I'll dust it off, and roll it out...

He wasn't trying

A mapped vRS against a standard S3, rolling, in the dry, would be fairly even, with the Octavia pulling ahead a bit. Map the S3, or add some rain (we get quite a lot of that, here) and the S3 waltzes off into the sunset.

Subjectively, the S3 is also a much, much nicer place to sit, and the Octavia has a nice interior (especially compared the the 1990's Hyundai that is the current Fabia interior)

If you mean a car length between 40 and 80 as pulling away a bit then then yes but I wouldn't say that's fairly even.

Of course a remapped S3 will be quicker but not by as much as you think, reference my comment above about the 40 to 100 times of remapped Golf R v remapped vRS tsi.

Rain not a massive issue from a rolling start.

Personally, I would take the S3 over the remapped vRS everytime as it's just a better car and a nicer place to be but that wasn't the exam question.

Actually...

Have we all got it wrong?

Is the OP asking if he remapped his tractor-engined vRS, will it close the gap on an S3?

In that case if it's a tractor engined vRS even remapped it wouldn't keep up with a standard vRS tsi lol

God you leave a thread alone for a few hours and look what happens ;-), seriously though thanks for info, all interesting reading.

To clarify Babs- no I have no I'm not asking if the tractor will close the gap on an S3 as I have driven a CR shark remapped 170 and although it was nippy the S3 blew it out the water, it was the way it put the power down that impressed me, no wheel spin, and the Octavia felt a LOT heavier in the corners, not torque surge, just smooth constant push and a nice engine note. If I acquired an S3 I would probably leave it standard at least for a while. An S4 wound be nice but again the price goes up with it.

Given all the front wheel scrabbling I do in my VRS, i'd be happier in a Quattro S3 also I reckon.....but I wont abandon Team Skoda....Nope, a Superb Estate 4x4 CR170 should do me just fine!

A downside to the S3 is it's the TFSI and I seem to remember that it had quite an issue with coking up compared to the newer TSI.

Other thing is that you'll need to do the suspension in about 15k miles, so a year.

You could map the CR and put something like a Bilstein B12 kit on it and replace any bushes that are not in top nick. That would help a lot.

Other option would be to go for something pretty mental and unique.

All said and done the S3 is still an A3, is still a golf is still and octy is still a leon.

Apart from the 4x4 if you can make one handle well, you can get a long way on the other for not a huge amount of cash.

I'd be more interested in the 3er or the RS4 etc.

A downside to the S3 is it's the TFSI and I seem to remember that it had quite an issue with coking up compared to the newer TSI.

Other thing is that you'll need to do the suspension in about 15k miles, so a year.

You could map the CR and put something like a Bilstein B12 kit on it and replace any bushes that are not in top nick. That would help a lot.

Other option would be to go for something pretty mental and unique.

All said and done the S3 is still an A3, is still a golf is still and octy is still a leon.

Apart from the 4x4 if you can make one handle well, you can get a long way on the other for not a huge amount of cash.

I'd be more interested in the 3er or the RS4 etc.

Now you're talking. But what? something standard or something stealthily tinkered with?

If I had the cash, then I'd be so tempted by the K04 upgrade on a newer Octavia, I like the perceived blandness which means its not noticed by the villains or the motorway racers.

A friend just bought a stunning 2008 S3 S-Line Quattro 3.2 with 34K on the clock. £10K. Even I had to say that was an astonishing bargain. Gumtree locally. Now I love my VRS but that is a lot of car for £10K.

The above car is not an S3. Merely an A3.

Bottom line is S3 is a better car, thats why it costs substantially more brand new. Its difficult to compare an older expensive car against a younger cheaper car. Depends if you want a warranty etc for peace of mind. You can however make a VRS very similar to an S3 for not a lot of money but you can never add 4wd which makes a big difference. I owned the older model S3 and it was the best car i have ever owned so i can imagine the newer one is amazing. With an S3 sportback you wouldnt loose too much practicality either compared to an octy. A little bit maybe but not a show stopper.

You either want a new car or not. If not then the S3 wins every time. I personaly would have a 3 year old S3 over my current car but that isnt an option for me but if it is for you then get it. You will only regret it if something goes wrong.

Ive owned fairly powerful front wheel drive vehicles (the previous Skoda was a stage 2+ VRS Mk2 Octy) as well as haldex equipped VAG vehicles. For me there is absolutely no comparison and its one reason why the Yeti 4x4 appealled as a prospective purchase (I also looked at the Octavia Scout). 4wd everytime imo. Not due to the fact we ever get lots of snow here, just because it enables the car to maintain the same level of performance come rain or shine. The roads arent always soaking wet but they are damp a lot of the time. With the generation 4 haldex cars you can sidestep the clutch if you so desire and the traction will be there to send you flying down the road.

Ive owned fairly powerful front wheel drive vehicles (the previous Skoda was a stage 2+ VRS Mk2 Octy) as well as haldex equipped VAG vehicles. For me there is absolutely no comparison and its one reason why the Yeti 4x4 appealled as a prospective purchase (I also looked at the Octavia Scout). 4wd everytime imo. Not due to the fact we ever get lots of snow here, just because it enables the car to maintain the same level of performance come rain or shine. The roads arent always soaking wet but they are damp a lot of the time. With the generation 4 haldex cars you can sidestep the clutch if you so desire and the traction will be there to send you flying down the road.

Agree. The haldex 4wd system is the perfect set up for this country. Basically drives like a FWD car for efficiency then powers up rear wheels on demand. Perfect. Having 60% of the torque going to the rear permanently in quattro models is overkill as we tend not to drive flat out with the tale hanging out when going to work. For me haldex is the better solution. On a track day its maybe not very driver focused but very few peiople do track days and when they do its accounts for a tiny percentage of the car driving life.

Real world driving on greasy wet british crap roads makses haldex 4wd a very desirable option. If the VRS had it as on option i would have picked it without a moments hesitation.

Generally i will manage fine with 2wd but i cant see why you wouldnt want 4wd if it was available.

Edited 20 September, 201213 yr by Jockdooshbag

To be honest, most of the extra weight is 4WD kit, and there's only "loses" when the 4WD is engaged. At which point it's still got more power going the wheels that will help it grip than the Octavia.

The drivetrain losses in some 4WD cars is quite significant in many cases. However, my understanding is that the S3 in standard form compares very well to the claimed power figures although I suspect that many dynos would need to pull the haldex fuse and effectively have a 2WD car. I re-found the following website after a rolling-start straight line race with an Audi S5 where he struggled to gain on me (not saying that I was gaining any distance on him either, mind!) and thinking 'OK, what just happened there?'. This website looks at drivetrain losses.... compare, for example, the S3 to the RS4!

http://www.rri.se/

Also, have a look at the Suburu WRX STI or the newer BMW M3 for interest.

A few months back I had to think about a new S3 with remap but little else due to limited funds versus a new TSI VRS for which I would spend a chunk of money on modifications, most notably a K04 conversion, and save a few grand from going the VRS route. The 4WD is without doubt a big advantage when ragging it off from a standing start or when 'pushing it' in the wet. However, the big question for me was - how often do I drive a car like that on a public road (as I don't track it) or want to drive it like that?...and then balance that up with the size and convenience of the Octavia. For me, it was the Octavia that I went for but it's all personal choice. At my age, I am happy to leave the 'traffic light drag-racing' to our Saxo driving friends and, as for the earlier mention of getting the same performance in the wet as in the dry with a 4WD car, I wish you the best of luck!

The drivetrain losses in some 4WD cars is quite significant in many cases. However, my understanding is that the S3 in standard form compares very well to the claimed power figures although I suspect that many dynos would need to pull the haldex fuse and effectively have a 2WD car. I re-found the following website after a rolling-start straight line race with an Audi S5 where he struggled to gain on me (not saying that I was gaining on him either, mind!) and thinking 'OK, what just happened there?'. This website looks at drivetrain losses.... compare, for example, the S3 to the RS4!

http://www.rri.se/

Also, have a look at the Suburu WRX STI or the newer BMW M3 for interest.

A few months back I had to think about a new S3 with remap but little else due to limited funds versus a new TSI VRS for which I would spend a chunk of money on modifications, most notably a K04 conversion, and save a few grand from going the VRS route. The 4WD is without doubt a big advantage when ragging it off from a standing start or when 'pushing it' in the wet. However, the big question for me was - how often do I drive a car like that on a public road (as I don't track it) or want to drive it like that?...and then balance that up with the size and convenience of the Octavia. For me, it was the Octavia that I went for but it's all personal choice. At my age, I am happy to leave the 'traffic light drag-racing' to our Saxo driving friends.

Interesting website. Certainly interesting comparing the haldex 4wd cars to the quattro variants. Far less transmission losses with the haldex. Your right though 4wd isnt essential in this country. Its a nice to have. 2wd with winter tyres will get you pretty much up any road in any conditions. Would still have 4wd if i could though. I had to opt for VRS as an S3 isnt allowed under my company car rules but i certainly dont feel short changed as a result. S3 is still bloody lovely though.

The above car is not an S3. Merely an A3.

Bottom line is S3 is a better car, thats why it costs substantially more brand new. Its difficult to compare an older expensive car against a younger cheaper car. Depends if you want a warranty etc for peace of mind. You can however make a VRS very similar to an S3 for not a lot of money but you can never add 4wd which makes a big difference. I owned the older model S3 and it was the best car i have ever owned so i can imagine the newer one is amazing. With an S3 sportback you wouldnt loose too much practicality either compared to an octy. A little bit maybe but not a show stopper.

You either want a new car or not. If not then the S3 wins every time. I personaly would have a 3 year old S3 over my current car but that isnt an option for me but if it is for you then get it. You will only regret it if something goes wrong.

Jock go and have a look on yer local Gumtree and tell me that is merely an A3! Cough splutter! It is an A3 S-Line with that 3.2 Quattro set up...merely an A3. Nahh!

Jock go and have a look on yer local Gumtree and tell me that is merely an A3! Cough splutter! It is an A3 S-Line with that 3.2 Quattro set up...merely an A3. Nahh!

Dont need to look. The S3 didnt have a 3.2 ltr engine mate. It was a 2.0 ltr turbo. Only way it could be an S3 is if he changed the engine to a 3.2 ltr. Doubt that happened. So merely an A3. Not sure what the issue is here as that is the facts im afraid.

Edited 21 September, 201213 yr by Jockdooshbag

Yep the that's why it's called a a3 not a s3.....

Having had the TT with the 3.2 V6 engine I would rather take the A3 3.2 s-line quattro over the S3. It's not as quick but has far more soul. Engine sounds amazing!

I drove an S3 a number of years ago and was mightily impressed (came out of an WRX STi too) but the £27k price tag put me off

Problem with cars of late is they have got far too lardy - bit like the population I suppose Brake heavily into a corner from a ton and you'll get a feeling for how lardy the VRS is lol

Best car I ever owned - Clio 182 cup - lift off oversteer was hilarious :love:

I've never really been a fan of DSG - think it's a bit boring really but I really like the look of the new Clio - thinking of an RS when they come out next year. 5 doors, paddles, 1.6 turbo, probably similar size boot to S3, and LIGHT! 4+ plan looks good and probably get good finance on one, particularly the way the european car market is going, oops.....

Bottom line for me: new and light is good, old and lardy, hmmmmm, good luck

Edited 21 September, 201213 yr by adder

Having had the TT with the 3.2 V6 engine I would rather take the A3 3.2 s-line quattro over the S3. It's not as quick but has far more soul. Engine sounds amazing!

Day to day ownership costs of the 2.0 turbo would be easier to live with. But im the same as you i really hanker after a N/A V6 engine and could easily live witth the slight perfromance deficit. Decent sports exhaust on the 3.2 would be my preference. Lush.

You don't need the sports exhaust, you just need to remove the centre box.

You don't need the sports exhaust, you just need to remove the centre box.

Soon as someone makes a V6 or V8 for 160kg/km C02's then im buying it. Bloody company car rules.

VAG V6's are awesome

Having had the TT with the 3.2 V6 engine I would rather take the A3 3.2 s-line quattro over the S3. It's not as quick but has far more soul. Engine sounds amazing!

Point I was making Jonno was that the A3 S-Line with 3.2V6 is hardly a standard A3!

I have a petrol vRS TSi with DSG and it is phenomenal. Pound for pound the best car I have owned. I test drove a manual CR and in my opinion the petrol wins hands down. I have never driven an S3 so can't comment on it.

My thoughts almost exactly. LOVE my vRS DSG Estate. Can't think of much I'd swap it for this side of £30k (new). Quick, comfy,very practical (I have two small kids). Easy to drive - can do the chilled out thing really well but is an animal in Sport or 'on the paddles'.

(And when I say 'animal', I mean fast enough and exciting enough for me on British roads. Personally, 200 bhp is sufficient in the UK - in fact I sometimes have even more fun in my Panda 100HP - half the power, not far off half the weight.........)

Edited 21 September, 201213 yr by dunc69

Looks like I'm the only one that finds lighting up the front wheels in third and fourth on a 320bhp S3 turbo'd Octy a hoot.

Looks like I'm the only one that finds lighting up the front wheels in third and fourth on a 320bhp S3 turbo'd Octy a hoot.

It's never really appealed to me and with my powerful fwd cars and it's always been the thing I've disliked most tbh. I could break traction in fourth gear in previous cars but it doesn't get you anywhere, costs a fortune in rubber and probably doesn't give off a great impression to others. Tractive ability is up there higher than power for me. I always used to find the VRS below average in this respect in anything but bone dry conditions and I used to run premium rubber too. But each to their own. If we all drove the same car and in the same way life would be dull, dull, dull.

My standard vRS frequently spins up from the front tyres if there's even a slight loss of grip. Could be my size-13's being "less than subtle" on the throttle though