heads up, in that case I'll definitely avoid the 1.5!

11 minutes ago, ItalianJob said:

My 190 seems really good on long journeys, but around town there's probably not much in it between 190/230/245.

 

Those are the kind of figures I'm looking for, just wondering how the VRS 245 would be in comparison.

4 minutes ago, justfixthebridgealready said:

 

Those are the kind of figures I'm looking for, just wondering how the VRS 245 would be in comparison.

 

My long  term average in my 245 manual Estate is 32mpg. You can do a lot better on the motorway (obeying the speed limits). 

I get you re new build. I am in the same boat, do I change my car now my mileage is lower? I want to but there are no pre built cars out there with the options I want and a new build would be too many £££. Some discounting is being done on the new vRS right now, deffo worth considering

I would get the 245 I think.

 

Ok, mine's 'only' a 230 but from what I've read there's no difference to economy between that and a 245.

 

I'm pleasantly surprised with the economy from it.   

Sure, it'll drink fuel if you plant it, but as soon as it's warm and cruising it seems to sip it.

I commute 9 miles each way, 5.5 on a congested motorway and the rest urban and I generally get 36-37mpg over that (I have managed 40 before).  Over the tank it's more like 33-34 as I have short urban trips factored in too, which get maybe 25-30mpg.

BUT economy on the motorway in isolation is way higher and is what brings my average up.  I've not actually done a long run in it yet as we generally use the wife's car but I the when I did do a 15 mile trip I got 44.8mpg and it was still climbing.  

I'm fairly confident over very long distance I'd probably get high 40s if not low 50s.

 

 

At 20k a year I'm guessing you're doing a 30 mile each way commute, probably at a cruising speed?  Unless you're driving with a lead foot I suspect you'll get in the 40s somewhere and where about will likely depend on your driving, traffic and hills.

 

Basically the VRS will use more fuel but at a steady speed it is very good for what it is.

 

 

 

vRS 245 here: I got 43.8 mpg once on a longer motorway trip recently in mine with me driving my first ever above 40mpg in 3k miles! To say I was impressed was an understatement but did require granny like driving  My wife is able to extract 40+mpg easily from the car.

If you are remotely worried about MPG don't get this car is my recommendation  I'm not since we're a low car usage family not needed for commuting basically. I think 40+mpg is amazing but there are those that don't think thats enough.

 

Edited 21 August, 20196 yr by Scotty72

41 minutes ago, justfixthebridgealready said:

 

Those are the kind of figures I'm looking for, just wondering how the VRS 245 would be in comparison.

 

I just can't get my average speed that high due to the journeys I do, but the closest comparison I have is this - 

 

Sure, this is not 'driving it like a VRS should be' but most of the time there's just no space for me to do so....

 

 

5 minutes ago, Scotty72 said:

I think 40+mpg is amazing but there are those that don't think thats enough.

 

 

Depends on what you do really.  I do ~5k a year and I've been getting 24-27mpg for the last 12 years so mid 30s average is a delight tbh.  Plus petrol is cheaper as it's 95RON not 98...

But if I was doing 20k a year I'd want over 40mpg average as that'd work out too expensive otherwise.

Getting a low power car is not an option tho, I'd rather drive a powerful car like a granny 80% of the time to enable the other 20%.

2017 245 DSG, Doing similar mileage on mostly 60mph A roads with enough traffic that you couldn't go much quicker if you wanted to, my long term properly measured average is currently 39.1mpg. There's a good bit of enthusiastic weekend driving amongst that though. 

 

My best whole tank average has been 44mpg through a fair bit of 50mph roadworks. Best journey average was 48mpg over a couple of hundred miles. 

 

It's quite nice having such a jekyll and hyde type car - it's really remarkably economical if you want it to be and yet wakes up and goes when you want that too.

 

For me it's the ideal compromise car, if you need something that can do it all pretty well. 

15 minutes ago, Alex-W said:

 

Depends on what you do really.  I do ~5k a year and I've been getting 24-27mpg for the last 12 years so mid 30s average is a delight tbh.  Plus petrol is cheaper as it's 95RON not 98...

But if I was doing 20k a year I'd want over 40mpg average as that'd work out too expensive otherwise.

Getting a low power car is not an option tho, I'd rather drive a powerful car like a granny 80% of the time to enable the other 20%.

Mid 30s from the vRS 245 is easy we're agreeing on that and thats me saying it where as 40+ is very difficult for me to achieve and running on supermarket cooking petrol 95. We're probably gonna be on around 5k miles a year too. My PCH allows me 8k hence I got the car for a good price per month with nothing extra down.

On the flip side for the 1% of time I'm in the car on my own its that reason to have the 245.. I can get averages of around 20mpg whilst still remembering I'm on the public road.. 22 years of motorcycling taught me about riding briskly but safely and always leaving a proper margin for error. That doesn't mean slow at all in the right conditions/road.