Are the Vrs callipers now too big...

[zacherynuk]

... for 17" wheels ?

 

I simply cannot find another car I want, I've looked at all sorts now.  I was sorely tempted by the face lift yeti... but... it's just a fec lift and today I looked at the boot with the oh so important 2 wheel buggy and, well no going back from the Octi boot now is there...

 

So, although the Vrs Is only available in 18"+ I was wondering on the feasibility of putting 17"s on ...

 

Cheers

 

 

[The Plumber]

No other countries run th vRS on 17" rims as standard rather than 18" and it's the models recommended wheel size for running winters.

 

225/45 R17 tyres on 7.5Jx17 ET51 rims.

 

Full winter with chains 205/50 R17 on 6Jx17 ET45 or 48

 

 

TP

[zacherynuk]

Nicely... cheers TP... so as I do now, I could run 17's with my vector all seasons without any insurance penalty - thanks to wheel size "being in the manual" and the all seasons "having the snow flake" you think? 

 

Wonder what the best way to accomplish this would be... think a custom factory order would be a possibility ?

[silver1011]

You have MkII Octavia owners knocking your garage door down to buy your MkIII vRS 18's!

 

Take delivery with 18's, get a discount on a set of 17's at the point of ordering then sell the 18's to recoup the cost of the 17's.

[The Plumber]

Well I managed to get factory 16" alloys on the Yeti along with a handful of other Yeti owners but it was a battle with Skoda UK. Most found that by going to the CEO directly helped, as the call centre went with the scripted computer says no approach.

 

 

TP

[zacherynuk]

Thanks for the ideas: I can only ask.  I'd be happy with a 4x4 in L&K or an L&K outdoor Yeti with a bigger boot... I think 17's on a VRS is the most likely

 

We'll see.

[cl244]

If you were thinking of VRS TDi, then maybe consider the 2.0TDi Elegance - it comes with 17" as standard and you have the option of plush suspension or sports suspension (optional extra)

[The Plumber]

If you were thinking of VRS TDi, then maybe consider the 2.0TDi Elegance - it comes with 17" as standard and you have the option of plush suspension or sports suspension (optional extra)

 

Yes good idea; driven both myself and there's not much in it between a 150 and the 184 TDI.

 

 

TP

[zacherynuk]

^ Unsure if trolling.

Really ? Having mine chipped from stock 184 to 202 made a very noticeable difference in the mid range driving . http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/130332-a-few-of-you-have-been-waiting-for-this-cr-170-curve/  I have driven a stock vrs since this upgrade and although not not a bum-clenching difference it was still very much apparent in the important 40-70 range! by some!

 

I am currently considering paying 3k for a super charger kit to take my TVR from ~225 to ~280.  I have driven a 400SC and it was wildly different to mine.

 

In comparison 150-184 seems a massive difference!! 20% more power that you don't notice ? How come ?

[cl244]

I suppose it depends a lot on how you drive it. I would guess if you're chipping and super-charging you ride your cars hard so you would use every HP and full rev range. Some people will never fully utilise a vRS engine and for them the 150 will make little difference.

[Yeti_Man]

^ Unsure if trolling.

Really ?

trolling?! Lol what has he said to make you believe that? From what I've also experienced there's not much between the two two litre diesels either. The 150 seems noticeably more able than the older 140 unit whereas the 185 doesn't seem any quicker than the older 170 unit IMO. In terms of the VRS engines, the new 220 seems a good chunk better than the 200bhp petrol in the mk2 and again the 185 TDi doesn't seem to give much on the older 170cr.

[The Plumber]

Apologies if you think I'm messing about but I have test driven both a 150 DSG Elegance and a 184 DSG vRS back to back both as a passenger being driven and as the driver along the same route along open country roads. Genuinely for me anyway I didn't feel there to be a great advantage to the 184 over the 150 and that was also the opinion of the dealer who took me on the test drive; he very much preferred the TSI version, although not one I've driven myself.

 

 

Regards,

 

TP

[TudorM]

That's because of the weights! The weight loss on the new MQB platform doesn't seem to have affected the sporty variants, ie. the VRS/GTI still weigh about as much as the old ones, while the regular cars are much lighter.

 

So the power to weight ratio of the 150 TDI is pretty close to the 184TDI.

 

Coming back to wheel sizes, do you think a ET 54 wheel (17"x7.5J) will be rubbing on the inside of the wheel well at full lock? I'm looking at some Golf 5 GT wheels for my VRS' winter wheels. I'm hoping that the 3mm difference to the recommended ET would be negligable.

[philhoward]

3mm spacers?

[The Plumber]

Well if I've got my maths correct the standard 7.5Jx17 ET51 rim is projecting towards the strut 146.25mm from the hub face and 44.25 out.

 

Your wheel is going to push that inward figure to 149.25mm which might be pushing it, as the above figure is the closest any of the approved rims get to the strut and inner bodywork.

 

So as above you might need spacers.

 

 

TP

[Tramell]

No other countries run the vRS on 17" rims as standard rather than 18" and it's the models recommended wheel size for running winters.

 

225/45 R17 tyres on 7.5Jx17 ET51 rims.

 

Full winter with chains 205/50 R17 on 6Jx17 ET45 or 48

 

 

TP

 

Sorry, I know that this is just me but can you clairify please?  I can't work out whether you are suggesting that you SHOULD use 18" rims or whether- 17" rims would make more sense - or 17" only with winter tyres & snow chains?

 

You have MkII Octavia owners knocking your garage door down to buy your MkIII vRS 18's!

 

Take delivery with 18's, get a discount on a set of 17's at the point of ordering then sell the 18's to recoup the cost of the 17's.

 

What is it with bigger rims???  They are heavier and as a result harder to handle, they result in greater unsprung weight and the tyres seem to cost more.  Why are they seen as a superior offering on more expensive models?  Genuine question.

[TudorM]

Cause they look better. Humans are vain creatures, didn't you know?

[philhoward]

Appearance...  (TudorM beat me to it).

 

There's a reason that race cars (I'm thinking primarily sprint/hillclimb cars, but also applies to circuit racers) generally keep small wheels - as Tramell says, less unsprung weight, less inertia, hence easier to change direction (as its the gyroscoping effect which keeps then going straight - it's what keeps a bike upright).

 

The compromise is the ability to fit bigger brakes..

Edited 28 October, 2013 by philhoward

[Tramell]

Appearance...  (TudorM beat me to it).

 

There's a reason that race cars (I'm thinking primarily sprint/hillclimb cars, but also applies to circuit racers) generally keep small wheels - as Tramell says, less unsprung weight, less inertia, hence easier to change direction (as its the gyroscoping effect which keeps then going straight - it's what keeps a bike upright).

 

The compromise is the ability to fit bigger brakes..

I can see an argument in relation to bigger disks but do manufacturers actually do this in practice (e.g. between the S, SE and Elegance models)?

 

Cosmetics I can also see although it strikes me personally as daft - form should follow function, certainly where roadholding, manouverability, safety and convenience are concerned - chacun a son gout.

[The Plumber]

Sorry, I know that this is just me but can you clairify please?  I can't work out whether you are suggesting that you SHOULD use 18" rims or whether- 17" rims would make more sense - or 17" only with winter tyres & snow chains?

 

Not suggesting either way really, more pointing out that depending on the country your ordering the car from will dictate which size wheel you get as standard.

 

For example here in the UK 18" rims are standard but in the Czech Republic you get 17" and have to pay extra for larger size rims.

 

 

Oh regard winters then due to the size of the front discs then 17" rims are now the smallest that can be fitted and the size recommended by the manufacturer for running winter tyres.

 

 

TP

[Yeti_Man]

That's because of the weights! The weight loss on the new MQB platform doesn't seem to have affected the sporty variants, ie. the VRS/GTI still weigh about as much as the old ones, while the regular cars are much lighter.

So the power to weight ratio of the 150 TDI is pretty close to the 184TDI.

Hadn't considered that but that's the reason. The only cars showing the real weigh loss are the ones that have reverted back to the lighter/simpler torsion beam rear suspension setup ie the 150tdi's

[Stuarted]

... What is it with bigger rims???  They are heavier and as a result harder to handle, they result in greater unsprung weight and the tyres seem to cost more.  Why are they seen as a superior offering on more expensive models?  Genuine question.

.

I've never understood this obsession with big diameter rims (the wheels of course are the same overall diameter).

They don't look any better at all.  Neither (being the same diameter) do they "fill the wheel arches" - unless your eyesight is so poor that you cannot see the tyres.

I have lost count of the number of road tests I have read - of everything from Aston Martins to Fiat Pandas - where the writer says words to the effect of "Unfortunately our test car was supplied with the optional 20" Megabling wheels which made the ride harsh but which did nothing to improve the handling".  Presumably these wheels were fitted for the benefit of the photgraper rather than the driver.

Disadvantage of big-diameter rims (not big diameter wheels - the wheels are always the same size):

- the rims cost more (a lot more, and if supplied on a new car, you don't even get the standard wheels back)

- the necessary low-profile tyres cost a lot more, and keep on costing a lot more every time they need replacing

- the low-profile tyres are more uncomfortable

- the handling is no better

- bigger diameter rims are usually uglier, being more elaborate, with hard-to-clean crevices and spokes either so close that you cannot clean between them or so sparse that the wheels look like bicycle wheels

- you can't see them from inside the car

- you can't see them from outside the car unless it is parked

 

Advntages of big-diameter  rims:

- er ... um ... well, er ... ah ... um ... they make a fat profit for the dealer (and/or for Halfords).

The engineers who designed the car know what wheels it needs and that is what they specify.  The marketing men may insist on bigger rims on the more expensive fancier variants to go with the increased decorative trim, but unless these varants have bigger brake disks they would run just as well on standard rims.

The standard rims are usually cheaper, simpler, stronger, easier-to-clean, more plain and therefore better looking than most alternative big-dimameter bling wheels.  Leave those for Barry and his rusty old customised 1.2 litre Corsa, where they will go with his 12" diameter exhaust tailpipe.

(Not, of course, that I am biased in any way all ...)

 

 

[The Plumber]

 

That's because of the weights! The weight loss on the new MQB platform doesn't seem to have affected the sporty variants, ie. the VRS/GTI still weigh about as much as the old ones, while the regular cars are much lighter.

So the power to weight ratio of the 150 TDI is pretty close to the 184TDI.

Hadn't considered that but that's the reason. The only cars showing the real weigh loss are the ones that have reverted back to the lighter/simpler torsion beam rear suspension setup ie the 150tdi's

 

 

However according to the SUK brochure figures the 150 4x4 Estate which is 108kg heavier than the 2wd, due to also having multi-link rear suspension and the associated Haldex drive systems is still 27kg lighter than a 184 MG6 vRS and 47kg against the DSG.

 

The 4x4 is even 12kg lighter than a TSI Combi with a DSG box.

 

 

So where and why is it so much heavier  :wonder:

 

 

TP

[philhoward]

A couple of recent cars which have benefited from smaller wheels - 2014MY Insignia and Citroen DS5 hybrid.  Both cars criticised for harsh rides and both have gone back down a rim size over the original launch vehicles.  Upside on both is a lower CO2 figure as well - a couple of tax bands in some cases!

 

For over 10 years I know of, larger wheeled specifications of some cars have had higher CO2 figures (I think Ford was one of the first to give a higher CO2 figure if the larger wheel option was ticked..).  VAG seem to ignore this possible problem although you never see a Greenline variant with low profile (40/45 or even 50) tyres..

[Stuarted]

A couple of recent cars which have benefited from smaller wheels - 2014MY Insignia and Citroen DS5 hybrid.  Both cars criticised for harsh rides and both have gone back down a rim size over the original launch vehicles.  Upside on both is a lower CO2 figure as well - a couple of tax bands in some cases!

 

For over 10 years I know of, larger wheeled specifications of some cars have had higher CO2 figures (I think Ford was one of the first to give a higher CO2 figure if the larger wheel option was ticked..).  VAG seem to ignore this possible problem although you never see a Greenline variant with low profile (40/45 or even 50) tyres..

.

I am intrigued by this.

I presume when you say "smaller wheels" you mean wheels of the same overall diamter but with smaller diameter rims, which do not require such low-profile tyres?

This would certainly increase ride comfort and reduce cost.

But if the overall wheel diameter were the same, I presume the only reason for the difference in fuel consumption etc. would be possibly lower rolling resistance with a tyre which did not have such a low profile?  If so, another very good reason for not wasting money on large-diameter rims and low-profile tyres.

 

 

Edited 28 October, 2013 by Stuarted