On the Skoda website it states that the Octy 3 2.0 TDI CR 150PS does 0-60 in 8.2 seconds.

That's pretty good going for a 'normal' model.

What will the new vRS be like if this is anything to go by???

I want one!!

Just noticed on the Skoda used car finder that the 2.0 models are stated as 9.5 seconds??

Which one is correct??

Very little to choose between them, the MK2 170 still has a slightly better power to weight ratio despite weighing approx 185kg more so it would surprise me if the MK2 wasnt slightly quicker real world; the extra 22lb/ft torque make themselves felt as well.

I've had a car with a Sport mode and all it did was change position at which the throttle gave 100% and made the steering a bit heavier......was actually frustrating as most of time as you'd get full throttle at about quarter input which I found most unnatural; havent driven a newer VAG car with drive selction modes so cant comment on those.

Maybe that's some comfort for those paying the extra money for the new model. Having now bought a total of 4 Mk2 Octavias at what I considered a sensible price I will look elsewhere in a couple of years if Skodas' price remains high.

My point is that I wouldn't need to wait for a new CR vRS if the 'bog standard' 2.0 CR

can 0-60 in 8.2s

That would be plenty enough for me with a decent MPG.

0-60 is pretty irrelevant TBH. In gear acceleration times count for more. I would imagine the extra torque of a MK2 VRS would mean its quicker in gear but i am only assuming this. You wouls expect the newer car to be quicker pound for pound so im not surprised its pretty close. The new VRS will get the 180bhp / 275lb/ft engine i would imagine which re-dresses the balance somewhat.

The only downside i can see is that the basic mk3 gets a torsion beam rear suspension set up. But in reality would this really matter?? I doubt it.

Edited 26 April, 201313 yr by Jockdooshbag

Only thing is IMO a Skoda Octavia 3 SE/Elegance 2.0 TDi 150 does look pretty boring up against a MK2 vRS, not to say its not an attractive looking car but its not remotely sporty, particularly without sports suspension and 18" wheels

0-60 is pretty irrelevant TBH. In gear acceleration times count for more. I would imagine the extra torque of a MK2 VRS would mean its quicker in gear but i am only assuming this. You wouls expect the newer car to be quicker pound for pound so im not surprised its pretty close. The new VRS will get the 180bhp / 275lb/ft engine i would imagine which re-dresses the balance somewhat.

The only downside i can see is that the basic mk3 gets a torsion beam rear suspension set up. But in reality would this really matter?? I doubt it.

I agree there will probably be quite a marked difference between the MK2 and MK3 vRS diesels, the new car gaining 13hp and 21lb/ft as well as what will probably amount to be at least a 100kg weight saving. It also does sound as if VAG have done something to improve the punchiness of the newer generation 2.0 TDi's, maybe the drive select function is the key? Should be a nice car.

Only thing is IMO a Skoda Octavia 3 SE/Elegance 2.0 TDi 150 does look pretty boring up against a MK2 vRS, not to say its not an attractive looking car but its not remotely sporty, particularly without sports suspension and 18" wheels

But it isnt designed to be sporty and it isnt aimed at competing with the Mk2 VRS. It isnt even the replacement for the old VRS so I think it offers more then the old 140cr equivalent which is great imo.

I wasn't saying it was a replacement for the MK2 vRS, I was just impressed with the (claimed) figures for a standard (non sporty) model - it

appears to pretty much match the performance of the current CR vRS.

I had a sit in one yesterday and thought it was quite nice, not sure which model though - assumed it's a 1.6CR as

it had a 5 speed box. There was no data sheet or price on the info stand.

I wasn't saying it was a replacement for the MK2 vRS, I was just impressed with the (claimed) figures for a standard (non sporty) model - it

appears to pretty much match the performance of the current CR vRS.

I know you werent, hence it wasnt you that I quoted in my reply.

I wasn't saying it was a replacement for the MK2 vRS, I was just impressed with the (claimed) figures for a standard (non sporty) model - it

appears to pretty much match the performance of the current CR vRS.

I had a sit in one yesterday and thought it was quite nice, not sure which model though - assumed it's a 1.6CR as

it had a 5 speed box. There was no data sheet or price on the info stand.

Your right it does seem to have decent performance for a supposed standard model. Have you read the what car reveiw of it though where despite being quicker than the new mazda 6 to 60mph the mazda destroys it in each gear. The mazda was substantially quicker for each in gear acceleration test so not just a small margin. The reason being the mazda has 280lb'ft versus the VAG engined cars only having 236lb'ft.

Wasn't aimed at you Yeti!

But it isnt designed to be sporty and it isnt aimed at competing with the Mk2 VRS. It isnt even the replacement for the old VRS so I think it offers more then the old 140cr equivalent which is great imo.

I think the point is despite acknowledging that it performs v well and on paper (at least) it has the measure of the MK2 vRS, its very ordinary whereas the MK2 vRS IMO isnt.

I havent got a problem with a MK3 Octavia Elegance 2.0 TDi i think its a very good car and the sort of thing id consider as a company car perhaps (i.e not my own money) but for me a MK2 vRS is still more desirable than any MK3 on account of it being a bespoke model that is essentially a MK6 Golf GTi in drag. Its heavier and barely any quicker but thanks to its specific chassis tuning, independent rear suspension, bigger brakes and ultimately more power and torque id put money on it still being the more capable car, like a MK6 GTD would probably still be a better steer all in all than a MK7 Gokf GT diesel.

But yes for people wanting to buy the more ordinary versions of the Octavia they are benefiting considerably from the increased spec, more powerful engine and vastly lower kerb weight and totally agree its a good thing.

Edited 26 April, 201313 yr by pipsyp

I think the point is despite acknowledging that it performs v well and on paper (at least) it has the measure of the MK2 vRS, its very ordinary whereas the MK2 vRS IMO isnt.

Ah, ok, we are coming from two different viewpoints then as I always thought the mk2 VRS was extremely ordinary and a very unexciting steer tbh. It should be great to see and feel how much better the Mk3 VRS is when launched.