The VRs as standard makes 280 torque, look at any brochure,

I was under the impression it was more like 206lb/ft?! Surely with 280, you need to consider uprating the clutch with stage 1........ :S

If anyone is seriously thinking of doing any major work to their Octy vRS, I would recommend you pm member pelletwaggler, he had a stripped down octy pushing around 300 bhp,( called The Beast) so he is in a good position to advise.

Has anybody fitted a V6 to an Octy?

Apart from the sound I cant see any real point. a remapped 4 pot Audi TT is quicker than the V6 & dosent understeer as much due to the increased weight at the front.

The VRs as standard makes 280 torque, look at any brochure,

The vRS makes 280 Nm/rpm. This isn't the same as 280 lb/ft. I think there's some confusion over the units of measurement. Does anyone on here know how to convert between the two?

If anyone is seriously thinking of doing any major work to their Octy vRS, I would recommend you pm member pelletwaggler, he had a stripped down octy pushing around 300 bhp,( called The Beast) so he is in a good position to advise.

With due respect he'd be the last person to ask imo, his car is/was loosely based on the MkI platform, the TFSI engine in the MkII is completely different having little or no similarities!

HTH

The vRS makes 280 Nm/rpm. This isn't the same as 280 lb/ft. I think there's some confusion over the units of measurement. Does anyone on here know how to convert between the two?

Yep! 280nm = 206.5 lb/ft..............

1 x foot pound = 1.35581794833 newton meters

Edited 9 November, 201015 yr by Pagey1255

Yep! 280nm = 206.5 lb/ft..............

1 x foot pound = 1.35581794833 newton meters

Absolutely correct! Check out

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/torque

My old LT van was remapped-dyno'd @ 205.9bhp & 488nm torque-that's 359lbft !!! lol RWD too-happy days

Absolutely correct! Check out

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/torque

My old LT van was remapped-dyno'd @ 205.9bhp & 488nm torque-that's 359lbft !!! lol RWD too-happy days

Did you use an online tool? I did the calculation in my head.............

Did you use an online tool? I did the calculation in my head.............

That's a "non-online" tool then?? :p

The VRs as standard makes 280NM oftorque or in other terms 207lbft, look at any brochure,

there you go, ive adjusted your post

With due respect he'd be the last person to ask imo, his car is/was loosely based on the MkI platform, the TFSI engine in the MkII is completely different having little or no similarities!

HTH

totally differ4ent chassis, engine etc etc etc

there you go, ive adjusted your post

Point made!

Has anybody fitted a V6 to an Octy?

Nice sounding Octavia, expensive conversion?

is anybody else thinking along the same lines as me?

if you want a dc2 sell the ****ing Toyota Verso and keep the vRS!!!!!

DC5

Can't keep selling my wife's cars to fund my own fickle purchases! The Verso is quality anyway, well sort of..

there you go, ive adjusted your post

Stand corrected though it is in lb/ft on the rolling road,

Have you changed your sign in name, were you Edd Gee , or have you borrowed his computer cartoon

Edited 10 November, 201015 yr by bluvrs2

Stand corrected though it is in lb/ft on the rolling road,

Have you changed your sign in name, were you Edd Gee , or have you borrowed his computer cartoon

not me mate. I foud it on the net and thought it was good. previously vRSy

tbh the two cars are very different and your own personal preference will dictate which is better. Many people slag off Hondas without having had the chance to drive them properly. That is not clearly the case here which is good as all to often in other car forums people are quick to criticise.

IMHO the R's generally handle better and the mechanical LSD models will knock the spots of most road cars. The power is up high and can be difficult to get the most out of it on public roads but that high revving engine is what some people love, me included. As quick as the VRS is, it doesn't feel anywhere near as fast as a Type R, and still after all these months I find myself waiting for the engine to move up a gear and take off high up the rev ranges.

That said the VRS is way more practical. Lets face it, it is designed to be a quick family car. Drop the kids off and take it for a blast and all that. It's sporty yet subtle and I don't know of another car in its class that has similar power, a compliant ride, 5 doors and a massive boot.

I sold up and bought a VRS for this very reason, and they are great second hand buys.

As you can tell from the above I also have a history of Type Rs. From an engineering point of view and enthusiast point of view the R is the better car IMHO, the VRS however is a better all rounder.

Quite correct you are, in my opinion the Octavia VRS is almost without equal. I reckon my car to be worth about £6k and that is what I would ask for it. What else can you get, under 5 years old, that does what it does... the way it does it for that money? Space, practicality, build quality, performance, reliability, potential.. I could go on.

But... and there is always a but. 95% of my cars have been reasonably powerful NA machines, and that is generally what I prefer. I love the involvement and interaction of a VTEC engine, and coupled to a proper LSD and well sorted chassis, you can't have much more fun for the same sort of cash. DC2's are £3k and up, Accord Type R's in good nick about the same, EP3 CTR's £4500+, with DC5's commanding over £7k at least. They don't have the same tactile build as a VRS, nor the same space, safety or practicality... I'm not comparing cars.. because they are too different; more a case of comparing driving experiences and the Octavia, for me cannot match the rev-happy Hondas.

The E46 330 I had was another great all rounder but the engine was souless and apart from decent pace it didn't excite me.. especially not after the Hondas.

I think the next plan is to find and driver another Type-R and see if it's worth the trade given the Skoda's outstanding abilities.

On the plus side Hondas are expensive to mod whereas you can extract way more power for far less on a turbo lump if that's your thing.

If you need a larger car there are only two comparable in R form, the ATR and the FD2. The ATR is a steal £ for £, it's a tough call. I'm sure i'll be back in a Honda in the future but right now for me and the family the VRS seems to be working out well.

Cheap Civic VTi for a VTEC fix and keep the Octavia then

ATR was good, but never my favourite, everything else is out of my price range.

I think people get too hung up on power mods, myself. For me, the handling and feedback are what makes a car fun on public roads. A well-balanced chasis with rwd, an LSD and lots of communication is a beautiful thing. The instant reaction of a high-revving na engine is the icing on the cake. I could be talking about an S2000, but I was actually thinking of my RX-8. I hadn't considered how similar they are, in many ways...

I've never been a fan of the RX-8 though I am well aware of how well regarded they are as a driving machine. I look at them as being a bit fragile along with an Oliver Reed type thirst for oil. They also look a bit weird to me. Hondas are unburstable, and those with an LSD are truly phenomenal when you're on a charge. Since the Type-R's are not all that quick either it is much easier to use their performance on our ever more congested roads, you don't ever really need to get out of 2nd gear either.

A lot of people equate an engine using oil with a problem. The rotary engine is designed to use oil as part of it's normal operation. Having said that, mine hardly used any, so I never understood why it had that reputation. I suspect because most motoring journalists know nothing about engineering. Mine was totally reliable, and the Mazda dealer near me gave an excellent service. The only criticism I have of it is the lack of low-down torque. That was easily solved though, with a poke of the loud pedal

There was something addictive about taking it to 9,000 rpm plus.

I too had a BMW 3 liter straight six. Magnificent engineering (sold it at 150,000 miles and the engine had never missed a beat), but it wasn't as exciting.