neil_f
-
Posts
471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Shop
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by neil_f
-
-
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.
-
Interested to find out what are the hardware differences between them. They're both based on the EA888 MK3 block so unless there's something like a different turbo I don't see it being something very difficult to upgrade to. Also, APR quotes 316 bhp for a 98RON Stage 1 for the Octavia and 354 bhp for the equivalent stage 1 on the Cupra. That's a 38 bhp difference, getting closer already. I would map both those two cars If I bought them but not further than a stage 1, I've learned my lesson already. Surely an off-the-shelf map might still send the Cupra further than the Octavia but point is they're both well above 300bhp and strong enough for my needs.
Standard RS yes I would agree but I would imagine the 230 version with what I assume is the same diff Cupra uses, has almost eliminated that behaviour, that's what I've been reading at least we have to wait and see if it's confirmed.
My experience has taught me to always take dyno figures with a pinch of salt. I've heard this for every 1 out of 2 cars that is being dyno-ed as stock, especially VAG cars and I've seen some very different figures on similar cars based entirely on the dyno setup but anyway.
I test-drove the 280 Cupra and it honestly didn't feel quicker than my stage 2 Fabia vRS. Looking up acceleration times from tests and reviews later on confirmed my initial feeling that it was actually a bit slower in any in-gear acceleration up to 180km/h so a dyno saying it's actually 276, 280 or 295 wouldn't mean much to me as I know how it felt to me when driving it and that was that definitely needed a remap in order to feel quick for my standards. Obviously only speaking from my own point of view here.
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 had a Leon Cupra R 225 it was a beast running shell v-power as the recommended fuel was 98ron meaning seat had programmed it to run best on higher octane fuel, older focus st's were as well I think. if I ran 95ron it felt flat but was perfectly fine to use as It had to be able to run on any standard pump petrol.
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.
-
I am unsure what boost remapped TDI/184's run, but at stock they run significantly higher than a TSI engine. The 184 appears to run at ~18 PSI stock vs ~15 PSI for the petrol.
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.
-
Right beam is here, new discs and pads and a pair of handbrake cables also, just needs clean it up paint it where needed and maybe replace axle bushes. Oh and now it's been remapped by shark it's a bit better but now I'm looking at a bigger turbo
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.
-
Not a case of HITTING the kurb, more of accidentally scraping it while parking etc. Unless you're one of those people that likes to park "in the middle" of the road on those narrow housing estate roads, and risk losing an entire side of your car to a bin lorry.....
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.
-
At the end of the day, Skoda didn't think it through when they chose the rim design. Minor issue on a major cosmetic component of the car.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
10.05 in 2010 round the ring in my mk2 from a standing start... and I drove the family there in the first place.....
Would have thought it would be quicker than that. I did under 10mins in a mk3 diesel ibiza!
-
I have just said yes to my skoda dealer £299 for three years return to invoice.
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.
-
10k more than a VRS with the same engine. Octavian is bigger too. My girlfriend has a Golf R on a NHS lease and I hate it! She thinks it's awesome to have a VW somewhat of a badge snob haha
List price of £24075 for the skoda and £27595 for the golf doesn't equate to 10k difference?
-
I have Thule bars on my Leon estate with panoramic roof and no issues. It is however very noisy with the roof open , even in the tilted position.
-
In reality, there is no real crossover of these models. The Golf R costs start at £33K and is 4WD, the Cupra 280 at around 29K and the VRS 230 seems to be around 27K and that's before options.
If you compare bang for buck, the VRS and VRS 230 really do make financial sense in that you get a lot of car for less than the VW or SEAT.
You pays yer money and takes yer choice
I disagree. I looked at a vrs before buying my fr estate as I had a mk2 vrs at the time. Seat offered better value for money by the time I specced the skoda to the same level - sat nav , front parking sensors , folding mirrors and at the time cruise control. All options on the octavia. Not to mention that I don't think the mk3 is significant improvement over the mk2 considering the price increase. The octavia hatch offers far more space but when comparing the estate the skoda starts to lose its appeal. Add in that in all the media reports the Leon is the better drivers car. Skoda usp used to be it was always significantly cheaper and usually had more spec as well. I think they have now lost their advantage.
-
2
-
-
I had the oem skoda ones on mine. Fitting was really easy and they looked good. Bonus that you can have the window open without interfering with the blind.
-
I used the Thule wingbars and left them on majority of the time.
-
Monte carlo wheels are dark grey not black. Correct paint code is F7s
-
I went from a mk2 tsi fl octavia to a 184 diesel Leon St. Cover about 25k miles per year of which I have to pay for it all myself which is why I changed to the "boring" fuel! Get 150 miles more from a tank in the Leon (bear in mind it's 5l smaller than the mk2 octavia so more like 200miles more when comparing comparable tank size ). If driven gently the petrol would get closer to the diesel but the biggest difference I notice is when cruising at higher speeds or using all the performance the gap widens with the diesel barely dropping economy. Yes the petrol is quicker, handles better, quieter and more enjoyable to thrash. If doing a low mileage definitely go for the petrol!
-
I have read every single page of this thread after finding it today. I have a 2.0vrs registered in Jan 2011 and until today enjoyed every minute I have driven it. I think I'll px it now for a bog standard family motor. Wish I'd never read the thread in the first place but then again best to know these things. Every time I start her up now I'll be listening for the death rattle as I have my car serviced by a reliable friendly independent mechanic, so can't see Skoda stumping up any help if it goes tits up. I am absolutely gutted after reading this thread.
The chances of it happening are still slim though. I sold my 2010 with 64k miles and had no issues. Only sold it as I my mileage was increasing and bought a diesel. Forums will always give the horror stories but as I've said before you need to put it in perspective as to how many of these engines have been made across the vag group against the failure rate. Yes if it happened to me I would be gutted but it wouldn't make me rush to sell the car. As others have suggested have the parts replaced and you should then have a 2year warranty on the new parts.
-
1
-
-
The good weather has convinced me that now is the time to swap from Winters to Summers on my VRS.
*From ATS Radial 17's with Nokian WR D3 225/45's
*To Stock Gemina 18's with Stock Sport Contacts (half worn).
The first thing I noticed is that the ride is noticebly harsher of bumps and small ruts in the road. Both sets of tyres were set to recommended 35PSI but the 18's allow far more thumps in to the cabin. It's surprising the difference 5mm sidewall can make.
The next observation concerned straight line grip. On dry roads at 10-12 degress the Winter Nokian's grip the suface much better. Pulling away spiritrdly with the Conti's results in one or both wheels squealing, yet the Nokian's held on in same circumstances. I guess the softer rubber more than makes up for greater tread pattern.
Cornering with the Conti's is flatter, faster and more predictable when pushed. The Nokian's feel mushy in comparison and you notice the car roll more. The Nokian's are definately better suited to straight lines than cornering in the dry.
Road noise is pretty much equal. I am unsure how the Nokian's can have such an aggressive tread patter and remain quiet, but they do.
In summary, I almost regret switching to the Summers. I miss the straight line traction and superior ride of the 17's and Nokian's. When the Conti's wear out I will certainly consider downsizing to 17's and softer Summer rubber. I think the Conti's are mediocre tyres and 18" rims are detrimental to 95% of my driving needs.
You should try Michelin pilot supersport. I've just fitted a pair of 18" on the front of my Leon fr184 after removing the winters. Grip is far better in dry and wet conditions than the winters both in a straight line and cornering and steering response is a lot sharper. Car feel more agile. I used to run conti sport 5 but these Michelins blow them away!
-
Be careful not to bet tighten the Thule clips with the aero bars. They are aluminium and you will end up putting a dent in the rail.
This is the voice of experience.
My thoughts on rear carriers are..... Do not buy cheap half@@ds specials. I lost a bike off the back of a friends car due to a poorly constructed bike carrier.
Thankfully never had that issue using both aero bars and now the newer wing bars. Been using the carriers for over ten years now.
-
I found brokers4cars to offer the best deal when I was looking at an octavia and Leon. Car wow were a couple grand dearer. Ended up buying a used Leon in the end. The quotes on car wow for the Leon looked a good saving at first glance but they were adding the price of the technology pack (which is free) onto the discount artificially inflating the discount by almost £2k!
1.2tsi starting issue
in Skoda Fabia Mk II (2007-2014)
Posted
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?