According to SkodaUK web-site:

 

Octavia 2.0TDi with 150ps / 320Nm torque engine             0-62 in 8.2 secs   top speed 135mph

 

Octavia vRS 2.0TDi with 184ps / 380Nm torque engine     0-62 in 8.1 secs    top speed 144mph

 

 

vRS is only 0.1sec faster to 62mph!

Yes, but 150 kgs heavier than 2.0 TDI what I completely do not understand.

i noticed this in the auto express and did find it a bit strange. As for 150kg heavier, shouldn't the sporty model be lighter.

What spec was the 2.0TDi, I would guess that an Elegance is heavier than an S, so the equipment level on the vRS would add some weight  Also wouldn't uprated springs, anti-roll bar, engine,etc add more? 

The vRS's larger wheels and tyres probably add 1/3 to 1/2 the extra weight.  There is also the weight of the extra equipment which is standard.  vRS seats weigh more?

 

But even weighing 150Kg more I would have thought the extra torque and power would give a greater difference in performance than 0.1 sec quicker to 62mph?

Edited 18 July, 201312 yr by philbes

The VRS only about 10bhp per tonne better, so 0.1-0.2 is about right for 0-62.

 

More interesting would be the 30-50 and 50-70 times, that's where the extra power and torque should made a bigger difference 

Both bloody slow

Both bloody slow

You can get away with that in the non sporty Octavia's, but for a so- called hot hatch that's pretty pedestrian, I'll agree - so is the Golf GTI it's based on, as well.

According to SkodaUK web-site:

 

Octavia 2.0TDi with 150ps / 320Nm torque engine             0-62 in 8.2 secs   top speed 135mph

 

Octavia vRS 2.0TDi with 184ps / 380Nm torque engine     0-62 in 8.1 secs    top speed 144mph

 

 

vRS is only 0.1sec faster to 62mph!

I wonder who is right, Skoda UK web site or the brochures?

2.0 TDi 150 ps 0-62 in 8.5 (SE/Elegance hatch) top speed 135 mph

2.0 TDi 184 ps 0-62 in 7.8 (VRS hatch) top speed 144 mph

Both in manual guise.

For estate add 0.1 seconds.

For DSG add 0.1 seconds

Hence why VW don't make a diesel GTI and stick with GTD for the oil burner.

My personal view (and I don't want to start a row!) is that the vRS brand should not be used on a 184PS diesel. vRD at a push?

Devalues the brand.

vRS should relate to a 200PS or now a 220bhp petrol.

There's a recent thread where 2.0 TDi 170 owners have shown the literature 0-62 values to be rather conservative. I wonder if it's the case for the new 184PS engine and the 2.0 TDi 150 number is in fact more accurate (I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up!).

There's a recent thread where 2.0 TDi 170 owners have shown the literature 0-62 values to be rather conservative. I wonder if it's the case for the new 184PS engine and the 2.0 TDi 150 number is in fact more accurate (I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up!).

To be honest if 1 is inaccurate I'd imagine they both are tbh

Yeah I admit my theory has gaping holes! Seriously though, there's got to be more to it, otherwise they're charging in the region of £2k more for a 2nd exhaust pipe.....which doesn't do anything   

Yeah I'm stunned how close it is

Put it this way if the Leon FR can break 62 officially in 7.5, 7.8 for a vRS hatch is probably an accurate assessment. If the old car could do it in 8.4, it has nearly +15 hp and +22 lb/ft torque and weighs a reasonable amount less then it is going to be at least .5 secs quicker I reckon.

Also worth noting that the in-gear flexibility will no doubt be better than the 150 too.

Is there a quoted 30 to 70 ? or 50-100 Thems the numbers that matter to me.

The Octavia VRSs have a lot of weight over the rear axle which does not help.  Plus the diesels have a narrower power band and change at lower mph in each gear compare to the petrol which rev through better to help the acceleration times. 

 

The 150 hp is truly amazing, quicker than MK 2 diesel VRS.  Lighter chassis, better weight distribution, better power delivery.  Diesel VRS would be quicker as 4 wheel drive as it is not get the extra power down.

 

Would be better at the roll ons from higher speeds but seems poor as a traffic light tool.  I willl stick with the TSIs and maybe get a diesel for the boring motorway long journeys.  

Personally I prefer my toys over the VRS.

Is there a quoted 30 to 70 ? or 50-100 Thems the numbers that matter to me.

 

Have a look in the big VRS topic, I had them posted there when people were debating the old diesel vs petrol. I think it was 6s/7.5s for 50-70mph in 4th/5th (I might have it wrong, the numbers were in km/h - 80-120).

 

Petrol was 5s/6s if I'm not mistaken.

Edited 18 July, 201312 yr by TudorM

Yes, but 150 kgs heavier than 2.0 TDI what I completely do not understand.

but i think its a same engine but with different state of tune so how it will be more heavier???

The Octavia VRSs have a lot of weight over the rear axle which does not help.  Plus the diesels have a narrower power band and change at lower mph in each gear compare to the petrol which rev through better to help the acceleration times. 

 

The 150 hp is truly amazing, quicker than MK 2 diesel VRS.  Lighter chassis, better weight distribution, better power delivery.  Diesel VRS would be quicker as 4 wheel drive as it is not get the extra power down.

 

Would be better at the roll ons from higher speeds but seems poor as a traffic light tool.  I willl stick with the TSIs and maybe get a diesel for the boring motorway long journeys.

I'm still stunned people think the 150 is quicker than the Vrs 170' I didn't think so at all!

Hence why VW don't make a diesel GTI and stick with GTD for the oil burner.

My personal view (and I don't want to start a row!) is that the vRS brand should not be used on a 184PS diesel. vRD at a push?

Devalues the brand.

vRS should relate to a 200PS or now a 220bhp petrol.

don't think there's much chance of that if the mkIII sales numbers follow the mkII as the diesel outsold the petrol by 2 to 1 so Skoda won't want to risk loosing sales from the better seller by calling it something else. Interesting how 0-60 times are quoted so often as they mean little in the real world and as already stated that's not what the oiler is good at anyway because of it's limited rev range when compared to the tsi. It's no hot hatch IMO but there again niether is the tsi as the game has moved on. For one of those you need a megane or an astra.

but i think its a same engine but with different state of tune so how it will be more heavier???

 

The only thing the same is the size of the engine.

 

People also thought the same of the old 1.9PD TDI engines which had 90,105,115,130,150 & 160 incarnations.

 

Totally different internals, turbo size and associated ancillaries (Injectors etc) between each version.

 

Same is true of the 150 & 184 versions.  They are not just a software map apart.

Edited 19 July, 201312 yr by Sheldon.Cooper

don't think there's much chance of that if the mkIII sales numbers follow the mkII as the diesel outsold the petrol by 2 to 1 so Skoda won't want to risk loosing sales from the better seller by calling it something else. Interesting how 0-60 times are quoted so often as they mean little in the real world and as already stated that's not what the oiler is good at anyway because of it's limited rev range when compared to the tsi. It's no hot hatch IMO but there again niether is the tsi as the game has moved on. For one of those you need a megane or an astra.

Or as topgear proved, a Focus ST is faster than both of those around a track thanks to faster cornering speeds.

 

If you really want a hot hatch it has to be an Audi S3, RS3 or Focus RS anything else is just warm.

I'm still stunned people think the 150 is quicker than the Vrs 170' I didn't think so at all!

 

We just go by the times Audi, SEAT, Skoda, VW, the magazines and the standing quarter miles times at the events.  

 

The 0-62 mph, 0-100 kph etc are ambient and average times and much better times are achievable in optimimum, for that car conditions.

 

JRW managed to get a 0-60 of under 7 seconds in his DSG wiesel VRS so it can be done.

 

Having had several wiesel Audis, SEATs and Skodas they just were poor getting off the line in average (15C) conditions, colder it is the worse they are. Too many gear changes because the power (not torque) band is so much narrower than the petrols.

 

Comparing roll on speeds in gear is not valid either as the petrols achieve higher speed in gear of course as they are geared for higher top ends too in the equivalent models.  You canny change the laws of physics.