VRS 0-60 times

[EddGee]

Hi folks. 

 

Just wanted to know if anyone has actually timed their own 0-60?

 

Specifically in the FL vRS 245?

 

Curious to know what the results are if people have done so as the manufacturers quite often provide figures well below what the actual car is actually capable of. 

 

Seems silly to short change public when a more accurate and better 0-60 would boost interest and sales. 

Edited 12 October, 2018 by EddGee

[gregoir]

Read independent road tests from Autocar, for example. They have the skill and experience to launch cars without any compunction about damaging transmission or melting tyres and also have accurate timing equipment. I don't think manufacturers fib about the 0-62kph times and are occasionally conservative in their claims.

Trying your in gear times may be more feasible.

[ahenners]

5 minutes ago, gregoir said:

Read independent road tests from Autocar, for example. They have the skill and experience to launch cars without any compunction about damaging transmission or melting tyres and also have accurate timing equipment. I don't think manufacturers fib about the 0-62kph times and are occasionally conservative in their claims.

Trying your in gear times may be more feasible.

 

Just looked this up through back issues... Autocar timed it at 6.9 for 0-60 2 up in a manual estate. 16th August 2017 is the issue in case anyone wants to find the full piece on the 245 

[Ootohere]

grigoir,

 What nonsense, they / manufacturers can have a VW / Audi that has the same engine / gearbox and BHP / Nm Torque showing as quicker 0-62 mph than a lighter Skoda or Seat.

As to Autocar / What Car they sometimes do real world tests.  Those can reveal that cars, roads and drivers are all different.

Then they forget to mention what they had the tyre pressures at and did the VW Media team have in Unleaded or Super unleaded petrol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 12 October, 2018 by Offski

[EddGee]

I must admit I’ve not tried it yet. 

 

It it would be difficult to get an accurate 0-60 without the proper equipment but I would definitely say the car feels a lot a faster than the manufacturers suggest. 

 

In fact it feels almost as quick as my old 280 Cupra estate. That was a claimed 6.1s to 60 for the manual. 

 

Estimate around 6.0 seconds now. 

Edited 12 October, 2018 by EddGee

[Ootohere]

0-60 & 0-62 (100 kph)  times are going to be different and that extra 2 mph can make quite a difference, 

i wish Reviewers and Official Figures are sticking to one or the other.

 

With that Kodiaq Review, if he was driving the car regardless of going off on holiday he was in the car, was the timing not done then and there, 

i hope it was not timed from the inaccurate speedo.

 

On the VW Polo GTI Manual 3 door, that was nonsense.  VW surely could have put up a 5 door.  & Auto Express should have had them on the scales.

Also filled the tanks of both with either Unleaded or Super Unleaded and not take what VW or MINI hand them over with, 

and also check the tyre pressures they get the cars handed over with.

The Polo GTI 192ps 320 Nm Manual is supposedly lighter than the Polol GTI 192 ps 250 Nm DSG (DQ200) and VW give them the same 0-62

yet the DSG was faster when out head to head.

[shyVRS245]

There is an APR video with stage 1 VRS245 DSG which consistently recorded 5.5 second 0-100kph (62mph). Auto Express recorded 6.6 second 0-60mph in a manual 245 against VW Golf PP manual which did 6.2 seconds at the same test track.

[JamiePvrs]

Mine might be a bit quicker. Red cars are always faster

[penguin17]

3 hours ago, gregoir said:

Read independent road tests from Autocar, for example. They have the skill and experience to launch cars without any compunction about damaging transmission or melting tyres and also have accurate timing equipment. I don't think manufacturers fib about the 0-62kph times and are occasionally conservative in their claims.

Trying your in gear times may be more feasible.

Erm....

 

It turns out that most EA888 TSI engines are vastly underrated when they are put in the lesser VAG brands, such as SEAT and Skoda.  I've heard first hand from a guy who helped develop a remap for the 280 Cupra that the ECU mapping on that car was nigh on identical to the Golf R and S3.  In the Golf R and S3 had a claimed 296 bhp and in the Cupra it had claimed 276 bhp but when it came to a dyno test all were producing ~310 bhp.  I can wholly believe the 276 bhp engine in the Superb 280 is pushing out over 300 bhp at the engine and a recent poster on here, from Australia actually seen 308 bhp on a dyno run.    Look on most VAG forums and the higher output EA888 is often pushing out well over 300 bhp.    

 

Very clever marketing for SEAT to produce a Cupra 280, then a 290 and then the 300...all the same ECU map and the only significant differences were a badge, more £££'s and an exhaust on the 3 and 5dr hatch which allowed better flow. 

 

The Superb 280 records 5.0-5.2 secs in most data logged tests and not the 5.6 Skoda claim.  Not exactly massive differences but the type of numbers that show the engine is likely running 20+bhp more to what is claimed. 

 

Someone in the Octavia 3 forum also posted their 227ps Octavia was producing over 250bhp, might have actually been over 260...

 

 

 

  

Edited 12 October, 2018 by penguin17

[Ootohere]

Mk2 Fabia vRS & Polo GTI & Ibiza Twinchargers were 180ps (minimum) & 250 Nm & the A1 185ps 250 Nm and all could put out about 188ps and more than 250 Nm, 

and then the Ibiza was discontinued for a while as so many engine failures and there was a 150ps Ibiza FR produced, & that was just as quick and funnily could put out over 180ps on Super Unleaded.

Then the Revised engine was fitted to the Cars and the CTHE was 180ps and could put out over 190 ps on super Unleaded.

When they discontinued these engines the Polo GTI got the 1.8TSI 192ps Engine, 320Nm manual and 250Nm DSG 

and they put out a bit more, but not much on 95 ron, but more on 99/100+.

 

 

I distrust Car Reviewers and journalist because they do not question manufacturers.

 

If you test 3 sister cars and they are different, and there is an estate as well.

You might wonder why so different, you might mention the VW & SEAT are on 215/40 R 17 tyres and no Spare wheel as standard and the VW battery is in the boot.

You might wonder how the estate version which is 9 3/4" longer than the Hatch you are testing is said to be 5 kg lighter.

Maybe wonder why the Skoda hatch can not have a towbar for towing, neither can the estate but the VW & SEAT can.

You might actually put the cars on a weigh bridge.

Funnily the Skoda Hatch will be lighter than the other 3.  Even when sandbagged with Ballast on the rear crash bar.

While every Manufacturer goes for lighter, VW have Skoda Design, Manufacture, test , Type Approve extra weight so that the front end goes light.

The hatch is still really lighter than the other 3, but the 2 Skoda & the SEAT are a higher VED band than the VW, 

well for 2 years then the SEAT comes down a band after the new engines that they all get, but the Skoda's do not have the C02 g/km changed.

Vorsprung Durch Technik.  

Just fiddle things.

 

What must those Ballast Weights have cost to design and manufacture and the cost of material?

Just to fit as 'Success Ballast' because it was the cheapest, and cheap can not be quicker.

Diesel Mk2  Fabia Monte Carlo Hatches did not need these extra weights fitted to 'balance' the car.

 

If the Skoda had no weights on and no spare inn the boot it could be quicker than the VW Polo GTI, 

and then that would be quicker than the VW Golf GTI.

But then it actually is qucker even with the weights on, and the spare wheel out, and no need for the 215/40 R 17 tyres, 

but they can help with the 0-62 times.

The estate can be even quicker because of the rear springs and the front not going light.

 

 

 

Edited 12 October, 2018 by Offski

[Ootohere]

eg.  Estate Longer roofs make a difference, but man get a grip, really this much in a sprint from a standing start!

 

 

 

 

 

Fool proof launch control in the hands of a fool.

 

 

 

Edited 12 October, 2018 by Offski

[181ce]

Find out for yourself

There's a 0-60 test thingy in the Skoda one app

One of the fewthings it's useful for

I daresay it's as accurate as any timing gear

For those interested 1.0 hatch is 9.9 seconds 

Exactly as officially quoted

 

[shyVRS245]

19 minutes ago, 181ce said:

Find out for yourself

There's a 0-60 test thingy in the Skoda one app

One of the fewthings it's useful for

I daresay it's as accurate as any timing gear

For those interested 1.0 hatch is 9.9 seconds 

Exactly as officially quoted

 

WOW that's scary quick. Hope you wore a helmet and full race harness.

[teescom09]

0 - 62 is not very relevent. It is completely dependent on getting the traction which FWD is crap at from a standstill. Hence the 4wd trounce them 0-62 and so do rwd to extent. The relevant times are 30 - 70 or 50 - 90. Most of the cars mentioned are basically the same with each another. Unfortunately Skoda isn't allowed the powerful  versions apart from the 280 in the Superb, but even then they nicked 30hp off it. The Achilles heal of the Octavia is it's size and weight compared to Golf, Leon, Focus, i30N etc etc.  I love it for its size and practicability having the original (and best!!) 230 Estate and the performance makes it a lot more fun. But if I want a more exciting  drive and superior handling I use my Focus ST3 250.  If I didn't need the size I certainly wouldn't make a VRS my hot hatch 1st choice, would be a a few down the list especially the ugly current one 

[181ce]

7 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

WOW that's scary quick. Hope you wore a helmet and full race harness.

It is very impressive

Remember little iffy bitty tiny 3/4's of an engine

My lawnmower it 652cc FFS

Unfortunately some of us have to insure a 17yr old

.......

 

[shyVRS245]

9 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

0 - 62 is not very relevent. It is completely dependent on getting the traction which FWD is crap at from a standstill. Hence the 4wd trounce them 0-62 and so do rwd to extent. The relevant times are 30 - 70 or 50 - 90. Most of the cars mentioned are basically the same with each another. Unfortunately Skoda isn't allowed the powerful  versions apart from the 280 in the Superb, but even then they nicked 30hp off it. The Achilles heal of the Octavia is it's size and weight compared to Golf, Leon, Focus, i30N etc etc.  I love it for its size and practicability having the original (and best!!) 230 Estate and the performance makes it a lot more fun. But if I want a more exciting  drive and superior handling I use my Focus ST3 250.  If I didn't need the size I certainly wouldn't make a VRS my hot hatch 1st choice, would be a a few down the list especially the ugly current one 

You wouldn't see the front of mine in your rear view mirroe for very long, even in the Focus.

[ahenners]

1 minute ago, shyVRS245 said:

You wouldn't see the front of mine in your rear view mirroe for very long, even in the Focus.

 

Here we go... Top trumps again. 

 

A Focus ST 250 isn't going to be left for dust on public roads at legal speeds by a remapped 245. 

[shyVRS245]

5 minutes ago, 181ce said:

It is very impressive

Remember little iffy bitty tiny 3/4's of an engine

My lawnmower it 652cc FFS

Unfortunately some of us have to insure a 17yr old

.......

 

No kids for me so more money to spend on car related fun and less for insurance as well. Cheaper holidays for me and SWMBO too. We plan to spend everything because no-one to leave anything to.

[shyVRS245]

9 minutes ago, ahenners said:

 

Here we go... Top trumps again. 

 

A Focus ST 250 isn't going to be left for dust on public roads at legal speeds by a remapped 245. 

It was meant as a joke but sometimes people have that FRIDAY sense of humour failure sensation. In 11 days the remapped 245 will have more FIREPOWER than the latest FOCUS RS. Top Trumps I win again.

[john999boy]

At the risk of keeping this thread off topic, it still won't have more firepower than numerous others so can that please be the last of TT'ing! 

[shyVRS245]

13 minutes ago, john999boy said:

At the risk of keeping this thread off topic, it still won't have more firepower than numerous others so can that please be the last of TT'ing! 

YES SIR.

[JamiePvrs]

But we all agree red is the fastest?

[Ootohere]

Silver or Metallic Grey has the cloak of Invisibility, maybe that will come on fast vRS when Skoda do those.

[Muzza80]

I got 5.66secs without really trying too hard.

 

I reckon in the right conditions, with a bit of practice, low 5's would be achievable.

 

My car is running around 330bhp though.

 

 

Edited 12 October, 2018 by Muzza80

[shyVRS245]

27 minutes ago, JamiePvrs said:

But we all agree red is the fastest?

ONLY when it shaped like a van or a police car.