Hello all,

I've been driving my wife's 1.9TDi Leon the past few days to work (40 mile motorway commute), instead of my usual 2.0TDi Octy 4x4.

What's surprised me is that even though the Leon is clearly better on fuel (according to the trip computers), it's not as much better as would have been expected. Combined figures for both are 56mpg (Leon) and 45mpg (Octy) or thereabouts, but I'm only seeing a difference of a few mpg, probably 5mpg at the most.

Are the trip computers bad ways to compare? Or is the Octy/Leon doing better/worse than the published figures suggest? What are other people's experiences comparing the 1.9TDi and 2.0TDi, and Seat and Skoda (as far as the trip computer measurements are concerned)?

Cheers,

Richard.

I only manage around 43mpg on a long run in my Oct 2 vRS. :(. I hit 46mpg really trying & was dead impressed...but the driving nearly killed me through sheer depression.

Hi. Trip computers are a terrible guide to use as they vary so much. My car's trip computer is pessimistic(pd100) and my dad's car(pd130) is optimistic. Best way to find out is to use the 'brim to brim' method and you get the true figures. Best way is to use the same pump and stop at first click each time and work out mpg from there.

I think the 1.9tdi is more economical than the 2.0tdi. But the 2.0tdi is more smoother to drive. The 1.9tdi has the pd(pump duese) engine and the 2.0tdi has a CR(common rail) engine. Can get excellent mpg on pd engines when driven gently but not as easy to get on the CR engines.

My 2.0TDi FL Estate has done 19K miles and I've averaged 49.3mpg so far (brim-to-brim method). My previous 1.9 TDi Octy2 Hatch did 50.1mpg over the same distance - a real differnce of only 0.8mpg. The trip computer on the 1.9 was 7% optimistic but this new car is 2% pessimistic! So the TC readings would have been 53.6 (1.9TDi) and 48.3 (2.0TDi) - an apparent difference of 5.3mpg!

The estate is heavier than the hatch but the 2.0 has a 6 speed box. A lot probably depends on the type of driving you do. I do mainly motoway cruising at just under 80mph where the 6 speed box must help the economy. Around town the 2.0TDi seems much thirstier than the 1.9 the TC often showing in the low-mid 30's average whereas the 1.9 never showed less than 45.

Both engines are PD.

An 08 4x4 diesel will be a PD engine too. The CR 2.0 only came to the Octavia range in the last couple of months (except for the vRS which got it sometime in 2008)

I found my Seat Toledo TDI 150 to be optimistic with the trip computer and the Octavia to be pessimistic although not enough to close the difference entirely, I guess the 1.9 has various advantages such as no DPF. While cruising the Toledo just seemed to sip fuel whereas I can never seem to get 'great' mpg out of the Octavia.

John

Certainly the CR engine in the VRS is more economical than the older PD engine. Not sure if this is the same for the 140 engines but certainly it is true for the 170 version.

My 1.9TDI PD Octavia on motorway easily doing 4.2L/100km what is more then 65 mpg

my A3 1.9 PD (130) would do 49~52 mpg regardless if worked out properly

i've just has a 120d M Sport for 2 years and that would do 43mpg on commute and 50 on a run

first tank on VRS was 45MPG second tank was 41MPG.

i still don't understand how using more fuel is better fro environment????? Since the introduction of euro 4 all dervs use more fuel.

i'm still thinking it's all a government fiddle for more taxes.

rant over !

:p

my A3 1.9 PD (130) would do 49~52 mpg regardless if worked out properly

i've just has a 120d M Sport for 2 years and that would do 43mpg on commute and 50 on a run

first tank on VRS was 45MPG second tank was 41MPG.

i still don't understand how using more fuel is better fro environment????? Since the introduction of euro 4 all dervs use more fuel.

i'm still thinking it's all a government fiddle for more taxes.

rant over !

:p

Yes I've had the same thoughts particularly as the engine needs to be revved harder to clear the DPF, it all seems a bit daft.

John

I drive a facelift octi estate 2.0tdi with the pd engine fitted, im getting about 46mpg with 14k on it, but i do carry a lot of weight as its a company car including ladders etc all the time so that isn't that bad as i dont drive that slow.

I did a gentle trip from Chesterfield to Oldham and back on Sunday. 50 mph at fastest both ways.

42mpg according to trip computer. Pretty dire as I was pussy footing due to nervous and car sick prone passengers.I blame it on the Pennines.

All the DPF stuff is based on particulate emissions from diesel engines being really harmful. I've no idea what specifically makes these particulates so harmful, but given that the UK is the only country in the EU where diesel isn't significantly cheaper than petrol I'm not so sure whether other countries are that worried either.

If anyone can find what's so bad about the particles emitted by non DPF diesels I'd be interested to find out though... I know nano-scale particles of many innocuous substances are quite dangerous because they can end up within cells and do damage that way, but diesels have been around for a long time, so presumably there should be something we can measure to tell us non-DPF engines have done disproportionate damage...

My 1.9 PD will get up to 50 - 55 mpg (actual) on any kind of a decent A or B road run unless I'm really pushing it on (Where it's still pretty much impossible to keep it below 40 mpg). Motorway cruising (75 mph in Ireland) will often put it under 50 mpg. With a lot of short trips I get 45 mpg from a tank of fuel. The trip computer is about 6% optimistic in its MPG claims though, so I've given actual figures.

Edited 20 July, 201015 yr by psycholist

Petrols cars put out even smaller particulates, it's just you can't see them

P10M and P5M are worth a read over.

I believe it is the size of the particules that diesel give out that is the problem. I think they are small enough to get into your lungs and this can cause damage to them.

My 1.9 PD will get up to 50 - 55 mpg (actual) on any kind of a decent A or B road run unless I'm really pushing it on (Where it's still pretty much impossible to keep it below 40 mpg). Motorway cruising (75 mph in Ireland) will often put it under 50 mpg. With a lot of short trips I get 45 mpg from a tank of fuel. The trip computer is about 6% optimistic in its MPG claims though, so I've given actual figures.

Similar to mine. I consistently get 49-50mpg from my 1.9TDI doing brim-to-brim fills and the trip computer consistently reads a few mpg high, typically 52mpg for a tank. It's mostly rural A and B roads with an occasional short trip thrown in. Still done under 5K miles so it's probably not fully run in yet and may still improve to be more in the 50-55 mpg range.

Just goes to show how heavy the Octavia must be.....

On a run to work in a 1.9 MKII Fabia I can get 70 MPG.....

Just goes to show how heavy the Octavia must be.....

On a run to work in a 1.9 MKII Fabia I can get 70 MPG.....

Is that downhill? What about on the way back?

My Scout diesel regularly does 47mpg on average. I had it serviced Monday, did a trip on Tuesday & trip computer was showing at one point (and for quite some time), 60.4mpg.

Picked up my new vRS CR 170 last Saturday.

250 miles done so far, 48.2mpg average, including 3 days of town driving and a couple of motorway trips.

Not bad for a car that won't be properly run in for another 20,000 miles.

Interestingly, I've been using the Leon on the same motorway trip I usually use my (4x4) Octy on... Although I'm using the trip computers (accepted that they may not be a reliable absolute figure, but I figure they might be a useful tool for relative comparisons since they probably compute their figures in the same way), I've noticed that on the motorway the gap isn't huge, not as big as I expected anyway. Octy is typically doing around the 50mpg mark, Leon is typically 3mpg higher. However, on local A/B-roads, I find the Leon fairs much better, and the gap increases noticeably, probably doubling from the motorway figure.

The Octy is 6-speed, the Leon is 5-speed, which might help explain a motorway advantage. But wouldn't the taller gearing in the Leon make this less of an issue?

It makes for an interesting point though; perhaps absolute mpg figures aren't everything if you're looking for economy, perhaps you have to buy a car "geared" towards the type of roads you are likely to be travelling on? So in my case, even though on paper the Leon should be far more economical (than a 4x4 estate!), on the motorway it's not as significant as expected?