Sorry if this has already been discussed but,

had anybody the opportunity to drive comparatively a plain FWD versus a 4x4 2.0 TDI Octy3?

 

Any feedback?

 

TIA,

Yep. The 4x4 is much more sure footed than the FWD in any condition but especially noticeable in damp and wet conditions. Worse fuel consumption and is the only penalty that I can see.

Sure footed maybe but its quite a bit more expensive and as stated its not as efficient or clean as the 2wd car.

Also the 4x4 gets multilink rear suspension which in some ways is avantageous however it consequently weighs alot more than the 2wd car so performance will be blunted accordingly, the additional weight blunting any real off the line traction advantage.

When I ordered my 2wd Elegance and found shortly after than a 4wd variant was becoming available it did make me think about it however my opinion only I sont think the severity of UK weather really makes 4wd a necessity, particularly given we only suffer very poor road conditions maybe for a couple of weeks a year tops, makes the car more surefooted in damp/icy conditions but this can be countered for in a 2wd car by driving sensibly.

Also stick winter tyres on a 2wd car and it will perform nearly as well as a 4wd car without...is always an option.

Sure footed maybe but its quite a bit more expensive and as stated its not as efficient or clean as the 2wd car.

Also the 4x4 gets multilink rear suspension which in some ways is avantageous however it consequently weighs alot more than the 2wd car so performance will be blunted accordingly, the additional weight blunting any real off the line traction advantage.

When I ordered my 2wd Elegance and found shortly after than a 4wd variant was becoming available it did make me think about it however my opinion only I sont think the severity of UK weather really makes 4wd a necessity, particularly given we only suffer very poor road conditions maybe for a couple of weeks a year tops, makes the car more surefooted in damp/icy conditions but this can be countered for in a 2wd car by driving sensibly.

Also stick winter tyres on a 2wd car and it will perform nearly as well as a 4wd car without...is always an option.

I'm currently driving a 4x4 estate as a replacement hire for my fwd hatch / saloon (never know what to call it!) and have done about 2000 miles in each one. I am on 53 mpg for the 2.0 fwd and 45 mpg average for the 1.6 4wd. Don't know what the mpg would be for a 2.0 4wd sorry.

 

This is the biggest issue for me personally; the reduced fuel consumption.

 

As previously mentioned by the other guys traction is much better and gets off the line much easier and I don't have that strange booming noise over rougher roads that I get in my normal car. Don't know if that is because it is an estate or the multilink suspension.

 

Hope this helps.

Feedback will be slanted towards what people have or require in my opinion.

 

People who chose the FWD didn't want 4x4 and will say it's not really needed.

People who chose 4x4 wanted it.

 

 

Maybe a better idea to to say why you think you need or would like to have 4x4?

I originally got 4wd for work purposes. Heading up all manner of farm tracks and crossing fields. Turns out I also really enjoy the way it drives (read the way it corners by sticking like the proverbial to a blanket). So I'm getting another one.

 

Living in a part of the world beset by all variations of inclement weather and littered with empty B-roads there is something quite refreshing about being able to make progress what ever the weather in an Estate car that corners more like a hot hatch. For me, and where I live and what I do, this is ideal and as such I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of mpg for what in my circumstances is an everyday usable benefit.

 

If I lived in the SE of England and spent most of my time on Motorways and A-roads, stuck in a procession of vehicles more often than not, then 4wd makes a far less compelling case. Certainly spending £4-500 on winter Tyres and steels makes much more sense if you're concerned about cold weather traction and braking than paying the £1k+ premium to get into a 4wd over a 2wd.

 

Niall

Whilst I cant comment on the MK111 I have driven the fl MK11 in both 2WD and 4x4 with the 140cr.

I have been amazed by the ability of the 4x4, like most parts of the country over the last few years we've had a fair amount of snow and even on summer tyres the grip and go anywhere ability is at a bar much higher than you think. Never got stuck in the snow, even able to set off on steep hills. The only time there's no advantage is ice 2/4/6wd if there's no grip there's no grip.

In terms of day to day driving the 4x4 offers more grip, at the limit there's great feedback, it takes getting used to as the body roll can at first put you off from pressing on, but push through it and you can feel the car becoming more planted again, the MK11 has 60 profile tyres on 15's, the MK111 maybe different.

As for reliability and the haldex system, routine servicing helps, still driving MY10/11/12 on 180'000, 160'000, 115'000 miles.

I looked high and low for a 4x4 at a price within our budget and requirements but in the end had to settle for a 2wd purely due to cost.

Feedback will be slanted towards what people have or require in my opinion.

 

People who chose the FWD didn't want 4x4 and will say it's not really needed.

People who chose 4x4 wanted it.

 

 

Maybe a better idea to to say why you think you need or would like to have 4x4?

 

Hallo all, and Richard many congrats for your astonishing Cars!

 

I asked to whom drove both of them to get, if possible, more real life feedback rather than ideas.

 

To improve the traction and the handling while bending on my oldie PD170 estate, I installed WALK and a stiffer rear ARB. I felt safer, and quicker.

 

Then I drove a 320d estate and much appreciated RWD and the abililty to be quicker along bends, along with better traction.

 

I'm evaluating the idea of a 4WD both to improve safety, traction and to have higher limits while bending.

 

Besides both for cost and for look I might consider an Elegance, and Elegance rear suspension is less refined than the multilink.

 

Then it would be nice to have something more than 150 horses from the 4x4, but this is another topic

 

Thanks for feedback

Hallo all, and Richard many congrats for your astonishing Cars!

I asked to whom drove both of them to get, if possible, more real life feedback rather than ideas.

To improve the traction and the handling while bending on my oldie PD170 estate, I installed WALK and a stiffer rear ARB. I felt safer, and quicker.

Then I drove a 320d estate and much appreciated RWD and the abililty to be quicker along bends, along with better traction.

I'm evaluating the idea of a 4WD both to improve safety, traction and to have higher limits while bending.

Besides both for cost and for look I might consider an Elegance, and Elegance rear suspension is less refined than the multilink.

Then it would be nice to have something more than 150 horses from the 4x4, but this is another topic

Thanks for feedback

The 150 TDi 2wd is as quick if not quicker than a MK2 170 TDi vRS by the way, the on paper stats dont quite tell the full picture.

One disadvantage to the multilink setup is that its heavy.....it seemingly helps contribute to a 100kg+ weight penalty against a torsion beam suspended car.

Therefore take a 150hp car weighing just under 1300kg vs a 170hp car weighing around 1400kg and you have two vehicles with practically identical power to weight ratios. I also think the power delivery is better on the newer gen 150 TDi than the older 170 TDi CR so that also contributes.

I wasnt expecting a basic 150 TDi to drive so well by comparison but I was that impressed I had no reservations trading my 2013 vRS TDi estate for an Elegance 150 TDi.

Everyone is different though, appreciate the merits of 4wd, particularly if you live somewhere that it be of obvious benefit but for most its probably worth saving the money and enjoying a more efficient and slightly quicker 2wd car.

Have been driving Haldex equipped Skoda's (plus one VW) for some time now and I much prefer the improved road holding/traction to the 2wd versions. Feel the slight increase in fuel consumption is worth paying for a safer drive in all conditions, particularly over the Wolds.

 

Not yet driven the Octy III 4x4; ours is due down the line next week but I'm expecting it to improve on the Yeti particularly as XDS is now added as a function. However I have driven the 2wd 150 DSG which has very similar performance and I felt that was quite a quick car. Also tested a vRS 184 DSG and within legal limits there was little to choose between the 150 and the 184. 

 

Notice a few talk about the weight but oddly even with multi-link and Haldex drive the 4x4 SE Combi is still lighter than a vRS 184 Combi.

 

One final thing, with winters the 4x4 is bar deep snow drifts/floods, very capable of getting through the worst of weather and the main reason for my choice of going 4x4; I like to try get from work and be stuck at home 

 

 

TP

Thank you all,

I think it's a no brainer for safety.

 

Sincerely from officially declared data I can't see an enormous difference in consumption and speed. What the official data don't tell at all are things like:

 

- how often will I loose traction because of the inability to "put" power down (see the whiteline anti lift kit)

- how slower should I go because of limited cornering capability (see again my points before, rarb)

Having had an all wheel drive car, I will not go back now. It feels so much nicer to drive and a lot more sure footed. You will feel it every time you drive, not just in poor weather. The extra purchase and fuel costs are worth it for me.

 

If its for the sake of snow, I've had all combinations and FWD with winter tyres worked much better for me than AWD with summers and is a lot cheaper.

I have recently taken delivery of a Octavia 3 SE 4x4 2.0TDi which we have alongside our Octavia 2 Scout 2.0TDi. I always loved the sense of extreme stability that the Scout has delivered, but the new car has added to that with a very healthy dose of driving pleasure. The chassis is so much more responsive and the engine is really lively. This car both sticks like glue and has the power to make use of it.

 

In fact it is hard to believe that the engine is only 150PS. The difference from the Scout feels like so much more than 10PS and a reduction in GVW could possibly achieve.

 

This really is a seriously good car to drive, and is almost a revelation compared to the Scout. I still like driving the Scout as well, but it is a bit worthy and dull in comparison.

This really is a seriously good car to drive, and is almost a revelation compared to the Scout. I still like driving the Scout as well, but it is a bit worthy and dull in comparison.

I foresee much happiness within a few weeks when mine arrives then to replace the Scout!

Hi,

 

In terms of day to day driving the 4x4 offers more grip, at the limit there's great feedback, it takes getting used to as the body roll can at first put you off from pressing on, but push through it and you can feel the car becoming more planted again, the MK11 has 60 profile tyres on 15's, the MK111 maybe different.

 

do anybody eventually know whether the 4x4 mount a rear ARB? If yes, shouldn't it be the same mounted on Golf VII?

I think there is still a misconception by some that the 4x4 is only useful in snow for those 2 days in the year.  This is really not the case. Of course, it is great for snow especially with all weather or winter tyres.  But the main benefit is the much improved handling for the remaining 363 days too. increased consumption is a trade off, but a worthy one in my opinion. Book a test drive and you will know what I mean!

I was attracted to the Skoda brand after having a 4x4 2.0 TDI Octy as a hire car for a look weekend away. I was amazed at how it handled. Quick turn in, bags of grip (I was in a cold country, so it had winders as well). Plenty of poke from the engine. and the overall package was very impressive (I was perviously considering an Xdrive 3 series of A4 Quattro). 

 

I took a number of test drives after my return to the UK and I decided to give the Octy serious consideration. There were limited options for test driving the 4x4 so I was only able to test drive the FWD versions. 1.6 felt under powered, and the handling on the 2.0 TDI FWD did not feel as sure footed as I recalled the 4x4, especially  when putting down a lot of power out of a turn. 

 

Yes the MPG will be worse, but in the real world, for such a capable all rounder it is not at all bad. I'm averaging 45 mpg after nearly 1,500 miles. I've done 3 or 4 long runs (250 - 300) miles and when I hammer it (and I mean driving it like it is stolen and someone else is paying for the fuel) I get 40 to 44. I've driven it once on such a run (65 to 70 on cruise) purely out of scientific interest and got 54. 

 

I realise that true consumption will be about 5 to 10% less as the figures above are based on the trip computer, but life is too short to count litres and such. 

 

I really do think that the combination of 4x4 and the multi link suspension make the car an overall better performer. I had a gap of nearly 2 years of not owning a car and had many hire cars (Pugs, Kias, Renaults, VW Gold, Audi A3) and by far, for the money the Octy 4x4 is the best car I have driven since I sold my M3 - it really is that much fun :-)

 

yes it is more expensive to buy, and yes it will probably cost about 15% more to run a year. But I think it is worth it for overall enjoyment and peace of mind in cold/wet/winter weather. Add winters and you're more or less unstoppable.

 

They seem quite rare though. I've not seen a single one on UK roads since I bought mine and started taking notice of other skodas on the road. 

Edited 9 January, 201412 yr by Octy3x4x4

I wonder if Skoda ever considered launching a 4x4 VRS! Now, that would be an formidable combination!

I really do think that the combination of 4x4 and the multi link suspension make the car an overall better performer.

^^ this

tbh the the double wishbone rear suspension is more important than the 4x4 system

Torsion beam systems really are cheap and nasty, effectively a 'live' rear axle - whereby lifting effects to one wheel are transmitted across the axle de-stabilising the whole vehicle

The suspension system on the 4x4 is a **** hot system, up there with what you'll find on the rear end of an evo 9 or later

I wonder if Skoda ever considered launching a 4x4 VRS! Now, that would be an formidable combination!

 

As Skoda is the least Sporty brand in the line up of VAG brands I doubt they'd be allowed to.

It'd step on the toes of more expensive models sold at higher profit margins by VW and Audi.

I wonder if Skoda ever considered launching a 4x4 VRS! Now, that would be an formidable combination!

I would gladly consider it!!!

As Skoda is the least Sporty brand in the line up ...

Hasn't that mantle now been passed to VW ?

 

Hasn't that mantle now been passed to VW ?

 

 

Not if they get an UP GT! and a Golf R among other things.

We won't see Skoda versions of those...

VAGs' idea of sporty is too false-teeth friendly, imho

 

Think they know the market demographic of their buyers a bit too well

 

That said, don;t think they understand the eastern european demographic too well

 

A VRS 4x4 (both Fabia and Octavia) would sell like hot-cakes

 

Interesting, the Swiss LOVE Octavia 4x4's (Yeti's too, but not as much)

 

They too would buy VRS 4x4's like hot-cakes too

 

S3s', A3 Quattros', Golf 4mos', Rs' etc are not that common

 

VAG make many country/region specific models, so wouldn't be without president