Skoda Superb, Model Year 2004

Hi,

Now, I've been considering replacing my Passat for a while. When I took it in for a service recently, I was given a Skoda Superb as a replacement car. I actually really liked the car. "It's not a combo, and the backrest isn't adjustable, but my wife says it doesn't matter."

And thus, he is selected for the next round. However, I have a few questions regarding the technology used.

The V6 TDI would be interesting. According to skoda.de, it is actually the 4-valve version with Euro 4 rating. However, there have apparently been some significant changes in the V6 TDI engines of the VAG group in recent times. Does anyone know more specifically what technology is available with this vehicle? Was innovative Technologien (VESP mit Pilot injection, AGR with water cooling, roller chain drive, 2000 bar injection pressure) here?

Regarding technical specifications such as the maximum... While there is still some disagreement regarding torque within the pages www.skoda.de and www.skoda-superb.de, perhaps someone here knows the exact information.

Since my annual mileage is approximately 23-25,000 km, a petrol engine (1.8T) would also be a possibility, but I'm hesitant to ask diesel enthusiasts for their opinion on this . But maybe someone does know, after all .

Greetings
ejmk

Regarding the 1.8T, I can only say that I can't imagine it being fun with its 150 horsepower. The engine is already not a powerhouse in the Audi TT with 150 horsepower, but certainly not in a "large" sedan. With 25,000 km per year, I think diesel is definitely worth considering, especially since the 1.8T engine is likely to consume around 9 liters of petrol per 100 km, even if you want to accelerate quickly.

If the Skoda engine meets the EU4 standard, it will be the same as with VW/AUDI.

I have read that achieving the EU4 standard for the V6 TDI engine could only be done through extensive measures within the engine itself!

With only 23,000 km, I would prefer to get the 2.8 TSI (if it is also available as a manual transmission) instead of such a noisy and vibrating V6 TDI!

But the 1.8T is too weak for sporty driving!

Also, the V6 TDI has a massive turbo lag. Under 2200 U/min, you shouldn't even be thinking about using a boost!

Greetings

Manuel

Hm, the VR6 consumes approximately 2 liters more than the 1.8 T. The 96 kw PD TDI engine is definitely worth a look, I think.

Best regards, WarLord

We would need to compare all vehicles with all costs.

One should not only take fuel consumption as a decision-making factor!

Now, it's so that I only drive about 25,000 km per year! (It used to be much more.)

And regarding my maintenance costs (especially the insurance), a 2.8 Quattro would be more affordable for me!

The 1.9TDI 96kw engine is also a good alternative! I don't know your driving profile!

Greetings

Manuel

Okay, here's the translation:

"But since the quattro consumes about 4 liters more on average than the diesel, you can easily switch to it. I doubt that the VR6 in the Skoda Superb is a fuel-guzzler; with 11 liters of Super, you should already be expecting an average consumption." And that's what I believe, is that diesel is becoming cheaper again.

Thank you very much for your opinions. Without intending to refute anyone at this moment, here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

If you compare the 1.8T and the 2.5TDI at 23,000 km, you will find a monthly cost advantage of £10 for the petrol engine. At 25,000 km, they will be equal in price. The 2.8 is only marginally cheaper in insurance. The classification of the 2.5TDI (19KH/23TK/24VK) and the 2.8 (18KH/23TK/22VK) are very similar. With my insurance, this would be £50 per year. In addition, there would be £200 less in taxes.
If we now consider fuel consumption, then for the TDI
8l/100km * 23000km = 1840l
1840l * 0.85 €/l = 1564 €
into the tank.
The 2.8 needs
10l/100km * 23000km = 2300l
2300 * 1.08 €/l = 2484 €
for the fuel (I hope the price per liter of Super is quite reasonable, as I have always expected).
That means an additional €920 for the petrol engine.
(920-200-50) = 670 less for diesel.
I am setting the depreciation and maintenance costs equal for both vehicles.
These are the raw figures. In addition, if you have a fairly powerful vehicle, you might also use a bit of extra fuel. This probably means the 10-liter containers with the 2.8 concentration won't be enough.
The machine is definitely a pleasure to drive, but there is a significant difference.
A 5-speed manual transmission is also available. While an automatic transmission would be nice, the Tiptronic consumes a lot of fuel.

I've been driving the 1.8T for 3 days now. While it's not a Ferrari, it definitely won't be a hindrance to traffic. However, the machine also becomes quite thirsty if you give it a little bit of water.

I actually don't want the PD, I already have one (85kW) and I'm really fed up with it.

I recently took a look at the M-diagram of the 2.5TDI (unfortunately only 114kW), and it doesn't actually look that bad. However, I would like to try it out, including letting the diesel engine run for a few days, not just for a short trip around the block.

Greetings
ejmk

The difference in insurance costs is higher for the A4!

Okay, take the V6 and test it thoroughly!

I understand that you no longer want the Rumpel-Düse, and furthermore, the 1.8T also offers enormous tuning potential.

Good luck

PS: I once had a 2.8 liter rental car with Quattro and manual transmission! After 750km, I achieved an average fuel consumption of 10.3 l/100km!
Therefore, we are currently looking for a well-equipped 80 Coupe with this engine and drivetrain combination for my wife!

Greetings

Manuel

Therefore, I believe 2.8 liters is utopian, especially with a Quattro!
You really shouldn't really enjoy the performance or you should just drive slowly on country roads.

I think it's reasonable to assume a difference of 3l/100km in fuel consumption between the 2.8l engine and the V6 TDI, and that would save you a significant amount of money.
But each person must know this for themselves.
Meanwhile, one of our managers has also switched to a diesel, opting for a 330d instead of a 323i, and he's always happy when we talk about fuel consumption. The 330d can even be satisfied with 6.5 liters, while the 323i never managed to get below 9.5 liters

I also drive around 25,000 km per year for work, but I only have a small 1-cylinder engine in my Golf 3. But with savings of around €1000 per year compared to a 115hp Benziner, the high tax is not a problem for me, and the insurance is almost the same anyway.

As I said, everyone needs to figure this out for themselves, but with 10 liters for a 2.8L V6, you really need to stick to country roads.

'It's clear that the 2.8 isn't a city car, but it's normal for country and highway use, and you have the figures I mentioned!'

Greetings

Manuel

One would just have to compare all the vehicles with all the costs!

One should not only take fuel consumption as a decision-making factor!

Now, it's so that I only drive about 25,000 km per year! (It used to be much more.)

And regarding my maintenance costs (especially the insurance), a 2.8 Quattro would be more affordable for me!

Okay, for our Passat, the break-even point was reached at 15,000 - 16,000 km (at that time). This includes the replacement of the timing belt. Workshop visits were not included, this can happen with both diesel and petrol engines.

Best regards, WarLord