1.8tsi engine - fuel efficiency claims vs real

gyppo

Hi All,

Drove an octavia with one of these in it, and I was blown away with the performance! Wonderful engine, with lots of power and a very elastic delivery.

Reading up on them, VW claims 40mpg on the combined cycle, which appears very optomistic. Anyone here got any experiences with them from a fuel perspective? I'd be happy with a real-world figure of 37ish...

Also, any horror stories with this engine, or are they a good long term ownership prospect?

Sobanek

gyppo wrote: »

Hi All,

Drove an octavia with one of these in it, and I was blown away with the performance! Wonderful engine, with lots of power and a very elastic delivery.

Reading up on them, VW claims 40mpg on the combined cycle, which appears very optomistic. Anyone here got any experiences with them from a fuel perspective? I'd be happy with a real-world figure of 37ish...

Also, any horror stories with this engine, or are they a good long term ownership prospect?

As long as the car doesn't have the Damn S hitty Gearbox and you can afford paying €1050 for tax (unless it's older than 08), then they're pretty decent engines.

vectra

Sobanek wrote: »

As long as the car doesn't have the Damn S hitty Gearbox and you can afford paying €1050 for tax (unless it's older than 08), then they're pretty decent engines.

Carzone states 43mpg (Hand me the salt cellar)

Tax band "C" = €302

What S hitty gearbox are you on about?

Mr Benevolent

vectra wrote: »

What S hitty gearbox are you on about?

He's on about DSG.

vectra

Confab wrote: »

He's on about DSG.

I thought they were rated ass being one of the better auto boxes?

Mr Benevolent

vectra wrote: »

I thought they were rated ass being one of the better auto boxes?

Functionally yes, reliability no. 6% failure rate the last I heard.

Sobanek

vectra wrote: »

Carzone states 43mpg (Hand me the salt cellar)

Tax band "C" = €302

What S hitty gearbox are you on about?

Are you sure it's Tax Band C? Vrt.ie states otherwise.

The Tyre Dude

I doubt you would get near 37mpg on a 1.8T unless you have a very light foot, they are a thirsty engine.

Sobanek

The Tyre Dude wrote: »

I doubt you would get near 37mpg on a 1.8T unless you have a very light foot, they are a thirsty engine.

There's a massive difference between the 1.8T and 1.8 TSI.

vectra

Sobanek wrote: »

Are you sure it's Tax Band C? Vrt.ie states otherwise.

Thats what it says on Carzone

gyppo

Confab wrote: »

He's on about DSG.

No, 6 speed manual is the one i'd go for.

Duh, Penny just dropped with me...............Its been a long day for me:)

mickdw

Are these identical to the 1.8Tfsi that audi use? If so, mine does 28 mpg for mixed driving. Best ever mpg achieved when purposely driving as efficiently as possible and at low speed was 37 mpg. This would not be possible to achieve from day to day though. Realistically under 30 mpg.

Oh and my audi A5 with this engine is in band D with 169g co2. €450 tax.

EPM

mickdw wrote: »

Are these identical to the 1.8Tfsi that audi use? If so, mine does 28 mpg for mixed driving. Best ever mpg achieved when purposely driving as efficiently as possible and at low speed was 37 mpg. This would not be possible to achieve from day to day though. Realistically under 30 mpg.

Same 160 brake unit afaik.

mickdw

EPM wrote: »

Same 160 brake unit afaik.

Mine is rated as 170 bhp. The A5 was always listed as 170 and it is always 160 bhp on the A4. Dont know if there is any difference in tune levels though tbh

EPM

mickdw wrote: »

Mine is rated as 170 bhp. The A5 was always listed as 170 and it is always 160 bhp on the A4. Dont know if there is any difference in tune levels though tbh

Probably emission tweaks more than anything.

mickdw

There was alot of talk when the Tfsi engine was released that it was supposed to be much more efficient than the old 1.8T. I had a 1.8T 180 bhp quattro TT before my current car and this one is only very marginally more efficient and has less power. Doesnt seem to be any great strides made there.

EPM

mickdw wrote: »

There was alot of talk when the Tfsi engine was released that it was supposed to be much more efficient than the old 1.8T. I had a 1.8T 180 bhp quattro TT before my current car and this one is only very marginally more efficient and has less power. Doesnt seem to be any great strides made there.

To be honest I can't see any benefit over the 2 litre. Possibly less stress than the 1.4 160 in bigger cars but the difference in running costs will be minimal.

mickdw

EPM wrote: »

To be honest I can't see any benefit over the 2 litre. Possibly less stress than the 1.4 160 in bigger cars but the difference in running costs will be minimal.

There was no 2.0 when I was buying. 2.0 is a better option without doubt

bazz26

There was a 120bhp version of the 1.8 TSi engine too.

PauloMN

38/39mpg is the best I can manage with my 1.8T, that's a mixture of mainly out of town 80kph road with a little urban driving and taking it handy. 30mpg or thereabouts would probably be the norm with motorway 120kph driving and giving it a bit more welly.

obi604

Sobanek wrote: »

There's a massive difference between the 1.8T and 1.8 TSI.

How do you mean exactly ?

EPM

obi604 wrote: »

How do you mean exactly ?

They are different engines.

obi604

EPM wrote: »

They are different engines.

in what way though , which one is more powerful ?

EPM

They are completely different engines and from your other thread the 1.8t is not applicable to a Mark 2 Octavia.

The 1.8tsi Octavia is a more modern unit producing 160bhp. There was one on done deal recently.

obi604

Confab wrote: »

vectra wrote: »

I thought they were rated ass being one of the better auto boxes?

Functionally yes, reliability no. 6% failure rate the last I heard.

Are the DSG gearboxes on these really that bad ? They are tempting with lower VRT and tax