Octavia Elegance 1.9 or 2.0 TDI

[Morritt]

Currently have 2001 1.9 Ambiente and thinking of changing for New Octavia Elegance. Any recommendations on whether to go for 1.9 or 2.0 TDI? I do about 17,00o miles a year (mostly motorway). I get fantastic mpg from the current car and have read conflicting reports about fuel economy for the 2.0 TDI 140 bhp unit.

[Captain Kirk]

I have the 2.0 tdi, on the mk2 on an 04 reg. usually get around 50-60mpg depending on the driving (more towards 60 on motorways). When I was looking, the 2.0 was supposed to be a bit quieter than the 1.9. And it is a bit faster to 60mph in the 2.0.

[gilesk]

I have the 2.0 and get an average of 45-50 mpg driving it pretty hard, I drove both and I like the extra ooomph of the 2.0 but the power is a little spikey.

[vimto2000]

I must be the only one to get poor fuel economy from my 2.0tdi...on average journey ie 150 miles i get about 45mpg...while in the 1.9tdi i use for the company car i get 55mpg!

[vimto2000]

And to the original question...If i had the choice again, I would still get the 2.0tdi!

[Glen Mansbridge]

I've done about 3500 miles so far in my 2.0 TDI and the OBC registers between 45 MPG and 50 MPG during a typical day of driving between 100 and 150 miles. I'm still finding the best combination of driving style to get maximum MPG - cruising at a steady 70 MPH with the cruise control on gives me about 45 MPG.

Whilst driving back down the A11 yesterday I experimented with the instant MPG readout, with turning the climate control to ECON so that it wasn't chilling the air - that seemed to improve matters by about 4 MPG. Other threads suggest that the 1.9 has better economy but I do like the ooomph (technical term) of the 2.0.

[cng]

I had a 2001 manual 1.9tdi ( 110 bhp ) which usually returned 50+ average mpg. However when getting a new Octavia I was aware that the 1.9 was rated at 105bhp, Ok there maybe be more torque, but the newer Octavia is a heavier car and as I tend to hold onto my privately bought cars for over 5 years, I didn't want a drop of performance. I opted for a 2.0 TDI with the DSG gearbox in the end having test drove both engines in auto and manual.

The 2.0 does have that extra surge in the mid range which is nice. I am averaging about 44.6 mpg on the readout but the engine has only done about 6K miles so is still loosening up.

I'd go for the 2.0 again, a chap I know has a 1.9tdi and remarked mine seem quieter. The VW diesels aren't famous for quiet idling but the 2.0 is fairly quiet at speed , it is the tyres that seem to be more intrusive noise wise. So it's a balance between funds - the 1.9 will clearly be less to insure, but is also cheaper I think for road tax and performance.

[Glen Mansbridge]

I agree with crig - the 2.0 engine is not too noisy but boy, those tyres. I guess crig you have Bridgestones? Roll on 20K miles or so, when I can replace them with something quieter!

BTW mine has a manual box, hence the 45 - 50 MPG on my previous reply.

[katieclogg]

I have a 1.9 TDI elegance 06 estate and am very pleased with the mileage, I mainly travel A roads (soom very steep ones on my way to work) and get about 58-59 on the Skoda readout though realistically think this works out at 4-5mpg less than that. I used to get a bit less than that in my Fabia VRS so I am really pleased with mpg for a much larger car. As I said before only changed Fabia VRS because needed an estate to accommodate my fathers wheelchair but confess to really enjoying the extra space, trips to ikea are a doddle now! I had the 1.9 TDI because it was cheaper than the 2.0 TDI. Also goes fast enough for me too.

[slider]

more than happy with my 1.9. all the go I would reasonably want, mated with the DSG box it responds well when required, smooth, quite and has averaged 53 mpg. Done 38k miles almost all on rural A & B roads.

[PumpeDuse]

I am in the same dilemma, coming from a 6 speed car I think I would miss the other cog with the 1.9.

[sworrall]

my long term average os about 45mpg too. if I have the family in the car on a long trip then i can get it to 50mpg but usually on my own it will be between 42 - 48. It all comes down to how you drive and do you want the extra power and 6 gears or the frugalness of the 1.9 (which is no slouch either)

[PumpeDuse]

its a hard decision, I am coming from a 130 pd 6 speed in an ibiza.

[cheezemonkhai]

Your ambient will be a TDI90.

I had a 110, and went for the 2.0TDI as figured I would notice marginally less power in a heavier car.

The 1.9 PD TDI 105 is a good engine and i'd drive one. The 2.0 has IMHO a few issues that needed ironing out.

I get between 47 and 70 :eek: in the 2.0TDI and average about 53-55mpg doing a motorway trip daily.

The 1.9 however only gets 5 gears unless you take DSG then you get 6.

[Morritt]

Many thanks for all the helpful comments. The manager at the place where I get the car serviced recommends the the 2.0 litre.

[PumpeDuse]

Many thanks for all the helpful comments. The manager at the place where I get the car serviced recommends the the 2.0 litre.

Why that because he is going to sell you one and knows the 2.0 litre is worth slightly more?

[Dr Zoidberg]

My 2.0 TDI averages 50mpg on a tankful doing 23 miles runs to work. If I'm on a week off and doing shorter journeys I'll only get 45.

When I do longer motorway journeys I get an extra 5mpg on a tankfull.

That's about 5mpg worse than my old Mk1 110bhp TDI.

I wouldn't have fancied going to the slower 105bhp 1.9

[bub]

Never driven or used the 2.0tdi but I have a 1.9 tdi 105pd elegance and regularly get 600miles per full tank I do 95miles each day. I set my cruise at 60 and and very rarely do I change speed my mpg indicator normally sits around 60 to 70mpg

but I don't drive hard and have the air con on all the time. Oh and my route is just about all motorway. A very good vehicle is the 1.9, I would like to advise on the 2.0 but can't, going by the reviews its a very good engine.

Hope this helps...