After months and months thinking about what car to get I have narrowed it down to either a Octavia vRS or a Accord Type R, I'm looking to spend at most

Yeh vrs m8

the accord tyre r is no quicker then my moter

Oh dear...

Coming on a Skoda forum and asking a question like that is only likely to get one response............buy the Octy!!!.

Personally I have no experience of the Honda but I do have experience of the Octy as do many others on here. My advice is to do your research thoroughly before you take the plunge and buy one, get a good one and it will serve you well

If your planning on tuning the engine up. Go for the octavia.

Accord Type R everytime...

My old man had one for 3 years as a company car and it knocks seven shades out of the Octavia. The Octavia *might* be slightlt easier to live with though and in the real world there is very little difference in how quick they are. Of course the Accord is quicker, but you are *very* likely to be caught napping off the VTEC zone and then your in trouble against something like a vRS with a lot of torque low down.

But, handling wise, the Octavia cannot hold a candle to the Type R. Most of the magic to the way a FWD car handles lots of power is the diff, and the Accord did it the correct way. A beautifully calibrated LSD. Put your foot down in an Accord on a roundabout and it won't power understeer it will tuck in as the LSD pulls it round by sending power where it needs it.

Niggles to the Type R? It really does need a 6 speed box and it is not very practical because the solid bulkhead fitted behind the rear seats to improve the rigiditiy of the shell means the folding rear seats got binned...

If you want any information about the Type R then PM me. As well as living with one, I know it was my Dad's but I drove it at least once a week, I also worked for a Honda supplier and we had some bits on it and other cars.

A mapped vRS will murder a ATR, I'm running 240bhp and they dont rate in the same league for speed. But coming from a ITR myself the handling is of course in a lower league.

So if your doing more motorway driving the vRS is by far the best choice, but if your adding a lot of twisty's into the frame then thats when the ATR fights back.

But having had the vRS now for 6 months I am getting used to driving a totally different style through corners than when I was in the ITR, and heres hoping a new set os Zero Neros in every corner will even better than.

Thanks for your input Guys

Which car would cost the most to run do you think? The Honda has to have 99 super unleaded, I think, also I think they have a known gearbox problem.

Is the vRS and expensive car to service correctly?

So far the ITR I had was a little cheaper all in all, mostly for two reasons.

First being Honda introduced Honda Happiness, that meant a fix priced service which for me reduced the price the Stealers charged for working on the car. So far I haven't had a Skoda service, but I spose if you choose the variable servicing it would save a fair bit of money on servicing.

Second the Honda had far less luxuries, and the more luxuries a car has the more it seems to go wrong. Sayin that I've only had a problem with the aircon and the blower for the fans, and it's more of a problem with the Stealers than Skoda themselfs.

To be honest for me it would be down to what kind of car you want and the budget you have.

If I had to make a choice, it would be the vRS as there a fair few more reasons to buy than the ATR, but that said both are cracking cars!

Depends what you want, if you want a car with all the power above 5k rpm or a car with power from as low as 3k rpm.

The Honda will teach you to change gear and chase the redline, not that this is a bad thing of course. You don't have to drive the vRS as hard to get to the power.

Personal preference.

Yeh vrs m8

the accord tyre r is no quicker then my moter

I think you'll get a "better" Octavia at that price than the Accord. As others have said, if you're planning of modifying the car, buy the Octavia as it can easily be tuned to be faster than the Accord. On the flip side, if you're leaving things standard go for the Accord.

Which car would cost the most to run do you think? The Honda has to have 99 super unleaded, I think, also I think they have a known gearbox problem.

The ATR will cost ore to run. Honda's have always been expensive to service, even the base models. And ATR's have a fairly healthy appetite for tyres... Rears don't last that much longer than the fronts because they run 1.5 degrees negative camber on the back, so unless your giving it death through the bends all the time they just eat the inside edges. We got through

Check out the Accord's placing in Warranty Direct's reliability index

Chris

I'd be interested to know what the gearbox problem is... Ours had a weak syncro on 5th when it went, but I have no knowledge of whether it was a one off or a common fault.

That is the commom problem, which in the end means a rebuild of the gearbox, I'm not sure if it only effected early cars though.

The Accord Type R was the "other" car i considered when i bought a vRS...

My brother had a CTR and after driving my vRS for a few weeks i couldnt get on with having to rev the nuts off the honda for it to perform.

The vRS is an easy car to live with, can return very good MPG figures and doesnt cost a fortune to insure, service or run day to day.

Yes the ATR would be the better drivers car but to my mind you have to sacrifice more than i was willing to get what is really not that much of an improvement over the Octavia.

Again, if your looking to modify which ever car you buy then the vRS is going to give alot more bang for your buck.

After months and months thinking about what car to get I have narrowed it down to either a Octavia vRS or a Accord Type R, I'm looking to spend at most

This thread has been dormant for 8 months.

And Matt hasn't been on since Xmas day! I wonder if he bought the vRS in the end?

Chris

Doesnt the octavia 5 sp have gearbox problems aswell?

Have to say for allround drivers car the Accord wins, cheaper modifiable motor would be the VRS but both are very good in there New price brackets at the time

E.g accord was 22grand compaired to 15k for octy so compairing like for like is a tad unfair really.

This thread has been dormant for 8 months.

(a) no longer dormant!

( useful info for others in the future

Had a ride in an ATR recently (not fast, so can't comment on performance!) Felt very claustrophobic for some reason. The roof can't be that low, as I'm 6' and the fella that owns the car is taller than me. All the same, I spent the eintire time thinking my head was going to hit the roof...

Had a ride in an ATR recently (not fast, so can't comment on performance!) Felt very claustrophobic for some reason. The roof can't be that low, as I'm 6' and the fella that owns the car is taller than me. All the same, I spent the eintire time thinking my head was going to hit the roof...

Oh, and the engine may sound great, but everything else sounds tinny as anything. It must be made from tinfoil...

Hi

I had an Accord Type R for 7 years and 101,000 miles and now have a Fabia vRS so I think I can comment for you.

If you want easy turbo pulling power and 35mpg go for the Octy.

If you want VTEC fun and superior handling go for the Type R.

I ran mine on Shell V-Power (and Optimax before that) and on a normal urban run across dual carriageways and towns would get around 32mpg.

you must have driven it like a big girl my Type R avgd about 18mpg across the 15000 miles I had it for.

Depends what you want, if you want a car with all the power above 5k rpm or a car with power from as low as 3k rpm.

The Honda will teach you to change gear and chase the redline, not that this is a bad thing of course. You don't have to drive the vRS as hard to get to the power.

Personal preference.

:iagree: