Finally...new car

Yup water pump is on the list of things to look for.

Got multifunction wheel too, oddly pressing up and down goes back/forward and not the other way round... wierd
1901373_10152221867253864_568112352_n.jpg
 
Oh and fuel economy, 55L tank on these, the 2.0t I struggled to get 180 miles out of a full tank, on this I have used half a tank today and done 190miles and it still says half a tank left, so circa 380miles per tank vs 180miles per tank.

I found the exhaust valve and have a guide to making it open all the time so that is sorted just need to find somewere friendly with a hydraulic car lift to do it as I don't trust axel stands or jacks for that matter.
 
No idea. It had all the mods for 280hp and this 1.8t is 160hp so it makes sense power wise.
 
There is no way that a 1.8T should be twice as economical as a 2.0T though irrespective of power outputs (Often power is less related to economy than you might think, which is why different power output versions of the same engine invariably have similar economy).
 
86JR said:
Oh and fuel economy, 55L tank on these, the 2.0t I struggled to get 180 miles out of a full tank, on this I have used half a tank today and done 190miles and it still says half a tank left, so circa 380miles per tank vs 180miles per tank.
.
Click to expand...

You realise that this equates to under 15MPG as an average?

Either the car was broken or you are mistaken, 15MPG as a tank average is a low i am yet to see even in my Range Rover V8 even on a 100% local non highway tank.....
 
86JR said:
Oh and fuel economy, 55L tank on these, the 2.0t I struggled to get 180 miles out of a full tank, on this I have used half a tank today and done 190miles and it still says half a tank left, so circa 380miles per tank vs 180miles per tank.

I found the exhaust valve and have a guide to making it open all the time so that is sorted just need to find somewere friendly with a hydraulic car lift to do it as I don't trust axel stands or jacks for that matter.
Click to expand...

Unless you were on a race track all the time, or it was broken, i don't see how you could only get 180 miles from a tank.
 
SkodaMart said:
Great engine, same as I have in my Octavia and no timing belt to worry about.
Watch for water leaks from the front of the engine though, I had to replace my water pump.
Click to expand...

Yep until the timing chain snaps or stretches...which it probably will in a VAG.
 
lemonade said:
Yep until the timing chain snaps or stretches...which it probably will in a VAG.
Click to expand...

Lol!

Yes it will, with high miles! as in 150k+

Mine has done 90k and is smooth and quiet as new.

VAG are around the best cars in MY experience, I know Japanese cars are as good if not better, but I have been more than happy with VW Group.

(And I have been driving them since 1996)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MPG of the 1.8 TSi is around 28mpg around town, stop/start 30 mph limit area.

This increases to a max of around 44 MPG on a run.

This is no better than my previous 1.8 20 VT Octavia vRS.
 
I once managed 19mpg over half a tank, on Exmoor, in my 300bhp 2 litre Fiat, with an older less economical engine! So <15mpg over a tank, something was very wrong....
 
SkodaMart said:
MPG of the 1.8 TSi is around 28mpg around town, stop/start 30 mph limit area.

This increases to a max of around 44 MPG on a run.

This is no better than my previous 1.8 20 VT Octavia vRS.
Click to expand...

The new TSI will be a fair bit more economical than the old 1.8 20v unit i'm sure.
 
Jono8 said:
The new TSI will be a fair bit more economical than the old 1.8 20v unit i'm sure.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Facts and figures may suggest this but real world they are about the same.

If anything the old 20vt has the very slight edge, but saying that the MK1 VRS is more aerodynamic and lighter than the Mk2 Octavia.
 
Thats why he drowned it then,

Engine was knackered hence why poor MPG - it was an insurance job!
 
SkodaMart said:
No it isn't.

Facts and figures may suggest this but real world they are about the same.

If anything the old 20vt has the very slight edge, but saying that the MK1 VRS is more aerodynamic and lighter than the Mk2 Octavia.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Why are they using the new engine then and not the old engine that has better fuel economy and more power?

1.8TSI from the Audi is 42mpg combined and 160bhp
1.8T 20V from MK1 octy VRS is 35mpg combined and 180bhp.
 
Jono8 said:
Rubbish. Why are they using the new engine then and not the old engine that has better fuel economy?
Click to expand...

Higher torque, better emissions and lower production cost.

The 1.8 TSi is a cast iron block, the 20vt is all aluminium.

Edit: Oh and under laboratory conditions it is on paper around 8mpg more economical.

I must stress that this is NOT the case in real world driving.
 
SkodaMart said:
Higher torque, better emissions and lower production cost.

The 1.8 TSi is a cast iron block, the 20vt is all aluminium.
Click to expand...

I would lay good money down that if doing the exact same trip in both cars, the 1.8TSi would return better fuel economy
 
Jono8 said:
I would lay good money down that if doing the exact same trip in both cars, the 1.8TSi would return better fuel economy
Click to expand...

I did a test.

60 mph top gear around the M60.

My vRS returned 42 MPG, my 1.8 TSi returned 44 MPG.

So it is marginally more economical on that run.

I did however once drive to Chester from Hyde and my MK1 vRS returned an amazing 47 MPG.

This is driving at a constant indicated 60 MPH, in top gear with a whisper of throttle.

My 1.8 TSi has never done that well under any circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom