New to the forum and about to order an Octavia. I have read back through the 57 pages and realise mine is not a new question, but up to date answers would be very welcome.

I have test driven a 2.0 TDi manual and a 2.0 TDi DSG and loved the latter, but it was very powerful for my mainly town and country lane driving.

The dealer has not bent over backwards, to be honest and seems unable to arrange a drive in a 1.9 DSG. I have read one review saying that it was 'sluggish' but readers reviews on What Car's forum heap praise. So:

1. How does refinement compare between 2.0 and 1.9 ?

2. When have 1.9 DSG owners found their cars sluggish ?

I want to order on Tuesday and am torn.

Thanks in anticipation.

The 2.0 is more refined. I haven't driven a 1.9 for a while, but my 2.0 is smoother and is getting better and better. I love the shove from the 2.0 with the DSG box. Too much power is never enough.

I Have a 1.9 DSG elegance and it I must say is poweful enough. Also take into consideration cost.As you say you drive town and country I would say the 1.9 DSG is ok for you.But Test drive one if you can

I test drove a 1.9 DSG estate but ordered a 2.0 - which I'm awaiting delivery of.

The 1.9 had some go in it but it was not responsive at all speeds. At times i put my foot down on the test drive and nothing much happened.... then it picked up a bit of speed and got into its power zone and off it went.

The dealer said it should not be like that and put it down to being straight out of the compound new and not run in at all yet. I drive a petrol 3.0 V6 and am used to having some power so went for the 2.0 without another test drive. Guess I'll find out if I did the right thing early September.

Robert, did you order a DSG 2.0?

Depending on your location, MKG Motors in Stevenage have a used 1.9 TDi with DSG gearbox you maybe able to testdrive. Nearly drove it myself today, but decided that 105BHP isnt really enough having previously owned a chipped mk1 vRS and my current car the Boxster.

Having changed from a 1.9TDi Mk1 Octavia to a 2.0TDI DSG I will never look back. The difference in Acceleration alone (just over 5 seconds 0-62) sold it.

Remember the 0-62 tjme, top speed and fuel consumption is different between the two engines, but it really does depend on both driving style and roads driven.

I do mainly motorways, so torgue and response at higher speeds seems more important. I breifly had a 2.0 Petrol Mondeo whilst waiting for the new Octavia killing the bank balance at 25mpg - so to go to the 2.0 TDi with 40+ is a god send.

I have only had the car a week and am still trying to "run in" - so have not really experienced the 9.7 0-62 time, but I can feel that its willing and able.

I am a big toys fan, and having also test driven the Saab 9-3 at 6k more, the Octavia easily won on both spec and performance/responsiveness.

The car i have at the moment was ordered by the garage as a demo car, being the first to drive it at less than 5 miles on the clock...... the minute i left the dealer and hit the dual carrage way - "i gotta get me one of those".

also bearing in mind when i took it out a few things like the radio etc did not work as the car hadn't even been PDI (pre-delivery inspection) checked. So i based my purchase on Past Octavia and differences alone.

The DSG gearbox has also got to be one of the best auto's I have ever driven, being a disabled driver needing an automatic box this is fantastic.

So to sum up, the 1.9 will probably be more cost effective if you do smaller roads, but not as much fun.

Sorry to go on - but writing this almost justifies the cost of purchasing such a great car - roll on the 170 TDi...

I have the 2.0 TDI DSG and I love it, still running it in but I find driving on motorways, B roads and city fine, the only think I have had to get used to is the slow pick up for 1 or 2 seconds when pulling away from the lights, gentle pressue to bring in the revs before I pull off seems to work. Get the 2 Litre is my advice.

I have the 1.9 DSG and drive mainly on rural roads, I find don't find it sluggish at all. I do over 20000 mls a year on A & B roads (with a few "goat tracks" thrown in!), motorway miles are minimal but the car is capable there as well.

I tested a 2.0 before buying my can - yes it was quicker, quiter and a bit smoother but that doesn't mean that the 1.9 is not a reasonable quick, quiet and smooth car!

In the end I could not justify the extra purchase price, insurance premium and poor fuel comsumpion for the type of driving I do - and have no regrets abou going for the 1.9

My 1.9 delivers a constant 55-60 mpg. On a good run it gives even more than this. The 2.0 doesn't even come close to this. This alone is enough for me!

The lovely lazy and wonderful drivability of the engine with its broad spread of power is so much easier to cope with rather than the rather desperate power delivery of the 2.0.

My 1.9 delivers a constant 55-60 mpg. On a good run it gives even more than this. The 2.0 doesn't even come close to this. This alone is enough for me!

The lovely lazy and wonderful drivability of the engine with its broad spread of power is so much easier to cope with rather than the rather desperate power delivery of the 2.0.

Theres no doubt the 2.0 is the drivers car ok but I agree that the peakyness of the engine takes some getting used to. The DSG irons this out I think but it's interesting to hear that its slow to take off because my manual version is bloody quick to take off when I need to. Fuel economy on my car with 90% town driving has averaged 42.5mpg but i've only covered about 7k in it yet so I expect it to improve. On a run I get 52-58mpg provided I don't drive like a ***** but the 2.0 is very free-reving in comparison with the 1.9 so you have to concentrate a bit more to keep in the right rev range to maximise economy.

Robert, did you order a DSG 2.0?

Yes. 2.0 DSG elegance estate with maxidot/multifunction and light assist (options were the only way to get an available car in the cappuchino colour I wanted).

Coming from a Toyota Camry that averages 22 mpg around town and 30 on a run the fuel figures for the 2 litre diesel mentioned so far sound pretty good to me

Good choice. the DSG masks the peaky nature of the engine. Just beware when trying to gun it from a standstill there is a slight pause as the clutch takes up.

go for the 1.9 .happy with my choice.

the 2.0 is very free-reving in comparison with the 1.9 so you have to concentrate a bit more to keep in the right rev range to maximise economy.

I think that's spot-on. Its certainly my experience having come to the 2.0 TDI 140 from a 1.9 TDI 110.

Good choice. the DSG masks the peaky nature of the engine. Just beware when trying to gun it from a standstill there is a slight pause as the clutch takes up.

Personally, I don't find the 2.0 TDI excessively peaky. I do get the impression from various forums that early examples are more peaky than their later brethren. Mine is an Aprill 2006 build.

Some say that resorting to manual mode for standing starts improves things but you may think that defeats the object of having the DSG in the first place.

I

Although late in adding to this thread I would like to say DO NOT compare the 110bhp 1.9 TDI VAG unit to the 105bhp unit. I own a SEAT Toledo SE 1.9TDI 110bhp and have just ordered a new L&K estate 1.9. The wife now uses the SEAT (my old company car I had from new). I was sceptical of the 1.9 Skoda unit being "only" 105 bhp, but VAG must have made a number of changes. It is smoother, and a heck of a lot more responsive, and the Skoda is quicker all around the performance spectrum, both in official figures and also in feel. Two different magazine reviews recorded the Skoda 1.9 TDI 105 bhp 0-62mph in 10.5 seconds.

I nearly went fro the 2.0, but felt the more torquey and less peaky nature of the 1.9 far better for lazy fast driving cross country as it picks up speed inlower gears far better.

At the end of the day go for what suits your driving nature and requirements. Either are good. Me the 1.9 and

I nearly went fro the 2.0' date=' but felt the more torquey and less peaky nature of the 1.9 far better for lazy fast driving cross country as it picks up speed inlower gears far better.

[/quote']

I think you have hit it the nail on the head there Stuart and it's why I prefer the 2.0. The 2.0 has the torque when you need it ok (albeit higher up the rev range than the 1.9) but its 16v engine is a lot more free reving too and behaves more petrol like to an extent. I simply love it and tbh I haven't heard of anyone who doesn't. The 1.9 is a great workhorse and no slouch but the 2.0 is a different beast altogether. It also shouldn't be judged on a 15 min test drive either because it takes a little practice to get used to than the typical diesel.

Quite! Having just had a 1.9 as a "courtesy" car while my 2.0 DSG was in for service was a revelation: positively agricultural by comparison (sorry guys, but it was !!). However, there is the point about the DSG initial take-off: there was so much of a delay on mine that I complained: after testing, they have found that it's nothing to do with the gearbox, but a fault with the accelerator "sender" which, apparently, is electro-magnetic(???). A whole new pedal is required (under warranty!), which, I am assured, will sort the problem out.

I test drove the 1.9 DSG and 2.0 manual. I think for city driving the 1.9 would be fine, also fine on the motorway I'd imagine. I went for the 2.0 because I do a lot of 'A' road driving and the overtaking was much more reassuring with the bigger engine.

I think you'd probably be happy with either, but do try the 1.9 before you buy, as it is a very different animal.