Following my researches here and on other forums I gather that a 'friendly rivalry' exists between 4x4 and VRS owners.

Therefore as it's Friday I thought I'd add my objective opinion on the 2 cars, just for fun. Bear in mind I own neither and am potentially in the market for both.

Isn't the VRS essentially a despecified 4x4? My thinking is thus- VRS no ESP, no side airbags, inferior rear suspension, same engine as 4x4 (drive by wire) with a different map, no Haldex and thus worse traction. It's also more of an attention grabber and thus thief magnet. Not to mention those seats that seem impossible to clean properly.

So why buy a VRS at all? Assuming of course you get both cars remapped.

I'm sure it's been done to death but I just couldn't help myself.:P

The VRS looks more sporty inside and out.

Unless you're willing to spend some money on the 4x4 then out of the box the vRS looks better, handles better and has more power.

Aimed at a different market - VRS for young sporty types... the 4x4 for sensible caravan owners and people who's kids have ponies.

Yes these are stereotypes but it's basically correct

Unless you're willing to spend some money on the 4x4 then out of the box the vRS looks better, handles better and has more power.

Eddy pretty much sums it up.

Before I got my RS I also considered the 4x4...it has a few more toys and 4x4. But it was also almost

Aimed at a different market - VRS for young sporty types... the 4x4 for sensible caravan owners and people who's kids have ponies.

Yes these are stereotypes but it's basically correct

Agreed and I think the fact people bought the original 4x4 and remapped it to make it a quick car is one of the reasons the new Octavia isn't offered with a turbo engine. Skoda never intended for owners of the 4x4 to do what the likes of Bengie and I have done.

So ignoring the cosmetic differences (I like the VRS but it draws to much attention)and considering that any 1.8T owner in their right mind would go for a remap the 4x4 is the superior car in all but braking performance?

edited to add:Is the MPG difference significant, Skoda quote 2-3mpg difference between the 2.

edited to add:Is the MPG difference significant, Skoda quote 2-3mpg difference between the 2.

Going from the Golf (basically the same as the vRS) to the 4x4 I found the difference to be more like 10mpg less in the 4x4.

So ignoring the cosmetic differences (I like the VRS but it draws to much attention)and considering that any 1.8T owner in their right mind would go for a remap the 4x4 is the superior car in all but braking performance?

yeah, whatever

VRS is about the driving experience, stiffer suspension and bigger brakes.

I've owned both and miss the 4x4, but the vRS for me at least is a much more interactive experince.

Then again I purchased the limted edition vRS which has esp, xenons heated seats and side airbags. I'm only missing the handbrake obstuction of an arm rest.

If your willing to spend money tuning, then today, both are similar at the end result.

It really does depend on what you want to do in the car. A modifed 4x4 suffers like hell on bumpy B roads if set up for track work; for which I would go for the rs as my 4x4 despite similar maps to rs's would alays get left behind.

An advanced search with me as poster will reveal a fair few posts on thoughts, pre and post my swap.

Never did understand why they did a 4x4 hatch - the estate makes sense for the people I mentioned above, but who bought the hatch?

Is there a 4x4 hatch of the new Octavia ?

one point to make: if buying secondhand the 4x4 prices seem much keener than the vRS (if you can find one - they are so exclusive )

ok and another point: And as for looks I like the raised up proper rally-car look of the 4x4, and that low low low front spoiler on the vRS has just got to be trouble on uk roads!

final point!:

edited to add:Is the MPG difference significant' date=' Skoda quote 2-3mpg difference between the 2.[/quote']

surely you will only notice the difference when cruising at high speeds due to the difference in gear ratios, transmission losses are only going to hurt the 4x4 when really pushing the traction, in which the vRS will cost you more money in tyre rubber anyway to offset the better mpg.

yeah, whatever

Sounds defensive, not to mention wholly unsubstantiated.

Bear in mind I own neither, am looking at both as an off the wall alternative to an S3. Also realise that I've owned various high performance cars ranging from highly modified Impreza turbos, Evos and the like to 993 Porsches.

What I'm really looking for here is some clarification of just why a VRS is better. Bearing in mind neither is the last word in handling prowess surely the 4x4 has to be a better bet just from an objective technical point of view- as a road car that is.

I have a Lotus for the track so that side of things is well covered.

surely you will only notice the difference when cruising at high speeds due to the difference in gear ratios' date=' transmission losses are only going to hurt the 4x4 when really pushing the traction, in which the vRS will cost you more money in tyre rubber anyway to offset the better mpg. [/quote']

I would have thought you'd notice the difference more during town driving due to the shorter ratios of the 4x4 and less so when crusing.

Tear wear may actually slightly favour the RS due to it not having 4wd....but seeing as 4X4 is only part time it probably works out to be more of less the same.

What I'm really looking for here is some clarification of just why a VRS is better. Bearing in mind neither is the last word in handling prowess surely the 4x4 has to be a better bet just from an objective technical point of view- as a road car that is.

I have a Lotus for the track so that side of things is well covered.

4x4 is only part time and from I have read here can have it's quirks.

I guess it depends on the type of roads you'll use it on....4x4 is apparently good over the twisties....the RS is much more at home on fast sweepers and gearing will probably make it better as a motorway cruiser.

I would have thought you'd notice the difference more during town driving due to the shorter ratios of the 4x4 and less so when crusing.

.

You are probably right there' date=' although depends on how much of the rev range you use. marginal probably!

Tear wear may actually slightly favour the RS due to it not having 4wd....but seeing as 4X4 is only part time it probably works out to be more of less the same.

Ah but isnt the haldex system designed so that at low speeds and tight manoeverability and everyday driving it is a fwd so wears out components less than full 4wd. and then in that tyre burning moment of madness when the right foot goes all heavy it saves the tyres by engaging all wheels? Although I supose the vRS traction control does the same thing...

Ok I submit, my arguements are fatally flawed and marginal at best! But I had to try!

Regarding the VRS and traction control, unless it's better than other VAG cars of the same era it's probably pretty useless in leaden foot situations.

My remapped PD150 was hopeless in poor traction situations, lights up like a Christmas tree and cuts all power. Only solution is to be gentle which equals slow. Similarly Cupra 225's I've driven.

Having driven some pretty quick AWD cars I have to say that's what I miss most of all. The ability to be brutish with the throttle in marginal conditions and still take off like a scalded cat. Not to mention getting on the power early out of corners.

As a 4x4 owner who previously had a fwd 1.8T I would say the mpg is terrible and goodyear eagle F1's last 6-10k and in my case wear faster at the rear than the front.

I have a Lotus for the track so that side of things is well covered.

So for a road only car, I'd go to the 4x4...cross country remapped alone it's more than capable of hanging with Scoobies, shorter spool time versus the large spool on scoobies give it a head start out of the bends. The transmission losses are far less, but still up to 20%, which is why on track it got mullered by the FWD octavia. Similar power at the fly, more weight, shorter gears, more tranny loss and a bit wobblier.

However the Rs on a similar run (talking bumpy B peak district roads here, not welsh A's) is capable of hanging, but is far more demanding to drive.

What lotus is it?

I think all bar the exige has seen a red octavia from both the rear and front in one lap.

The octy 4x4 as a off the wall S3...mine remapped quite happily level pegged an S3 in a hill climb drag in Wales (about 1 mile from rolling start).

You will possibly; as the jury is still out, get a weaker haldex unit than the S3, a weaker engine and of course less trimmings, but trimmings = weight

The ARX and AUQ do differ in turbo, on some models and the newer S3 1.8t's are stronger out of the crate, but nothing 2k on rods, pistons and valves would not cure if you were going for big power.

state or hatch, the 4x4 actually has less boot space than the RS owing to the raised floor, the hatch or estate are equally as nice and carry effectively the same, unless packing fridges, when the added internal braces on the RS will get in the way.

The RS does IMHO handle better than the 4x4 did for my type of driving; which is A roads maintaining a high avg speed. The 4x4 suits punchy manouvers and bumpy roads, coilovers alone will not help her compete with a RS on std suspension...unless you know the road :P

Hope that helps, darn it miss the wee green thing now :(

Regarding the VRS and traction control' date=' unless it's better than other VAG cars of the same era it's probably pretty useless in leaden foot situations.

My remapped PD150 was hopeless in poor traction situations, lights up like a Christmas tree and cuts all power. Only solution is to be gentle which equals slow. Similarly Cupra 225's I've driven.

Having driven some pretty quick AWD cars I have to say that's what I miss most of all. The ability to be brutish with the throttle in marginal conditions and still take off like a scalded cat. Not to mention getting on the power early out of corners.[/quote']

Tyres

But yes I do miss the haldex's almost unique ability to launch you...3k wet roundabout, gap go...

My RS does light up but tbh, the longer gears make up for it, or stick some intermediates on and have some fun.

The thing is the haldex while you can dump the power will break if constantly used this way, mechanicals always do...so driven "normally" you get no huge advantage, untill it rains

ESP is handy if your driving hard on UK roads, catches the car well, especially on undulating roads and is an option on RS's now.

Another option is neither RS or 4x4 but a 1.8t normal octaiva, if your thinking of major changes and so on...why pay for the badges, pick a *unpopular one*

HTH.

That's great Colin, just the sort of stuff that'll help me make my mind up. The Lotus is living up to her name at the moment (L.ots O.f T.rouble U.sually S.erious) luckilly it's winter and I won't be using her until the weather is better. She's an 1964 S2 Elan, not very quick but amazingly good fun to drive on track due to the light weight.

Eddy, I wouldn't be putting F1's on a 4x4 if I bought one, it would probably run on a set of Toyo Vario V1's as I take my cars to some fairly high altitudes quite often.

I have the S3 ASR on my Octy....responds more progressively than the standard ASR which just cuts everything all at once.

Being honest (and I know it is a different system) the quattro system on my Audi wasn't as perfect as I thought(that was pushing it in very very wet conditions)

Drank petrol too.Great car though

Alternatively:

The 4x4 has added weight and complexity, higher unsprung mass at the rear and costs more to buy. If you specifically need 4 wheel drive, then it is the obvious choice, otherwise why take the disadvantages?

Chris