Blimey you can tell who the Skoda faithful are. As much as I really like my first Skoda, which is a fully loaded VRS, it is categorically not up to VW standard in terms of ride quality, interior materials and brand kudos (or snobbery)

The Octavia is ideal for my needs which is space, kit, performance and value for money. Had the Golf GTD been about at order time I might have gone that way as the boot space is virtually the same which is important for me.

I've had 3 VW's and 2 Audi's over the years and they were all bulletproof. I fully expect the Skoda to be the same.

And in return, blimey you can tell who the VW faithful are   

 

I've had my fair share of Golfs and passats so will agree to disagree on your post in terms of your opinion on VW's so called quality and by the way I've owned and driven over 25 cars in my life thus far, a lot from the VWG stable, most doing over 18k miles in so feel I'm in a good place to comment!

I await all the responses to put down the seat........

better not.. the Leon Cupra 280 is set to replace my Scirocco, in some kind of future.

Edited 31 January, 201511 yr by TomLux

Most VW and Audi products are better than their equivalent Skoda models... Quality of cabin materials, upholstery materials, technology and refinement. It's why they cost more money.

Most VW and Audi products are better than their equivalent Skoda models... Quality of cabin materials, upholstery materials, technology and refinement. It's why they cost more money.

Still don't agree with this comment, this is my first ever Skoda and can only compare it the cars I've had from Audi & VW that I have driven and owned over many miles. The margin, if any, isn't as big as most will lead you to believe.

Most VW and Audi products are better than their equivalent Skoda models... Quality of cabin materials, upholstery materials, technology and refinement. It's why they cost more money.

I can't comment on the quality as I can only compare Skoda, Audi, Seat and VW from models that are quite a few years apart.

As for the technology part VW Audi seem to be half a modelyear ahead (the frontassist on the new Passat can detect pedestrians and cyclist, the Octy one can't). Does anyone know how the other first MQB models (A3, Leon, Golf) compare with regards to assistant systems? I don't care about the infotainment part since I want the car for driving. I can play wit my mobile phone at home.

I can't comment on the quality as I can only compare Skoda, Audi, Seat and VW from models that are quite a few years apart.

As for the technology part VW Audi seem to be half a modelyear ahead (the frontassist on the new Passat can detect pedestrians and cyclist, the Octy one can't). Does anyone know how the other first MQB models (A3, Leon, Golf) compare with regards to assistant systems? I don't care about the infotainment part since I want the car for driving. I can play wit my mobile phone at home.

 Have to totally agree with the infotainment part, whilst they can look nice, I'm like you, just want to get it and drive the car. 

Most VW and Audi products are better than their equivalent Skoda models... Quality of cabin materials, upholstery materials, technology and refinement. It's why they cost more money.

It's the conclusion I've come to after taking the A3, Golf and Octavia out, the Leon also. This morning I had the new Passat and it's far better then the Superb in all the areas I mentioned above. The tech statement regarded optional equipment also ie audio setups (important for me) - the Canton is bettered by the Dynaudio in the golf, which in turn is bettered by the A3's quite excellent B&O setup. The VRS pretty much bored me on both test drives, the cupra I thought was in a different league and the R, one of the best real world cars I've driven in the last six months. The noise in the VRS cabin is without any doubt higher than in the Golf. I love the fact you can now get the GTD, Cupra and R in estate format too.

Edited 31 January, 201511 yr by Yeti_Man

It's the conclusion I've come to after taking the A3, Golf and Octavia out, the Leon also. This morning I had the new Passat and it's far better then the Superb in all the areas I mentioned above. The tech statement regarded optional equipment also ie audio setups (important for me) - the Canton is bettered by the Dynaudio in the golf, which in turn is bettered by the A3's quite excellent B&O setup. The VRS pretty much bored me on both test drives, the cupra I thought was in a different league and the R, one of the best real world cars I've driven in the last six months. The noise in the VRS cabin is without any doubt higher than in the Golf. I love the fact you can now get the GTD, Cupra and R in estate format too.

As for the new Passat vs the old Superb, try the same exercise when the Superb 3 is out, would be a much fairer test.

 

 As for the rest, that's your opinion of course re build quality/equipment  :clap:  :clap: and sort of what I'd expect comparing a 280bhp and 300 bhp car to a 220 bhp car.

 

Agree the Golf R is a fantastic motor, however unless you're after traffic light grand prix's and racing around the lanes, then I'm not sold, after all if you live on motorways and main routes like I do and most others do in terms of the needs their cars have to cover, the margin is not that big between in gear performance of a VRS TSI and Golf R, once mapped on both cars the gap closes even further on 30+mph sprints and in gear. Each to their own although I have to say if I had a choice between a Golf R in either form hatch or estate or a VRS R (If ever they do one-which is as likely as me winning the lottery), I'd have the Skoda every time.

 

Still don't feel the margin is quite as vast as you claim, however goes someway to why my VRS is sporting a tad more power now     

Edited 31 January, 201511 yr by Telboy5

I'm sure a remaped vrs would be similar to a golf r from 30-60 etc when grip is Ok however once the golf is also remapped then it would once again be superior in performance by some margin.

I've driven a golf r and would say its better in every way other than space hence I have a vrs on my drive. I'm sure the GTD would beat a diesel vrs unless you need the space

I'm sure a remaped vrs would be similar to a golf r from 30-60 etc when grip is Ok however once the golf is also remapped then it would once again be superior in performance by some margin.

I've driven a golf r and would say its better in every way other than space hence I have a vrs on my drive. I'm sure the GTD would beat a diesel vrs unless you need the space

It's simply not, you forget the extra weight of a Golf R.

 

A mapped Golf R stage 1 (5 door is what I'd need and DSG), comes in at 1,510kg base spec giving 360bhp & 380flbt, power to weight is 238bhp/tonne & 251flbt/tonne.

 

Mapped VRS TSI DSG, comes in at 1,370kg base spec giving 330bhp & 371flbt, power to weight is 240bhp/tonne & 270flbt/tonne.

 

In gear performance the margin would not be 'by some' as you claim. The cars would stay pretty much in parallel.

 

There is simply no denying it would have a considerable margin from 0mph to 60 and on a track or twisties, however that's not where my car spends it time.

 

My point is in all of this is the Skoda is a great car for the money and the margin between it and others is simply not as vast as most claim.

Edited 31 January, 201511 yr by Telboy5

I can't comment on the quality as I can only compare Skoda, Audi, Seat and VW from models that are quite a few years apart.

As for the technology part VW Audi seem to be half a modelyear ahead (the frontassist on the new Passat can detect pedestrians and cyclist, the Octy one can't)...........

Unless the man on the metal tube with 2 wheels saddle and handlebars was heavily disguised as a thin car, then I can only assume my front assist was faulty or reacted to stationary trees when it activated on a country road earlier this week....

It's simply not, you forget the extra weight of a Golf R.

A mapped Golf R stage 1 (5 door is what I'd need and DSG), comes in at 1,510kg base spec giving 360bhp & 380flbt, power to weight is 238bhp/tonne & 251flbt/tonne.

Mapped VRS TSI DSG, comes in at 1,370kg base spec giving 330bhp & 371flbt, power to weight is 240bhp/tonne & 270flbt/tonne.

In gear performance the margin would not be 'by some' as you claim. The cars would stay pretty much in parallel.

There is simply no denying it would have a considerable margin from 0mph to 60 and on a track or twisties, however that's not where my car spends it time.

My point is in all of this is the Skoda is a great car for the money and the margin between it and others is simply not as vast as most claim.

Yes but most tsi vrs remaps state around 300bhp so more of a difference and the 4wd means its much easier to put the power down in real life on rough greasy roads. You could get a Leon cupra 280 which is better on track due to the weight advantage over a golf but in real life the golf can hold its own on the road.

This is off topic though. The golf GTD looks like a sound buy, as is the vrs. If I didn't need the space though the Leon or golf would have easily won me over

Yes but most tsi vrs remaps state around 300bhp so more of a difference and the 4wd means its much easier to put the power down in real life on rough greasy roads. You could get a Leon cupra 280 which is better on track due to the weight advantage over a golf but in real life the golf can hold its own on the road.

This is off topic though. The golf GTD looks like a sound buy, as is the vrs. If I didn't need the space though the Leon or golf would have easily won me over

Nope, most can achieve 330bhp with 99 ron fuel as the Golf R should be run on, 

 

Please re read my post, I'm not talking about greasy roads.

 

You're right, off topic, back to the GTD, sound buy as is the vRS.

Nope, most can achieve 330bhp with 99 ron fuel as the Golf R should be run on,

I'm not talking about inflated dyno figures here. Even the advertised 315bhp figures claimed are optimistic at best.

Yes but most tsi vrs remaps state around 300bhp so more of a difference and the 4wd means its much easier to put the power down in real life on rough greasy roads. You could get a Leon cupra 280 which is better on track due to the weight advantage over a golf but in real life the golf can hold its own on the road.

This is off topic though. The golf GTD looks like a sound buy, as is the vrs. If I didn't need the space though the Leon or golf would have easily won me over

couldn't agree more with the above - sounds like the guy has actual experience of both. I know from ownership of 330 and 340bhp fwd hatches and 330bhp awd cars how they differ in the real world. Stage 1 an 'R' and with 60mph coming up in 3.7seconds and a 0-100mph despatched in 9.2 seconds, a mapped VRS wouldn't stand a chance. And that's just in the dry!! The 65kg haldex 5 weight disadvantage for the R is nothing IMO - 9 times out of ten its the quicker, more useable, safer, more controlled car.

Unless the man on the metal tube with 2 wheels saddle and handlebars was heavily disguised as a thin car, then I can only assume my front assist was faulty or reacted to stationary trees when it activated on a country road earlier this week....

LOL.

From what I read it officially should not recognise them. Neither should it detect non-moving cars. I assume it sometimes does but isn't designed to, or at least won't do it in all situations. That's also why VW trump the system in the Passat as being able to detect pedestrians and cycles.

I'm not talking about inflated dyno figures here. Even the advertised 315bhp figures claimed are optimistic at best.

I'm not talking inflated dyno figs either  :p

couldn't agree more with the above - sounds like the guy has actual experience of both. I know from ownership of 330 and 340bhp fwd hatches and 330bhp awd cars how they differ in the real world. Stage 1 an 'R' and with 60mph coming up in 3.7seconds and a 0-100mph despatched in 9.2 seconds, a mapped VRS wouldn't stand a chance. And that's just in the dry!! The 65kg haldex 5 weight disadvantage for the R is nothing IMO - 9 times out of ten its the quicker, more useable, safer, more controlled car.

All of a sudden it's ok for the Golf R to put out more than 360bhp on the dyno and yet when the GTI or VRS claim any more than 300 it's inflated figures for some reason, (a quote from V6Jules).

 

Yet again, not reading my post, the Golf R in gear performance vs VRS (both mapped to stage 1 360bhp vs 330) then the margin wouldn't be huge.

 

The average 0-100 time for the Golf R mapped is coming in around 9.5-10secs and my GPS time for 0-100 in cold has come in at 10.2secs, like I said margin is not huge!

 

I do have experience of many cars like your good self too.

 

Anyways, no beef with anyone, just real world experience trying to share here.

 

Back on topic, all of them are worthy cars for various reasons.

I'm not talking inflated dyno figs either :p

So you have had yours remapped to a possible 330bhp(calculated at the flywheel according to a chassis dyno which can read whatever the operator wants it to say) Most companies state just over 300 so your using an unfair comparison with 30bhp more? And probably pushing an engine even harder than a +80bhp remap on standard internals, there is a reason the golf r engine has been beefed up.

Edited 1 February, 201511 yr by V6Jules

So you have had yours remapped to a possible 330bhp(calculated at the flywheel according to a chassis dyno which can read whatever the operator wants it to say) Most companies state just over 300 so your using an unfair comparison with 30bhp more? And probably pushing an engine even harder than a +80bhp remap on standard internals, there is a reason the golf r engine has been beefed up.

In fairness to the OP, I'm going to stop after this comment, after all, was meant to be about the GTD estate!

 

In all my life I have taken dyno results with a pinch of salt, for what they really are. What matters more to me is how it translates on the road.

 

I know what my car is capable of and know that driving it everywhere at the max will cause me long term issues, same as it would in a Golf R.

 

I also know my cars 0-60 and 0-100 and in gear times reflect a car with more than 300bhp, enough said although I do have 2 x dyno results confirming similar so I'm happy with that.

 

Either way it does make me laugh when it's ok to quote a Golf R as being faster than an Audi R8 and Lambo, however the second anyone dares to quote the capabilities of a Skoda, all hell breaks loose.

 

Have fun all and keep safe!

Im sure your car is plenty capable I'm not denying that as you obviously do motorway miles with it where awd isn't going to help

If there was a vrs with awd and the golf r engine then it would be different but a big wagon with an open differential just won't cut it for every day driving. I've got nothing against Skoda's being quick and I'm happy with my vrs but I'm not delusional as to its performance.

Just as the diesel vrs or the golf GTD is in no way shape or form a fast car but they will be plenty pokey enough for most people and with the large boots they make great all round cars

The GTD estate is now available to configure on the German online configurator: starts at 31.975€. Which means that it's (at least for Germany as I can't find any other prices for the moment) only 500€ more than the VRS (estate TDI manual). I know that most extras are more expensive on VW, but you also get a VW (and brand names cost extra) and certain extras that are not available on the Octy: DCC, blind spot assist, all LED exterior, etc.

 

When I configure the GTD estate in pratically the same way as my VRS it is "only" 2500€ more expensive...I think that VW have maybe squeezed a little bit too much into Octy territory, no?

 

that said: it's still a Golf and has less boot space, and my VRS will arrive in 2 weeks...so...

Edited 1 February, 201511 yr by TomLux

It's simply not, you forget the extra weight of a Golf R.

 

A mapped Golf R stage 1 (5 door is what I'd need and DSG), comes in at 1,510kg base spec giving 360bhp & 380flbt, power to weight is 238bhp/tonne & 251flbt/tonne.

 

Mapped VRS TSI DSG, comes in at 1,370kg base spec giving 330bhp & 371flbt, power to weight is 240bhp/tonne & 270flbt/tonne.

If you read the brochures of both cars you'll see that the Golf R 5 door DSG weighs 1525 kgs, but includes a driver (68 kgs) and luggage (7 kgs)

 

The vRS TSi DSG 5 door hatch is quoted as weighing 1370 kgs, but doesn't include driver or luggage.

 

So comparable weights are: Golf R 1525 kgs and vRS 1445 kgs and power to weights of 236 bhp/t (Golf) and 228 bhp/t (vRS).

Not to stir the pudding bowl but I am also in the camp that thinks 330-340hp for a mapped TSI is quite generous...not saying its impossible but I think v early 300's are what most will see with a very healthy side of torque.

The torque is what will give the feeling of pace (as it does with the standard car) and in truth it probably at times will feel like a 330-340hp car.....but likely isnt.

A 370ish hp stage 1 R with 4wd will be comfortably quicker than a mapped vRS TSi regardless of the weight penalty as it can just put that power down anywhere. What is interesting....Evo reviewed the Revo'd R and even they said whilst in terms of standing starts its bloody fast, it disnt have the mid or high end go that they expected of a 370hp car. Its just one journo's view of course but makes you wonder.

Front /rear weight distribution is going to be better in the estate as 80kg heaver (all estates compared to hatch).there was a discussion on the MK7 Golf forum about this but one individual who though he knew everything about chassis dynamics kept abusing others & talking about mass & ignoring moment of inertia (polar)............my engineering book first page basically states that "we do not use mass" (Newtons absolute method)..but engineering & something else.............fecking numpty..................