Hi,

 

I am considering trading in my Mk2 CR vRS for a newer (albeit used) Mk3 1.4 tsi Elegance.

 

My current car is Shark stage one tuned, but i fancy a fit more comfort, refinement and a petrol engine. I do about 16.5k miles a year so would the switch be a wise choice? I'm guessing I'm going to suffer loss in shove (how much?), but are the economy figures similar in the real world? I currently average around 47mpg with my usual commute.

 

Is the mk3 worth the upgrade?

 

Any opinions welcome.

 

 

You are probably well aware of this one, but don't underestimate the significance of losing IRS.  

1 minute ago, Octy0GG said:

You are probably well aware of this one, but don't underestimate the significance of losing IRS.  

 

Hmm, i must admit that was a major flaw in my previous Honda, it completely ruined the car.

 

Is also a deal breaker in the non-vRS/AWD models?

Think AWD all have IRS regardless of engine / trim level.

 

I came to a 1.4 TSI SE Sport from a pre FL Octavia 2  1.9 TDI Elegance, mid corner bumps are the thing that really shows the newer cars more primitive torture beam at its worst.

The 1.4TSI is probably the sweet spot in the range engine-wise - refined, frugal & quick enough for most people. 

 

Engine-choice aside, the MkIII is a very nice car. 

 

I loved my MkII but my MkIII feels slightly better in nearly every way. 

 

The design is 9 or so years newer after all (2004 vs 2013 in respect of when the cars debuted). 

 

It feels lighter yet still at least as solid. 

The infotainment is much improved too. 

 

I also like the fact that everything feels familiar - e.g. controls in the same place - which I wouldn't have had if I'd changed to another brand. 

 

 

You are going to have to drive a 1.4tsi to assess how much loss of shove you can tolerate, but because the mk3 is a lot lighter than the mk2 the difference is ameliorated somewhat.

It is possible to get a chip upgrade for the 1.4tsi which could help.

 

46 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

You are going to have to drive a 1.4tsi to assess how much loss of shove you can tolerate, but because the mk3 is a lot lighter than the mk2 the difference is ameliorated somewhat.

It is possible to get a chip upgrade for the 1.4tsi which could help.

 

Yes I may well have to.

I'm a bit reluctant to go down the tuning route again, tbh. Don't these units go pop in the twincharged guise?

To be honest I wasn't blown away with the mk3 elegance I sat in the other day. Some of the trim did feel a little low rent and not the big step up from my mk2 I was expecting. Not driven one yet though. Also what's the idea of fitting headlight washers without HIDS? Can these be readily retrofitted?

The mk3 1.4tsi is not twincharged, it only has a turbocharger and a low boost one at that. That is why it provides a healthy 250Nm from about 1700 to 3500 rpm but it drops quite rapidly so it 'only' produces 140/150 bhp (4k to 5k rpm) depending on 2nd hand or newer version. Most of the figures are from memory so might not be quite accurate. The twincharger version had a lot more verve but did not have a good reputation for reliability and was never available on the mk3.

The mk3 turbocharged only unit has not had any issues and chipped version has been rigorously stressed tested by "TheManWithNoAim" with no reported problems.

Retrofitting HIDs is not really practical or economic, otherwise everyone would do it.

The mk2 was a very good car to drive, sturdy and quite well appointed. The mk3 has noticeably larger passenger accommodation but is lighter and the accountants have definitely had too much say. None the less the mk3 is still a very good drive if the roads are of reasonable quality.

 

Ok you can tweak the 1.4tsi to about 200bhp & 300odd Nm quite cheaply with a tuning box, air filter, air intake cutout & running Ron99 fuel but, the lights & the rear torture beam suspension setup may bug the **** outta you.

 

I've lived with 1.4 tsi elegance for 3 years & its nice but, it has some issues, being light it can be unrefinded, the rear end can be a bit skippy (RARB did sort this though). I got some 4350k bulbs which no further distance wise did brighten things up enough.

 

Having said that for the money its a good car with a few comforts that really do help, the 225 tyres can make spirited driving fun & it can be a jack of all trades.

 

Gotta question the purchase price difference between petrol & diesel at 3 years old as your mileage is borderline, with diesels becoming less popular you could find the purchase price ain't that different. Unless of course, you're gonna be city driving a lot, cos any excuse to tax, government will.

 

Try to get a really long test drive on some shockingly bad roads & see if you can live with compromise off the Mk3 lightness.

I think the MK3 is a better car overall, though I'm comparing a MK2 facelift VRS TSI to a MK3 VRS TSI. In your case, the change from a VRS to a model without IRS may be a step down. The 1.4 tsi engine is a decent all rounder of performance and economy, but might feel a bit weak compared to a remapped VRS CR TDI. Definitely test drive one and you will know better if that's what you're looking for as a replacement.