Although this topic has been discussed many time here, I'm still missing some info which is very important to me.

most reviews refer to the economy, revs, power, etc with regards to an average city or highway driving scenarios.

 

But what about driving with and Octavia fully loaded (wife, 3 kids and luggage), possibly uphill? We often go camping, fully loading the boot and some more on the roof as well.

On paper, the 1.0 seems better for the job but is it true in the real world? Is one better than the other or are both just good/bad at it?

the 2016 1.4 TSI is still an option, yet much more expensive, and I'd rather not go for that option.

 

Thanks

Any smaller capacity engine will ultimately start to struggle once laden and going uphill. You need to drive them to suit and that usually means revving them, which decreases economy. I am not a fan of smaller engines but equally I understand the need for manufacturers to do their bit and make more economical cars. If money allowed I would spend the extra and get the 1.4tsi.

My 1.4tsi Octavia estate carried a full load of 4 adults and luggage and lots of purchased wine around mountainous Tasmania with no problem at all.

Sure the 1.0tsi is a small engine but its 200Nm is the equivalent of a good 2 litre naturally aspirated engine and available over a wide rev range.

Overtaking on a single lane road while fully loaded may require some forethought and caution but that is no bad thing with your family on board. Motorways would be a doddle.

  

Edited 1 September, 20205 yr by Gerrycan

2 hours ago, Johhny said:

Although this topic has been discussed many time here, I'm still missing some info which is very important to me.

most reviews refer to the economy, revs, power, etc with regards to an average city or highway driving scenarios.

 

But what about driving with and Octavia fully loaded (wife, 3 kids and luggage), possibly uphill? We often go camping, fully loading the boot and some more on the roof as well.

On paper, the 1.0 seems better for the job but is it true in the real world? Is one better than the other or are both just good/bad at it?

the 2016 1.4 TSI is still an option, yet much more expensive, and I'd rather not go for that option.

 

Thanks

 

My mum has a 1.0tsi 115 scala and we've been 5 up in that and the otherwise quiet engine did struggle a little bit and sounded quite worked. My dad was driving at the time and said 'I'm having to keep the revs up to keep us moving.'

 

He's driven my car and says an engine of that size wouldn't be suitable unless you're prepared to rag the nuts off it all the time.

 

I've had a go it my mum's car and for 1 person to go to work, nip the shops or go anywhere else local, it's competent enough. If it was needed for longer journeys with more people and more luggage more often, we would have steered towards an octavia with a 1.5tsi 150 engine.

 

So in your case, I would say a 1.4tsi would prove a better purchase.

2 hours ago, Ecomatt said:

Any smaller capacity engine will ultimately start to struggle once laden and going uphill. You need to drive them to suit and that usually means revving them, which decreases economy. I am not a fan of smaller engines but equally I understand the need for manufacturers to do their bit and make more economical cars. If money allowed I would spend the extra and get the 1.4tsi.

+1

I've done nigh on 70k Kms in 1.0s over the last few years. 1.2 Vs 1.0 is no argument - very similar specs. The 1.4 is a different beastie. 

I mainly run one up and have excellent economy, 60+ mpg. I had a 1.4tsi dsg Superb for a couple of weeks and didn't get close to the Octy numbers. We're talking 25% more fuel. Yes, some of that is the size and weight, but the roads were just as empty and cold. 

If you are prepared to bite the cost bullet every time you fill or insure the car (don't think it makes any tax difference over there, here it does), then go ahead and stretch. I've perceived the 1.0 to be underpowered only when it's stupidly hot and the car's full of people and gear. Even then, the limitations are mild. We took the present car up north a few months back, jammed to the gunnels with *heavy* gear and it was still enough. Yes, you do need to use revs sometimes - mine sings nicely to 5500 and third is great for a road overtaking, as it goes from 70km/h to 120 nicely - but I fail to see the chore in this. I also disagree that it fails to get out of its own way - it is an economy-focused engine that delivers excellent mpg numbers and can be reasonably rapid if you need it. Doesn't mean it's fast, as it isn't.

 

I don't see the point in paying a price all the time if you 'might need' the advantage three times a year.

18 hours ago, brettikivi said:

I've done nigh on 70k Kms in 1.0s over the last few years. 1.2 Vs 1.0 is no argument - very similar specs. The 1.4 is a different beastie. 

I mainly run one up and have excellent economy, 60+ mpg. I had a 1.4tsi dsg Superb for a couple of weeks and didn't get close to the Octy numbers. We're talking 25% more fuel. Yes, some of that is the size and weight, but the roads were just as empty and cold. 

If you are prepared to bite the cost bullet every time you fill or insure the car (don't think it makes any tax difference over there, here it does), then go ahead and stretch. I've perceived the 1.0 to be underpowered only when it's stupidly hot and the car's full of people and gear. Even then, the limitations are mild. We took the present car up north a few months back, jammed to the gunnels with *heavy* gear and it was still enough. Yes, you do need to use revs sometimes - mine sings nicely to 5500 and third is great for a road overtaking, as it goes from 70km/h to 120 nicely - but I fail to see the chore in this. I also disagree that it fails to get out of its own way - it is an economy-focused engine that delivers excellent mpg numbers and can be reasonably rapid if you need it. Doesn't mean it's fast, as it isn't.

 

I don't see the point in paying a price all the time if you 'might need' the advantage three times a year.

 

There must be a calculation error as your stats show you only got an average of 47mpg (6L/100Km) over the last 13,780 km driven this year?? The best you had was one fillup at 55mpg, none show anything like 60+Mpg, unless the stats you entered over the year are all wrong? You are also comparing your manual to a DSG which will be slightly worse. 

 

 

9 hours ago, matrix2020 said:

 

There must be a calculation error as your stats show you only got an average of 47mpg (6L/100Km) over the last 13,780 km driven this year?? The best you had was one fillup at 55mpg, none show anything like 60+Mpg, unless the stats you entered over the year are all wrong? You are also comparing your manual to a DSG which will be slightly worse. 

 

 

There is an unfortunate tendency amongst the 'fuelmisers' (and I include myself) to emphasise the best attained figures so those 60+mpg figures would probably be achieved on a long run.

Real life, which includes local short runs, drag down actual averages and in brettikivi's locality he gets severe adverse winter conditions and extensive use of the pre-use engine heater, which also burns fuel.

 

I've followed brettikivi's consumption reports for years and I'd say his two 1.0tsi have been consistently 5+ mpg better than I would expect to achieve with my 1.4tsi at a given speed set speed between 100 to 120 kph. Strangely, at lower average speeds the difference is less clear, but there may be other factors involved there.

Regrettably the 1.0tsi Octavia has never been available in Australia otherwise I would probably have bought one although it would also have to be a manual because I agree with you that they are generally more economical although that may not be as true on a run as the DSG box's have a longer top gear.

 

Re-reading the OP's requirements I still think the 1.0tsi would meet his requirements although in those situations with the full family load and the top box in hilly conditions then the extra torque from the 1.4tsi could be useful. Either way the OP will not get 60 mpg in those conditions but I'd expect ~40mpg (main problem being drag from the roof box).

I genuinely don't get the point of the really small engines.  You're sacrificing day to day usability for the hope of a few pennies in fuel savings.

The 1.4/1,5TSI has a very good combination of power and economy.  Hell, somebody posted on here recently about getting 80+ mpg from a 1.5.  A friend has a 1.4 TSI and averages above 50mpg.  Another friend has a 1.4 Leon with the same engine.  Again, very economical and pretty nippy.  No issues with day to day power.

 

The savings you'll get in fuel from a smaller engine are negligable in real world money terms.   The difference between 50mpg an 60mpg isn't huge, nowhere near as significant as 25mpg to 35mpg.

I don't understand why people chase the high numbers as they're saving such little amounts of money quite often, it's just a psychological desire to get a higher number rather than an actual cost saving benefit.

 

You're also more likely to stamp on the pedal more often and drive it harder, negating any benefit.

The 1.4/1.5 is the sensible choice for a person who wants economy from a petrol octavia.

 

TBH though, I wouldn't consider lower than the vRS myself and didn't when I was looking.  Considering I manage over 30mpg including all my short journeys and can top 45-50mpg on a motorway at a steady speed it's still pretty economical.  Insurance is dirt cheap, tax is cheap.   Not saying it's the sensible choice and you don't NEED over 200bhp.  But the 1.4/1.5 gives the economy benefits without the frustration of having to think about power.

The biggest cost of having a reasonably new car is depreciation and that'll outweigh the savings in fuel by miles.

@Alex-W, I'm curious what percentage of your car's performance you would estimate you use on public roads?

I would guess I use less than 40% of my 1.4tsi performance potential 99% of the time, and that is driving at whatever the speed limit is.

Hell, I reckon I only drive at less than 60% of my 2003 Toyota Echo 1.3 naturally aspirated. I was stopped for speeding in it about a year ago and I had only reached 3300 rpm in 2nd gear (that's 50kph!) and somehow got off with a caution.

 

The OP has a growing young family and has indicated the 1.4tsi option might not be as affordable as a 1.0tsi and I think that is a reasonable and responsible approach to his family's transport needs.

I also think the 1.0tsi will be more than adequate on public roads but the OP should get a test drive to confirm whether it would meet his expectations.

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

@Alex-W, I'm curious what percentage of your car's performance you would estimate you use on public roads?

 

 

In reality, something pretty low.

For popping to the shops etc, it's not needed at all.

The reality is It's used for comfortable overtaking when required (of which the frequency is low) and needless acceleration when I'm on my own, just to make me smile.

I also have a young family (a 1 and a 3yr old) and drive like a grandad with them in the car.

 

My point was not to buy a vRS, I know that's over and above what is needed.

My point is that even running a vRS is not particularly expensive and therefore for those times when the power is needed I think the cost is well worthwhile for me.

 

However for many people it's not.  But I don't get the advantage of the 1.0 over 1.4 even for the majority.

Purchase prices and running costs are very similar but the day to day difference will be night and day.

I had a 1.0 TSI as a hire car a few years back and on a ~350 mile round trip I only got low 40s as I just had to push it so hard to keep up with the flow of traffic.  It wasn't as terrible to drive as I thought it would be tbh but there wasn't any real advantage to the loss of power/annoyance it did have.

So without going too much into detail: I'm on my second 1.0TSI. The first was a late 2016 model, no GPF, one of the first in Finland. The new one has a GPF and is a kombi, not a hatch. I did not use spritmonitor for the first one.

 

The 2016 car improved significantly in consumption after the 10-15000km mark, and was consistently able to give me 5,6l or so as a long term average. This despite cold temps, winter tyres and traffic on the regular commute. I hit a personal best of 4,2 one trip up to the summer house - the only reason that was possible was because I was driving 60km/h for a bunch of it. Speed makes a signficant difference.

 

Opinion: the only reason that insane record could have been set in the 1.x TSI is because the traffic is flowing at a slow speed. Minimal stops, starts, acceleration or braking. So the DSG drops it into the highest gear possible and it rumbles along.

 

Octy vs. Superb: the Superb does a theoretical 5.2l/100. Both the Octavias have a theoretical number at 4.8 or so.

But the Superb is a DSG. That should deliver better numbers than a manual shift. 

 

I was expecting a certain amount more, that's fair enough. But over 6l/100 - I think I ended up with 6.6l/100 - in comparison to a normal 5.3 for the Octy on the clear runs to the office with winter tyres on and up north - no, that was a chunk more that I was very surprised to see. I've read a tale on the German forums of someone hitting 1000km on a single tank in a Superb 1.4. I was looking to that and not 800. 

 

I absolutely see the point in the small engine. It's cheaper to buy. It's cheaper to insure and it's cheaper to fuel. If someone's on a shoestring budget for a new-ish car, stretching for something which is going to cost more to run is counterproductive. Yes, it's more desirable. Is it really going to matter if resale isn't for another five-six years? Especially if there's finance involved at higher interest rates, that £1-2k on purchase can make a massive difference in affordability.

 

Having said that, I agree that a test drive - preferably full! - is important. Better still would be one back-to-back. But the roof box will make a big difference so it can only be a guide.

 

 - Bret

On 02/09/2020 at 19:09, matrix2020 said:

 

There must be a calculation error as your stats show you only got an average of 47mpg (6L/100Km) over the last 13,780 km driven this year?? The best you had was one fillup at 55mpg, none show anything like 60+Mpg, unless the stats you entered over the year are all wrong? You are also comparing your manual to a DSG which will be slightly worse. 

the spritmonitor stats are from the new car. The old one's long term, I believe, was 5.3l/100. That equates to around 52mpg. Including -20, winter tyres, and lots of aux heating use. 60 was eminently possible in that car on a longer run. This car, I've seen it once so far, on the way back from the summer house. I expect better now it's past 14000km.

1 hour ago, brettikivi said:

 

 

I absolutely see the point in the small engine. It's cheaper to buy. It's cheaper to insure and it's cheaper to fuel. If someone's on a shoestring budget for a new-ish car, stretching for something which is going to cost more to run is counterproductive. Yes, it's more desirable. Is it really going to matter if resale isn't for another five-six years? Especially if there's finance involved at higher interest rates, that £1-2k on purchase can make a massive difference in affordability.

 

This is what I don't get.  

If budget is THAT much of an issue, don't buy a nearly new car and spend a fortune on depreciation and if it's on finance, interest.

It makes no sense to me when people say 'I've got 65mpg compared to 50mpg from the bigger engine' yet they're spending far more than they're saving on other factors, it pretty much makes that saving insignificant.

 

An average person doing 12k miles a year will save £25 a month by doing 65mpg compared to 50mpg.  

When a car is losing £100 a month just in depreciation, is this significant? 

 

As for insurance, as I said previously I doubt it makes much difference at all.  I pay ~£190 a year for my vRS.  I'm betting if I switched to a 1.0TSi of the same age and value it'd save me less than £30 over the year.  My friend with a clean license and the 1,4 version actually pays around 50% more than I do.  I probably just made more effort shopping around.  They're pretty comparible.

 

I'm not arguing that it's not cheaper.  I'm just saying the savings are not significant in comparison to the other costs involved and I just can't see it being significant enough to justify being that annoying if you're planning on using the car loaded up with family and camping gear etc.    1.4Tsi all the way IMO.  

Edited 4 September, 20205 yr by Alex-W

We just swapped one car - the Swift went and was replaced by an S-Cross. It's a great car, it was a stonking deal and it means I've got a lot of the numbers we used for that justification in my head. 

 

Start from the top: a three year old car is generally a great deal cheaper than the new one. We were looking at €26k for a new S-Cross and we got a three-year old with 21k on the clock for €17k or so. Depreciation didn't figure in our calcs, because it's not of interest when the car will be used for, say, five-six years - you've got your value and anything left at that point is a bonus IMO. If it's worth €5000, grand. 

 

There were three cars I was looking at. The one we bought, a blue one, and an oddball from Sweden with the 1.4 engine. We tried the blue one, it was tired and unimpressive. The one we eventually bought felt much nicer, tighter, sprightly, and it turns out it was looked after *superbly* by the PO: towbar was added, rust protection, nearly-new Hakka 8 winter tyres, DoT 5.1 brake fluid... that I didn't know at the time, but the direct car comparison was an easy decision. 

The 1.4 would have been nice, it has a six-speed box... but the hassle of importing is a pain here. Then there's the additional running costs, which I thoroughly checked. We have CO2 based yearly tax here and the difference between a 113g/km CO2 and 145g/km is around €60 per year. So the 1.4 would have taken time, been a nicer car to drive, but would definitely drink more and so we're talking total extra costs of €25-30 or so on a monthly basis. Add on the additional initial cost of €2000 and, over a four-year finance, we're looking an approximate €75-100 per month difference, depending on interest rates. Which would be why the 1.0 S-Cross sits on the drive. We can easily deal with the payments, the running costs are acceptable, and it's actually way better on fuel than I thought it would be. It's also fast enough, though it does sound raucous, and the wife likes driving it. Big bonus there.

 

For the situation outlined from the OP: I'm taking it that they are on a tight budget and have multiple kids, and one of the reasons for looking at a nearly-new car is to avoid the potential unknown costs of running an older car. It's exactly why I have an Octavia; I figured I needed a more reliable car than the not-quite-20-year-old-one to make sure I got to the airport on time for my flights, back when they were a thing. From that perspective, €50 per month may be the point to say yay or nay to a particular car. I would also avoid 17" rims on a car that needs to be kept cheaply on the road simply because of the extra cost in tyres. For us here, the buying costs are extortionate: the old VRS was around €40k IIRC and the 1.0 was below €28k. Monthly leasing on the 1.5 was around €500 vs €400 for the 1.0, making a decision really simple. Finance on used cars is generally incredibly expensive, with 5-6% interest rates being "normal", so a new one was the only easy way to go.

 

 - Bret

In comparison, my mate got his 1.4 Octavia for £20k brand new, with 0% interest.

 

On the new Octavia 4, the 1.0tsi list price is 21.1k for an SE technology.  1.5tsi is 22.6k.

It's not a big difference at all.  To me it would be a no brainer.