neil_f

Thanks for the reply. Interestingly there is a fault code logged to do with fuel pressure so sounds like that could be the reason. Is there any cure?

My wife has a 1.2tsi 2011 model. Ever since we bought it second hand it seems to take an age to start (has done this for two years now!) Starter motor turns over fine so don't think it is a battery issue just it seems to take about twice as long as any other car I've had to actually start. Any ideas? Have heard about possible timing change stretch on these models. There is a rattle for about a second when it has started and then silent there after. Is there a way of checking the chain either via vag com or visually?

Performance must be awful in a car the size of the octavia. My wife has this engine in the fabia and I would describe it as adequate although struggles a bit on the motorway.

Personally its not just about straight line performance. From reading reviews the cupra handles and grips a lot better than the 230. If your considering track days then it really highlights the difference. EVO magazine commented the 230 was poor on track. This month's EVO has the cupra in their car of the year final and it beats some more exotic machinery. They comment how amazing the grip and performance is (admittedly it does have the cup 2 tyres) Vrs has more space inside so depends what your priority is. Having come from a mk2 fl Vrs to a mk3 Leon fr I can't say I've had any issues with build quality and personally prefer the Leon interior over the mk3 octavia as I also considered a vrs at the time. All round value for money I think the cupra is hard to beat . I moved away from skoda as they have priced themselves out the market. No longer the performance bargain they used to be.

I also had a cupra r225 that was running stage 2. Initially it was setup to run on vpower but I ended up running it mostly on 95ron due to the mileage I ended up doing (76k miles in two years! ). Can't say there was really a noticeable difference and on a rolling road it was within a couple of bhp of other cupra r with same mods running 98 Ron. I also ran a mk2 fl vrs with stage 1 for 60k miles and again didn't notice a significant difference.

Review on pistonheads today which slates the 230 (both estate and hatch) on track. Says it will probably be a decent road car but terrible on track. Interesting given people keep comparing it to Leon Cupra ST which works well on road and track. Would have thought the diff on the octavia would have made it a lot better than a standard vrs. Summary of the report says it's worth the price just for the extra spec and you can't really notice the extra power or grip.

Correct the diesels usually run significantly more boost standard than a petrol. My point was when remapping a diesel boost pressure is barely changed in comparison to a petrol therefore the turbo is not really put under any more stress.

[quote name="Orville" post="4366789" timestamp="1441187304" Similar arguments apply for diesel, where I strongly suspect the turbos will also be the weakest links. Turbo's must work ~50% above stock to provide ~20-25% more usable power. Other components are not pushed as hard as the turbo in percentage terms. Not entirely true as you can't increase the boost pressure to a similar extent as you would on a petrol due to the compression ratio. Last diesel remap I had increased boost pressure by 2-3psi. My mk2 tsi covered over 60k miles remapped with no issues. Yes it runs far higher boost but on road driving you rarely hold it at maximum boost for any great length of time.

Would it not be easier and cheaper to buy a vrs? Don't see the point of a bigger turbo on a monte and I would have thought the relatively small capacity of a 1.2 would struggle to yield any great power figures without compromising daily drive ability. Rear brakes do very little work usually about 20% of the braking so doubt you'll notice much of an improvement.

Is scraping it not the same as hitting it? I don't park in the middle of the road but have still managed not too hit a kerb. Have the mirror set to auto dip when I reverse which helps to keep an eye on how close I get. The only wheel I remember being a design fault for possibly kerb damage was the old tsw venom if anyone remembers that as the spokes protruded by quite an amount.

It's hardly a design flaw that if you hit a kerb it will damage the wheel.....just don't hit the kerb! Yes tyres with rim protection reduces the likelihood of damage but you could argue that with most cars.

I drove a monte Carlo with this engine and thought the performance was awful. Ended up buying one with the 86bhp tsi engine, whilst the power is only slightly more the torque and power delivery is far superior due to being turbocharged. Overtaking on national speed limit roads was almost impossible or dangerous as it takes so long to get upto speed. Can get high 40's out the tsi on a motorway run so economy isn't any worse.

Would have thought it would be quicker than that. I did under 10mins in a mk3 diesel ibiza!

That's expensive. I paid 149 for three and a half years cover return to invoice through directgap. It's not something I had ever taken out before but last year my father's car was written off and without gap he would have been out of pocket. My policy covers for upto 15k claim to return to invoice price.

List price of £24075 for the skoda and £27595 for the golf doesn't equate to 10k difference?