Hi,

I am considering getting an Octavia Estate to replace my current 320d touring that is sent back to the lease company in March.

The options I am considering are the 1.9 L&K DSG Estate or the 2.0 L&K DSG estate, both diesels.

I have two questions regarding both engines:

1 What MPG is each engine likely to give on the mototrway. My current BMW gives about 53MPG at a steady 70MPH on cruise control. What will the 1.9 DSG and 2.0 DSG likely do?

2 What MPH is the 1.9 DSG and 2.0 DSG deliveing at 1000RPM in top gear?

I think that the 2.0 will be better for me BUT I travel 40,000 miles per year and pay for my own fuel. If the 1.9 is better on econlomy but still relaxing on the motorway, that's the one I'd probably choose.

PS most of my driving is one up but I do carry bulky but light goods in the back.

Thanks for all your help

1. haven't check the figure while on cruise as don't do much driving on m-ways (we don't even have a dual cabbageway in the Borders!!). My 1.9 dsg averages around 54 according to the trip computer, that is mainly on country A & B roads and a bit of town driving and includes a daily commute of 22 mile that takes around 40 minutes. I suspect the computer is a little optemistic tho'

2. Unless used in "manual" mode the DSG will not do 1000rpm in top gear as it will drop down to 5th at about 14-1500 rpm.

Thought I would use the manual mode quite a bit went I got it but now very rarley do as auto mode works so well.

2.0 is a smother and more puncy engine but 1.9 is perfectly adaquate for most driving and will certainly be more econonical. I tried both and have no regrets over my choice. - comfy, quite and smooth car, quick enough for all my needs, is more economic and saved a good few quid!

12. Unless used in "manual" mode the DSG will not do 1000rpm in top gear as it will drop down to 5th at about 14-1500 rpm.

!

Hi,

I don't actually want to drive in top gear at 1000RPM, I just want to know what the cars are geared for and therefore how relaxing they are at cruise, ie my BMW is geared at 35MPH per 1000 RPM in top so when I'm driving at 70MPH, it is at a relexed 2000RPM.

Thanks

a900ss

The gearing in the manual 2.0tdi isn't that high.

An indicated 79 mph is about 2500 rpm , and I get about 53-56 mpg on a long motorway run. Here I'd expect the DSG to get very similar economy. In town I'd expect it to be worse than the manual.

The 1.9 TDI should be capable of another 5mpg on top though with only 5 gears it will be revving higher on the motorway

With a heavy right foot;) i get 47 mpg 6Sp man, swmbo normally gets 62mpg on a run :eek:

With regards to which engine, have driven both must say would always go for the 2.0

I think you would notice too bigger drop in power from your 2.0 to a 1.9.

Welcome to Briskoda

Hi,

I don't actually want to drive in top gear at 1000RPM, I just want to know what the cars are geared for and therefore how relaxing they are at cruise, ie my BMW is geared at 35MPH per 1000 RPM in top so when I'm driving at 70MPH, it is at a relexed 2000RPM.

Thanks

a900ss

just tried this but traffic was to busy to get to 70mph, however 60mph is 2000 rpm in 6th gear with a 1.9tdi DSG.

also tried to run at 1000rpm in top in "manual mode" but electronics still forced a downshift when revs dropped to 1200 - doing an indicated 32mph.

just tried this but traffic was to busy to get to 70mph, however 60mph is 2000 rpm in 6th gear with a 1.9tdi DSG.

also tried to run at 1000rpm in top in "manual mode" but electronics still forced a downshift when revs dropped to 1200 - doing an indicated 32mph.

So the 1.9 DSG is geared at 30MPH/1000 RPM then (if 60MPH is 2000 RPM), sounds reasonable to me. I guess the 2.0 is slightly longer legged but it can't be by much.

I think I'll look at the 1.9 first then look at the 2.0 if that's not OK.

Thanks for your help guys.

I have a BMW 320d and its fuel computer is absurdly over-optimistic - by about 10 mpg!

the dill

I test drove both 1.9 and 2.0 DSG Octys and found the 1.9 gutless to be honest. The DSG 2.0 is a hefty lump mind as it weighs in at over a ton and a half unladen, so I would defiantly go for the bigger engine if you are carrying any goods at all.

I have a BMW 320d and its fuel computer is absurdly over-optimistic - by about 10 mpg!

the dill

I know that this is a Skoda forum BUT if your 320d computer is over-optomistic, I'd bring the car into the dealers for a check-up.

My fuel computer is uncannily accurate, checked brim to brim and also over a period of about 10,000 miles. It is only out by about 0.1 to 0.2 MPG. Also, the speedometer is uncannily accurate as well. 100 MPH on the GPS (on a private road of course) is about 102MPH on the speedo. The most accurate speedo and fuel computer I have ever had on a car bar none.

a900ss

I turned up for work recently and a senior manager asked about my car as I pulled up along side him. He noted that the320D that had just passed him sounded louder than my Octy! Not totally convinced myself, but as he doesn

I've got a 320D saloon and if anything the OBC seems pessimistic! Computer says 50 MPG over about 450 miles, from full tank, whereas manual calculation after refilling works out to 55 MPG.

A run from manchester to home (200 miles) gave 69mph average speed and 60 mpg on a 1.9tdi estate, i haven't managed much better.

Hi,

I am considering getting an Octavia Estate to replace my current 320d touring that is sent back to the lease company in March.

The options I am considering are the 1.9 L&K DSG Estate or the 2.0 L&K DSG estate, both diesels.

I think that the 2.0 will be better for me BUT I travel 40,000 miles per year and pay for my own fuel. If the 1.9 is better on econlomy but still relaxing on the motorway, that's the one I'd probably choose.

PS most of my driving is one up but I do carry bulky but light goods in the back.

Thanks for all your help

Have you though of this? With the 320d you're used to 158bhp (I think), yes? The 1.9 TDI PD is only 105bhp but the 2.0 TDI PD is 140bhp with marginally poorer fuel consumption but significantly better performance. As a BMW driver you ought to be used to a sporty drive and thus the 1.9 I'm sure will feel slow. Therefore:

Instead of the 'L&K Octy' why not look at the 'Sport'? This has the 2.0 TDI PD 140bhp available with DSG, you get sport suspension with 17" alloys and costs £500 LESS than the 1.9 L&K. Alright there is no leather, full climate etc, but what are your priorities?

OR for virtually the same money you can get the vRS manual (DSG not available) with 170bhp.

He's after an Estate... the Sport only comes in hatch.

Interesting thred this, must say I'm suprised that the 1.9TDI drivers are claiming such high mpg for motorway driving - I can't get over 50mpg in my manual 1.9TDI Golf at motorway speeds at the moment .... to see the mid to high 50's I have to be traveling around the 50-60 mph mark. Then again its only got 2k miles on it to date so I'm hopeing this will improve over time once the engines run-in

He's after an Estate... the Sport only comes in hatch.

Oops; Sorry, missed that. I though that, like the vRS, you could get the Sport in Estate.

Still; either look at the vRS Estate and accept manual (better consumption that the DSG anyway) OR go for the Sport Hatch if DSG is a must - the boot is probably bigger that a 3 series touring anyway.

I'm suprised that the 1.9TDI drivers are claiming such high mpg for motorway driving - I can't get over 50mpg in my manual 1.9TDI Golf at motorway speeds at the moment .... to see the mid to high 50's I have to be traveling around the 50-60 mph mark. Then again its only got 2k miles on it to date so I'm hopeing this will improve over time once the engines run-in

My 2.0TDi DSG was cruising at 70mph today on the motorway, and the internal trip computer was reading an average (for the trip, roughly 1.5 hours of 99% motorway driving) of 52.7mpg. So, if the 2.0 can achieve that, I can believe the 1.9 claims of mid-50s.

Oh, and mine is probably younger than your Golf, but has about twice the mileage.

My 2.0TDi DSG was cruising at 70mph today on the motorway, and the internal trip computer was reading an average (for the trip, roughly 1.5 hours of 99% motorway driving) of 52.7mpg. So, if the 2.0 can achieve that, I can believe the 1.9 claims of mid-50s.

Oh, and mine is probably younger than your Golf, but has about twice the mileage.

My Golfs 6 weeks old...... you must munch some serious miles !!!!!!

Back on topic, I think its more to do with the fact that the manual 1.9TDI only has a 5 speed box, therefore when doing an indicated 80mph its just under 3,000rpm, what rpm is yours showing at 80? I bet its around the 2000 mark.

Like I said when crusing at 50-60mph on A-roads I easily see 55-58mpg, best I've achieved on a long motorway run is 49mpg

I guess I do, mine's about the same age, maybe a week older at a push