New Octy big disappointment

[Tom_vRS]

I used the second mode for an overall consumption over the three years I had the car. I did not re-set it over the whole period of ownership. Average over 3 years was 46.4 mpg and that was not driving with economy in mind.

Bear in mind though that the computer resets after 100 driving hours

[neelyp]

I've done 700 miles with my petrol vRS and for the first tankful got really poor average mpg. Reset the computer when I filled the tank and I'm now getting the average I would expect.

I reckon the car had been sitting idling at the dealers, doing no miles but using fuel which is disastarous for the average 2 readings.

I also wondered how much fuel was actually in the tank, was it "full" or really full:confused:

[vimto2000]

GK I'm feeling you on this one!

My car has slightly improved from new now that its done 13k miles...but I rarely ever see over 45mpg and thats with a 150mile run on about 80mph with cruise on.

I drive pretty brisk and my long term average is still around 38mpg tho. Thats a mixture of short, mid and long runs.

[sms]

give it a few thousand miles first mate and see how it is then!!

[G.K.]

I've done 700 miles with my petrol vRS and for the first tankful got really poor average mpg. Reset the computer when I filled the tank and I'm now getting the average I would expect.

I reckon the car had been sitting idling at the dealers, doing no miles but using fuel which is disastarous for the average 2 readings.

I also wondered how much fuel was actually in the tank, was it "full" or really full:confused:

Good point, Car was sitting idling when I arrived while they were still loading the sat nav disc. I eventually asked for it to be switched off cause that is the worst thing to do to a new engine. I have filled the tank this evening right to the brim to see if that helps. I even went to a different(Shell) garage just in case the fuel was "off".

Cheers, G.K.

[runboy]

Are you going to try different fuels? V Power versus normal etc?

[PumpeDuse]

Don't forget if your speedo is overreading even on brim to brim it will not be a true reading.

See police report on other thread 1.8 tested speedo 3.86% over.

Therefore on a tank full speedo may read 500 miles but you will have only travelled 500*.9614=

480.7 miles.

Consumption then drops from 50mpg to 48mpg. Are my maths and assumtions correct?????

Couldn't tell you, however your spelling of assumption isn't correct

[G.K.]

Are you going to try different fuels? V Power versus normal etc?

Tried v Power in previous Octy, didn't seem worth the extra expense. Although I always stick to brands like Shell etc and steer clear of supermarkets.

[anonymouse]

Until they have checked the injectors etc and you are happy I wouldn't touch millers etc.

Hadn't thought of that - as mine is old and knackered (erm, out of warranty)

Cheezemonkhai is right (for once :P)

So, get it tested - and then bung in the Millers

I've used it (and the older version) for over 200k in several different diesels :thumbup:

[SilveRS]

Hi Folks,

Just to add my experience...

Had an 05 2.0TDI Elegance estate for 3 years from new. The engine was great and it never missed a beat. Was nosier that my previous MK1 vRS but I got used to it, and it averaged 48 on the computer over its life. Brim to brim it would see 500 miles of mixed driving, then on a constant run it would see 550-600 miles, so was well happy with this. Previous vRS did 250-300 miles:eek:.

Now I have recently changed it for a 08 2.0TDI L&K DSG estate in February, again new with 0 miles. First tank full was urban driving and it saw just sort of 400miles, the computer averaging at 38mpg! Not what I was expecting really:thumbdwn:.

Have now done over 3k and it has improved a tad, but not massively. I recently drove to Glasgow and back, sticking to 70-75mph constant and managed to get 500 miles from it brim to brim, computer averaging 44mpg over the journey.

From what I have read on the internet it seems that some over optimistic claims have been made with regard to the urban extra mpg by skoda/vw, so the real hit on the combined figure is more like 15%. I would say this is due mainly to the DSG gearbox and not helped by the 17in wheels, with a more accurate computer calculation possibly as well.

I would add though that apart from the fuel consumption woes when compared to my previous car, then engine is just as sweet and the gearbox is fantastic with comparable road noise, if a little higher than my previous car due to the 17inch wheels. Overall it is a joy to drive and the engine is no noisier or quieter the previous car. I guess my only real gripe is the price of diesel and how much money the oil companies and Government are making out of us all, which is why we are now obsessed with MPG.

If you think your car is overly noisy then get it checked out by your dealer, but the fuel consumption issue it would seem is more normal, and a more relaxed driving style is the way forward.

If you look at it this way, my trip so Glasgow saw me pass two scamera vans, one on the M6 in Cumbria and on the A74M:mad:, and in both cases I was cruising at 75mph. If I’d been in my previous car that would have been 85-90 mph and almost certainly 6 points collected in one trip, so some money has been clawed back already.

[Malc]

Eehh what sort of driving were you doing, 3rd all the way?

I am seeing 400-410 per tank regularly on my mk1 VRS

[cheezemonkhai]

Hadn't thought of that - as mine is old and knackered (erm, out of warranty)

Cheezemonkhai is right (for once :P)

So, get it tested - and then bung in the Millers

I've used it (and the older version) for over 200k in several different diesels :thumbup:

That must be at least twice I've been right now

The millers was great in a focus in the family so if it's all clear then I also rate it but obviously skoda say don't use anything like this in the car.

As for the mileage comments. The 1.9 was more fuel efficient than the 2.0, but if you drop from 75 to 65 in 6th and your car is anything like those I've driven you will find the fuel consumption easily reaching the high 50's to mid 60's

To the OP, let us know how you get on at the dealer

[SilveRS]

Mostly enthusiastic and aggressive, which is why I opted for a complete change. It worked for the most part, until I got busted last year doing over the ton on the A417 near Gloucester.

The most I ever managed on a full tank was about 350 miles driving like a fanny, so you aren’t doing so badly.

[JohnMorr]

Hi Folks,

Just to add my experience...

Had an 05 2.0TDI Elegance estate for 3 years from new. The engine was great and it never missed a beat. Was nosier that my previous MK1 vRS but I got used to it, and it averaged 48 on the computer over its life. Brim to brim it would see 500 miles of mixed driving, then on a constant run it would see 550-600 miles, so was well happy with this. Previous vRS did 250-300 miles:eek:.

Now I have recently changed it for a 08 2.0TDI L&K DSG estate in February, again new with 0 miles. First tank full was urban driving and it saw just sort of 400miles, the computer averaging at 38mpg! Not what I was expecting really:thumbdwn:.

Have now done over 3k and it has improved a tad, but not massively. I recently drove to Glasgow and back, sticking to 70-75mph constant and managed to get 500 miles from it brim to brim, computer averaging 44mpg over the journey.

From what I have read on the internet it seems that some over optimistic claims have been made with regard to the urban extra mpg by skoda/vw, so the real hit on the combined figure is more like 15%. I would say this is due mainly to the DSG gearbox and not helped by the 17in wheels, with a more accurate computer calculation possibly as well.

I would add though that apart from the fuel consumption woes when compared to my previous car, then engine is just as sweet and the gearbox is fantastic with comparable road noise, if a little higher than my previous car due to the 17inch wheels. Overall it is a joy to drive and the engine is no noisier or quieter the previous car. I guess my only real gripe is the price of diesel and how much money the oil companies and Government are making out of us all, which is why we are now obsessed with MPG.

If you think your car is overly noisy then get it checked out by your dealer, but the fuel consumption issue it would seem is more normal, and a more relaxed driving style is the way forward.

If you look at it this way, my trip so Glasgow saw me pass two scamera vans, one on the M6 in Cumbria and on the A74M:mad:, and in both cases I was cruising at 75mph. If I’d been in my previous car that would have been 85-90 mph and almost certainly 6 points collected in one trip, so some money has been clawed back already.

Ours is the same as yours. Consumptiom stubbornly steady at 42mpg (measured brim to brim) - but perfectly reasonable for a substantial car drivem briskly - check the name of this forum.

As for noisieness - get a soundproofing kit fitted (see earlier threads) - £300=400 but well worthy in our experience for the quietude despite the cost.

[fireftrm]

On the fuel consumption issue of DSG v 6 speed manual it is well worth remembering that, however clever, the DSG is an automatic gearbox with some loss of efficiency compared to a direct drive manual. In fact Skoda do not 'claim' that this produces the same mpg as the manual, quite the opposite the DSG is 10% less economical than the manual. Also the fuel figures and CO2 are done in accordance with EU regualtions, all manufacturers susing identical testing methods and systems, often not doing the tests themselves, so it isn't Skoda artificially over stating the economy. Having trialled a 2.0TDi (2007 lower emission and higher mpg model) I found it to be less economical than my 02 1.9 TDi, but then I noticed how much more briskly I was driving it, the engine wanting me to use its power! I then drove at my normal speeds and achieved mid 50s on the journey where I would get a similar figure form my car (dual carriageways sticking to a steady 70 and avoiding sharp acceleration and deceleration). It had only 2,500 on the clock and was an 07 plate Elegance.

[Lady Elanore]

I'm going to ignore Miss Amanda's soapbox but would say that MPG will usually increase as the engine settles but maybe not 20%.

But you obviously agree with me anyway:D:thumbup:

[G.K.]

Result!! Filled the car up at a different filling station before the weekend and had a couple of long-ish runs, and consumption improved a little. Took the car into dealers yesterday morning and they put it through their diagnostic machine and it threw up no faults. On the way back to work I passed my local filling station and saw that the diesel pump I used is closed off for repair leading me to suspect that there could have been an issue with bad fuel right from the start. Dealer lent me a new 3cyl Fabia turbo diesel which made any roughness or vibration in my 2.0 tdi seem miniscule. Other issues with the Columbus sat nav were also corrected.

I feel a bit guilty at going off the deep end now, but at the end of the day I paid for the car outright with money I worked extremely hard for. I, (along with most of you on this forum) am enthusiastic about my car and spend more time than I possibly should looking after it and it always pays off when it comes to trade in time.

Thanks to all who replied and shared their experiences. Economy is now vital due to the cost of diesel.

I must add that at all times my dealer was patient, polite and understanding at my moaning and assured me that if there was a serious problem that they would not stop till they got to the bottom of it.

Disappointment has now turned to pleasure. The new car has more comfortable seats (Leather and Alcantara), they seem more supportive. The car has no squeaks or rattles and less wind noise. It seems to be better screwed together than my previous estate from 3 years ago. The Columbus satnav is good although I miss the automatic mute when engaging reverse that the Audience had . And also the little digaram that came up to display the parking sensors (very handy).

I now look forward to the next 3 years of trouble free motoring (which my previous octy gave me) and I thank you all on the forum for your help and advice.

Cheers, G.K.

[JohnMorr]

On the fuel consumption issue of DSG v 6 speed manual it is well worth remembering that, however clever, the DSG is an automatic gearbox with some loss of efficiency compared to a direct drive manual. In fact Skoda do not 'claim' that this produces the same mpg as the manual, quite the opposite the DSG is 10% less economical than the manual. Also the fuel figures and CO2 are done in accordance with EU regualtions, all manufacturers susing identical testing methods and systems, often not doing the tests themselves, so it isn't Skoda artificially over stating the economy. Having trialled a 2.0TDi (2007 lower emission and higher mpg model) I found it to be less economical than my 02 1.9 TDi, but then I noticed how much more briskly I was driving it, the engine wanting me to use its power! I then drove at my normal speeds and achieved mid 50s on the journey where I would get a similar figure form my car (dual carriageways sticking to a steady 70 and avoiding sharp acceleration and deceleration). It had only 2,500 on the clock and was an 07 plate Elegance.

This question of the DSG being less economical than a manual has always puzzled me. Traditional auto boxes have a torque converter (slushbox) and even with lock-up in top will be less economical than a manual because of pumping losses But a DSG box is essentially two nested manual gearboxes with twin clutches for even and odd gear ratios. So the only reason for it to be less economical than a manual would seem to be because there are a lot more gears going round all the time (with wet sump lubrication?) soaking up some of the energy. Or am I missing something?

I still feel that an average of 42 mpg in mixed driving for a fairly hefty auto diesel isn't bad. The official consumption figures are a nonsense - they don't reflect real-life driving and car manufacturers can tweak their settings so they perform particularly well on the test cycle.

[sworrall]

glad to see its all worked out

[IJWS15]

This question of the DSG being less economical than a manual has always puzzled me. Traditional auto boxes have a torque converter (slushbox) and even with lock-up in top will be less economical than a manual because of pumping losses But a DSG box is essentially two nested manual gearboxes with twin clutches for even and odd gear ratios. So the only reason for it to be less economical than a manual would seem to be because there are a lot more gears going round all the time (with wet sump lubrication?) soaking up some of the energy. Or am I missing something?

DSG requires power for the hydraulics and has wet plate clutches. 7 speed with dry plate clutches is coming soon.

[runboy]

That is good news - hopefully you can get on with enjoying the car!

[SilveRS]

DSG requires power for the hydraulics and has wet plate clutches. 7 speed with dry plate clutches is coming soon.

From what I have read, the dry clutch DSG will be limited to power outputs of up to 170 PS and 184 lbs ft of torque in its current form:thumbdwn:. So I doubt we will see the 7 speed with a 2.0TDI for some time.

G.K. glad you are enjoying the new car!

[*CJ*]

Agree 2.0PD is not as refined as the old 1.9 unit - I guess there's a reason why this is the last PD engine for VAG. I understand the new one (already in the new A4) is a Common Rail unit... (I thought all modern diesels were common rail)... Everyone else it seems from Ford to Subaru can make better ones...

I was also really disappointed when I went from my Mk1 L&K to Mk2 vRS but have consoled myself with the power - still annoyed with how poor the drive train is especially until it gets into 3rd gear. I hate city driving and getting stuck in traffic. Fortunately I don't do much town driving.

[marsh]

Has anyone discovered the root problem of the poor mpg issue for the 2.0 PDI 140 !!

I had a 54 Octy 2.0 PDI 140 for three years and could not get it below 54mpg and it was pushed hard on a daily basis .

I traded this in last October for the new 08 model but after 12k miles only get 42mpg . I have tried different fuel grades from tesco to ultra expensive ultra, different driving styles from bank robber to driving miss daisy without any great change in economy . the car is just as smooth and powerfull as the previous but POOR mpg .

I have read many messages here in this thread regarding the expectation of improved mpg over time . What alot of blx !! a few mpg maybe but not the 25% I require over the previous model experiance .

Has anyone questioned the addition of the DPF which is the only significant change I can see between the models ?

Im seriously contemplating going back to petrol - 45-50mpg and cheaper per litre .

[Big Mikey]

I've just swapped my Fabia vRS for a 2.0 L&K Octy and I'm feeling a little alarmed at what seems to be a far lower average MPG... On my drive to work I could easily get 60-65 MPG, but in the Octy I struggle to get 45! :(