220 Vs 280 TSI

[penguin17]

Well now in advance talks on a cost to change.  Just waiting on settlement/p-x figures to be sorted by a dealer and I'll make a decision from there. 

 

It's defo the 280 I'd like but as I've said above, if it's not feasible just yet then I'll save my pennies and try again later in the year. 

[Rainmaker]

1 hour ago, Brenticles said:

I love my 280, I immediately boxed it to an alleged 350.

Whether it does hit that figure is anyone's guess, but it removes what I thought was the totally smooth delivery of power of the 280 and gives you a more hairem scarem kick in sports mode.

+ on average the box gives you an extra mpg or two (Brushes over the fact I can only run it on 98RON or above)

 

Done 30k miles in it now and still brings a smile to my face

Glad I went for it over the more sensible 220 option.

 

The 280 asks for >98 RON anyway, it’s a false economy not to. 

[penguin17]

15 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

 

The 280 asks for >98 RON anyway, it’s a false economy not to. 

Do the TSI units still suffer from the carbon deposit build up around the injectors? Particularly if lower RON/quality petrol is used? 

 

My old TFSI was awful cold starting, sounded like a Ducati (bag of spanners). It would tick over, think about it then almost stall.  Skoda recommended some Shell Optimax and avoid 95 RON supermarket fuels.  No more problems and lesson learned. 

 

 

[Rainmaker]

23 minutes ago, penguin17 said:

Do the TSI units still suffer from the carbon deposit build up around the injectors? Particularly if lower RON/quality petrol is used? 

 

My old TFSI was awful cold starting, sounded like a Ducati (bag of spanners). It would tick over, think about it then almost stall.  Skoda recommended some Shell Optimax and avoid 95 RON supermarket fuels.  No more problems and lesson learned. 

 

 

 

Thats the first I’ve heard of that mate. Unless you’re referring to the back of the valves due to DI? The new gen3 engine has both direct and multi point injection systems to keep everything clean (actually installed for emissions reasons, however). Regarding carbonisation of injectors I’m unsure what octane would have to do with it as even with advanced timing you’re still burning the same fuel. The fact higher octane fuels usually have more detergent perhaps? 

[paul_7_7_7]

Looks like OP has already made the right choice, but I'll add my opinion anyway. If you're asking the question then you need the 280. I drove both before getting the 280 Sportline, the 220 was just permanent traction control intervention if you tried to use the power with the wheels not pointing straight ahead. The 220 was a quick drive, the 280 adds the smiles. Unless you are tight on fuel money I can't see you regretting the 280, buy the 220 on the other hand and every time that traction control light flashes the same question will come to mind - why didn't I get the 280?

 

 

 

[penguin17]

On 1/16/2018 at 19:38, Rainmaker said:

 

Thats the first I’ve heard of that mate. Unless you’re referring to the back of the valves due to DI? The new gen3 engine has both direct and multi point injection systems to keep everything clean (actually installed for emissions reasons, however). Regarding carbonisation of injectors I’m unsure what octane would have to do with it as even with advanced timing you’re still burning the same fuel. The fact higher octane fuels usually have more detergent perhaps? 

It was a long time ago now but when I looked into what the dealer was telling me, it seemed to be quite a common issue with the TFSI unit, particularly the early versions, e.g; 

 

https://www.torquecars.com/volkswagen/2-0-tfsi-tuning.php

 

I was told that higher octane fuels tend to burn a little cleaner and Optimax apparently had a detergent in it too.  It seemed to work as the car stopped feeling hesitant on cold start. 

[eurotraveller]

On 16/01/2018 at 17:13, Brenticles said:

I love my 280, I immediately boxed it to an alleged 350.

Whether it does hit that figure is anyone's guess, but it removes what I thought was the totally smooth delivery of power of the 280 and gives you a more hairem scarem kick in sports mode.

+ on average the box gives you an extra mpg or two (Brushes over the fact I can only run it on 98RON or above)

 

Done 30k miles in it now and still brings a smile to my face

Glad I went for it over the more sensible 220 option.

Suggest you get the performance supposedly added by that box checked on a dyno. Should cost around £60. You may be quite surprised and disappointed by the figures. The good news is that the manufacturer should be able to adjust it remotely. Feel free to drop me a line on this.

The extra mpg is almost certainly a mirage – discussed elsewhere on this forum.

Fuel / RON also much discussed here. 98 hard to find in UK anyway and I’m meanwhile convinced 95 will do just fine. As I mentioned in the discussion at the time, while Porsches are (unsurprisingly) all recommended to run on 98, a Porsche Centre salesman told me “we are under instruction to run all our cars on 95”. What's good enough for a Porsche is good enough for my Skoda.

[penguin17]

9 minutes ago, eurotraveller said:

Suggest you get the performance supposedly added by that box checked on a dyno. Should cost around £60. You may be quite surprised and disappointed by the figures. The good news is that the manufacturer should be able to adjust it remotely. Feel free to drop me a line on this.

The extra mpg is almost certainly a mirage – discussed elsewhere on this forum.

Fuel / RON also much discussed here. 98 hard to find in UK anyway and I’m meanwhile convinced 95 will do just fine. As I mentioned in the discussion at the time, while Porsches are (unsurprisingly) all recommended to run on 98, a Porsche Centre salesman told me “we are under instruction to run all our cars on 95”. What's good enough for a Porsche is good enough for my Skoda.

350 could be doable as I don't think they're actually giving a ~70bhp improvement; from what I've seen on forums the early Golf R's and Cupra 280's were pushing 300-305 bhp from the factory.  So a 40-50bhp improvement is more believable.  The Superb is probably the same. 

 

Makes a bit of a joke of SEAT 'refreshing' the Cupra with a 290 and then a 300 version.  I bet the discontinued 265 was already doing 280 from the factory anyway.   

[eurotraveller]

350 doable, yes; easily. But unlikely ‘out of the box’ (sorry). A specialist VW tuner local to me, who has a dyno, runs an Audi S3 producing nearly 600 – his answer to my question what’s the most you’ve got out of an EA888.

Yes, of course these factory output figures for one and the same VW engine are just marketing, brand-ranking bovine excrement.

[eurotraveller]

PS: I don’t know, but seriously doubt that factory output figures are ever understated by the manufacturer; more likely pretty much always overstated: insurance / liability and all that.

[Alan_P]

Manufacturers routinely understate power figures mostly due to Lemon Law litigation. I’ve read articles where VW group engineers say it’s so that the vehicle can achieve the stated output at the worst possible altitude and climate conditions, but not being sued is probably important too. There are also the cross company deals such as the hilarious 276bhp gentleman’s agreement with Japanese manufacturers.

 

If your car is properly serviced it should easily be getting 10% over factory figures and the tuning companies play on this all the time. Their dyno figures are often real, but they provide the “official” figures as a base (instead of actual) for the before and after stats.

 

[eurotraveller]

Hmm, interesting and also makes sense. However, what about my assumption that higher-than-specified factory output could legally have the same effect - if push came to shove - as a private individual adding power via a 'box' and not telling their insurance? Only in this case some deep-pocketed manufacturers could be liable?

 

I may go and spend the £60 (again) to find out the factory output of my particular engine...

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, eurotraveller said:

Hmm, interesting and also makes sense. However, what about my assumption that higher-than-specified factory output could legally have the same effect - if push came to shove - as a private individual adding power via a 'box' and not telling their insurance? Only in this case some deep-pocketed manufacturers could be liable?

 

I may go and spend the £60 (again) to find out the factory output of my particular engine...

The issue is not whether the manufacturer has been a bit conservative with engine power figures - engine power figures are not fixed, but depend on ambient conditions anyway (although less so in these days of fancy ECUs I suppose). As the owner you can’t be expected to know that the power output is a little above nominal, however insurance companies not only know this, but aren’t in the habit of putting your mangled wreck on a dyno to prove the point! What the insurance co. will rile against is an owner modification (unless approved by them). 

[Alan_P]

1 hour ago, eurotraveller said:

Hmm, interesting and also makes sense. However, what about my assumption that higher-than-specified factory output could legally have the same effect - if push came to shove - as a private individual adding power via a 'box' and not telling their insurance? Only in this case some deep-pocketed manufacturers could be liable?

 

I may go and spend the £60 (again) to find out the factory output of my particular engine...

 

If a manufacturer is liable for something then they would probably have been sued already… especially in the USA. Would you change your driving style in any way if you were told you had 10% more power? The vast majority of cars can greatly exceed speed limits already and it could be argued that more available power can be safer in certain circumstances. There would be a problem if you got this extra power intermittently, but I can’t see any liability for a constant higher output. If it was a risk I’m sure they would provide a disclaimer… “output may vary” etc.

I also think the insurance risk will (mostly) be levied against the type of owner that purchases/requires a tuning box more than additional performance. Limited assessment data of the modification won’t help either. I’m sure that underwriters are well aware that they understate the figures.

[penguin17]

Maybe it's like speedo's.  They can read within a certain tolerance over but aren't allowed to be under?   

 

 

EDIT:  The dial that measures speed, not the pervy swimming attire

Edited 19 January, 2018 by penguin17

[penguin17]

UPDATE: 

 

I've been speaking to a dealer and have now got some concrete quotes for a 280 with the exact same spec as my current TDI.  In monthly payments it's affordable but I also enquired about a SEAT Leon ST CUPRA 300 4drive.  More kit than than the Superb and a little bit cheaper.  Admittedly the thought of another estate does appeal.  Though I had a Leon ST before the Superb and whilst it was faultless I just never 'bonded' with the car; though it was another diesel and not a 300ps junior S4 avant. 

 

I remember thinking when I first tried the Superb that it was a noticeable step up in quality from the Leon and I still think the Superb is a quality item, regardless of what you're comparing it to.  Whereas with the Leon (CUPRA), take away it's near identical performance and slightly more practical boot, will alway feel a bit low rent and just not as nicer a place to be.  FWIW the difference between the two is £45 p.m.  Now to decide whether that is worth it or not 

 

More to think about...

 

 

[eurotraveller]

Apples and oranges, surely? Yes, the same drive train, but…

As my wife will probably be upsizing, I recently toyed with the idea of downsizing to Golf R for more fun. However, apart from the stupid money involved - Golf R like for like lists north of £45k (OK, discounts available and all that, but still) - I was put off by basically how little car that is for the money. Add the fact I do lots of long journeys where the long wheelbase will always be nicer and it was case closed; my appreciation of the Superb was reaffirmed.

 

[PSM]

Are you saying the Leon has a more practical boot than the Superb?

But as above they are not really the same. For example I am getting a Superb because I want more rear legroom for the kids which a Leon would not give. So which offers the best value or the best for you depends on what you need. If you do not need a car as big as the superb then there will most likely be better cars for you.

[penguin17]

33 minutes ago, PSM said:

Are you saying the Leon has a more practical boot than the Superb?

 

Leon estate Vs Superb hatch, yes indeed.  The Leon has actually got a bigger boot than an A6 Avant.  It's a very practical car but as you've said and we've since found out ourselves, the leg and general room in the Superb is in a different league!   It makes log distance travel much more relaxing.  Also having fast growing 7 &10 year olds means the Superb will be more than adequate.  

 

 

[EddGee]

I’ve just literally changed from a Cupra 280ST to a Superb 280 4x4. 

 

I can say the boot space is very similar and you’ll hardly notice the difference. If anything the Superb seems bigger. 

 

Already there’s a huge difference in build quality and overall finish of the car. 

 

My Cupra was a great car but I was very disappointed with the low grade plastics and loose feel of some of the controls. 

 

The Superb genuinely feels like a Bentley in comparison. 

 

I don’t remember my 2010 Octavia vRS being so plush as this Superb. I knew Skoda were good but not this good. 

[penguin17]

14 minutes ago, EddGee said:

I’ve just literally changed from a Cupra 280ST to a Superb 280 4x4. 

 

I can say the boot space is very similar and you’ll hardly notice the difference. If anything the Superb seems bigger. 

 

Already there’s a huge difference in build quality and overall finish of the car. 

 

My Cupra was a great car but I was very disappointed with the low grade plastics and loose feel of some of the controls. 

 

The Superb genuinely feels like a Bentley in comparison. 

 

I don’t remember my 2010 Octavia vRS being so plush as this Superb. I knew Skoda were good but not this good. 

Perfect! Thanks for this.  Agreed on the quality and finish differences in the Leon vS Superb, we had the FR ST for 3 years before the Superb.   I also used to have an Octy vRS!  Stop car stalking me  

 

 

 

 

[PSM]

I see, comparing estate to hatch. I would imagine the superb is bigger if only take below the cover but the extra headroom in the estate means it is slightly bigger overall.

[MorrisOx]

The Cupra ST estate is a big load lugger definitely, but boot space is nearly 40 litres short of the Superb hatch and 70 litres down on the estate.

 

But we’re only counting horses here...

[Jonnie5kelso]

POWER 

[Fuzzball]

Coming at this from the opposite side, having just done 650 miles in my 220 i wasn't expecting the amount of wheel spin i get off the line.

 

No regrets as its a beautiful smooth drive, great spec and hit my budget for the family wagon but if i could have all that and better traction i wouldn't say no.