Noticed a few discussions about how nippy the CR150 engine is, and people are musing about there being a negligible difference between the CR150 and the VRS due to the extra weight of the multilink suspension on the VRS

 

So- had an opportunity for a 24 hr test  drive in a VRS so dumped my CR150 Elegance at the dealers and set off in the VRS

 

Suspicions confirmed- the car seemed more or less identically performance wise to the elegance, although the seats were a lot more supportive.

 

Then, I realised I hadnt checked what mode the car was in- it was in ECO mode.

 

Set to Sport, and set off again.

 

MASSIVE difference- with a nice sound courtesy of the sound generator which doesnt seem to work in eco mode.

 

Significantly more grunt- feels about as fast as my Mk 2 VRS which was remapped to 214 bhp, although the Mk3 is lighter

 

I would guess that the 184bhp is quite conservative- the car must be knocking out not far off 200bhp as standard, so definitely a step up from the CR150.

 

Not looking forward to getting my own car back tomorrow :-(

I also miss for not getting a vrs, although I would have really wanted a petrol one (obviously I cant drive around with fake exhaust :p) but am still not sure if I could really afford a fuel. My current car with DTUK box uses 7L/100km as long term average.

Edited 1 June, 201511 yr by toni8b

I think you have been conned/misinterpreted/fallen foul of some placebo like affect.  the eco/normal/sport mode doesn't affect the power of the engine, it merely changes the throtle response.  In sport the car is at full throttle after only a small dab of the pedal, the remaining movement does no more.  So you get an effect of loads of power and that you are having to curtail its use, but there is no more available in sport than in eco.  You just need to push the pedal further in eco.

neiln, I think you've fallen foul of misunderstanding that the mode selection actual works on both proportional and integral control logic, in Eco there is a far longer integral therefore, throttle reactions is far slower or has more throttle lag.  In Sports mode the integral is very short combined with a higher proportional output from the same input or throttle position this, leads the driver to believe they have more power than the dampened effect of Eco Mode.  There is a third control logic at work also but, as its effects are noticed far less in this cae its not really worth complicating the issue with derivative values control.

I also miss for not getting a vrs, although I would have really wanted a petrol one (obviously I cant drive around with fake exhaust :p) but am still not sure if I could really afford a fuel. My current car with DTUK box uses 7L/100km as long term average.

Ripon to Newark yesterday via A1 at the speed limit saw 42 Mpg. Not as good as 50+ for the diesels but if you aren't doing high mileage it's not too bad on the pocket.

As for the 184bhp being more, why would the manufacturers understate the output? Is the torque output and delivery vastly different to the 150bhp version?

neiln, I think you've fallen foul of misunderstanding that the mode selection actual works on both proportional and integral control logic, in Eco there is a far longer integral therefore, throttle reactions is far slower or has more throttle lag.  In Sports mode the integral is very short combined with a higher proportional output from the same input or throttle position this, leads the driver to believe they have more power than the dampened effect of Eco Mode.  There is a third control logic at work also but, as its effects are noticed far less in this cae its not really worth complicating the issue with derivative values control.

okay so you've explain the control logic theory (the third part is presumably differential), and you're right that its not just throttle position (proportional) but time related too, but aren't we saying the same thing?  I.e.   there is no more power available in sport....it just comes ..all of it right away.

Ripon to Newark yesterday via A1 at the speed limit saw 42 Mpg. Not as good as 50+ for the diesels but if you aren't doing high mileage it's not too bad on the pocket.

As for the 184bhp being more, why would the manufacturers understate the output? Is the torque output and delivery vastly different to the 150bhp version?

I'm always surprised when people worry about fuel consumption so much

IMVHO 42mpg from a 2.0 litre turbo is amazing When compared to similar engined cars from the past, (Sierra Cosworth, Saab 9-3,etc.) & when compared

with 50 mpg from a 2.0 litre diesel it's not much difference in the cost of the trip, bearing in mind that diesel fuel costs more than petrol in the UK.

 

DC 

Ripon to Newark yesterday via A1 at the speed limit saw 42 Mpg. Not as good as 50+ for the diesels but if you aren't doing high mileage it's not too bad on the pocket.

As for the 184bhp being more, why would the manufacturers understate the output? Is the torque output and delivery vastly different to the 150bhp version?

VAG engines are renowned for putting out more power than is actually stated. The quoted figures are probably the minimum you could expect.

I'm always surprised when people worry about fuel consumption so much

IMVHO 42mpg from a 2.0 litre turbo is amazing When compared to similar engined cars from the past, (Sierra Cosworth, Saab 9-3,etc.) & when compared

with 50 mpg from a 2.0 litre diesel it's not much difference in the cost of the trip, bearing in mind that diesel fuel costs more than petrol in the UK.

 

DC 

I drive my 1.4 TSi the same as I drove my Saab 9-5 2.3t.

 

Fast. Very fast.

 

The Octy gives me around 40 mpg per tankful. The Saab gave me around 26mpg per tank.

 

I don't worry about fuel consumption any more.

 

(Give or take an inch or two, no more, the Saab and the Skoda are the same size. But the Skoda's around 300kg lighter.)

VAG engines are renowned for putting out more power than is actually stated. The quoted figures are probably the minimum you could expect.

That might explain why the 105 PS Octavia has better acceleration and top speed but worse fuel consumption than the 125 PS Focus. Sure, the Focus is heavier, but it's not that much heavier.

Ripon to Newark yesterday via A1 at the speed limit saw 42 Mpg. Not as good as 50+ for the diesels but if you aren't doing high mileage it's not too bad on the pocket.

As for the 184bhp being more, why would the manufacturers understate the output? Is the torque output and delivery vastly different to the 150bhp version?

 

Certainly feels it. according to superchips standard dyno tests, the 184 puts out 391nm, the 150 339nm. Thats nearly

17% more.

Edited 1 June, 201511 yr by carrock

And the transmission ratio is 4.5 to 6.2% shorter on the 150BHP compared to the 184BHP.

That means that (at same rpm) the max torque actually transmitted to the wheels will be overall ~82% lower than for the RS, fully aligned with the difference in engine available power.

 

The max force of taction will consequently apply in the same proportion as the max power difference.

Delta in potential acceleration will obviously be lower as the same frictional forces can be expected for both, and the RS is supposed to be slightly heavier.

Edited 1 June, 201511 yr by JPH0091

VAG engines are renowned for putting out more power than is actually stated. The quoted figures are probably the minimum you could expect.

True.

Skoda brochure quotes 197 bhp / 200 ps for the '12 Superb 2.0 TSi, but according AMD Tecknik's dyno = 211 bhp before. After, who knows....

VW quoted 207 bhp for my '10 EOS, same 2.0TSi engine, but AMD found only 196 bhp. before, so it needed a little tweaking. Again, after's who knows but definately better

both performance & economy, as is the Superb..

I'm always surprised when people worry about fuel consumption so much

IMVHO 42mpg from a 2.0 litre turbo is amazing When compared to similar engined cars from the past, (Sierra Cosworth, Saab 9-3,etc.) & when compared

with 50 mpg from a 2.0 litre diesel it's not much difference in the cost of the trip, bearing in mind that diesel fuel costs more than petrol in the UK.

 

DC

The MPG from the MIII is marginally better than my MkII. I don't worry about fuel consumption or I would have bought a diesel. However I do understand why other people with higher annual mileage, funded like myself from their own pockets, would worry about fuel costs.

There isnt loads between a 150 and 184 but the 184 will still be notably perkier from behind the wheel.....I guess 34 more horses and 44 lb/ft torque will make themselves felt even if the vRS is a fair chunk heavier than the regular 150 TDI engined cars.

As per another thread on here I do also think that Skoda do underplay the vRS's accelerative capabilities....I reckon its comfortably a sub 8 secs 0-62 car and in gear will pull noticeably harder than a 150 too.

All that said I will still attest that a 150 TDI Mk3 is as quick as a Mk2 170 CR vRS more or less which is impressive given the power and torque deficit on paper.

okay so you've explain the control logic theory (the third part is presumably differential), and you're right that its not just throttle position (proportional) but time related too, but aren't we saying the same thing?  I.e.   there is no more power available in sport....it just comes ..all of it right away.

Yes I agree no more total power available but, "all of it ...right away" means the power delivery, current speed to target speed is faster in Sport than Eco due to the integral control or time delay of the Eco mode, a bit like having to write on a postit note, wind down the window and slide it under the bonnet to get it to go faster.

On a manual car if you press the accelerator down until it clicks against the "kickdown switch" it places the car in normal mode until you come off the button.

I think its a safety measure to allow you to give it stink in Eco in the event you need to.

_{Only one way to sort this out...}

 

_{http://www.rwyb.co.uk/index.php}   

Everyone knows that L&Ks are the fastest, especially in white. Even faster if you fit Smartgate and use the MotorSound app in Sports3 mode.

 

Anyway, off down the pub now to brag about PS and Nm's.

Everyone knows that L&Ks are the fastest, especially in white. Even faster if you fit Smartgate and use the MotorSound app in Sports3 mode.

 

Anyway, off down the pub now to brag about PS and Nm's.

 

It would be even faster if you added wunderbaums!  

 

But agreed, L&ks are the fastest

We've now got the 150 manual scout and 184 dsg vrs in the stable - despite it having only 6 miles on the wife decided to drive the scout like she stole it on the way home and to be honest on the B roads she was probably a bit quicker away than me in the vrs as the dsg isn't so great for the back roads.

Sure we'll get chance to see what they are both like on different roads over next few days and weeks, but in real life conditions can't see much in it really.