But if you had a choice over the 2 in question you'd stick with the vrs engine yes?

But if you had a choice over the 2 in question you'd stick with the vrs engine yes?

 

I don't have a VRS, personally I don't like oil burners or turbos, I like high-revving naturally aspirated engines which require skill and involvement to drive quickly. This is why my personal focus on modifications is always handling first, braking second, engine last. My idea of driving nirvana involves empty, open, fast flowing twisty roads with short straights and rapid transitions. Since I am also a motorcyclist, car acceleration and performance figures amuse me because they are simply so far behind what a bike can do, where a car wins is cornering and braking, hence my priorities. If I want to accelerate hard I'll take the bike.

 

As a road engine the PD is superior because it is so much more fuel efficient whilst still delivering more than enough torque to give excellent performance, the 1.8T doesn't do anything well, It's better than the GHASTLY VR6 derivatives though because at least it's lightweight. VW haven't made a decent engine since the 2.0 16V ABF which had decent power potential compared to the 1.8 20V but was fitted to heavy lumpen cars like the Golf Mk 3. The latest trend for downsizing means no more performance engines from mainstream manufacturers which is very sad.

That' answer has just confused me. Maybe we should just leave it there.

That' answer has just confused me. Maybe we should just leave it there.

 

Okeydokey, sleep tight.

This thread was an amazing read! Here's a question. Was there any warning of.the impending doom of the waterpump? eg.noise

Since I am also a motorcyclist, car acceleration and performance figures amuse me because they are simply so far behind what a bike can do, where a car wins is cornering and braking, hence my priorities. If I want to accelerate hard I'll take the bike.

 

The latest trend for downsizing means no more performance engines from mainstream manufacturers which is very sad.

 

I wouldn't say they are 'so far behind' what a bike can do. Bikes will always be faster, but it's more to do with the power/weight ratio than anything else.

 

I agree it's sad that we probably won't see an engine like the Honda K20A in a modern day car, probably one of the last high revving production engines to be made. Nothing wrong with turbos at all, I have a vRS myself after owning various hot hatches both N/A and Turbo over the years but there is nothing quite like a high revving N/A engine that you have to 'drive' to get the best from where as a lot of turbos are just point and squirt. Takes some of the fun out if that makes sense.  

I think the 1.8T has been a success for VW, remember it was purposely designed as an engine for the masses, it was never designed to be a thrilling, red lining beast. Most of the connotations were just the 150bhp (which felt rather limp... because its for the masses) which kept reliability "ok", for as you say, its rather tedious inlet design. 260 hp could be extracted with a decent stage 2 set-up, but knowing a few friends with S3's and 180Anni's, reliability does become the issue. The 1.8T is best in an S3, can be made torquey but I'll agree, they are very thirsty once you push on.

If you drive the 1.8T sympathetically, they can be pretty frugal, quiet and very easy to live with. Skoda could have dropped this engine in the Fabby, and why not. But it was never going to outsell an S3 back then, and wouldn't have sold in high numbers.

I'm a massive Honda fan, had an Accord Type R, and 2 S2000's in the last 10 years... who needs torque?!

This morning my cam belt went on me and just conked out the car , there was coolant underneath the car so I'm a assuming it was the water pump

I'm just wondering if anyone has had this happen to them and what problems it caused , I know it's going to be a very expensive job .... But how expensive ? And what are my best options ?

I'm gutted :(

 

Oh dear, sounds like a second hand engine is your best best and you may get away with changing the head. In either case make sure you change the water pump and cambelt.

 

Good Luck!

my friend has a belt snap at idle and it didnt take any valves out, you can be lucky. very uncommon though.

 

The belt was swapped for a cheap crap one at 89k and it snapped at 110K, really all you need to know when considering which belt to buy. Spend a bit more and get a good quality/ OE spec belt.

Sepulchgrave you chat ****!

Sepulchgrave you chat ****!

 

Really? How nice of you to say so.

No comment

This thread was an amazing read! Here's a question. Was there any warning of.the impending doom of the waterpump? eg.noise

 

This, I also would like to know if there was a sign of water pump failure? Also what is the recommended interval for water pump replacement?

There isnt a recommended interval for the waterpump. However is it normally inspected/replaced along with the cambelt.

And what is recommend interval for the cambelt? One member in this thread stated 25k for example.

Thats a can of worms to ask with just about everyone having a different source of information.

 

The last Skoda information I have was 80,000 miles or four years for the UK.

 

The only concrete way to get the latest information is to contact a dealer and get them to input your chassis number into ELSA and it will bring it up.

I thought it was every four years.

I thought it was every four years.

 

Not if you do 30k a year it isn't :P Time or distance, whatever comes first.