There are people better able to comment on this than me but when I said "better" I should have said "different". If you load your car to the max, push on, and are the type that are always on the brakes then you may benefit from a 'hotter' pad. They will not fit this as standard because they are worse when cold and under gentle braking and as not everyone drives like the above they go with the best fit. That goes for the disk too although the 340s might take more heat they take more heating. As ever horses for courses. Around this size most manufacturers go for 4-pot calipers (Leon Cupra) as large diameter disks with single pot calipers do not perform that well in general but I can't see Skoda doing that any time soon.

As I said if it were mine I would be having words but if you did not specifically ask the question or it was detailed in their advertised spec then you are relying on goodwill (which can be a lot though) but whether I would be looking to change them would depend on what driving I did as I said it is not as clear cut as it first seems. The majority of Octys on the road are on 288mm front brakes,

I'm not a "boy racer" style of driver but I do drive fast when required or I want to get somewhere (hopefully a quartz grey vRS will be more inconspicuous on the motorway!). I also live and work in London so 90% of the time I'm in slow moving traffic but when it opens up, I enjoy being able to shift my car.

I remember it being in some spec I saw (cannot for the life of me remember where tho). I will be asking the question anyway and as some above have pointed out SUK are unaware of this change, so I am sure dealers are unaware as well.

Ultimately, I purchased a car on the basis of what I saw and was described. Whether it is of any real world difference is beside the point in my opinion. I would have appreciated a letter/email to say a change was happening but to change it during manufacture and not inform me is basically lying to me/hiding something.

My wife has an Octavia SE estate so know the difference. On a purely aesthetical basis, I think the 340 discs would look better but the rears really need to be increased to offer a balanced look.

Correction to this, the lad at VW has just called back, the 340mm set up comes in at £840 so there's quite a price difference.

Interesting........the plot thickens! ;-)

Correction to this, the lad at VW has just called back, the 340mm set up comes in at £840 so there's quite a price difference.

Can you ask for an official quotation and post part numbers and prices please. This is ideal Substance to use as evidence of a down grade.

 

Cheers

Probably wouldn't stand up unless someone wants to ring Skoda and do the same exercise with reg numbers from octavias they know have got the different set ups, I just did it using reg numbers from mk7 gti's with the different set ups purely out of interest.

Morning All....

 

 

Order was placed January, not sure about the build date (can you check that anywhere with the VIN?), 

 

If any dealer puts your reg number into his data base he can get the Vin Number and Build date.............

Edited 19 April, 201610 yr by Auric Goldfinger

I have spoken to SUK and a manager will contact me with 48hrs.

Part prices and numbers would be very useful.

Ideally, I would like the car as specified when I purchased it. Not to a different spec because the factory/management have decided for whatever reason.

So, does this mean 16" winter wheels can be used again?

 

Yes, because I upgraded my MK 2 Octy from 288mm to 312mm and I ran 16" Vega Alloys and 16" winter steels.

 

To be honest, with the weight of the disks, I'd be quite happy with the smaller disks, especially if they gave me enough money back to buy a set of custom carriers and some willwood calipers

Do you mean Yes it's awkward or Yes it should be mentioned?

Anyways, always nice to get a good debate going on.

I'm not really fussed as long as the car performs to specification and is safe. I'm very happy with my car.

Yes -Awkward for the dealer but only because they are only acting as agents for the manufacturer. The only thing they can do is pasx on the TDI owners disappointment caused by the cosmetic affect of the smaller discs. It's the same issue as the fake exhaust pipe exit on the diesel. I am sure that unless the TDI is driven fully laden at higher than sensible speeds through the Alps then the 312mm set up will cope well. Not sure why the TSI retains them as it's not significantly faster than my old MkII TFSI. If it was safe and economic to do so then Skoda would probably have done it, unless the marketing men ruled it out.

Not awkward for my dealer, they fully understand my disappointment and have taken up the issue with Skoda UK on my behalf.

Dealer just called back again, same answer as others from Skoda UK they no nothing about the change, he's now registering it as a technical query or something which will take another couple of days. Pretty pleased with their response to be fair, they seem as keen to get answers as I am.

The 150 TDI and TSI have 288mm front brakes...the 180 TSI and 184 TDI have 312's.

There is quite a difference in braking performance between my Octavia with 288's and Golf GTD with 312's....v noticeable.

Would changing the brakes to smaller ones not void the EU type approval. You can make things better and keep the TA but not less or worse.

Blatant penny pinching, but the end effect will be merely cosmetic. Both 312mm and 340mm discs will be sufficient to stop the car within identical distances. 340mm discs are overkill on a road car weighing so little, and may only show gains over 312mm cousins when used on track.

Agreed, think we all know deep down this has probably been nothing more than a cost issue, they've also just put the price of the car up £300 and ditched the 0% finance too. I'm just going to see what my dealer comes back with and take it from there and in the meantime enjoy what I still think is a fantastic car. It may sound a little sad but I think it'll always grate with me though, this is the first brand new car I've ever owned and it was specced in a way that I'd never look at another thinking it was "better" in any way and for me that's not going to be the case because essentially the car is different to what I though I'd ordered. It'll be interesting to see what answers people get though.

As soon as I hear I'll let you know. Skoda Uk deffinately seemed shocked themselves about the whole thing.

My car is being built this week, and like VRS1878, its my first brand new car..

I have been reading this thread with interest and am going to fire off an email to the dealer today and question this.

I have taken black design plus, so the brakes will IMO look utter pish behind the 19's now.

 

looking forward to hearing what Skoda UK have to say about the whole thing also..

Would changing the brakes to smaller ones not void the EU type approval. You can make things better and keep the TA but not less or worse.

The brake size is not detailed on the EU certificate of conformity unlike wheel and tyre size (not on any of the Skoda ones I have anyway) As the CofC is a summary of the details used in the type approval I would say it is buried deeper in the spec if at all, and not as easy to check as if it was on the CofC. I would say it would be based more on braking performance, which the 312s would meet. If it is a planned thing it would have just been done as an amendment. (You can tell this if the approval number changes from the previous ones with the big brakes)

I have no doubt that money came into it somewhere, however I cannot help thinking they are clutching at straws to make the diesels meet their claimed emission standard. Do not underestimate the effect 2.5kg (per disk!) can have on the statistics.

The size of brakes has been going down in the drive for efficiency for years. The standard GTI rear disk was 286 then 282, now it is 272 just like the bigger Octy.

The brake size is not detailed on the EU certificate of conformity unlike wheel and tyre size (not on any of the Skoda ones I have anyway) As the CofC is a summary of the details used in the type approval I would say it is buried deeper in the spec if at all, and not as easy to check as if it was on the CofC. I would say it would be based more on braking performance, which the 312s would meet. If it is a planned thing it would have just been done as an amendment. (You can tell this if the approval number changes from the previous ones with the big brakes)

I have no doubt that money came into it somewhere, however I cannot help thinking they are clutching at straws to make the diesels meet their claimed emission standard. Do not underestimate the effect 2.5kg (per disk!) can have on the statistics.

The size of brakes has been going down in the drive for efficiency for years. The standard GTI rear disk was 286 then 282, now it is 272 just like the bigger Octy.

Agreed.

Does anyone know what the overall weight difference is? Been trying to find out but can't. We could be looking at as much as 10kg here no?

Does anyone know what the overall weight difference is? Been trying to find out but can't. We could be looking at as much as 10kg here no?

I've got the disks on my bench and it is around 2.5kg per disk not exact as they are both worn but not far off, lighter calipers and smaller dust shields, I recon 7-8kg. Which is why the track boys stick to the 312s and add lighter alloy 4-pot calipers

Not wanting to upset anyone but, I doubt you'll be able to reject the car as it's not a defect, and as Skoda clearly state in the brochure (errors and omissions on spec). Unless you made it very clear and in writing that your car hand to come with 340mm brakes, I doubt you will be successful in rejecting the car. 

 

Anyway this makes the not informing and keeping information up to date like the "MY16 lack of CD player without letting buyers know" common practice for Skoda.

My dealer has just got back to me again, they've spoken to the technical team and they have confirmed the brakes on my car are correct and confirmed the size as 312mm x 25mm. When challenged as to why the brakes are different to the 340mm set up all they would confirm is that the brakes are correct, no explanation as to why there has been a change. I'm going to draft an email to customer services myself to try and get an answer but I'm not going to hold my breath on this, they've changed them end of and it would appear they don't need to explain themselves.

Following.

 

As well as the post here.

Reduction of rotating-mass (wheels, tyres brake discs etc) provides far better performance and economy gains than weight reductions anywhere else within a car. Every pound of rotating mass has to be accelerated and decelerated. One pound of rotating mass is equivalent to 2.5 to 3 pounds of unsprung or non-rotating sprung mass. Supposing the new discs are ~8kg lighter then performance and economy gains could be similar to shaving 20-24kg off of body weight. This is why most Hybrid's and EV's have skinnier light-weight wheels and puny-looking brakes.

 

Perhaps Skoda have done this to reduce emissions. I doubt this is the only reason as they would have known about the benefits of weight reduction when the car was first launched back in 2013. To me this stinks of cost-cutting.

Edited 20 April, 201610 yr by Orville

For me it's 3 things

I'm more likely to warp smaller/thinner discs-yes I could probably adjust my driving style but why should I. My MK2 I warped the discs and got loads of brake fade, but there were green stuff pads on the front and I think the car had been mapped.

Aesthetics-can't really comment more on this

Safety. Similar to point one but I feel so much more confident with the brakes on this car. Similar to the updated discs that were on my BMW's that had 6 pot diesel lumps in.

That said point 1 and 2 could be deleted until I test the new set up.

The MK3 has so much potential mapping power it's a big shame.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk