in the mid 80's audi produced a car that rendered all others useless.... feel like we are going backwards in this thread LOL

HAPPY mondayeeee

I love my vRS, best all round car I've owned. However, I've recently bought an Impreza Sti so not really driven the Octy in the last month. Went down to Cornwall yesterday in the rain and it was really obvious how the Octy had trouble putting the power down. On a slight incline I was booting it and getting wheel spin in 4th gear! I appreciate I have way more power/torque than standard, but the Sti has 50bhp more again and I get no wheel spin at all.

The vRS has decent suspension upgrades and actually handles better (ATM!), but FWD does have a limit.

Slicks are terrible in the rain

Funnily enough, the Sti has semi-slicks on it currently. The vRS has nearly new Assym f1 2's.

Had the same as you, bought a classic Impreza wagon 2 years ago it had half worn Goodyear assym F1 fine in dry and fine in wet, Octavia had 4 new Rainsport2's great wet tyre but it did have a limit to its grip.

Dare i say 4wd is the way forward in our climate.

Have to admit as good as the bmw is, it's pig ugly if the first one is anything to go by the ride will be poor and the interior cramped at best. Here in london there is a bit of a stigma attached to the 1 series. RWD in the damp or wet is not as quick as fwd on the road. Because you don't have space to exploit nature of rwd. There is simply no space to step the back out in a bend or corner.

I dont agree. My BMW was far more planted in the wet than any FWD car ive ever owned. You dont need to have the back end stepping out if you dont want to but RWD definately finds traction far quicker than FWD.

RWD and wet never been a great combo..... not sure on that one atall.

RWD and wet never been a great combo..... not sure on that one atall.

BMW has 2 stage traction control. Leave it fully on and back end barely steps out but traction control still intervenes less than in a FWD car. Switch TC to 2nd stage and it allows a slight bit of back end slip but is pefectley controllable. Switch it fully off and back end will slide but it hardly scary. You need to be driving to aggressively not to be able to modulate it.

Bottom line in a RWD car leave TC on and it will have far superior traction to a FWD car. Look at BTCC. BMW always get the better starts and have better drive out the bends.

Dare i say 4wd is the way forward in our climate.

Unfortunately the manufacturers like the ease and cheapness of FWD and most punters like the cheapness of it too. When you are churning out bland euroboxes by the hundred thousand FWD is a no brainer. Which is why I wish VAG group weren't quite so up themselves with regards to brands and allowed Skoda to make a 4x4 vRS... then of course who would buy an S3 (or Golf R ) if you could get a 250ish bhp 4x4 for low 20k's?

Unfortunately the manufacturers like the ease and cheapness of FWD and most punters like the cheapness of it too. When you are churning out bland euroboxes by the hundred thousand FWD is a no brainer. Which is why I wish VAG group weren't quite so up themselves with regards to brands and allowed Skoda to make a 4x4 vRS... then of course who would buy an S3 (or Golf R ) if you could get a 250ish bhp 4x4 for low 20k's?

It's nothing to doing with VAG group being "up themselves" it's about brand positioning and you've identified yourself that it would potentially detract from sales across the rest of the group. Skoda, like it or not, is the budget brand within the group.

It's nothing to doing with VAG group being "up themselves" it's about brand positioning and you've identified yourself that it would potentially detract from sales across the rest of the group. Skoda, like it or not, is the budget brand within the group.

Which is exactly what I said. Virtually no one would by the "premium" brand if you could get exactly the same thing for less cash.

Which is exactly what I said. Virtually no one would by the "premium" brand if you could get exactly the same thing for less cash.

I was actually challenging your point about VAG being "up themselves" and alluding to the fact that it's just their brand strategy.

I think you would be surprised by the numbers that would continue to buy the premium brand.

Incidentally, make the vRS 4wd and give it 250bhp and it's no longer a £16k car which is the most appealing factor for most people. It becomes, like you suggest, a £20k + car and invariably, as a result, Skoda wouldn't sell as many.

I quite agree, Jonno. When I was buying my car, I wanted the GTI more, but it was far more expensive. Being 19 at the time, the vRS was my only option really to get a TFSI.

Have to agree , it's brand marketing. Personally I would rather a front diff on the Octavia. For 4wd forget the haldex system , go for a A4 quattro if you want a saloon/estate. Seeing as they already have the Golf R and also the passat 4 motion all in the £30k + price range like Jonno VRs says , it would be range madness to introduce a skoda octavia that would threaten those cars.

Have to admit before i had the skoda , had the jaguar x-type 3.0 sport with 4wd ...the proper system , not the elctronic version of the later models. Nice car , but too sedate , hopeless for tuning despite what the figures say , it was quite a slow hector. The 4wd system had a problems with the transfer box , any quick launches would produce an awfull smell and it did not feel right for a while afterwards. Then I looked it the madza 6 mps , subaru legacy / impreza even a mitisbushi galant 4wd. All nice motors , but running costs was a bit too high. The skoda really fitted the bill, can't knock it too hard.

I found the gti mk5 too small - is the s3 permant 4wd?

No it uses the haldex system. Front wheel drive until it starts to lose traction at which point power/torque sent to the rear wheels.

Golf GTi was too small for me hence 3 x Octy vRS but don't need the space now, which is just as well as R has even less boot space!

same system in mk1 audi TT.... for some reason i thought they were permanent 4wd

same system in mk1 audi TT.... for some reason i thought they were permanent 4wd

Same in all TT's, A3's, Golfs, Passats. I actually preferred tyhe haldex system to the quattro system as there are less drivetrain losses with haldex conmpared to quattro. There is a website that a member on here linked previoulsy that quotes different stats for cars where these losses can be compared. Cant remeber what it was called.

My A4 was more tail hppy in the snow than my S3. Some might prefer this however but i felt my S3 was more stable in the winter.

In relation to OP, there is a 60bhp power difference which is quite significant hence why the performance figures are so much better for the S3. Almost 30% more power would make a big difference.

30% increase in power of a 400bhp car would be 520bhp ( someone check my maths ) and you wouldnt expect the 400 bhp car to stay with a 520bhp car would you? However saying that did you see the autocar video of the A1 quattro keeping up with the Nissan GTR. 250bhp glued to the tail of a 500bhp car and both had 4wd. All this means is that i have now totally contradicted myself but never mind.

I have loved my VRS same suspension as Jonno and map with 333 lb ft torque . Uprated bushes droplinks and so on .Once on the move the torque is amazing but as said before most 1.2s can beat it off the line as the tyres scramble for grip with wheelspin in third if wet.Got an R36 now. No more wheelspin and 300 bhp standard ,but not for long

I have loved my VRS same suspension as Jonno and map with 333 lb ft torque . Uprated bushes droplinks and so on .Once on the move the torque is amazing but as said before most 1.2s can beat it off the line as the tyres scramble for grip with wheelspin in third if wet.Got an R36 now. No more wheelspin and 300 bhp standard ,but not for long

Love those R36's. But how much realistically can you squeeze out a N/A motor? Nice race exhaust would be good, if it sounds half as nice as the R32's ive heard with sports exhausts then it would be lovely. Im no tuner but i would imagine another 10% tops would be achievable power wise without going crazy or have you something else in mind?

Edited 9 January, 201313 yr by Jockdooshbag

Id be happy with 330/340, getting the Dsg remapped as well which helps with faster changes and paddles better, ( keeps the gear ) I am stopping myself getting some Gallardo wheels as well

Id be happy with 330/340, getting the Dsg remapped as well which helps with faster changes and paddles better, ( keeps the gear ) I am stopping myself getting some Gallardo wheels as well

A lot of the R32 guys have done supercharger conversions. That would have to be 450 - 500bhp on the R36 I reckon.

I have loved my VRS same suspension as Jonno and map with 333 lb ft torque . Uprated bushes droplinks and so on .Once on the move the torque is amazing but as said before most 1.2s can beat it off the line as the tyres scramble for grip with wheelspin in third if wet.Got an R36 now. No more wheelspin and 300 bhp standard ,but not for long

The R36 is similar bhp per ton to an S3 / Golf R I think. How does it stack up performance wise to your remapped vRS?

There have been 5000 R32s though, not 150(R36 this country's ) , mines the last one made so want to keep as near as "normal "