# Skoda Octavia 1.9TDi



## Cabaiste (20 Feb 2008)

Saw this car on carzone:

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=871070

Is there such a car as a 130BHP 1.9 diesel Octavia? I thought the 1.9 had a 105BHP engine?

Anyone any opinions on whether this would be a good buy?


----------



## cashmni1 (20 Feb 2008)

130 bhp is a very good engine and seems like a good price for the car. Very good reputation and goes like stink. Go for it!


----------



## Mr2 (20 Feb 2008)

You can get this engine.  Good car.


----------



## Caveat (20 Feb 2008)

Check the Skoda website.  There may be some confusion - as far as I can see there are 105, 140 and 150 bhp versions in 1.9 and 2.0 L engines.

I'm not sure that a 1.9L 130 bhp actually exists?!


----------



## mathepac (20 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> Check the Skoda website.  There may be some confusion - as far as I can see there are 105, 140 and 150 bhp versions in 1.9 and 2.0 L engines.
> 
> I'm not sure that a 1.9L 130 bhp actually exists?!


Just to add to the confusion there are (pause for breath) 100, 105, 130, 140, 150, 160 and 170 BHP versions of the VAG 1.9 PD TDI engine fitted to VW, Audi, Skoda, Seat and Ford cars.

Very reliable and tuneable, the engine needs minding, with regular servicing and expensive oil, but can be good for upwards of 300k kms.


----------



## Caveat (20 Feb 2008)

Ok, but are some of these not 2L?


----------



## Mr2 (20 Feb 2008)

Don't forget the 90 bhp, you can still also buy the Octavia I brand new from Skoda dealers in Ireland, there still making it for people that say "they don't make them like they used to" old shape with '08 plates.


----------



## mathepac (20 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> Ok, but are some of these not 2L?


There may be 2L engines with similar power outputs but the 1.9 PD had the outputs listed. Reviewing my typing there may even be 90 and 110 bhp 1.9 PD's as well.

90 bhp for sure as per post above.


----------



## Cabaiste (20 Feb 2008)

So is there any way of verifying that it is 130BHP and not any other variation? Is it written somewhere on the vehicle or any paperwork?

Have driven the Mother in Laws Octavia a few times, think its the 105BHP version. WOuld there be a noticeable difference?


----------



## mathepac (20 Feb 2008)

Mr2 said:


> Don't forget the 90 bhp, you can still also buy the Octavia I brand new from Skoda dealers in Ireland, there still making it for people that say "they don't make them like they used to" old shape with '08 plates.


Agreed, and it must rate as one of the best value family cars on the market.


----------



## PatMacG (20 Feb 2008)

Cabaiste said:


> So is there any way of verifying that it is 130BHP and not any other variation? Is it written somewhere on the vehicle or any paperwork?
> 
> Have driven the Mother in Laws Octavia a few times, think its the 105BHP version. WOuld there be a noticeable difference?


Yes the original options configuration document will be attached to the floor of the boot near the wheel well and also inside  the front cover of the Skoda Service Schedule booklet. Its a squarish "shipping label" self-adhesive thing with bar codes on the top and the power of the engine will be listed as "96KW ASZ" for the 130 bhp 1.9 engine.

There should be a noticeable difference in power and torque through the gears - "nippier". Fuel consumption should be as good at least as the 105, maybe even better, depending on driving style.

The chassis number of the car will be listed on the top line of this document as well, for comparisons sake.


----------



## Caveat (20 Feb 2008)

Have a look at this guys:

[broken link removed]

...have they simply not covered all the available engines then?


----------



## mathepac (20 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> Have a look at this guys:
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ...have they simply not covered all the available engines then?


Thats the *new* *Octavia* - different engine options, and it doesn't list the other Skoda cars, not to mention Seat, Audi, VW and Fords that used the same PD lump.


----------



## Caveat (20 Feb 2008)

Oops!


----------



## rebel16 (20 Feb 2008)

Does any agree with me in that the skoda octavia is an ugly car, heavy on the road and down right boring to look at!


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Feb 2008)

PatMacG said:


> Thats the *new* *Octavia* - different engine options, and it doesn't list the other Skoda cars, not to mention Seat, Audi, VW and Fords that used the same PD lump.



I'm confused. Is that not the same car in the OP link? Looks the same.



rebel16 said:


> Does any agree with me in that the skoda octavia is an ugly car, heavy on the road and down right boring to look at!



Compared to what? Passat, Avensis, Mondeo?


----------



## Cabaiste (20 Feb 2008)

rebel16 said:


> Does any agree with me in that the skoda octavia is an ugly car, heavy on the road and down right boring to look at!


 
Its certainly not a beautiful car but its not ugly. To me a car is a tool.

I am looking for something that is comfortable and reliable and reasonable running costs as I am covering about 22k miles a year. It also needs to be able to accomdate 4 adults with some luggage fairly regularly! That is why I was looking at an Octavia.


----------



## rebel16 (21 Feb 2008)

Compared to what? Passat, Avensis, Mondeo?[/quote]

Compared to Mondeo, Coralla saloon, Saab 9-3, Volvo S40, Audi A4, Honda Accord, Peugout 407. All these have distinct lines and shapes - may not be as reliable or same price range as the Octavia, but at least they have confidence/arrogance to produce bold designs.

In saying all this the new Octavia is certainly an improvement from its predecessor.


----------



## Caveat (21 Feb 2008)

rebel16 said:


> Compared to Mondeo, Coralla saloon, Saab 9-3, Volvo S40, Audi A4, Honda Accord, Peugout 407. All these have distinct lines and shapes - may not be as reliable or same price range as the Octavia...


 
I'm pretty sure an Octavia is not more reliable than an Accord BTW.


----------



## gebbel (21 Feb 2008)

rebel16 said:


> Does any agree with me in that the skoda octavia is an ugly car, heavy on the road and down right boring to look at!


 
Yeah, functional and reliable but yellow pack.


----------



## mathepac (21 Feb 2008)

rebel16 said:


> Does any agree with me in that the skoda octavia is an ugly car, heavy on the road and down right boring to look at!


Have you driven any of the Octavia vRS models, or the higher output non vRS diesels, which are anything but heavy on the road?

As for boring and ugly, well beauty is in the eye of the beholder and very subjective. Given the number of Skodas on the roads currently, a fairly significant portion of the motoring public seem satisfied with the look of the cars.

Looking at OP's needs for space, this car meets the needs expressed for very small money in comparison with potential alternatives.


----------



## rebel16 (21 Feb 2008)

mathepac said:


> Have you driven any of the Octavia vRS models, or the higher output non vRS diesels, which are anything but heavy on the road?



Yes I have. Its a matter of opinion but theres a difference between heaviness on road and having the power to cope.True the higher output/vRS models have the power to cope. But the heaviness of the car/handling of corners is still relatively unchanged. Maybe thats why I prefer the hatchbacks to the bulk of a heavy saloon.
And don't get me wrong the Octavia is far better value than the VW etc.


----------



## gebbel (21 Feb 2008)

mathepac said:


> Given the number of Skodas on the roads currently, a fairly significant portion of the motoring public seem satisfied with the look of the cars.


 
I would say affordability is a bigger factor myself.


----------



## RS2K (22 Feb 2008)

Sorry guys but the 1.9 TDI engine is very old at this point. It's also relatively unrefined. Rattly and loud.

The 2.0 replacement is a lot better.


----------



## Marie (22 Feb 2008)

rebel16 said:


> Yes I have. Its a matter of opinion but theres a difference between heaviness on road and having the power to cope.True the higher output/vRS models have the power to cope. But the heaviness of the car/handling of corners is still relatively unchanged. Maybe thats why I prefer the hatchbacks to the bulk of a heavy saloon.
> And don't get me wrong the Octavia is far better value than the VW etc.


 
I strongly recommend going for that Skoda as it is a great bargain.

I bought a high-spec Skoda Fabia 1.9 TDi vRS 5-door hatch - the sports version - seven weeks ago.  My paperwork says "Engine Size 1896" but as posters here know from my previous posts, I'm not well up on the tecchi stuff.

I love this Skoda.  I was not enamoured of the exterior design or the very simple flat dashbord which are nothing special but got over them immediately as the drive is lovely.  It is at its best on the motorway and has (already!) saved life and limb a couple of times by getting me out of tricky situations swiftly.  I find it steers well.  It is also an economical car (or perhaps it's just my angelic driving  ).

Give it a test-drive and report back


----------



## baz05 (22 Feb 2008)

If the correct car is pictured in the carzone ad, then it's one of the first Mark II octavia's that came out that year and are still on sale.

To the best of my knowledge that model was not available with the 1.9 130bhp engine, it was in the last of the previous Mark I version from 1998 to 2004.

The mark II has the 1.9 105 BHP engine and the 2.0 140 BHP engine.  Indeed the VRS version has 2.0 170BHP available from 2006 on.

So the car in the ad is either a Mark I with the 1.9 130BHP engine and the wrong picture or else it's the correct picture but engine is 2.0 140 TDI.


----------



## Marie (22 Feb 2008)

This was all getting a bit puzzling to me until I noticed you are talking about the OCTAVIA which is a very long vehicle.  The good experience I described is with my new _Fabia!  _As the Octavia is a long vehicle the comments about heaviness and cornering make more sense.  Hope I didn't compound the confusion.


----------



## aircobra19 (22 Feb 2008)

rebel16 said:


> Compared to Mondeo, Coralla saloon, Saab 9-3, Volvo S40, Audi A4, Honda Accord, Peugout 407. All these have distinct lines and shapes - may not be as reliable or same price range as the Octavia, but at least they have confidence/arrogance to produce bold designs.....



Is that a good thing though?

For me the Saab 9-3, Mondeo, Corolla, don't look all that great, even if they are distinctive. They border on ugly. The S40 and 407 are ok-ish.  The A4 is ok very conservative. The Accord was ok I don't like the new facelift myself. The Octavia is very conservative too, its a very generic shape. But its not ugly. With all of these cars the right set of wheels, and trim, subtle body kit makes all the difference. I think the Octavia looks ok with the right wheels. The vRS look good too IMO



gebbel said:


> Yeah, functional and reliable but yellow pack.


 
 What do you mean. If you take the 115bhp 1.6 Passat/Octavia with Aircon the price difference is about 1.5k New. I don't get how you can spend 20k+ and be yellow pack. 



rebel16 said:


> Yes I have. Its a matter of opinion but theres a difference between heaviness on road and having the power to cope.True the higher output/vRS models have the power to cope. But the heaviness of the car/handling of corners is still relatively unchanged. Maybe thats why I prefer the hatchbacks to the bulk of a heavy saloon.
> And don't get me wrong the Octavia is far better value than the VW etc.



What do mean by heaviness and and power to cope? Power to cope with what exactly? I assume the vRS models have a modified sports suspension. In fact I think its based on the Golf GTI, as is the engine.  But whats the point of comparing hatch backs with a saloon. Would you compare a hatchback with a lotus elise?


----------



## BK0001 (22 Feb 2008)

The Octavia does look boring, but so what. Its a good value motor & reliable. Go for the 130bhp. I test drove the A4 100bhp 1.9tdi and found it way too underpowered. I went up the Airport Hill in Cork and got overtaken by a Toyota Glanza. The 130bhp feels much much faster. Nice engine with plenty of poke. In the end I settled for a 155bhp 2.2tdci Ford. Cheep & Fast motor


----------



## kfk (23 Feb 2008)

Check out the the Ocatvia forum on briskoda.net. Everything you need to know about skodas can be found here>


----------



## Marie (23 Feb 2008)

Thanks for that link.  I've joined up.  It seems like an informative and lively community.


----------



## Cabaiste (25 Feb 2008)

Just checked the reg of this car (one mentioned in original post) on Cartell.ie (just the free search). It tells me that it is only a 105BHP model.

Chancer!


----------



## CKT (27 Mar 2008)

Thinking of the SO, have a 00' Passat 1.9 115bhp SE, would I notice much loss in power if I go for the 1.9 105BHP engine??


----------



## clonboy (27 Mar 2008)

its sold anyhow

thought all 130 BHP were a 6 speed,,,,,,,,


----------



## hopalong (2 Jun 2008)

theres a new body superb out,does anyone know when a new body octavia is due.


----------



## Mad_Lad (2 Jun 2008)

Cabaiste said:


> Just checked the reg of this car (one mentioned in original post) on Cartell.ie (just the free search). It tells me that it is only a 105BHP model.
> 
> Chancer!



Hi Cabaiste. The octavia of that generation was 90hp 100 110 and 130hp. The 1.9 105hp didn't arrive until the new model in 2004. The 2004+ range of skodas are much better built with better engines. Though the 1.9 105hp is a noisy old clattery diesel that I would avoid. Fiat can make a 1.6 diesel with 120hp and 221lb ft torque. Beat that VAG! Though to be fair this new fiat engine is much newer than the skoda's! Even new vag engines are not the most refined or economical! 150K mile is alot on any diesel engine. Granted they CAN go for 300k miles+ But most of them don't get that far without a serious and expensive rebuild! I would check it has a full service history and get a GOOD mechanic to check it out before you even think about it. Too many things can go wrong at this mileage. + at this mileage it should have had it's 3rd timing belt change, AND WATER PUMP! If not you are already talking 400-600 euros! Good luck and let us know how you get on!


----------



## Mad_Lad (2 Jun 2008)

Mad_Lad said:


> Hi Cabaiste. The octavia of that generation was 90hp 100 110 and 130hp. The 1.9 105hp didn't arrive until the new model in 2004. The 2004+ range of skodas are much better built with better engines. Though the 1.9 105hp is a noisy old clattery diesel that I would avoid. Fiat can make a 1.6 diesel with 120hp and 221lb ft torque. Beat that VAG! Though to be fair this new fiat engine is much newer than the skoda's! Even new vag engines are not the most refined or economical! 150K mile is alot on any diesel engine. Granted they CAN go for 300k miles+ But most of them don't get that far without a serious and expensive rebuild! I would check it has a full service history and get a GOOD mechanic to check it out before you even think about it. Too many things can go wrong at this mileage. + at this mileage it should have had it's 3rd timing belt change, AND WATER PUMP! If not you are already talking 400-600 euros! Good luck and let us know how you get on!






hmmm had I have read the post date which was in feb lol a well. gave me something to talk about anyway lol


----------



## horse7 (2 Jun 2008)

new golf 6 series out next year,the new octavia will follow


----------



## hopalong (8 Jun 2008)

the new line up is to have a 1.6tdi also


----------



## Pique318 (10 Jun 2008)

rebel16 said:


> Compared to what? Passat, Avensis, Mondeo?



Compared to Mondeo, Coralla saloon, Saab 9-3, Volvo S40, Audi A4, Honda Accord, Peugout 407. All these have distinct lines and shapes - may not be as reliable or same price range as the Octavia, but at least they have confidence/arrogance to produce bold designs.

In saying all this the new Octavia is certainly an improvement from its predecessor.[/quote]

Corolla, fugly and cheap looking. 
Saab, Volvo, Audi & Honda, much more expensive.
Ford, best car in this class so everything compares unfavourably to it.
Peugeot, looks nice, but POS.

Skoda, distinctive and value for money. Definitely not boring, especially in vRS form
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]


----------



## Mad_Lad (15 Jun 2008)

There isn't much of a price difference between a new octavia and new golf. So If I was buying anything new it would be a golf for the only reason it holds it's value better. Octavia's better 2nd hand buy than a golf because you can pick one up  much cheaper than a golf with a lot less miles.


----------



## aircobra19 (15 Jun 2008)

I would have thought there is far more space in the Octavia, both in the rear and the boot.


----------

