as said, i'm fully aware of parts needed and costs to fit a 6 speed box let alone the labour

so almost 600 quid to sort out the 4x4 system? I'd like to do a few things to it but not sure if I'd do enough to warrant getting a 4x4 over a vrs. Realistically, the only modifications I'd do would be the remap, with a filter and exhaust. (and black wheels if it's a yellow one)

As i now understand it, the differences are:

front bumper

ride height

wheels

engine power as standard

interior

brakes

On paper then, it seems like the VRS is winning, might be about time for a test drive anything inparticular to look for?

You should try remapped versions of both otherwise the Vrs will be noticeably quicker as standard. Depends what you want out of a car which is best. I've just done the brakes and a remap on mine, I can't justify the expense of doing the Haldex, sometimes I want to lower it but then it snows, or I have to go down some cruddy roads or over a lot of speed humps, and it seems ok again! The Vrs will always be fwd which isn,t what I want, but some love it. The brakes won't cost much, remaps vary a lot, all these things will increase your insurance though, and after remapping you might want a new clutch on a 4x4 as I did:eek: Whatever you think all cars cost to run, double it and you'll be nearer reality;)

Yeah I think if I got the 4x4 with the thought of getting the Haldex, it would always seem like something that I wanted but could never really justify... I do like driving on the edge, I've done a few trackdays and would like do the odd one in the Octavia if possible but I don't want to start building a track car out of it.

What's expensive to run about them? how much did the remap add to your insurance premium? I'm only 21 so this could be a bit of an issue...

I have the 4x4 with the updated haldex, it transforms the driving of the car by loading the rear much earlier. Better first mod than a remap :eek:

The 4x4 also has a smaller boot, larger fuel tanks and with low temp tyres is great fun in the winter.

It's all a question of what you want, I tow and find myself in fields on glider retrieves so the 4x4 is more practical for me but you may want something different.

I run mine at standard ride height with 15" 195/65 winter tyres, standard brakes and 280bhp over the winter, then change to a sportier setting for the summer, best of both worlds.

What's expensive to run about them? how much did the remap add to your insurance premium? I'm only 21 so this could be a bit of an issue...

Main expenses are fuel, road tax , cost of insurance (especially if you're young and want to modify it), parts can be expensive too (although reliability is good) and you probably wouldn't want to run around on cheap tyres.

If you add the increase in insurance for a remap on top of the cost to insure a standard 4x4 I reckon it would end up a lot more than the cost of insuring a standard vRS.

I would say the same thing about the increase in insurance costs of the 4x4. Also if you tune both to 210bhp then again I would thing the 4x4 would cost more. This is because you have increased the power of the 4x4 by more than 20% and I believe that increases the cost of the insurance even more (the increase in the vrs power will be less than 20%).

coming from someone that has owned an octavia 4x4 in exactly this state of tune it didn't make all that much difference(and i wasn't all that old at the time at about 23).

I would say the same thing about the increase in insurance costs of the 4x4. Also if you tune both to 210bhp then again I would thing the 4x4 would cost more. This is because you have increased the power of the 4x4 by more than 20% and I believe that increases the cost of the insurance even more (the increase in the vrs power will be less than 20%).

I had a quote for standard 4x4 of £471(cheapest of 8) then added LPG, remap, brakes, 17" etc and it went up to a whopping £472:thumbup:(cheapest of 11:confused:)

Cost wise the insurance wasn't a major problem (£325 with A Flux), but I'm nearly 50 (tomorrow:eek:) and live in the sticks. Petrol and tyre consumption are more of a problem, especially if you use your 1/3rd power increase (going from 150 to 200 is not 20%). Mainly doing about 9k a year going to work uses up one set of tyres (at least it did on Goodyear NCT), and you can get down to 17mpg or less:eek::eek:, although normal use is 25-28, with mid 30's on a run. I dare say that this applies to a Vrs as well, wouldn't have thought 200 horses through the front tyres improves their life if you use it:D

I used to have a seven replica and went through rear tyres after about 3k :eek: So I'd be happy enough with 9k

didn't realise it'd be quite that bad on petrol though... I thought I'd be able to get about 35 if being sensible, by the sound of it I'll be lucky to see high twenties :confused:

I used to have a seven replica and went through rear tyres after about 3k :eek: So I'd be happy enough with 9k

didn't realise it'd be quite that bad on petrol though... I thought I'd be able to get about 35 if being sensible, by the sound of it I'll be lucky to see high twenties :confused:

Suppose it would depend how you drive, but why bother having even a warm hatch if you drive it like a sloth?

didn't realise it'd be quite that bad on petrol though... I thought I'd be able to get about 35 if being sensible, by the sound of it I'll be lucky to see high twenties :confused:

I wouldn't worry. Even after a remap I managed to average 36.5mpg on the way back from York to Scarborough yesterday. That included a little burst of acceleration from time to time, but I did have SWMBO and my two daughters in with me, so I was quite restrained.

both are great cars after some modification....

The vrs is great out the box (once you have done the rear arb, remap dogbone and new 225 tyres etc), it needs less doing and just feels more sporty overall offering great mpg (can get over 40 on the motorway, to get a 4x4 to similar standards requires more money, ie kws v3s h&r arbs brake conversion and remap however once done there is no comparison when it comes to cornering, the 4x4 is better, especially if you then uprate the haldex to the blue controller.

Vrs looks nicer and the 4x4 is visually more bland, and imo needs a vrs front bumper, new wheels, new steering wheel and a new interior to offer similar vrs looks, the s3 interior looks great in the vrs and is far nicer interior than the vrs setup which being white/grey is a pain.

Dont get me wrong i love my vrs and for normal driving it is cheaper than my old 4x4 (36mpg on the motorway if i was lucky) but the 4x4 has gadgets like esp and side airbags that you cant retrofit to the vrs (not unless money is no object to you).

I think overall 4x4 has far more potential and can handle far more power than the front wheel drive cars, i am sure some of the guys would agree running 300plus bhp through a front wheel drive vag car can make driving in the wet 'interesting'!

As far as how quick they are remapped, the vrs is quicker as it is lighter although this isnt a massive difference its just the 4x4 has a few extra parts to carry around, however once properly set up you can push a 4x4 so much further than the vrs.

Either car would not be a mistake however and be a far more sensible buy than a golf mk4!

Edited 3 January, 200917 yr by sweedish

Either car would not be a mistake however and be a far more sensible buy than a golf mk4!

cheaper and more practical too