Agreed,

I'm all for mechanical sympathy. ....

But as a "hot hatch" it's designed to be played with! So play with it I will.

I used to nanny my mk1 for a while and I actually felt the car was running lumpier for it. So gave it a few blasts and it just drove smoother (in my mind, gotta' justify booting it for something)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I'll chuck in my tuppence...

I don't know much about Mk1 VRS - but I bet it isn't much quicker than a Mk2 Monte CR 105. With a remap, I reckon the Monte would feel much quicker. The petrol engines have the same power, less torque, but deliver oin a different way. Drive them all - Monte comes in many engine variations - 1.2 TSI 86 and 105, 1.6 CR TDI 86 and 105 (any more?).

Yes, the body kit and "sports" suspension is supposed to make it look better than standard and a bit like a VRS - I like the looks, but I ended up with mine when I was looking for a Mk1 VRS SE...dealer dangled it under my nose as being on the forecourt due to a cancellation and I snapped it up.

I get better economy without trying than a VRS does by driving like my Mum (bad example - like my Dad - obsessed with economy) and I pay less overall running costs. If anyone (VAG included) thinks 1ml per mile oil usage is "acceptable", then they're off their trolleys. Topping up oil with every fuel stop is something for fire breathing 800bhp turbo nutter wagons, not an everyday car.

The low-pro tyres are responsible for a fair amount of ride harshness, not just the suspension, but it's the same set up as the VRS, so shouldn't be any different (wieghts are slightly different, so maybe it rides differently too).

I've seen a few comments about the "halfords" nature of the contrasting details - the wheel arches look good to me, not naff. The roof is smart and the black headlights great (if a little dim). I don't see the LED DRLs, so the difference doesn't bother me. BUT you can get black pack on the VRS, so less for the arches, could be a Monte lookalike (funny how some want their VRS to look like the humble monte...).

Appearances will always be personal opinions - colour options in the VRS are probably different to the Monte - I see red Montes like mine and like the look. I see a white VRS and like that. The dark blue also looks good.

Disc brakes - I doubt I'd notice the difference and does the VRS really need disc rears? Or is it just fashionable to have disc rears? IMO, the money spent on getting a Monte, mapping it, disc conversion, suspension changes...etc etc, wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to get a VRS? Or something else? The VRS is hardly king of the hot hatch pile any more (and never was, even when new).

So there you go - semi-rant/droning lecture over.

Get a Monte. Corrida Red. 105 CR TDI. ;-)

BUT now you can get the Tech edition and get all the goodies as standard (I may have to look at PX deals...).

Not every VRS uses oil, mine has used none so far...... Like wise I'm not actively looking for it either. There is a lot of scaremongery that goes on in this forum! I wouldn't use it as an excuse not to get a VRS! I certainly didn't.

My MK1 VRS was faster than a monte.... By a fair bit.... to be fair mine was A BLT with around 140bhp.

never underestimate a PD130 tehehe

"fire breathing 800bhp turbo wagon" - I like that, one in black please

My vRS used approx 2 ltrs of oil in 5.5k miles ( I've just dropped the oil and measured what came out + I topped up twice to the tune of 1ltr). I think this is acceptable, at least for me. One thing you did not mention is DSG and power and torque delivery. Diesels have relatively small "performance band" and "run out of puff" very quickly. Twincharger vRS goes from zero to red line relentlessly and surprises plenty of seemingly faster on paper cars. I just did 6.53 sec on private concrete road yesterday at 4C ext temp, no tyre warming and the surface was dirty as it is not a public highway... I can do 43 mpg if I stick to speed limits religiously in hilly and congested B road traffic and through towns (stop start, accelerate break all the time) so steady m'way progress should net a bit more than that. It costs peanuts to insure and road tax and represents extremely good value for money (with tax free deal that is). And that is all bog standard stock car...

105PS 1.6 Diesel is certainly more economical and cheaper to run but I would wager it is not capable of delivering all of the above at the same time, unless heavily modified.

Sales pitch over

No arguments - we've bantered it before - there is no way the Monte CR comes close to VRS performance, but I saw a figure of 0-60 in 10.5 the other day and reckon I've done it quicker, even using a rudimentary measure of counting "one-thousand, two-thousand, three-thousand etc".

I'm not too bothered, as I rarely need to do 0-60, more often 10-60 and the CR feels ok, running out of puff at 4000rpm (short of the redline). THAT is where the petrol would whoop it and the VRS would be long gone.

A CR has a wider power band than "old school" diesels (which had a band about 500rpm wide!), but it isn't on a par with the VRS. As I said before, I'd appreciate the extra 25bhp the remap gives (more would obviously be nice...), but can't change it at the moment and wasn't really shopping for the Monte when I got it, so the VRS was barely on my radar.

Of course, if the salesman had offered me a VRS for similar money (or more accurately, payments), I'd have snapped his arm off...quicker tha a VRS goes through Oil!

Dad rang the other day, said he was following a 61 plate VRS, pootling (speed limit enforced) on his bike. The VRS was "puffing smoke" every so often - he followed for a few miles. Has anyone noticed if they all do this, if the ones using loads do it, or investigated whether the high oil usage is linked to some sort of turbo/supercharger gasket issue?

Not that it matters to you, but have you driven a MK2 vRS yet?

Might be worth trying one just to see how hopeless they actually are.

Also good for being able to comment on them.

They blow black smoke out good style.

Not Oil, just running rich when pottering along or when the get short or cold runs,

then open them up and that all blows away.

A cloud of black soot sometimes.

That is why its 25-35 mpg around town often and 40 plus once its warm and at some decent revs.

Now the soot even happens with good running Twinchargers.

george

Dad rang the other day, said he was following a 61 plate VRS, pootling (speed limit enforced) on his bike. The VRS was "puffing smoke" every so often - he followed for a few miles. Has anyone noticed if they all do this, if the ones using loads do it, or investigated whether the high oil usage is linked to some sort of turbo/supercharger gasket issue?

Mine puffs not smoke but steam or something from the exhausts on cold days but at a standstill only. Maybe it does it on the move but I wouldn't notice it as I would of course have my eyes on the road! :-P

Exactly, each car is bought by each individual person for a specific set of reasons. It is next to impossible to make absolute comparisons between cars. Peaople say Clio Cup (or whatever) is soooo much better. for me it's useless as no DSG, no five doors, no boot, and chiropractor gold mine suspension . But some people love it as it is much easier to drive to apparently superior handling etc. I keep looking in the rear view mirror at night as this when you can see very well in anything comes out from your back pipe in other cars' lights and I am yet to see any kind of haze even. Having said that I do "blow cobwebs away" every day .

Horses for courses as they say.

Not that it matters to you, but have you driven a MK2 vRS yet?

Might be worth trying one just to see how hopeless they actually are.

Also good for being able to comment on them.

They blow black smoke out good style.

Not Oil, just running rich when pottering along or when the get short or cold runs,

then open them up and that all blows away.

A cloud of black soot sometimes.

That is why its 25-35 mpg around town often and 40 plus once its warm and at some decent revs.

Now the soot even happens with good running Twinchargers.

george

It's a trait of turbo cars I think. Anyone who watches the BTCC will notice it from the side exhausts from their 1.6 turbo engines every so often a puff of black smog.

What makes you say the VRS is hopeless by the way?

Mine puffs not smoke but steam or something from the exhausts on cold days but at a standstill only. Maybe it does it on the move but I wouldn't notice it as I would of course have my eyes on the road! :-P

That's exactly what it is as exhaust gases in petrol engines contain approx 12% water which condenses into visible vapour cloud when exhaust pipes are still cool enough to lower the temp to dew point

Race cars are different beasts as they run unadulterated max power maps so mostly run at 12:1 AFR's hence flames and black smoke. White smoke is oil leaking from the turbo or valve train, black smoke car running too rich, white exhaust pipes indicate lean running and it goes on

Peaople say Clio Cup (or whatever) is soooo much better. for me it's useless as no DSG, no five doors, no boot, and chiropractor gold mine suspension .

Problem solved with the new Clio RS.

5 Door, 1.6 turbo so more torque and better economy, DSG and softer suspension than the outgoing model yet equivalent grip.

I must admit I really like that car, perhaps with the exception of that front grille - looks like Homer Simpson's face when he tries to think hard . I'd say it was the driver's fault but visible snap oversteer on exits (first corner in the vid and then 8:20 a good example). I know drifitng in FWD car is real fun but hardly gets you fast track times and eats away tyres pronto.

Loved the interior, "map-on-the-fly" button (RS button) and the cabin display system. Peculiar fashin with having car noise artificialy produced by the sound system - sounding like a GT-R?!? It's like fitting porche alloys to it - why?

Shame about rear space and no boot to speak of but overall I really liked it! What's the price point on it?

Ally_bassman, i was not saying it is hopeless.

But i was posting to someone that is regularly making comments on how bad they can be.

It was just a sarcastic comment from me.

"Might be worth trying one to see how hopeless they actually are.

Also good for being able to comment on them."

george

Ally_bassman, i was not saying it is hopeless.

But i was posting to someone that is regularly making comments on how bad they can be.

It was just a sarcastic comment from me.

"Might be worth trying one to see how hopeless they actually are.

Also good for being able to comment on them."

george

Whoops! My bad indeed!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

George? Me?

I don't think the VRS is useless, just that many on here imply (or even say) they are. If I gave the impression that they rubbish, that wasn't my intent.

As Jabo and others have said, you pays your money...if you pay £17k (?) for a VRS, you get a pretty quick hot (although I'm sure magazines would call it warm+) hatch. It's also practical, which, IMO, some of the others available aren't.

I alsways thought the idea of a "Hot Hatch" was to take your practical 5 door and creates something as quick as a junior sports car. Modern hot hatches seem to take anything with a hatch and then stick 200bhp under the bonnet (in the Fabia class - up to 260bhp if you're talking Golf/Astra/Focus size).

Again - pay your money and gets your goods. Is a VRS closer to the ethos of a hot hatch than a Focus ST? Or a Mini Cooper Works GP? I guess it depends on what you want your car to do, but from the reviews I've read, coupled to my limited experience in some of the boggo hatches:

Focus - it's a Ford and the last version of the ST had a serious drink problem (drove many Focuses and one ST that my mate had). Also, the prices have gone up a lot.

Mini - I just don't like them, but the one I have driven was ok. It had no boot to speak of though and IMO is over priced.

Golf - gone upmarket and all sensible compared to the iconic Mk1 GTI.

Clio - seems to get good reviews, but always gets slated for looking cheap inside etc. I guess you can only make up for deficiencies in quality with a sparkling chassis if it is more of a toy than an everyday vehicle (again, IMO).

etc etc.

If anyone pays £17k for a Fabia they need their head looking at!

the Term 'Hot Hatch' arrived with cars like the Golf & Peugeot, 3 door hatch backs, so not 5 doors.

These were fitted with engines of less than 2 litres and not heavy cars.

There was already Hot Saloons in the 70's ie Escorts, Vauxhalls & cars from the Far East.

Never sure who it is that uses the term 'Hot Hatch' now,

usually a generation that did not experience the change in the 70's-80's that were Hot Hatches.

0-60's of around 6-8 seconds is common as is 130-140 top speeds in modern Warm Hatches.

george

If I waned a small, reasnoably priced road going car with great performance I'd have bought a Lotus

I very nearly did. Part of me does regret it but I can't get a kayak on one

I'm not too bothered, as I rarely need to do 0-60

Who does?

Generally their persona consists of eight letters, the last four being 'hole', the first four being '@rse'

Back on the sales pitch front, I'd strongly recommend the Elegance 1.6 CR TDi and put a £400 remap on it - Mk1 vRS power plus better economy than standard

You also get the best standard spec, and with no oil worries

I'm delighted with mine

I very nearly did. Part of me does regret it but I can't get a kayak on one

If I had a Lotus I'd have no need for anything else .

Also, to get a decent performance from the oil chugger money has to be spent, insurance for modified car bought and warranty voided and it would still be slower than stock vRS and additional expenditure on mods would be more that running costs difference, especially with higher insurance ongoing costs for a modified car.

just because it is a car forum it doesn't mean all cars need to be mapped. Also some tuners take morbid offence if you start asking them questions they do not like . Proper tuners provide warranty with their modifications for the whole car (see Germany and the likes AC_Shnitzer)- I am yet to see such service in UK...

Oh dear..........someone taking a pop at tuners? You just can't help yourself can you?

And if you think the insurance on a modified oil burner is higher than a 180bhp vRS you're living in cloudcuckoo land

And I don't think I ever suggested it would outstrip a vRS

Who does?

Generally their persona consists of eight letters, the last four being 'hole', the first four being '@rse'

Back on the sales pitch front, I'd strongly recommend the Elegance 1.6 CR TDi and put a £400 remap on it - Mk1 vRS power plus better economy than standard

You also get the best standard spec, and with no oil worries

I'm delighted with mine

It also looks like an old fart mobile in Elegance trim!

It also looks like an old fart mobile in Elegance trim!

Fair comment, some of us are, I can't argue against that, but when it's your work and family hack, and you already have an Octavia vRS, who needs another :p