230 Bhp Vrs

[newbie69]

Im afraid the 230 motor varies a reasonable amount from the 265/280/300ps variants of the TSI....the 230 is just a lightly remapped 220.

A stage 1 cupra would make 360/370hp whereas a mapped 220/230 will make circa. 310/315......pretty sure if you go to the trouble of installing a full exhust system, CAI and bigger IC you can see 400ish hp from the higher tune motor.

The 220/230 is supremely tunable but due to the hardware differences id wager it'll alway sit about 50hp behind.

 

Interested to find out what are the hardware differences between them. They're both based on the EA888 MK3 block so unless there's something like a different turbo I don't see it being something very difficult to upgrade to. Also, APR quotes 316 bhp for a 98RON Stage 1 for the Octavia and 354 bhp for the equivalent stage 1 on the Cupra. That's a 38 bhp difference, getting closer already. I would map both those two cars If I bought them but not further than a stage 1, I've learned my lesson already. Surely an off-the-shelf map might still send the Cupra further than the Octavia but point is they're both well above 300bhp and strong enough for my needs.

 

 

 

 

I. Emir be the Octavia is slightly heavier too and due to its suspension setup has a bigger tendency to under steer than the Cupra.

Tunability wise, the if you believ the forums the Cupra 280 doesn't have the claimed 276bhp but much closer to 300. The latest person to get a remap on SeatCupra.net started with 295bhp before the remap on a stock car.

 

Standard RS yes I would agree but I would imagine the 230 version with what I assume is the same diff Cupra uses, has almost eliminated that behaviour, that's what I've been reading at least we have to wait and see if it's confirmed.

 

My experience has taught me to always take dyno figures with a pinch of salt. I've heard this for every 1 out of 2 cars that is being dyno-ed as stock, especially VAG cars and I've seen some very different figures on similar cars based entirely on the dyno setup but anyway.

 

I test-drove the 280 Cupra and it honestly didn't feel quicker than my stage 2 Fabia vRS. Looking up acceleration times from tests and reviews later on confirmed my initial feeling that it was actually a bit slower in any in-gear acceleration up to 180km/h so a dyno saying it's actually 276, 280 or 295 wouldn't mean much to me as I know how it felt to me when driving it and that was that definitely needed a remap in order to feel quick for my standards. Obviously only speaking from my own point of view here.

[jonwilliams84]

Interested to find out what are the hardware differences between them. They're both based on the EA888 MK3 block so unless there's something like a different turbo I don't see it being something very difficult to upgrade to. Also, APR quotes 316 bhp for a 98RON Stage 1 for the Octavia and 354 bhp for the equivalent stage 1 on the Cupra. That's a 38 bhp difference, getting closer already. I would map both those two cars If I bought them but not further than a stage 1, I've learned my lesson already. Surely an off-the-shelf map might still send the Cupra further than the Octavia but point is they're both well above 300bhp and strong enough for my needs.

 

 

 

 

 

Standard RS yes I would agree but I would imagine the 230 version with what I assume is the same diff Cupra uses, has almost eliminated that behaviour, that's what I've been reading at least we have to wait and see if it's confirmed.

 

My experience has taught me to always take dyno figures with a pinch of salt. I've heard this for every 1 out of 2 cars that is being dyno-ed as stock, especially VAG cars and I've seen some very different figures on similar cars based entirely on the dyno setup but anyway.

 

I test-drove the 280 Cupra and it honestly didn't feel quicker than my stage 2 Fabia vRS. Looking up acceleration times from tests and reviews later on confirmed my initial feeling that it was actually a bit slower in any in-gear acceleration up to 180km/h so a dyno saying it's actually 276, 280 or 295 wouldn't mean much to me as I know how it felt to me when driving it and that was that definitely needed a remap in order to feel quick for my standards. Obviously only speaking from my own point of view here.

I have test driven 2 Golf Rs both with DSG, and can honestly say I wasn't excited by them at all and trust me, I gave them absolute death throughout both drives. I just didn't feel any sense of thrill, yes they are 'quick' and yes they hold the road like **** to a blanket, but as far as excitement goes it was like 6/10. Coming from a mk6 golf gti running stage 1 with a manual box, I found this far more exciting, enjoyable and involving when driven at any sort of pace. It may not have been as quick as the R but it certainly gave plenty of smiles per mile.

I am still yet to do any serious miles in the new VRS but for the 2 times I have floored it, it definitely feels responsive, torquey and certainly no slower than my stage 1 golf.

I intend on going stage 1 eventually and from what I am reading for the 220, anything upto 330bhp can be expected. But as newbie69 says I will take these figure with a pinch of salt, chip / tuners will always show off with high outputs, at the end of the day that's how they get their customers, but for me it's how the car feels on the road and not what a dyno says on any given day.

Just need to find one that is undetectable / removable and with confirmation that it doesn't give the 'TD1' flag on the ecu for warranty purposes.

[MINIMadDamo]

Interested to find out what are the hardware differences between them. They're both based on the EA888 MK3 block so unless there's something like a different turbo I don't see it being something very difficult to upgrade to. Also, APR quotes 316 bhp for a 98RON Stage 1 for the Octavia and 354 bhp for the equivalent stage 1 on the Cupra. That's a 38 bhp difference, getting closer already. I would map both those two cars If I bought them but not further than a stage 1, I've learned my lesson already. Surely an off-the-shelf map might still send the Cupra further than the Octavia but point is they're both well above 300bhp and strong enough for my needs.

Standard RS yes I would agree but I would imagine the 230 version with what I assume is the same diff Cupra uses, has almost eliminated that behaviour, that's what I've been reading at least we have to wait and see if it's confirmed.

My experience has taught me to always take dyno figures with a pinch of salt. I've heard this for every 1 out of 2 cars that is being dyno-ed as stock, especially VAG cars and I've seen some very different figures on similar cars based entirely on the dyno setup but anyway.

I test-drove the 280 Cupra and it honestly didn't feel quicker than my stage 2 Fabia vRS. Looking up acceleration times from tests and reviews later on confirmed my initial feeling that it was actually a bit slower in any in-gear acceleration up to 180km/h so a dyno saying it's actually 276, 280 or 295 wouldn't mean much to me as I know how it felt to me when driving it and that was that definitely needed a remap in order to feel quick for my standards. Obviously only speaking from my own point of view here.

With reference to the under steer I was talking about the 230 not the 220. I think it was Evo who said it still under steered. The extra 10bhp being effectively to make up for the extra weight of the diff.

As for the dealer demo,wouldn't surprise me if they've been only putting in 95 fuel instead of 98. For me the Cupra even with what I think was crappy fuel, was massively different in how it drove to the Octavia.

Now I know on a Skoda forum saying a different name of car is better or whatever is bad form, I do prefer the look of the Octavia, and the interior is a step up. But the extra power and the handling of the Seat did it for me.

It's just a pity that VW aren't likely to put the engine and suspension in the Octavia. Superb nice as it is, is a bit to big and grown up for me.

On the Dyno front, yes pinch of salt needs to be taken, but when said dyno's are giving the same round about power figures for both standard Golf R's and standard Cupra 280's.

Finally, yes the Turbo is different on the Cupra 280 along with larger injectors and a few other bits and bobs.

If Skoda eventually do a 280 or more Octy I'll be sold!

In the mean time enjoy the 230's they're as my father in law says 'a damn good bit of kit'

[newbie69]

With reference to the under steer I was talking about the 230 not the 220. I think it was Evo who said it still under steered. The extra 10bhp being effectively to make up for the extra weight of the diff.

As for the dealer demo,wouldn't surprise me if they've been only putting in 95 fuel instead of 98. For me the Cupra even with what I think was crappy fuel, was massively different in how it drove to the Octavia.

Now I know on a Skoda forum saying a different name of car is better or whatever is bad form, I do prefer the look of the Octavia, and the interior is a step up. But the extra power and the handling of the Seat did it for me.

It's just a pity that VW aren't likely to put the engine and suspension in the Octavia. Superb nice as it is, is a bit to big and grown up for me.

On the Dyno front, yes pinch of salt needs to be taken, but when said dyno's are giving the same round about power figures for both standard Golf R's and standard Cupra 280's.

Finally, yes the Turbo is different on the Cupra 280 along with larger injectors and a few other bits and bobs.

If Skoda eventually do a 280 or more Octy I'll be sold!

In the mean time enjoy the 230's they're as my father in law says 'a damn good bit of kit'

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with being in a Skoda forum and saying you like or prefer a non-Skoda car. I rate the Cupra quite highly and I agree that even with the 230 version the Octavia will probably be behind on track even if they were mapped to exactly the same bhp. Cupra ticks all the boxes for me performance and handling wise but the looks and interior were what put me off proceeding in its purchase. If I absolutely wanted the fastest family car my money could buy new at that price point I would go for the Cupra without a second thought. However since I am not at that phase of my life any more and demand a bit more ride quality and refinement I felt I had to look elsewhere.

 

What I'm basically saying is that with the 230 version Skoda seems to me to be closing the gap in performance and handling compared to Cupra, while at the same time offering the typical Octavia quality, practicallity and spaces. And the fact that it can be mapped to almost 320 bhp with a mere stage 1 more or less eliminates any worries on power. You can very easily get more power provided that you've got a platform with good tuning potential -and all EA888 MK3 engines are exactly that- but you can't as easily fix things like trim and material quality, road-noise etc. In the end it's all a matter of priorities.

 

PS. Any source on different turbo and or other different peripherals amongst the EA888 mk3 variants? There's quite a few of them: Golf GTI, Octavia RS, Leon Cupra, Golf R, Scirocco R, Audi S3 and others possibly? Would make for an interesting read.

[pipsyp]

I know Steve Sutcliffe from Autocar did a comparison of the R and Cupra 280 and his consensus was that despite the loss of 4wd and 20hp the Cupra felt faster than the R.....rather proven by the fact that he pushed the R around the test track...the v small amount it gained around the bends it lost on the straight bits.

Sutters is a true petrolhead and can really drive too so its quite interesting....unless of course the Cupra was better run in or their press hack had been tinkered with prior to the testing....it had been wrapped orange by Seat UK so who knows what else they may have done to it...Revo stage one? :-)

[rob_e]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/skoda/octavia-vrs/first-drives/2015-skoda-octavia-vrs-230-review 

 

Autocar seem to be the first magazine to get a uk road test of a 230, in uk spec with the stickers etc.

[MINIMadDamo]

I don't think there's anything wrong with being in a Skoda forum and saying you like or prefer a non-Skoda car. I rate the Cupra quite highly and I agree that even with the 230 version the Octavia will probably be behind on track even if they were mapped to exactly the same bhp. Cupra ticks all the boxes for me performance and handling wise but the looks and interior were what put me off proceeding in its purchase. If I absolutely wanted the fastest family car my money could buy new at that price point I would go for the Cupra without a second thought. However since I am not at that phase of my life any more and demand a bit more ride quality and refinement I felt I had to look elsewhere.

 

What I'm basically saying is that with the 230 version Skoda seems to me to be closing the gap in performance and handling compared to Cupra, while at the same time offering the typical Octavia quality, practicallity and spaces. And the fact that it can be mapped to almost 320 bhp with a mere stage 1 more or less eliminates any worries on power. You can very easily get more power provided that you've got a platform with good tuning potential -and all EA888 MK3 engines are exactly that- but you can't as easily fix things like trim and material quality, road-noise etc. In the end it's all a matter of priorities.

 

PS. Any source on different turbo and or other different peripherals amongst the EA888 mk3 variants? There's quite a few of them: Golf GTI, Octavia RS, Leon Cupra, Golf R, Scirocco R, Audi S3 and others possibly? Would make for an interesting read.

I'm trying to find the thread I was in the other day on seatcupra.net that had all the different ones listed but their search function is broke at the mo.

The short version is GTi and VRS have same engine, GTi PP and 230 are the same engine just tweaked ECU. S3, R and Cupra 280 are also same. Sorry not got anything on the Scirroco R in my memory. As soon as I find it I'll post it.

[MINIMadDamo]

I know Steve Sutcliffe from Autocar did a comparison of the R and Cupra 280 and his consensus was that despite the loss of 4wd and 20hp the Cupra felt faster than the R.....rather proven by the fact that he pushed the R around the test track...the v small amount it gained around the bends it lost on the straight bits.

Sutters is a true petrolhead and can really drive too so its quite interesting....unless of course the Cupra was better run in or their press hack had been tinkered with prior to the testing....it had been wrapped orange by Seat UK so who knows what else they may have done to it...Revo stage one? :-)

it's not 20hp down though that is the fun bit haha

[Jackthalad]

Purchased this 2 days ago.

 

https://imgur.com/a/drt7o

 

Extremely pleased with it. Have driven it a few times now, if you have any questions let me know and ill try and answer them for you.

[MINIMadDamo]

Purchased this 2 days ago.

https://imgur.com/a/drt7o

Extremely pleased with it. Have driven it a few times now, if you have any questions let me know and ill try and answer them for you.

Has to be black or white! So damn good!!

[mikerajjers]

Purchased this 2 days ago.

 

https://imgur.com/a/drt7o

 

Extremely pleased with it. Have driven it a few times now, if you have any questions let me know and ill try and answer them for you.

I've bought one in black too! Should be at the dealer in late November.  I was also tempted by grey, but in black it matches the interior perfectly

[jonwilliams84]

Was speaking to Alex at Faintree earlier...apparently there were 40 dealer cars built. Of the estates, I am thinking they were all built without roof bars. It bothered me at 1st, but I actually think it makes my car and the other dealer estates more unique. Still waiting on news about Smartlink.

[newbie69]

I'm trying to find the thread I was in the other day on seatcupra.net that had all the different ones listed but their search function is broke at the mo.

The short version is GTi and VRS have same engine, GTi PP and 230 are the same engine just tweaked ECU. S3, R and Cupra 280 are also same. Sorry not got anything on the Scirroco R in my memory. As soon as I find it I'll post it.

 

What I've found already:

 

Golf GTI 220 - Octavia RS 220: CHHB

Golf GTI PP 230 - Octavia RS 230: CHHA

Leon Cupra 280: CJXB

Golf R 300 - Scirocco R - S3 300: CJXC

 

Now let's see if we can find the differences between CHHB - CHHA - CJXB - CJXC...

[MINIMadDamo]

What I've found already:

Golf GTI 220 - Octavia RS 220: CHHB

Golf GTI PP 230 - Octavia RS 230: CHHA

Leon Cupra 280: CJXB

Golf R 300 - Scirocco R - S3 300: CJXC

Now let's see if we can find the differences between CHHB - CHHA - CJXB - CJXC...

The info I saw looked nothing like that.

Odd that the Scirroco R, who's engine is closer to that of the Cupra (265 not the Cupra 280) has the same code as the S3 and Golf R

[newbie69]

The info I saw looked nothing like that.

Odd that the Scirroco R, who's engine is closer to that of the Cupra (265 not the Cupra 280) has the same code as the S3 and Golf R

 

Not sure what you mean by closer to Cupra 265. Scirocco R MY2016 has 300 bhp like the Golf R and S3 so it makes sense they share the same engine. Anyway my question was more about what changes specifically between them.

 

And actually, It looks like there's two main variants: CHH- and CJX-  between which there almost certainly must be hardware differences.

 

Then A-B-C is variants amongst those variants but not more than 10bhp so it could even be just software I guess.

[MINIMadDamo]

Not sure what you mean by closer to Cupra 265. Scirocco R MY2016 has 300 bhp like the Golf R and S3 so it makes sense they share the same engine. Anyway my question was more about what changes specifically between them.

And actually, It looks like there's two main variants: CHH- and CJX- between which there almost certainly must be hardware differences.

Then A-B-C is variants amongst those variants but not more than 10bhp so it could even be just software I guess.

The original Scirroco R had 265PS, didn't realise their had been a facelift with a power increase, however now I've looked it's not 300PS/295hp it's same as the Cupra 280 and has 280PS/276hp.

Volkswagen Scirocco R

Price £34,075; Engine 4 cyls, 1984cc, turbo, petrol; Power 276bhp at 6000rpm; Torque 258lb ft at 2500-5000rpm; Gearbox 6-spd dual-clutch automatic; Kerb weight 1450kg; Top speed 155mph; 0-62mph 5.5sec; Economy 35.8mpg (combined); CO2/tax band 185g/km, 30%

So if the Scirroco R is supposed to be 280 like the Cupra 280, that still doesn't explain why the Cupra 280 is different to the Golf/S3 but the Scirroco R isn't.

Edited 25 October, 2015 by MINIMadDamo

[newbie69]

The original Scirroco R had 265PS, didn't realise their had been a facelift with a power increase, however now I've looked it's not 300PS/295hp it's same as the Cupra 280 and has 280PS/276hp.

Volkswagen Scirocco R

Price £34,075; Engine 4 cyls, 1984cc, turbo, petrol; Power 276bhp at 6000rpm; Torque 258lb ft at 2500-5000rpm; Gearbox 6-spd dual-clutch automatic; Kerb weight 1450kg; Top speed 155mph; 0-62mph 5.5sec; Economy 35.8mpg (combined); CO2/tax band 185g/km, 30%

So if the Scirroco R is supposed to be 280 like the Cupra 280, that still doesn't explain why the Cupra 280 is different to the Golf/S3 but the Scirroco R isn't.

 

 

I was at a VW dealership last week and almost sure I saw 300 bhp on the spec sheet of a Scirocco R they had on show but can't seem to find it online now so I might be wrong. Anyway, seems like bigger turbo is the case between CHH and CJX. However the 60-80bhp starting difference (220/230 vs. 280/300) drops below half after a stage 1 (316 vs 354 [APR Values]) so makes the CHH a great platform (with the exception of the Cupra which costs the same money as the GTI and Octavia and is made on the CJX variant already    )

[Scribbler]

Is anyone who purchased a 230 slightly miffed that they are now doing a 4x4 version? I know I would be. If your currently looking at the 230 and unaware

like I was of the incoming 4X4 vrs it might be worth looking into.

[SC03OTT]

The 4x4 is diesel only though, no?

[Scribbler]

The 4x4 is diesel only though, no?

 

Yes can't see it being exclusively diesel for long though now that they have the drivetrain. Also to some people the fuel is irrelevant I have 2 petrol vrs and 2 diesel. I have been after a 4x4 since the mk1. Diesel wouldn't put me off far more potential with 4x4.

[jamiemad]

Has anyone purchased a 230 on pch? I am just curious of the numbers as the numbers I had for a standard vrs on pch were quite good.

[TonyD]

Yes can't see it being exclusively diesel for long though now that they have the drivetrain. Also to some people the fuel is irrelevant I have 2 petrol vrs and 2 diesel. I have been after a 4x4 since the mk1. Diesel wouldn't put me off far more potential with 4x4.

I dont think so, same drivetrain as the Scout. Just needing the VRS bodyshell and springs. To add in for the petrol would probably need a new production line and Skoda don't seem willing to do this due to number of petrol VRS sales against diesel

[Scribbler]

I dont think so, same drivetrain as the Scout. Just needing the VRS bodyshell and springs. To add in for the petrol would probably need a new production line and Skoda don't seem willing to do this due to number of petrol VRS sales against diesel

 

If you watched the Car building program on the bbc last week then you would see that modern production lines are not rigid and models are made in the same line based on the orders that come in they are completely configurable from body in white through to paint. Its not as rigid as it used to be.

Skoda have previously been able to resist demand for the 4x4 vrs because they were able to say VW Audi would not let them however now its available in principle on the VRS it wont be long before demand for the petrol version especially in light of the Diesel scandal gets the bean counters to re-evaluate strategy and offer a TSI. Most of the hard work is now done if they have located the transfer box in the Hatch version.

[MINIMadDamo]

Has anyone purchased a 230 on pch? I am just curious of the numbers as the numbers I had for a standard vrs on pch were quite good.

 

Short version - terrible as when compared to a 220 as they aren't offering the 0%

Edited 26 October, 2015 by MINIMadDamo

[jamiemad]

Short version - terrible as when compared to a 220 as they aren't offering the 0%

I think you are referring to pcp deals, although I am happy to be corrected. I am looking at personal contract hire deals. I got decent figures on a vrs petrol hatch with dsg but even though the cost of the 230 is more I would have thought they would retain more value second hand.