I am contemplating buying an old Octavia Estate (last of the pre face lift ideally), will be used for school runs and during the week and usually 50 to 100 miles of distance driving at the weekends.

Seen a few 1.8TFSI and PD140 advertised locally, as well a lots of 1.9PDs, wondering which is the most savvy buy, in terms of reliability, running costs and drivability.

 

The 1.9 PD on paper has lower bhp and acceleration, but how does it manage on hills, I am not too fussed about 0-60speeds, just something that will pull a family of 5 + camping gear without excessive work of the gearbox (for a relaxed safe drive) or managed the northern motorways without fuss (m62/m65).  I've experience of the PD 1.9 only around town.

 

1.8TFSI - generally seem lower milage (near me), plenty economical enough , suprisingly cheap to insure and tax compared to my current car. I do like the idea of the 1.8 TFSI.

 

The 2.0 PD sits somewhere between I guess,

 

Cheers !

 

best to avoid 1.8tsi as risk of high oil consumption / timing chain issues

 

1.9PD better mpg than 2.0PD140

 

2.0PD140 not as good mpg as 1.9PD but more power

We have a 1.9PD 105 and a 2.0PD 140 - both 2007 pre-FL estates.  Both have excellent pulling power although the 2.0 benefits a bit more from gear usage as opposed to just cruising along.  Fuel economy on the 1.9 has been as high as 69mpg but usually comes in around 55-60.  The 2.0 is a bit thirstier, averaging 46 or so.

 

Our usage is local runs, short commute (7 miles) or longer trips out as and when.

 

Mind you, we're on t'other side of the Pennines from you so you might not want to take our word for it

 

Edited 14 October, 20196 yr by StickyMicky
updates

1 hour ago, wiilydog said:

best to avoid 1.8tsi as risk of high oil consumption / timing chain issues

 

Model I am looking at has the BZB engine, which having had a casual read is not [as] prone to the issues you mention - is this correct ?

I forgot to mention, DSG (6 speed) or manual ?

1 hour ago, StickyMicky said:

We have a 1.9PD 105 and a 2.0PD 140 - both 2007 pre-FL estates.  Both have excellent pulling power although the 2.0 benefits a bit more from gear usage as opposed to just cruising along.  Fuel economy on the 1.9 has been as high as 69mpg but usually comes in around 55-60.  The 2.0 is a bit thirstier, averaging 46 or so.

 

 

If you had to make the choice and keep only one of them, fuel economy aside which one would it be?

 

When I bought mine it was advertised as a 2l hence 6 speed & I thought 140hp, I didnt check such obvious things as that as I bought it for othere reasons, it was a dirt cheap project.

 

Driving it back I noticed a lack of power for a 2l 140hp, I looked down at the gearlever and the 5 speeds engraved on it told me what a muppet I had been.

 

Of course that didnt stop me trying to engage the non existant 6th gear several times in hope!!

 

Having read later of the various pitfalls of the 2l engine I decided I was quite lucky, the difference in economy that you cite is significant.

Having run a few Skoda company cars over the past 17 years and being made redundant it was an easy choice for me to get an 07 pre fl 1.9 Elegance estate as they can rack up big miles if looked after. I decided I wanted a bit more power so opted for a 50/50 remap at a local place. The difference is fantastic.

The Dyno run before showed 85 bhp at the wheels and 128 bhp at the wheels afterwards with a nice increase in torque. More power but also much smoother lower down.

A mix of motorway, fast A roads and town work I am getting around 46 mpg. a steady run on A roads is seeing 53 mpg.

On 14/10/2019 at 15:45, J.R. said:

If you had to make the choice and keep only one of them, fuel economy aside which one would it be?

 

The 1.9PD does everything it should do competently but it lacks the visceral excitement of a more powerful motor and improved handling.  The 2.0PD 4x4 isn't a race car by any means but it's certainly more exciting to drive

 

Naturally, I observe all appropriate speed limits occifer ...

 

Mine went from the former to the latter with £100 spent on a remapped ECU, the great thing is that its ony there when needed and on demand and drives normally otherwise, better than normally because it has a lot more torque for hills and can does not bog down or need downchanges as before, the 105hp in the heavier MKII body with taller gearing felt really sluggish compared to the MK1 110hp.

 

It will be interesting to see how the 110hp Yeti compares, I think the narrowing of the gear ratios with the 6 speed box may compensate.

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Mine went from the former to the latter with £100 spent on a remapped ECU, the great thing is that its ony there when needed and on demand and drives normally otherwise, better than normally because it has a lot more torque for hills and can does not bog down or need downchanges as before, the 105hp in the heavier MKII body with taller gearing felt really sluggish compared to the MK1 110hp.

 

It will be interesting to see how the 110hp Yeti compares, I think the narrowing of the gear ratios with the 6 speed box may compensate.

 

That is very useful - are £100 remaps still available ?

I think I would need to budget for a remap if I end up with a 1.9PD

On 14/10/2019 at 15:00, NGRhodes said:

 

Model I am looking at has the BZB engine, which having had a casual read is not [as] prone to the issues you mention - is this correct ?

Yes, you are right, the gen 1 EA888 1.8 did not suffer with the oil consumption vulnerability like the Gen 2s.

 

This article is US orientated but fairly on the mark.

 

https://engineswork.com/engines/volkswagen-engine/1-8-tsi-ea888-engine.html

On 16/10/2019 at 12:34, NGRhodes said:

 

That is very useful - are £100 remaps still available ?

I think I would need to budget for a remap if I end up with a 1.9PD

Don't mess around with a cheap remap as a lot are just a generic copy, spend a bit more for a custom map with a reputable company.

I paid £300 for mine at a local garage who has been tuning cars for well over 30 years and it included a dyno run before and after.

Horses for courses, happy enough with mine for the price.

 

Are they still available? Probably, just search Ebay with your engine code, for our old vehicles its an ECU swap and the people doing the copying of a generic map (I agree with Ruffday) have a constant supply of ECUs froms scrapyards for next to nothing (you can see them on ebay for £20 or so) that they will keep reprogramming them as long as they have a cheap suppy, the benefit is that you get to keep your old ECU as a spare and the new one is plug n play although the immobiliser is disabled which to me is a benefit.

 

You could also get your own unit reprogrammed cheaper but with 2 lots of carriage charges its only of interest if you want to keep the immobiliser and are not worried about being stuck with the one modified map.

Now the owner of a FL 2.0PD Elegance, pick it up next week.
Thanks !

The 2.0 is a good choice. I see that StickyMicky's car is a 4x4. You should get better mpg with a regular FWD car.

 

On 15/10/2019 at 01:00, NGRhodes said:

 

Model I am looking at has the BZB engine, which having had a casual read is not [as] prone to the issues you mention - is this correct ?

you are correct.

 

BZB should be manual only.

 

The gen 2 got the 7sp DSG and they are poo

Annoyingly the deal fell through due to dealer issues.

The 1.8 TFSi is back on the cards, has no history, but price drop, might be worth a look (is a good hour away).
Looked at an A4 2.5TDi Avant yesterday. Fanastic engine, pulls well !  A bit wary about mainteance costs and MPG seems only a little better than a 1.8TFSI.

On 30/10/2019 at 11:58, NGRhodes said:

Annoyingly the deal fell through due to dealer issues.

The 1.8 TFSi is back on the cards, has no history, but price drop, might be worth a look (is a good hour away).
Looked at an A4 2.5TDi Avant yesterday. Fanastic engine, pulls well !  A bit wary about mainteance costs and MPG seems only a little better than a 1.8TFSI.

 

I ran a 1.8 TSi for a couple of years as a company car and was very impressed with it. Ok it drank a bit of oil if driven hard but I racked up 100,000 in 2 years and on a decent run it would do mid to high 40 mpg. Also very good in the snow with good winter tyres on it. I may be a bit wary about no service history though. But if its cheap enough give it a look over. 

I've ended with with something a bit different an A Avant 2.5TDI - owned by someone who works next door to my brother (both mechanics) and known the car for ~5 years.
TBH after 3 time wasting dealers in a row, happy to deal with a real human. Great price, but a few niggles (needs new air-con compressor) and I've just fixed a couple of sticking air vent motors.