Auto express tested the vRS 2.0T vRS against Seat Altea with the 170 diesel lump.

The petrol car peed all over it in every category acceleration wise.And the fuel consumption was not far off the diesel.

Was expecting the diesel to wipe the floor mid range.Nope.Petrol was the winner.

Think it will be pointless paying a premium for a diesel octy vRS unless anyone can think of one single reason why it would be better:confused:

Torque----Fuel Consumption.......Resale value higher....possible lower insurance.......That's 3 more than a single reason !!!

I don't believe the mid range was better in the petrol because I've driven one and it wasn't better than the furby mid-range.

Surprised fuel consumption is that close when cruising tbh, that said you can probably keep the revs pretty low

OK good comparison - in standard form.

What about chipping potential? Isn't that another reason for going diesel?

"Once you've done diesel, there's no going back.................."

Diesels traditionally last longer because fo the lower RPM's. High mileage drivers will stick with the diesel.

I don't believe the mid range was better in the petrol because I've driven one and it wasn't better than the furby mid-range.

What equipment did you use to time it?

OK good comparison - in standard form.

What about chipping potential? Isn't that another reason for going diesel?

"Once you've done diesel' date=' there's no going back.................."[/quote']

Turbo petrol's have just as much 'chipping potential' and if you want to mod further then they have a lot more potential.

I'm waiting for the 2.0T FSI 4x4 MKII.

I'm waiting for the 2.0T FSI 4x4 MKII.

I dont think that would ever be released because of people like Eddy, Bengie and you etc...!

I shant be after one for at least 9 months - but if they coul drelease one in the future I'd buy it.

The 2.0TFSI is a torquey engine for sure, I can totally believe its as good as the 170PD equivalent in the mid range. But as economical - total bull****e.

That's a very interesting article which would suggest that the (chipped) 140bhp engine is still the engine of choice for high-mileage drivers?

Chris

. But as economical - total bull****e.

Not 'as'economical,just not far off if I remember.30 as opposed to 35.Probably to be expected(like the 2.5 tdi is not that economical.

The real point that gets me is the mid range.Suppose insurance might possibly be a plus for the diesel.Otherwise I think Chris is right.Buy a sport 140 and save

Kick a mapped Fabia vrs's head in, really hard, get 18 mpg. Kick a mapped 2.0 fsit's head in, equally hard - 8 mpg.

On a day long test drive of the new octavia, my mapped Fabia out pulled the Octavia, in top gear, everytime. The Octavia would not pull away from the Fabia until well into 3 figures.

Standard diesel vrs vs standard petrol vrs, I would take the diesel thanks.

Buying to modify, i'll keep my petrol.

The only advantage over petrol is fuel economy, and insurance. resale value is nonsense, as you pay a premium for the diesel anyway.

Autoexpress have had some dubious tests before.

I'll wait to see what others say, but i don't believe it outpulling in the mid range when the PD170 has that much more torque.

How about saving me

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha screw you diesel lovers with your *massive torque figures*

petrol is am the best so live with it!!

diesels are for tight a$$'s and the disillusioned that think they are saving money when they still only do 12k a year.

P.S. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha screw you diesel lovers with your *massive torque figures*

petrol is am the best so live with it!!

diesels are for tight a$$'s and the disillusioned that think they are saving money when they still only do 12k a year.

P.S. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:orb_lol:

What equipment did you use to time it?

My a$$!

That's all the equipment I need

Walkie - it's not the way you read it!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha screw you diesel lovers with your *massive torque figures*

petrol is am the best so live with it!!

diesels are for tight a$$'s and the disillusioned that think they are saving money when they still only do 12k a year.

P.S. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:rofl:

I don't believe the mid range was better in the petrol because I've driven one and it wasn't better than the furby mid-range.

I owned a furby and now a mk2 octy vRS, the octy is very deceptive, mid range mine is very strong and I can run to 6.5k rpm whilst the furby would run out of gear.

I love furby's, and is some ways miss mine but the mk2 vRS is quick.

The 170 vRS, would it not be heavier, less powerfull. It's got remap potential, but so has the 2.0T, and having driven a revo'd 2.0T I would say it is at least the equal of a remapped furball in the midrange

My a$$!

That's all the equipment I need

Walkie - it's not the way you read it!

ey??

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha screw you diesel lovers with your *massive torque figures*

petrol is am the best so live with it!!

diesels are for tight a$$'s and the disillusioned that think they are saving money when they still only do 12k a year.

P.S. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I piggin' hate diesels :grumpy:

However, doing 50-70k miles per year I think it is wise to have one :( Or am I just being tight?

As for depreciation, whatever car I have is worth far call after 3 years and 150-200k miles

A diesel vRS will keep more of it's initial value than a petrol vRS after the same term and mileage.

However many people choose diesel over petrol so it kind of offsets the "saving" with the residual value.

The diesel vRS will be a totally different drive to the petrol vRS so I wouldn't even bother comparing it. I would compare the TDI vRS to Ford ST TDci Mondeo or something.

What could a 170bhp unit be chipped to?