This morning I wrote a long piece about the above and lost the entire essay into the ether. I apologise profusely to the recipient (if there was one). I am barely computer literate.

Anyway, I just wanted to allay any fears that any of you aspiring VRS diesel owners might have with regards to a mysterious (and, it seems to me, as yet unexplained) "spike" in the delivery of power (or is it torque - who knows?) by the new VRS 170bhp diesel.

Chaps (and chappesses), I am happy to tell you it ain't so. I drove a petrol VRS a few months ago and a diesel VRS on Friday last because I'd been thinking of replacing my BMW 320d touring co. car in a few months' time with another Skode (we have a Mk1 Petrol L & K from new with 105,000m on the clock and we've been very happy with it - particularly the heated front seats...). I actually wanted to try the legendary DSG box but more of that later.

I was expecting the VRS to be a bit of an animal with the "spike" manifesting itself in a sort of sudden and perhaps unexpected overboost leading to severe torque steer and consequent reduction in steering control. But really, come on, I know its got a lot of torques (no idea what 350Nm is in lb/ft but assume about 275. Anybody?), but its only 170 brake! Its nowhere near what is regularly put through the front wheels of some cars (including its cousin!). If anything, its too little if you ask me but my driving favours torque rather than power so the 350 whatsits are fine by me.

My abiding memory of this car is that the throttle response is excellent (much better than a standard 320d), that 6th gear is usable on M/ways rather than being just an overdrive, and that 4th and 5th are all you'll probably ever need for very rapid and safe over-taking.

Yes, the engine "roars" on full bore take-offs (eg from side road into main road) but I, who generally hates the sound of a 4 cylinder diesel, actually quite liked this sound. I wonder whether Schkoda has tuned the exhaust in some way. It also, incidentally, handles okay: the steering's well weighted, the thing feels properly planted and the seats appeared to have been designed for my modest form. But aren't heated. Why, Skode? I bet the elements are in the seats anyway. I've come to like a little light toasting of the botty before the heating comes on.

Its the engine's smooth and predictable (rather than spiky?) delivery that was so unexpected. This is a car which would prefer you to drive it quickly if you wouldn't mind. Its not for pussyfooting around on give an take roads when you could be driving rapidly and the thing which in my mind sets it above the petrol VRS is the fact that you don't need to change gear so much whilst maintaining rapid forward motion. I would be interested to see the difference in (flying) lap times between the two cars. Not much I'd bet. Ask the Audi le Mans team.

Moreover, the rather characterful gruffness of the engine is perhaps more involving than the petrol. Yes, I know it doesn't rev like a petrol and VW PD engines are not exactly cutting edge common rails, but its got a ton of torque and it goes steamingly well. As one who has come recently to the conclusion that the secret of interesting driving is not to drive a fast car fast (anyone can do that) but to drive a slow car fast (James Hunt, who first proposed this dictum I think latterly drove an A35 van - oddly my first car - and said that he was able to drive it flat out everywhere. I wish I'd listened all those years ago) I think 170 bhp is ample (provided, of course, you've got lots of torques....)

As an unreconstructed petrol head, I'm going to come clean here: I preferred it to the petrol. Phew, glad I got that off my chest.

All of which stuff has put me in the horns of a dilemma. You see, the thing is, I originally asked the dealer (Fish Bros in Swindon - very helpful) if I could try a DSG. I do 22 to 25K miles a year, much of it on the M5, and I like auto boxes on the whole. Conversely, I don't like the drop off in economy and acceleration. The DSG doesn't seem to drop much because its an automated manual box. No slush of a torque converter. Sounds interesting.

Fish Bros couldn't lend me the 2.0 DSG, only the 1.9, but no matter, the point of the test was the box not the grunt. I suppose the test of a good auto box is its "set and forget" nature. A tiptronic feature might be useful but I doubt it would get used much if the box is good.

Well, I did forget! I drove for a couple of miles talking to the very nice saleslady before I realised that I was supposed to be appraising this thing called DSG. I simply hadn't noticed any changes at all. They are utterly stepless. I didn't have enough time to try to beat it and I wouldn't expect it to be perfect. However, to those folk who complain about slow initial acceleration or slight slipping backwards, I say use your left foot for braking. It takes a bit of practice but, once you've mastered it, you'll never look back. As for the lack of initial acceleration, its also caused by the lack of torque and power below 1800 rpm. Its a diesel! If you want full bore acceleration, hold your left foot on the brake and lift it off a fraction after you accelerate with your right. Its probably not very good for the clutches but nor is this sort of treatment exactly good for any part of the car.

So, my dilemma. Do I go for the sensible option of 2.0 DSG L & K with heated bottom or just sod it and go for the VRS and have a cold one? My heart says the latter and my wallet doesn't really disagree in terms of economy. It can be driven on M ways at 74 mph in cruise all day long. But the L & K is far better appointed isn't it? But then it has higher CO2 emissions... Oh lordy.

Mr S, could you see to it that the VRS diesel comes with a DSG, paddleshift, automated rev blip on change down and heated seats BEFORE I have to make a decision. If you come out with one like this afterwards, I'll never speak to you again.

Finally (and thank you for bearing with me for so long - I've enjoyed it anyway), can someone tell me whether the "topoftherange" Audience ICE is always an option or whether it is standard in some models? If it is an option, is it worth the extra money?

Dilly

The post that you can't find is here http://www.briskoda.net/forums/new-octavia/car-buy-argh-wish-i-knew-what-i-wanted/69122/4/#post794187

Dave.

This morning I wrote a long piece about the above and lost the entire essay into the ether. I apologise profusely to the recipient (if there was one). I am barely computer literate.

Anyway, I just wanted to allay any fears that any of you aspiring VRS diesel owners might have with regards to a mysterious (and, it seems to me, as yet unexplained) "spike" in the delivery of power (or is it torque - who knows?) by the new VRS 170bhp diesel.

It's torque. Power is "rate of doing work" and is merely the product of torque and angular velocity & a constant, which depends on your chosen units.

I don't know who ever said it was a spike, but it's actually quite flat (but lots of it) It's just that it tails off quite rapidly as the revs get higher. As with all turbo installations there is a significant difference in torque between on and off boost.

I can't imagine why anyone would find it hard to drive such a car or be alarmed by it - they must be used to having to have the pedal to the metal on a Fiat Panda 1.1 or something just to get the impression of movement.

I would be interested to see the difference in (flying) lap times between the two cars. Not much I'd bet. Ask the Audi le Mans team.

Is your driving all about constant high speed, then? I'm not sure what relevance this lap time thing has to real world driving, unless like me, you do a lot of motorway miles. I take the point that unless you do a lot of fast country road stuff the diesel is fine (but where you may be going from 10mph to XXmph frequently, you'll find that you are changing gear more often in a diesel and a well driven TFSI will certainly leave you behind - but why would anyone really care?).

Moreover, the rather characterful gruffness of the engine is perhaps more involving than the petrol.

Try the Golf GTi - it sounds different to the TFSI Skoda, and both are very sweet, especially when you press on. I can't see how the gruffness compares favourably; have you just lightly pressed the clutch an inch or so on the diesel and seen how much the thing vibrates?

VW PD engines are not exactly cutting edge common rails

No they are not the best, and I certainly like the BMW diesel sixes, but you can argue that the PD system is in fact multiple common rail, which is an expensive way to eliminate common rail problems (by isolating the pulsing affecting fuel delivery pressure between cylinders). The PD is an integrated pump and injector system. I suspect the newer Audis are dropping it mostly because of cost...

I say use your left foot for braking.

Have you neen rallying then, or are used to cars that creep? If you are reasonably awake in any car with electronically controlled clutches (DSG or otherwise) you don't need to do this. Even in my wife's Smart (a dreadful car, BTW), I can take off cleanly on a steep hill just by moving from footbrake to throttle without dawdling (it isn't fitted with the auto-braking anti-rollback device BTW). My wife just uses the handbrake because she is patient. I suspect left-foot braking and throttle is going to wreck the clutch a lot faster!

So, my dilemma. Do I go for the sensible option of 2.0 DSG L & K with heated bottom or just sod it and go for the VRS and have a cold one? My heart says the latter and my wallet doesn't really disagree in terms of economy. It can be driven on M ways at 74 mph in cruise all day long. But the L & K is far better appointed isn't it? But then it has higher CO2 emissions... Oh lordy.

Go for the L&K with DSG, you don't really seem like someone who needs the extra bit of power or the silly boot spoiler. You may consider the Golf equivalent 170 diesel which I *think* you can get with DSG, or a petrol GTi with DSG.

Steve

I don't understand the suggestion that the 170bhp TDi PD engine has a torque 'spike'. Having found a graph of the power and torque (on Superchips - Rediscover the joy of the open road) the torque curve seems to be really good and fat over a wider than usual, for a diesel, rev range. Also once Superchipped the torque curve is even stronger AND fatter without seeming to tail off at higher rpm as often happens.

Please see 'attached' the Superchips graphs for 170bhp TDI PD, 200bhp TFSI - vRS Petrol and 2.0L 140bhp TDI for comarisons.

As for the decision of 170bhp TDi vRS OR 140bhp L & K with DSG; if it is a Company car remember that the L & K with DSG costs more than a vRS and has a higher CO2 level so your TAX will be higher. Yes it has the comfort equipment but not quite the sportiness and looks of the vRS.

I'm aiming for a vRS (TDI) myself with a Superchips upgrade making it over 200bhp!!

PS; I've worked out a simple memorable formula to convert Nm to Lb Ft for torque - take the Nm divide by 3, multiply by 2 and add 10%. It is 98% accurate and easily done.

skoda20tdi170.pdf

skoda20tfsi.pdf

octavia20tdi.pdf

Thanks Steve.

I tend to drive economically these days - 74 on the motorway, that sort of thing - and mostly within speed limits. However, I do find I like to drive quickly when the opportunity arises on a "good" road. I imagine we all do. My point about the comparative track times was merely that, since we are, after all, dealing with performance cars here, it was reasonable to ask because I don't think there would be much difference. The diesel would be driven on torque (ie less gear changing) than the petrol. Read nothing into it.

I want an estate car and, because I do high company mileages, I definitely don't want to be putting 98 RON into my co car! Don't expect to see a GTi estate though I suppose there might be a Golf 170 brake diesel Estate. There more expensive than Skodas though aren't they?

I've always left foot braked in an auto car, but not for setting the car up rally style, more for smoothness. Honest John of the D Telegraph is of a like mind incidentally. However, you correctly gathered that I was concerned about this method specifically with a DSG because its got clutches rather than a torque converter. Nonetheless, I don't tend to use both at the same time (and it may not even be possible given that this is a VW product).

Incidentally I did 10 yrs rallying (RWD Escorts) and a similar period racing a Caterham 7. And never left foot braked!

the dill

thanks bahnstormer.

Very handy formula. I just googled it - its Nm divided by 1.357 - so your calc is spot-on.

Bit alarming having 241 bhp through the front wheels of a GTi I should imagine or am I being sad now? The Superchip torque curve for the bare bones 2.0 PD looks a bit lumpy up to 1500 rpm don't you think? Wonder if a DSG box would take 400 Nm...

the dill

My point about the comparative track times was merely that, since we are, after all, dealing with performance cars here, it was reasonable to ask because I don't think there would be much difference. The diesel would be driven on torque (ie less gear changing) than the petrol. Read nothing into it.

OK, I guess I don't really see a VRs diesel as a actual perfomance car per se, more a warmed up standard saloon. If you can, try a 140 with DSG, and then see if that for your planned usage the extra bhp really matters so much. I think you are looking for an overall package.

I definitely don't want to be putting 98 RON into my co car! Don't expect to see a GTi estate though I suppose there might be a Golf 170 brake diesel Estate. There more expensive than Skodas though aren't they?

You can use ordinary unleaded, and it's 5p cheaper than diesel in a GTi. You won't see a Gti estate sadly, which is odd since you can get the Skoda TFSI in an estate form - have you tried one?

Yes, the VWs are more expensive, but having owned both, I can say the JD Power stuff is misleading - the extra quality of the VWs is worth the extra money, like it is with a BMW (but the BM has slightly different values). Sadly most people don't see the detailed differences between Skodas and VWs to see how Skoda have made many of the cost savings, I bet the Skoda margins are pretty big.

I've always left foot braked in an auto car, but not for setting the car up rally style, more for smoothness. Honest John of the D Telegraph is of a like mind incidentally. However, you correctly gathered that I was concerned about this method specifically with a DSG because its got clutches rather than a torque converter. Nonetheless, I don't tend to use both at the same time (and it may not even be possible given that this is a VW product).

LF braking - that's very american, but I guess one has do what comes naturally. I think it's clunky myself. And I wouldn't pay any attention to anything in the Telegraph; does honest John drive much when he's not getting a free lunch, or does he just taxi around London all the time?

Incidentally I did 10 yrs rallying (RWD Escorts) and a similar period racing a Caterham 7. And never left foot braked!

Hats off - I remember the road BDAs as well the Rally cars. The LF braking technique was often used to deliberately destabilize FWD and 4WD cars, in the same way you may have used the handbrake in the Escorts.

Probably a different thread, but since the idea of comparative performance between diesels, and betwen petrol vs. diesels, has inevitably come up, we can see all the torque v. power arguments and the 0-62 time versus 50-70 in gear arguments come round again.

Speaking as a (hopefully) objective and numerically literate engineer (although not automotive sadly), it occured to me that the most useful comparison would involve a performacne index, not dissimilar to the "brawn index" Car magazine used in the 80's.

One idea would be to plot the curve of a car's speed from rest to max against time., with the driver making the fastest possible progress through the gears.

It takes into account the faster step off of petrol cars, and the wide power bands, but also diesels may well show spikier curves for burst of a few seconds owing to their big torque.

Clearly a "quicker" car will have steeper curves for each gear than a slower car, indicating acceleration (ds/dt).

Now, it seems to me that relative "brawn" could be indicated by integrating the speed curve against time ie. the area under the curve between say 0 and say 15 seconds, at which point a fairly good car should be doing about 100mph. It's similar to the old standing quarter measure, but it also reveals in-gear increment potential.

Anyone follow where I'm going with this and see its possible usefulness?