Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Official New Car Reviews (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/official-new-car-reviews/)

-   -   Skoda Kushaq Review (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/official-new-car-reviews/238363-skoda-kushaq-review-89.html)

Considering he will keep the car for a longer period, its best to get 1.5 TSI. I always believe in going for the variant with higher power figures, as engine is heart of the car, even if I have to compromise on other features (not safety features).

ACI reports Skoda Kushaq real world fuel economy :




Link

ACI reports are pretty accurate by Mumbai, Bangalore standards given they do testing in Mumbai traffic.
Should be better in smaller towns / sparsely traffic trips.

The DSG with higher gear shows its strength on highways, and conversely the thirsty TC looses out.

Car India did a highway run from Mumbai to Vadodara using Kushaq 1.0 TSI AT, they have got 15+ km/l.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/TankfulForKushaq?s=08

15.4 kmpl for 1.5 TSI DSG on Highway
It must be a sporty drive or speed above 120 kmph.

I recently did a 150+ KM run of my 1.0 AT mostly on the highway. I got 15.6 if I can trust the instrument cluster. The highway was in pretty good condition.

Managed to click a Kushaq and a Seltos side by side on road today. I thought that the Kushaq did look a tad smaller than Seltos but there wasn't a sea of difference.

Checked the Skoda Kushaq 1.5 TSI with its famous technology. [Cylinder Deactivation when the user does not want power - Shutting off 2 cylinders while on the move in this lovely 4 cylinder TSI motor]

Was not impressed - It feels powerful inside the city but once you hit an open road, the power is less impressive and the DSG seemed to hesitate.

The 1.2 TSI seems more FTD than the kushaq. Closed the TD after around 45 minutes in the car.

What is 1.2 TSI ? Were you implying 1.0 TSI AT or something else

Managed to TD the 1.5 manual yesterday. These are my observations compared to the 1.0 M I had driven earlier:

Pros
- Less bottom end lag
- The extra horses show when you accelerate hard

Cons
- Less lag but still very little below 1800 RPM
- Front end doesn't feel as nimble as the 1.0
- Gearbox doesn't like to be rushed just like the 1.0
- No underbody protection for the engine

The 1.5 has more power, but I enjoyed the 1.0 more.

Finally got my hands on carbon steel 1.5TSI MT last Friday at Tafe Access, Mangalore. The delivery experience has been awesome with all fanfares. My booking was initially made for 1.0TSI MT, but after multiple test drives, I couldn`t really make peace with the initial turbo lag, and also the A/C performance was not up to the mark. Being a Ford owner whose A/C performance is unmatchable, I was expecting 1.0 AC to come close with Ford if not exceed. With all these limitations, I finally had to ditch 1.0 and upgrade 1.5TSI which IMO has been one of the best decisions I have ever made. I would certainly echo the observations mentioned in the review. Mid-range punch is so addictive that it is quite a task to get respectable mileage figures. More on this in my ownership review, however for prospective buyers a word of caution though, is if one has finalised 1.0TSI then don`t ever take TD of 1.5TSI because it will definitely tilt the verdict towards 1.5 lol:

Congratulations on the new ride !

Whats the real difference in the air condition units of 1.0 and 1.5 ? or is it just the higher powered engine that does the trick ?

Curious to know if you had considered the Taigun as I am in the middle of making this choice myself. Thanks.

Graph seems to be drawn in a hurry. 15.4 for 1.5DSG is well to left of 15 line?

I was under the impression the best highway economy figures are obtained when the engine is spinning in the highest gear at the lowest RPM. That should be somewhere in the region of 75-80kph in top gear at ~1800-2000 RPM I imagine, definitely not 'sport' driven or such high speeds.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I think what he meant was the FE numbers are less for the highway drive. Even the Ertiga with its ancient 4-speed AT gives a better mileage when driven with a light foot. So by this "sporty" word, they probably didn't drive sedately.