Skoda Octavia vRS breaks 200mph barrier at Bonneville Speed Week

galwaytt

savagecabbages wrote: »

What do they have to do to impress people? 210mph, 220mph?

...and here's me breaking my balls trying to get my 1.0 Yaris to 209.7864mph.

Fuggin' 'ell - that last 10.2136mph will be the death of me......

...fuggit: Corolla gearbox it is then..........




hey Lightning - could you hook me up with a 'box ??

Absurdum

Fensport Corolla ftw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtQ5aVHTMk

Guy:Incognito

If your goign to do things liek that you may as well do it in something with room for the kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaW_35KPDBY

kyote00

the real story here is not the skoda but the unmodified vw passat tdi that filmed the whole thing....

EPM

kyote00 wrote: »

the real story here is not the skoda but the unmodified vw passat tdi that filmed the whole thing....

Ah lad, it was felt though

savagecabbages

kyote00 wrote: »

the real story here is not the skoda but the unmodified vw passat tdi that filmed the whole thing....

passat tdi

tvercetti

Octavia VRS.................€32,000
Tuning to 500bhp..........€50,000
Roll of Duct Tape..........€4.99
Hitting 200mph.............Priceless?????????????

btkm8unsl0w5r4

2005 BMW M5 - 22k
Remove Limiter - 300 euro
Hitting 200 MPH - 22,300 euro

Whats the fuss about, Only the americans get worked up about this.

vectra

Or just buy a Hayabusa

pburns

Meh, it's a good PR stunt by the Skoda people, especially involving an independent journalist from a petrol-head mag. Fair dues. It looks like they're committed to the VRS thing which is good news in these PC tree-hugging times.

Vectra however...your deification of the Octavia VRS and borderline aggression towards dissenters in the earlier posts is a bit scary there man...

vectra

pburns wrote: »

Vectra however...your deification of the Octavia VRS and borderline aggression towards dissenters in the earlier posts is a bit scary there man...

Sorry ?

JJJJNR

PBURNS! Pot calling the kettle black.

r3nu4l

The Skoda 200mph got a mention on the Chris Evans show on BBC2 this morning.

thirtythirty

All well and good, but I don't think Ned Flanders would ever drive that fast, all he want's is the boot for the cake bake sale.

dgt

Been done since 1988...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQigN057dMw

JJJJNR

Keira Orange Pool wrote: »

2005 BMW M5 - 22k
Remove Limiter - 300 euro
Hitting 200 MPH - 22,300 euro

Whats the fuss about, Only the americans get worked up about this.

Replacing tyres, doors, engine, and suspension AFTER 1st run to 200mph - 22k

Tea 1000

I think the most disappointing aspect of the article is the 500bhp. That's not a lot. Mitsubishi had a 400bhp production car from a 2 litre engine about 8 years ago, and there's a big difference between a tuned engine and a production one.
Fair play at the same time though. Anything that goes quick is good.

cpoh1

Matt Simis wrote: »

Forgot to add: I would be impressed if they could take Renault Sport on at their own game and make leading 'Ring times on a FWD platform, shaming RWD and AWD prestige alike. A efficient track spec version with more stock components that was made available to buy as a complete car or a dealer approved performance pack.

And this sums up my issue with the vRS Octavia. Ive always seen this as a marketing model and not a real dedicated effort towards a performance model of a run of the mill production car from VAG. It certainly doesnt stack up compared to the efforts of hondas typeR brand and in recent years the renaultsport packages. Even compared to audis S models and VW R versions they are way behind with the vRS range in Skoda.

Releasing a diesel version with 170hp and branding it as a hot hatch sums up their effort. They branded a mundane car to make sales, not to design/build a noteworthy performance car for a niche market. Its making skoda money and fair play to them but its not a performance car.

cpoh1

JJJJNR wrote: »

Replacing tyres, doors, engine, and suspension AFTER 1st run to 200mph - 22k

Why would you think that? I managed 175mph on numerous occasions on the autobahn on the way to the ring with my skyline a few years back with no ill effects. 200mph isint that big a deal.

Matt Simis

JJJJNR wrote: »

Replacing tyres, doors, engine, and suspension AFTER 1st run to 200mph - 22k

What are you on about? Doors? Engine?

Delimited E60 M5s are doing this or very close to it with regularity. My old Phaeton and much older BMW are doing very very close to this speed too.

JJJJNR

Can't do 200mph on Irish roads and expect your teeth to be still in your head, never mind the rest of the car intact.

vectra

dgt wrote: »

Been done since 1988...

What size engine was that V10?

Skoda used a tiny 2.0 litre 4 cyl.

cpoh1 wrote: »

And this sums up my issue with the vRS Octavia. Ive always seen this as a marketing model and not a real dedicated effort towards a performance model of a run of the mill production car from VAG. It certainly doesnt stack up compared to the efforts of hondas typeR brand and in recent years the renaultsport packages. Even compared to audis S models and VW R versions they are way behind with the vRS range in Skoda.

Releasing a diesel version with 170hp and branding it as a hot hatch sums up their effort. They branded a mundane car to make sales, not to design/build a noteworthy performance car for a niche market. Its making skoda money and fair play to them but its not a performance car.

True, the vRS is not a performance car ( Though it is no slouch either)
But I think you are missing the point of it.
the vRS is in league with the Golf GTi
NOT thr R32.
I think you are getting confused with some of the cars you are comparing it to,

cpoh1 wrote: »

Why would you think that? I managed 175mph on numerous occasions on the autobahn on the way to the ring with my skyline a few years back with no ill effects. 200mph isint that big a deal.

2.0 engine in your skyline I assume as you are comparing like for like?

Matt Simis wrote: »

What are you on about? Doors? Engine?

Delimited E60 M5s are doing this or very close to it with regularity. My old Phaeton and much older BMW are doing very very close to this speed too.

2.0 engine in an M5 is there?

r3nu4l

vectra wrote: »

True, the vRS is not a performance car ( Though it is no slouch either)
But I think you are missing the point of it.
the vRS is in league with the Golf GTi
NOT thr R32.

Um, I own a 2.0L TDI 170PS quattro A3 and wouldn't compare it to a GTI. True it's no slouch (0-60 in 7.8 s) but the GTI pushes out a lot more power than that.

However, I take your point, the vRS is not meant to be a comparator to the S3, RS3, R32, type R etc. However, the badging of it, to make it look as though it is something really special is a problem.

My 170 PS A3 has no special 'R' badging simply because it's not that special compared to the S3 or RS3.

Ok the vRS may be the most powerful Skoda engines but they aren't hugely powerful compared to other 'hot hatch' badges out there (type R, RS3, ST etc).

JJJJNR

Your power saping quattro would take a lot of that 170bhp though compared to a 170bhp FWD, so you cant really compare.

vectra

LIGHTNING wrote: »

From another forum;

CC's is Cubic Capacity

Not really the same as forced dynamic dispalcement though.

I do get where you are coming from but as the old saying goes.
"There is no substitute for CC's"

vectra

r3nu4l wrote: »

Um, I own a 2.0L TDI 170PS quattro A3 and wouldn't compare it to a GTI. True it's no slouch (0-60 in 7.8 s) but the GTI pushes out a lot more power than that.

However, I take your point, the vRS is not meant to be a comparator to the S3, RS3, R32, type R etc. However, the badging of it, to make it look as though it is something really special is a problem.

My 170 PS A3 has no special 'R' badging simply because it's not that special compared to the S3 or RS3.

Ok the vRS may be the most powerful Skoda engines but they aren't hugely powerful compared to other 'hot hatch' badges out there (type R, RS3, ST etc).

Sorry,
I should have been more specific in my comment.
The vRS Petrol is comparable to the GTi golf and is in the same league

Quazzie

vectra wrote: »

The vRS Petrol is comparable to the GTi golf and is in the same league

That might be the marketing ploy of Skoda dealers but in reality there is no comparison.

vectra

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I suggest you read what I posted. As for that saying its a classic but its doesnt really mean too much.

I suggest you write to Skoda and tell them they are wrong,
it was entered in the 2,000cc class. under official ruling...How can it be any different.

Also,
To put it that 200mph is nothing to impress.. it is not far off the record of 216 which is their next target.

Quazzie wrote: »

That might be the marketing ploy of Skoda dealers but in reality there is no comparison.

The only difference I could see is that the golf is an overpriced smaller car.

Matt Simis

vectra wrote: »

2.0 engine in an M5 is there?

I was replying to JJJJNR's weird comment about M5s falling apart at 200mph..

vectra wrote: »

CC's is Cubic Capacity

Not really the same as forced dynamic dispalcement though.

I do get where you are coming from but as the old saying goes.
"There is no substitute for CC's"

The saying is "there is no replacement for displacement". In terms of driving feel this is true, but in terms of performance forced induction is obviously the route to take. This speed run VRS may have 2.0Litre CC but once you factor in its base model is boosted and this example is mega boosted, its utterly irrelevant.

EPM

Quazzie wrote: »

That might be the marketing ploy of Skoda dealers but in reality there is no comparison.

I've driven both in petrol form and there is quite a lot comparable. GTI has it licked on looks and handles a little better though.

Given a choice I'd have the GTI.

dharn

EPM wrote: »

Some posts here are getting too personal. Leave it out please.

YA THE HANDBAGS ARE OUT

BostonB

How about a Vauxhall Victor?

http://www.turbosmartonline.com/index.php?id=561
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blackcountry/content/articles/2006/11/09/redvictor_feature.shtml

Big Nasty

BostonB wrote: »

How about a Vauxhall Victor?

http://www.turbosmartonline.com/index.php?id=561
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blackcountry/content/articles/2006/11/09/redvictor_feature.shtml

Meh!

BostonB

I'd reply but thats blocked where I am at the moment.

SouperComputer

Most semi-decent engine builders found a replacement for displacement in the 50's. It's called volumetric efficiency.
CC doesnt stand for "Cubic Capacity", that would be pointless as it doesn't specify a unit of measurement! It stands for Cubic Centimeters, which is a unit of measurement.

200 and 216MPH are quite a bit different. You are looking a 100BHP (probably more) on top of the 500 they have right now. If they get the car to 220, ill be impressed. Until then, its like someone else said "500BHP car does 200MPH".

r3nu4l

JJJJNR wrote: »

Your power saping quattro would take a lot of that 170bhp though compared to a 170bhp FWD, so you cant really compare.

Not really. The Ocatavia 170PS TDI vRS is actually slower (8.3 s) to 60MPH) than my 170 PS TDI quattro (7.8 s), that's thanks to the fact that all four wheels are putting power to the ground so it takes off quicker.

THall04

Not sure if this was mentioned already, but dosen't the salt surface at Bonneville make a big difference to the top speed of cars normally run on tarmac?
Remember the Top Gear episode when they ran a 630bhp Corvette there a few years back, the best they got was 175mph....about 30mph less than it's regular top speed.

On a normal test track , that Skoda would probably go a lot faster.

Matt Simis

THall04 wrote: »

Not sure if this was mentioned already, but dosen't the salt surface at Bonneville make a big difference to the top speed of cars normally run on tarmac?
Remember the Top Gear episode when they ran a 630bhp Corvette there a few years back, the best they got was 175mph....about 30mph less than it's regular top speed.

On a normal test track , that Skoda would probably go a lot faster.

Problem highlighted.

TestTransmission

r3nu4l wrote: »

Not really. The Ocatavia 170PS TDI vRS is actually slower (8.3 s) to 60MPH) than my 170 PS TDI quattro (7.8 s), that's thanks to the fact that all four wheels are putting power to the ground so it takes off quicker.

ahhhhh,2 litre diesel drivers boasting about 0-60 times.

r3nu4l

TestTransmission wrote: »

ahhhhh,2 litre diesel drivers boasting about 0-60 times.

Not a boast, just a comparison. Nothing to boast about really. I remember before telling people on this forum that it was ridiculous to call a (petrol) car that was only 0.5 s faster (0-60) than mine a 'hot hatch' because my car wasn't a hot hatch.

vectra

SouperComputer wrote: »

Most semi-decent engine builders found a replacement for displacement in the 50's. It's called volumetric efficiency.
CC doesnt stand for "Cubic Capacity", that would be pointless as it doesn't specify a unit of measurement! It stands for Cubic Centimeters, which is a unit of measurement.

200 and 216MPH are quite a bit different. You are looking a 100BHP (probably more) on top of the 500 they have right now. If they get the car to 220, ill be impressed. Until then, its like someone else said "500BHP car does 200MPH".

I stand corrected.
BUT
Me being old school then I remember these things by what i was taught when in my younger days.
it appears to be still a widely used term though.

http://www.scooterhelp.com/tuning/defs.ccs.html

SouperComputer

THall04 wrote: »

Not sure if this was mentioned already, but dosen't the salt surface at Bonneville make a big difference to the top speed of cars normally run on tarmac?
Remember the Top Gear episode when they ran a 630bhp Corvette there a few years back, the best they got was 175mph....about 30mph less than it's regular top speed.

On a normal test track , that Skoda would probably go a lot faster.

Maybe someone can chime in on the specifics, but its not a top speed run, more an average speed over a certain distance measurement. Say you get 1mile to get up to speed and then you are measured for a quarter mile.
Another factor for an NA motor is the fact that the air density isnt all that great at the flats I would imagine.

Quazzie

vectra wrote: »

I stand corrected.
BUT
Me being old school then I remember these things by what i was taught when in my younger days.
it appears to be still a widely used term though.

http://www.scooterhelp.com/tuning/defs.ccs.html

It's still wrong no matter how widely used it is.

savagecabbages

Škoda tops 227 mph, claims 2.0-liter production speed record at Bonneville

If you thought a 202-mph run seemed like a hell of a pace for a Škoda Octavia, hold on to your hats, folks, because the Czech automaker's team at Bonneville has set a new record.

With a beefed-up turbocharger and intercooler, enhanced aerodynamics and the requisite safety modifications, the 600-horsepower Octavia vRS Bonneville Special set the record in the 2.0-liter forced-induction production car category with a certified 227.070 mph run. Actually, the Škoda hit a top speed of 228.647 mph through the traps on the return run, but as per regulations, that was averaged out with the 225.513 mph it hit on the five-mile run out across the salt flats.


Haters still gonna hate:p

si_guru

r3nu4l wrote: »

Not really. The Ocatavia 170PS TDI vRS is actually slower (8.3 s) to 60MPH) than my 170 PS TDI quattro (7.8 s), that's thanks to the fact that all four wheels are putting power to the ground so it takes off quicker.

I think you're slightly wrong... 0-60 is done on rollers and the biggest issue is how many gears you need to reach 62mph. Hence why bikes are dramatically faster on paper as they will do 62mph in 1st.

vectra

savagecabbages wrote: »

Škoda tops 227 mph, claims 2.0-liter production speed record at Bonneville

If you thought a 202-mph run seemed like a hell of a pace for a Škoda Octavia, hold on to your hats, folks, because the Czech automaker's team at Bonneville has set a new record.

With a beefed-up turbocharger and intercooler, enhanced aerodynamics and the requisite safety modifications, the 600-horsepower Octavia vRS Bonneville Special set the record in the 2.0-liter forced-induction production car category with a certified 227.070 mph run. Actually, the Škoda hit a top speed of 228.647 mph through the traps on the return run, but as per regulations, that was averaged out with the 225.513 mph it hit on the five-mile run out across the salt flats.


Haters still gonna hate:p

Probably will not impress some on here, But hey.. Must get a bigger turbo LOL

Tragedy

vectra wrote: »

Probably will not impress some on here, But hey.. Must get a bigger turbo LOL

Of course it doesn't impress people, because the 'octavia' used in the run has about as much to do with a Skoda Octavia VRS as a Citroen C4 WRC does with a 1.6 C4 VTS.

vectra

Tragedy wrote: »

Of course it doesn't impress people, because the 'octavia' used in the run has about as much to do with a Skoda Octavia VRS as a Citroen C4 WRC does with a 1.6 C4 VTS.

Care to explain exactly what you are trying to say LOL

1.6 vts?
C4 WRC??

2 completely different cars.

Skoda pulled a standard vRS from the factory and worked on it.

Still a 2.0 litre

Quazzie

vectra wrote: »

Still a 2.0 litre

So is the C4 WRC. What's your point? What Tragedy says still stands.

EPM

I have to agree with Tragedy. If they left the car as a roadgoing model and tried to eek as much as possible out of the car using the typical mods many owners have carried out I'd have a lot more respect for it but as it stands it's just a PR stunt.