The Finnish and German spec sheets say 7,5 s for both FWD and 4x4 (7,8 s for the Scout).

 

It's just marketing, the AWD, albeit Haldex, will be faster in the sprint because of reduced traction issues, IMHO.

It's just marketing, the AWD, albeit Haldex, will be faster in the sprint because of reduced traction issues, IMHO.

 

You're forgetting that the AWD system adds weight to the car.

The Finnish and German spec sheets say 7,5 s for both FWD and 4x4 (7,8 s for the Scout).

Just to clarify, those are the figures for the estate, the hatchback is 0,1 s quicker.

 

You're forgetting that the AWD system adds weight to the car.

 4x4 doesn't start to pay off until certain threshold of torque is crossed, which is why the effect is more prominent on diesels (and large engines).

 

The 1.8 TSI is just on that limit, the 2.0 TFSI is slightly quicker with 4x4 (Audi A4), and the 2.0 TDI starts to make a bigger difference. The FWD car will have a higher top speed, but a good 4x4 system helps to limit wheel spin without cutting power, thus resulting in a quicker acceleration off the line.

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by kallekilponen

Remember that most 4WD systems add ~50kg's weight and increase mechanical resistance. Despite hauling 3-4% more weight and losing a few percent through drive-train loss 4WD is still faster from standstill because it is not limited by traction.

 

Once out of 1st gear and within the realms of traction the 2WD/FWD car will accelerate faster due to less weight and less mechanical loss. More power will reach the wheels.

 

So, 0-30 the Scout will almost always win (same driver, same road) but from 30-60 the VRS TDI will begin to catch up and thereafter will pull ahead. For 30-70 and 0-100 the VRS will almost certainly win, although not by very much.

 

Scout is the best option if you like to be fast away from the lights (or if you drive on loose roads or in extreme weather). VRS will be the more efficient mile muncher and have better in-gear acceleration for the most part.

 

My general performance car opinion is that 4WD is best, RWD offer most fun, and FWD can be great fun but has lower limits.

Well, taken the weight differences into account, I bet that both on the track and on real life the AWD shall be quicker into the 0-60.

 

@kallekilponen: is your next car a manual? (really envious )

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by Genoa1893

Well, taken the weight differences into account, I bet that both on the track and on real life the AWD shall be quicker into the 0-60.

 

@kallekilponen: is your next car a manual? (really envious )

DSG, there's no manual option on the more powerful TDI...nor would I want one, 3 of my previous cars have been automatics. (Though I've driven plenty of manuals at work etc.)

Well, taken the weight differences into account, I bet that both on the track and on real life the AWD shall be quicker into the 0-60.

 

@kallekilponen: is your next car a manual? (really envious )

Um no, VRS has better brakes, steering, suspension, lower height and more aggressive tyres so no way would a scout be quicker on a track. Apart from the initial start the scout wouldn't be faster to drive anywhere except a ski field road in winter or a dirt road.

The 0-60 thing is meaningless, you'd look like a tool in either trying to drag off anything else at the lights because neither are fast cars unless you chip or box them. Also it would depend on whether its auto or manual too, if you are really worried about portions of a second difference as well. Just look at the manual vs DSG video on utube done in the Golf R. The auto murders the manual every time and will do it all day. 

with all due respect...none of us are really going to race a VRS TDi vs a scout or an L&K..on paper there can be a bit of difference in 0-100 (or 62) but since there are other differences between VRS and non VRS versions we can argue till the cows come home but we won't know until someone does it. And we all have to remember that we didn't really buy racing machines ;-). Or else we would have bought something bigger with a 3 liter V6 TDI or even bigger.

 

As for the difference between AWD and FWD and more power etc. have a look at this:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-volkswagen-golf-r-vs-seat-leon-cupra-280

unless we try this in the rain...

Um no, VRS has better brakes, steering, suspension, lower height and more aggressive tyres so no way would a scout be quicker on a track. Apart from the initial start the scout wouldn't be faster to drive anywhere except a ski field road in winter or a dirt road.

This comment made me think; What exactly are the differences between the vRS TDI and an Elegance (with the same engine and sport suspension, driving mode selection etc) in terms of suspension, steering...?

 

The brakes are certainly one...but how do the other components differ?

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by kallekilponen

DSG is faster through the gears no question, and on a track or drag strip it should hold a nice advantage. However on normal roads and normal conditions there will be little or no difference between them. For instance, most overtakes are pre-planned so changing down in manual or drop downs in DSG are irrelevant. 3rd pulls strongly from 40 to 90mph so there is little benefit of instant gear changes on the motorway, 0-60's and 0-100's are also impractical, impossible or just plain stupid on public roads. Manual vs DSG is a personal preference rather than a true performance differentiator.

I would like to put some track tyres on my Scout and bash it round track . I think it would put some decent times up

Hi guys , on technical data of skoda it reads that scout 184 hp DSG accelerates up to 100 km/h in 7,8 seconds while VRS 184 hp DSG in 8,3 seconds ...is it correct ?

 

 

Another good question might be does it matter?

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by skovirg

This comment made me think; What exactly are the differences between the vRS TDI and an Elegance (with the same engine and sport suspension, driving mode selection etc) in terms of suspension, steering...?

 

The brakes are certainly one...but how do the other components differ?

If the VRS is the only one with the progressive steering in the Octavia range?, then it is a big differance and one I wouldn't want to give up.

Does an Elegnace specced that way have the same profile tyres on the 18s or 19s etc?

 

DSG is faster through the gears no question, and on a track or drag strip it should hold a nice advantage. However on normal roads and normal conditions there will be little or no difference between them. For instance, most overtakes are pre-planned so changing down in manual or drop downs in DSG are irrelevant. 3rd pulls strongly from 40 to 90mph so there is little benefit of instant gear changes on the motorway, 0-60's and 0-100's are also impractical, impossible or just plain stupid on public roads. Manual vs DSG is a personal preference rather than a true performance differentiator.

Yes agree with that, I was only meaning the 0-60 times and apart from that personal preferance.

Interesting reagrding the overtaking numbers though, because my manual TDI won't do 90mph in 3rd gear? Its hits 5000rpm before that happens and the acceleration starts dropping off at about 130kph (80mph) anyway so.....

Um no, VRS has better brakes, steering, suspension, lower height and more aggressive tyres so no way would a scout be quicker on a track. Apart from the initial start the scout wouldn't be faster to drive anywhere except a ski field road in winter or a dirt road.

The 0-60 thing is meaningless, you'd look like a tool in either trying to drag off anything else at the lights because neither are fast cars unless you chip or box them. Also it would depend on whether its auto or manual too, if you are really worried about portions of a second difference as well. Just look at the manual vs DSG video on utube done in the Golf R. The auto murders the manual every time and will do it all day. 

Hi,

I'm not worried at all, I'm just saying that my first experience with AWD is really satisfying since I didn't experience any of the traction issues I remember I had with my previous MkII VRS TDI. And the difference isn't subtle.

 

I'm not saying the AWD version will be generally quicker, but my bet is that the improved traction capability will provide an obvious advantage to the plain FWD in many real life driving situations. So I think we agree, anyway, I speak from my own small experience, YMMV.

 

Besides, let's remember that an Elegance wouldn't have the added weights more and suspension setup of the Scout...

 

Best,

It's interesting if you look under the rear of an octy, because even in the FWD models the floor pan has space for the Haldex system.

The fuel tank is forward of the rear axle and under the chassis, while a large plastic cover "fills in" the gaping hole the IRS would be in a VRS, or the diff would be in a 4x4.

If the VRS is the only one with the progressive steering in the Octavia range?, then it is a big differance and one I wouldn't want to give up.

Does an Elegnace specced that way have the same profile tyres on the 18s or 19s etc?

Didn't remember the steering difference, though that might be more of a matter of preference than something that gives a definitive advantage. Any other differences I'm not aware of?

 

You can use the 18" wheels on both if you so desire, at least there's no technical reason why you couldn't. The 19s aren't a build to order option, but you could of course get aftermarket rims...but I doubt having such extremely low profile gives any performance edge...it's more of a fashion statement.

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by kallekilponen

It's interesting if you look under the rear of an octy, because even in the FWD models the floor pan has space for the Haldex system.

The fuel tank is forward of the rear axle and under the chassis, while a large plastic cover "fills in" the gaping hole the IRS would be in a VRS, or the diff would be in a 4x4.

I have looked underneath my 1.4tsi estate and there is no plastic cover on my 'gaping hole', nothing between the torsion bar and the spare wheel holder.

Sounds like something worth having to cut down underbody drag. Will have to look under a newer car at the dealers to see if it is a new addition or model specific.

I have looked underneath my 1.4tsi estate and there is no plastic cover on my 'gaping hole', nothing between the torsion bar and the spare wheel holder.

Sounds like something worth having to cut down underbody drag. Will have to look under a newer car at the dealers to see if it is a new addition or model specific.

I should have taken a photo, but I was cold, it was dark and late and I was rushing to fit my winter tyres!

From underneath it looks like the fuel tank, but that's actually forward of the rear suspension in the centre of the car now.

This is an interesting post as I’m trying to decide between a Scout or VRS as my next company car.

 

Hendry’s of Glasgow have been great, as there are no demonstrator scouts in Scotland they have arranged for Skoda Uk  to delivery (to my home address) a Scout (184 DSG) for an extended 3 day test drive.

 

They have also arranged a test drive with a VRS so that I can compare both cars.

 

Fantastic service from Hendry’s, very happy to feed back my thoughts of the two cars later in the month.

Just noticed something I hadn't realized before. The vRS TDI DSG is actually heavier than the 4x4 TDI DSG! (Oh, and the 4x4 models have a wider torque curve.)

 (Oh, and the 4x4 models have a wider torque curve.)

I'm no expert in engines, but that sounds wierd since they are supposed to be the exact same engine. Surely the drivetrain has no influence on the output of the engine, just how that power is transferred on the road.

 

Also I'm glad I chose the VRS in manual, it's only 1 second slower than the 4x4 not 1.1 like the DSG version

anyway this torque band difference sounds/is really strange.

 

But, hey, just looking at the low rows: the DSG6 4x4 is the real sleeper. Just 2 km/h of max speed less than the VRS I bet due to aerodynamics, perhaps higher stance), yet lighter and 1.1 second quicker in 0-100!!!!!

There are a lot of cars way faster than a vrs. It reads as if some owners are in denial of this. Does a forum just exist for the vrs members only. There are other cars in the range! A vrs is not a rapid car. Fact. A tdi vrs is even less of a rapid car. Drive some other brands to realise this.

Edited 24 January, 201511 yr by octavianestate

I'm no expert in engines, but that sounds wierd since they are supposed to be the exact same engine. Surely the drivetrain has no influence on the output of the engine, just how that power is transferred on the road.

The limiting factor on the torque is not the engine itself, but what the gearbox can handle. They evidently use a different engine mapping on the 4x4. So it's a software choice, not a mechanical difference as such.

 

(Same applies for the 1.8 TSI engine, the 4x4 version has more torque, not just on a wider range.)

I'd be intrigued to know the difference in straight acceleration between a tuned/chipped TDI VRS and a 4x4 (or Scout)

Straight line would be the easiest way to compare, of course, but for me it'd be more about booting it off a damp roundabout etc.