Octavia 3 wagon manual 103TSI Ambition ownership

[Gerrycan]

I notice that the majority of Octavia contributors on this site are VRS owners so I thought somebody might be interested in my views of the lower spec car
The car is Candy White with the Plus pack (adding cruise control , 17in alloys, 8 speaker, centre box/ armrest, rear sensors) which was a bargain extra at $1300

Inevitably this ends up as a comparison with our previous much loved car, but since it was an Octavia 2 Ambition 1.9D manual wagon owned for over 6 years it is probably legitimate in this forum.

I would have liked the new car to be another diesel but the combination of much higher cost, DPF, no manual, and relatively close official fuel consumption figures pointed us to the petrol. A quick test drive confirmed ample performance and the order was placed for delivery in 3 weeks.

As is well known the Octavia 3 is an all new platform and offers better internal space, especially for rear passengers, which was about the only small issue I had with the Octavia 2. The 3 is lighter than the 2, especially compared to the diesel.

After 1600 klm of urban driving we finally got away to the country and the 1.4 TSI engine is a little pearler providing ample power and torque for cruising in 6th gear up hills and overtaking is a cinch.
On the flat and no wind, at a true GPS 110 kph (114 kph and 2500 revs indicated) fuel consumption was 5.7 ltr/100. GPS 90 kph and 93 indicated gave 4.7 lt/100.
The Octavia 2 diesel used to show GPS 110, indicated 119, and consumption of 4.8 lt/100.
Hills, air-conditioner use, and cruise control have a more adverse affect on fuel consumption on the petrol than it did on the diesel.
The Octavia 2 cruise control with the diesel could do as good if not better job with overall fuel consumption than I could, the Octavia 3 is the reverse.
Don't get me wrong it holds the set speed very well and you can change gear without the use of the clutch disengaging the cruise (which the Octavia 2 did) but it probably uses up to a 1 ltr/100 more than when I drive at the same 110 speed. Probably more a characteristic of the petrol rather than the cruise.

Petrol consumption increases with speed (duh), the old diesel consumption did not seem to vary much between 110 or 130 kph, or notice the air-conditioner (even on 45+ days).

The steering on the Octavia 3 is much lighter even with the lower profile tyres, which is probably due to the fact it does not have that weighty diesel lump out front. However I did love the 2's steering weight and its accuracy when going straight ahead, not affected by cambers, side winds or 'tram-lining'.
The 3 is less planted and requires a little more attention on a faster remote less well maintained road with varying cambers and some side-winds. The heavier weight seemed to offer more steering feedback (though never any kickback).

The Octavia 3 Ambition does not have lumbar support on the driver's seat and for the first time in years my bum and backs of legs were aching after only two hours of driving. I will have to experiment with seat position and pillows.
The Ambition Plus does have lumbar support and is something that should be considered by others buying a budget model
Also well documented is the omission of the right footrest, which my wife and I really missed and I will have to see what can be done about that (there space for a gizmo that flicks down and back out of the way when not required).

The 3 does not come with mudguards standard but I highly recommend getting them fitted front and rear as they really reduce the amount of crud kicked up on the car. Mine cost $100 from Skoda but there are cheaper options on the internet.

Overall the handling and ride on the 3 with its torsion bar rear suspension is as good if not better than the multi-link on the 2. I think the 2's gas shockers might have deteriorated a bit over time. VAG generally do such a good a job in this area, but for the 3's price point it is fantastic.

The simple Swing radio is not bad around town where reception is good but reception is lost a little earlier with the integrated aerial (in rear side quarter window) compared to the old external aerial.
The sound quality from good recordings on USB and SD-cards through the 8 speaker system is acceptable to me but probably would not suit younger ears.
Bluetooth is easy to use but I am not sure the inductive phone aerial system really makes much difference to reception quality.

The trip meter is very accurate being only 0.1 ltr/100 pessimistic compared to fuelly (6.1 indicated, 6.0 ltr/100 fuelly) for the last tank including the 650 klm of country driving.

The 6 speed manual gear box is pretty good, but a bit more notchy than the 5 speed on the diesel, especially first to second. I actually think that 2nd could be a bit lower, especially for around town and 6th could be a bit higher for cruising.

What I would recommend to anyone engaged in country driving with their Octavia 3 is make sure you attach a suitable piece of soft fibreglass flyscreen to the front of the car with plastic draw-tags.
The front of the radiator on the 2 was easily accessible with the bonnet open to clean off any excessive bug debris but the 3 is completely sealed off and you can only hose off from the front unless prepared to remove numerous bits.
Skoda probably do this for pedestrian safety standards and improve radiator air throughput, but it really does not take Australian conditions into consideration where a bug or locust swarm can completely disable a cooling system and it would be virtually impossible to fix in situe.

Overall I am very happy with the car but it is not necessarily better in all respects compared to its predecessor.
Miss the more comfortable seats the most and the heavier steering then the climate controlled AC. I think the already good fuel consumption should improve as it runs in.
Performance wise I think the 1.4 TSI is exceptional, it provides similar torque to a 2.7 litre normally aspirated engine and over a wider rev range and in a relatively light car. I have not pushed it up to the rev limit but only because I have not needed to (but sooo tempting)
It is certainly much faster accelerating than the old diesel (which had ample in gear acceleration) but with little or no torque steer and possibly better traction.
I would not be at all surprised if actual outputs are higher than advertised as is normal VAG practice.
A dyno run on a standard 1.9D Roomster by Julian Edgar (Autospeed.com, a great website) produced the advertised 77kw but at the wheel, sensationally over the top.

Looking forward to more trips to SA country areas where my son's team is in the footy finals.

[GTR27]

Good t to hear you like it. I was impressed with the guts the 1.4 had (albeit as a dsg test drive). I previously owned a mk2 fl rs and loved it to bits. I haven't heard an owner yet that doesn't think the car is great value for money. Sure there are things to improve, but for the price it's pretty good.

[KWICKS]

Thanks for the review. It's impossible to replicate the ownership experience in a test drive so this will be a valuable insight for many.

[harlie]

Many thanks Gerry for your honest and well written review.

Interesting your comments re fuel consumption numbers diesel vs petrol. I find it odd that VW/skoda have dropped the fuel miser from the new range in aus. The Octavia 2 / Golf 6 was available in the more economical diesel (1.6) as well as the more powerful 2.0. The 3/Golf 7 only has the fuel drinking 110kw2.0.

1.6tdi golf 7 Bluemotion claimed fuel is 3.2L/100 – Octavia 3 is 3.8. And there’s no 5k battery to replace prius style.

[GTR27]

1.6d is very popular in Europe. Diesel isn't very popular by comparison in oz, so no surprise really. More configs = even more delays...

[Gerrycan]

Many thanks Gerry for your honest and well written review.

Interesting your comments re fuel consumption numbers diesel vs petrol. I find it odd that VW/skoda have dropped the fuel miser from the new range in aus. The Octavia 2 / Golf 6 was available in the more economical diesel (1.6) as well as the more powerful 2.0. The 3/Golf 7 only has the fuel drinking 110kw2.0.

1.6tdi golf 7 Bluemotion claimed fuel is 3.2L/100 – Octavia 3 is 3.8. And there’s no 5k battery to replace prius style.

As GTR27 said the Australian public have not really taken to Skoda and they have historically imported a huge range of engine/transmission/equipment levels unsustainable for the sales achieved. The rationalisation makes good business sense if inconvenient for we Skoda aficionados and has resulted in better pricing.

When I bought the manual diesel 1.9d ( I was told I bought the first Octavia sold in SA) the Aus claimed combined fuel consumption was something like 6.1 L/100 but I don't think that any tank fill ever achieved that high a consumption (even with my lead-foot wife driving)
It was a really easy car to drive economically and I largely used the engine braking for coasting down to a stop with zero fuel consumption.
I think the new diesel consumption claims are somewhat ambitious and would be difficult to achieve.
I would love one of the automotive magazines/web-sites to cover an actual fuel consumption test and how all the specific car factors are catered for on a rolling road especially with regards to coasting, breaking, acceleration.

Regarding fuel maximisation, I have found the transition to petrol quite difficult because it does not provide anywhere near the same engine braking capability so you have to anticipate road conditions even further down the road.
To give some comparison, down one hill I know I could use 3rd gear on the diesel to limit speed and I was still accelerating in 2nd in the petrol.
Obviously you have to avoid getting in anyone's way but I enjoy the challenge of driving economically.

It would also be interesting to find out why the claimed Cd of the Octavia wagon is 0.31 and the Golf wagon 0.27. That irks me a bit

[GTR27]

If I can ask (since there doesnt seem to be many manual 1.4TSI owners around)

What's your avg consumption so far?
What avg speed is that at?

What sort of driving conditions are you in? (Adelaide, but is it peak hr city, or country)

Best consumption (and avg speed for that consumption)

Worst consumption (and avg speed for that consumption).

Around town, roughly how many k's do you do on a tank?
How many k's on the highway?

Do you use 95 or 98?

Lastly, how many k's on the car now, and did it get appreciably better at any point?

Your review is very good/thorough and isnt one eyed which is nice to see. I'm champing at the bit to get our car.

[cbay]

Fantastic and honest review, never been in a 1.4tsi octy 3. I love my 1.4tsi octy2 to bits!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gerrycan]

If I can ask (since there doesnt seem to be many manual 1.4TSI owners around)

What's your avg consumption so far?
What avg speed is that at?

What sort of driving conditions are you in? (Adelaide, but is it peak hr city, or country)

Best consumption (and avg speed for that consumption)

Worst consumption (and avg speed for that consumption).

Around town, roughly how many k's do you do on a tank?
How many k's on the highway?

Do you use 95 or 98?

Lastly, how many k's on the car now, and did it get appreciably better at any point?

Your review is very good/thorough and isnt one eyed which is nice to see. I'm champing at the bit to get our car.

Yes, I found it difficult to get a real idea of the Ambition models from this forum, lots of proud VRS owners though.
I am in the Adelaide outer suburbs and do little driving during peak traffic.
The first 1600 kilometres in this environment consisted of largely short trips (probably only average 5km per trip) in 40, 50 and 60kph zones. The backstreets have lots of roundabouts, so average speed is 30kph and average consumption 6.9 L/100.
I reckon that was pretty good as many of those trips were from very cold starts (not Canberra cold but still only 4 to10 degrees C recently).
I have only used 95 Octane (Caltex, Shell or BP) and it runs well on it, but I suppose I will try 98 sometime although I would not expect any real improvement as the engine is not that highly tuned.
The turbo only really boosts the mid-range and the torque must fall off drastically after 4000rpm which is why it only produces a 103 Kw and not 140Kw. Another reason why I have not really caned it yet, even for fun.
A fuelly consultation says there has been a marginal .05 l/100 improvement over the 2 month period in town but that is too small to say whether it is the car or my driving technique. Tracked consumption is 6.4 L/100 over 1901km
The best consumption was on the country run (650km) where I achieved 5.5 L/100 averaging 88 kph. Even going at the 110 speed limit where I can, I never improve on a 90 kph average on the trip to Renmark. The last fill was 47.7 Litres for 790 km (5.99), just into the reserve zone and saying I had 120km left to go.
Consumption at 700 rpm tick over is only 0.4 L/hr (no aircon or lights) so you don't get heavily penalised when stationary.

No noticeable improvement with the engine over 2300 km to date, and I'm not sure our type of urban driving is really conducive to a good 'running in'. I will probably have to red-line it a bit to clear the carbon but by my calculations if you do that in 2nd then you are close to 100kph, and that will be when my wife is not in the car as she would just not understand.

There was an interesting claim from a Czech owner on Briskoda who said his 103TSI averaged 6.5L/100 at 145kph. I am pretty sure mine currently would not and I am unlikely to test it.

Two things I forgot to cover in my original review were:
1) the standard halogen headlights are good for night country driving. The main beam actually illuminates the road whereas my old Octavia seemed to illuminate everywhere but the road.
2) NVH was pretty good, even on course chip roads and on smooth bits the main source was wind noise (I am really suspicious that there is not a good laminar flow transition from the top of the windscreen to the roofline judging from the excessive bug debris that collected there).
A lot of people on the Briskoda forum have reported a drumming from the back but I have played around with the tension on the spare wheel securing nut and some padding and the drumming really did not manifest itself for me.
The Dunlop Maxx's on the car have a poor reputation for saw-toothing after a while and in fact I had to change those on my original Octavia prematurely at 20,000 Km as they nearly drove me mad with the noise. Yokohamas solved the problem.
The current Dunlops perform well enough so hopefully they have addressed the saw-tooth problem as well.

[Gerrycan]

Fantastic and honest review, never been in a 1.4tsi octy 3. I love my 1.4tsi octy2 to bits!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aw shucks, I think I blushed

The Octy 2 chassis (based on Mk 4 Golfs?) is probably a classic case of over-engineering. It is very good which is why the design remained unchanged for so long. I understand your affection for it and I would not rush to change to the 3 if you don't have to.
I believe it has a lot more weld points than is considered economic but they probably got away with it with the lower Czech labour charges. Not sure if the latter statement still stands though.
When VW transitioned the Golf from 5 to 6 they reduced assembly time for one by over 30%.