I see you've learn't a new language Paul, I think it's called 'Bo11ocks'!

PMSL

I seem to have lost the spoiler on my car then

Looks like it's back to the dealer for my spoiler too then...

SMS, just be happy with your Sport and stop giving the VRS owners ammunition.

You will never win as there are far too many of them **cough...common...cough** :P:D:D

The VRS is obviously the best car, as its the top model in the sports range, but the Sport is also nice, and looks wise not much different.

As you say its cheaper to buy/insure etc, so be happy with it and leave it at that

Damo

I see you've learn't a new language Paul, I think it's called 'Bo11ocks'!

not at all, i can tell the difference in your car as its been remapped, but in a standard vrs to yours is like a 1.0 to a 1.6.

You will never win as there are far too many of them **cough...common...cough** :P:D:D

nasty cough there damo:rolleyes:

The VRS is obviously the best car, as its the top model in the sports range, but the Sport is also nice, and looks wise not much different.

As you say its cheaper to buy/insure etc, so be happy with it and leave it at that

Damo

like i say, im happy with it as i dont have need for one where i live just in case certain people dont understand

plus as sinister puts it more power smaller willy damm better get a nice 500cc uno;)

not at all, i can tell the difference in your car as its been remapped, but in a standard vrs to yours is like a 1.0 to a 1.6.

Tell you what, next time we have a meet, lets see if you can keep up with me

on a run

Tell you what, next time we have a meet, lets see if you can keep up with me

on a run

highways are not for racing as an advance driver i have to set standards :rofl:

highways are not for racing as an advance driver i have to set standards :rofl:

Just try to follow me at the NSL, not that difficult?

:chqflag::chqflag:

Glad I got rid of my Mk11 and back to a Mk1, seems like theres a lot of chest puffing on here:D I'm off now don't want to start a Mk11 vrs Mk1 debate;)

Steve

Im happy with my sport, not much road these days that is actually clear either of traffic or scamera items. Also noticed you get less hassle being in a sport which was one of my concerns about a vrs with a huge boy racer look spoiler (sorry vrs owners it does look nice but has nick me written on it imho)

Also noticed after travelling in APD's standard vrs that its not till about 4k revs that you notice any difference. however i love the look of mine, like you say about the subtle look, cheaper insurance and is actually quite pokey too!!

take note up to 4k, this is when turbo noticably takes over on a standard vrs up to that point there isnt much difference between the two. 0-60 there is 3 seconds difference between the two and yes does 15 mph faster on book speed.

not at all, i can tell the difference in your car as its been remapped, but in a standard vrs to yours is like a 1.0 to a 1.6.

Makefishes car is revo tuned stage two (if not more by now) with lots of mods, not sure of the exact bhp of it but comparing that to a standard vrs is like comparing a bottom of the range with the minimuim of a middle of the range engine at least for the power/speed whatever you want to call it difference.

SMS, just be happy with your Sport and stop giving the VRS owners ammunition.

The VRS is obviously the best car, as its the top model in the sports range, but the Sport is also nice, and looks wise not much different.

As you say its cheaper to buy/insure etc, so be happy with it and leave it at that

like i said im happy not having a common car and as ive said before it does me fine has more than enough power/speed for the roads around here and is nippy enough for what i need. if i wanted something with power i would have gone for an evo or more.

Glad I got rid of my Mk11 and back to a Mk1, seems like theres a lot of chest puffing on here:D I'm off now don't want to start a Mk11 vrs Mk1 debate;)

Steve

nor do i mate, i was stating an opinion that i am happy with mine that there didnt seem to be much difference in the speed range in the low part of the power band, but was noticed in the high end of the powerband once my non turbo car started to run out of puff and the turbo cuts in on the vrs.

At the end of the day if everyone had the same it be a boring world, like damo has pointed out we are happy with what we have and from what you are saying sounds like the mk1 engine is better to the mk2.

.................... and from what you are saying sounds like the mk1 engine is better to the mk2.

erm, but it aint though! :confused:

OMG this is going to be such a bitch fight!!!

I'm parked up just waiting for it all to kick off (and will speed away if it looks like we're loosing 'cos you can't catch me!!!):P

Edited 16 August, 200817 yr by bigjim73
Spelling mistake!

take note up to 4k, this is when turbo noticably takes over on a standard vrs up to that point there isnt much difference between the two. 0-60 there is 3 seconds difference between the two and yes does 15 mph faster on book speed.

Makefishes car is revo tuned stage two (if not more by now) with lots of mods, not sure of the exact bhp of it but comparing that to a standard vrs is like comparing a bottom of the range with the minimuim of a middle of the range engine at least for the power/speed whatever you want to call it difference.

like i said im happy not having a common car and as ive said before it does me fine has more than enough power/speed for the roads around here and is nippy enough for what i need. if i wanted something with power i would have gone for an evo or more.

nor do i mate, i was stating an opinion that i am happy with mine that there didnt seem to be much difference in the speed range in the low part of the power band, but was noticed in the high end of the powerband once my non turbo car started to run out of puff and the turbo cuts in on the vrs.

At the end of the day if everyone had the same it be a boring world, like damo has pointed out we are happy with what we have and from what you are saying sounds like the mk1 engine is better to the mk2.

Just ask other people that were on the lakes run how my car performed at

the time (with 4 people in it) At the time I was the leading Skoda tracking

Dave & Rob - ask them

Not going to get into my engines better than yours thing, just said I had a Mk11 but sold it after 6 months because I prefered the Mk 1 thats all:P:D

Said I wouldn't get into this kind of debate but am doing it now:bonk:

Steve

it can keep up with vrs's 1st to 3rd before the turbo on the vrs takes over.

Not going to get into my engines better than yours thing, just said I had a Mk11 but sold it after 6 months because I prefered the Mk 1 thats all:P:D

You find an airfield and I'll show you 'tailpipes'!

Classic Harry, could not have put it better myself

You find an airfield and I'll show you 'tailpipes'!

Only got one pipe but I'm happy enough;)

Steve

0-60 there is 3 seconds difference between the two and yes does 15 mph faster on book speed.

I'm sure you (if not you then someone else) put earlier that the difference in 0-60 was only a couple of seconds and that was next to nothing - certainly you imply it here.

I'm sorry but two seconds in the 0-60 time is huge and 3 is MASSIVE! I dont know what the differences actually are but on your logic my VRS is 'nearly' as quick as my workmate's Aston Martin V8 Vantage that takes a whole 4.9 seconds to get to 60. I think the VRS' 7.3 is miles slower than that so if your sport is another 2/3 on top then there is the same gap.

2.0FSI Sport Official 0-60 was 8.9s iirc, so a bit under 2s slower to 60 than a vRS (on paper at least).

2.0FSI Sport Official 0-60 was 8.9s iirc, so a bit under 2s slower to 60 than a vRS (on paper at least).

As said above, 2 seconds is a huge difference. Even the VRs TDI does it quicker than 8.9!:P

To be fair to smstext also, he obviously considered the options and bought what he beleived was the best model for him. Same as none of us VRS 2.0TFSi owners would

say that any of the other models are better than ours i would expect all the Diesel owners to think theirs was the best choice, and so on. Just because we in the petrol VRS are right doesnt mean we should deny the others their (albeit slightly misguided) opinion! :cool:

Incidently, whilst researching the car, i see that most sites have the 0-60 at 7.3 seconds, except a couple which had it at either 6.9 or 7.0. I also read somewhere that the estate is 0.3 seconds slower on this run so what is correct? Is the hatchback 7.0 and the estate 7.3 or is the hatchback 7.3 and the estate 7.6 or is there a further option??

Edit: 6.9 not 5.9 (we wish eh?)

Edited 18 August, 200817 yr by mr_awol

Incidently, whilst researching the car, i see that most sites have the 0-60 at 7.3 seconds, except a couple which had it at either 5.9 or 7.0. I also read somewhere that the estate is 0.3 seconds slower on this run so what is correct? Is the hatchback 7.0 and the estate 7.3 or is the hatchback 7.3 and the estate 7.6 or is there a further option??

Some places list the 0 - 62 time instead of 0 - 60, but the editors don't realise or are just plain lazy and don't bother changing the heading. I haven't seen a 0 - 60 time of 5.9 and I'm not sure if Steve's Revo'd car was capable of that.

To be fair to smstext also, he obviously considered the options and bought what he beleived was the best model for him. Same as none of us VRS 2.0TFSi owners would

say that any of the other models are better than ours i would expect all the Diesel owners to think theirs was the best choice, and so on. Just because we in the petrol VRS are right doesnt mean we should deny the others their (albeit slightly misguided) opinion! :cool:

I don't think anyone is claiming a particular model is better than another etc but what started this was smstext stating 'it can keep up with vrs's 1st to 3rd' in reference to his 2.0 FSI. This is blatently untrue