[Suraj25]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

How can there be a 1 second difference between the Octavia and the Jetta?

+1. Also, how can the TSI Octy be only ~0.3s faster than the Jetta TDI?

[aseem]

Originally Posted by Suraj25

+1. Also, how can the TSI Octy be only ~0.3s faster than the Jetta TDI?

The other cars were tested by Autocar. My car was tested by vbox sports. There are Laura's in this forums doing 8.1 😄

Plus the TSI has lower torque. So till 60 Jetta is faster. By 100 TSI gains which become higher as you reach 120 kph and so on....,

[aseem]

Just to supplement post above. My timings below:



^^ I got a better 0-60 in another run. The lowest 0-60 was 3.75 seconds. Also please note the 0-120 was faster then what I initially claimed.



In addition below are autocar timings for Skoda Octavia from Skoda's website. Obviously these are with different drivers, different driving conditions but both done using VBox Sports. My runs were far from ideal, I had tons of stuff in the boot, DSG doesnt launch well, Jetta doesnt have traction control off switch, the temperature was 40 degrees and the car was on full tank....

[Suraj25]

Thanks Aseem! The TDIs make the peak power and torque lower down in the rev range so the 0-100 timings make sense. Still wondering how the Octy is a second slower though.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by Suraj25

Thanks Aseem! The TDIs make the peak power and torque lower down in the rev range so the 0-100 timings make sense. Still wondering how the Octy is a second slower though.

Its not. Its just the different conditions, drivers and launching styles. Both tested in the same conditions will be very, very similar.

[aseem]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Its not. Its just the different conditions, drivers and launching styles. Both tested in the same conditions will be very, very similar.

You can find few tenths but finding a second would be quite difficult no matter what.
It was not like I was on ideal test conditions or Tarmac.

8.37 is a good time, I think with good road, lower fuel, and lower temp & TC off I could manage 8 seconds.

Given X3 does 0-100 in 8.1 it ain't too bad. But cars don't feel quick till you start teaching 6 seconds mark.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by aseem

You can find few tenths but finding a second would be quite difficult no matter what.
It was not like I was on ideal test conditions or Tarmac.

It's not like the 9.x quoted by Autocar was in ideal conditions either. I don't understand what you are trying to prove with your timings? That the Jetta is quicker than the Octavia? It may be, but not by a second. They both have the same engine, and the same gearbox. The Jetta is also a tiny bit heavier, due to not being on the MQB platform.

So there is really no point in quoting your timings and comparing it to Autocars, and that too of another car.

Why don't you check what autocars timings are for the Jetta 0-100? That will give us a fair idea.

[aseem]

There are stage 2 Octavia doing 7.9 seconds on this forum. But I mentioned stock figures from as quoted from Skoda's website and don't intend to start a SKODA vs VW thread here. Both have their pros and cons.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by aseem

There are stage 2 Octavia doing 7.9 seconds on this forum. But I mentioned stock figures from as quoted from Skoda's website and don't intend to start a SKODA vs VW thread here. Both have their pros and cons.

Stage 2 Octavias may not have an as big advantage since its a front wheel drive and cannot put the power down efficiently.

No one is starting a Skoda vs VW discussion, nor are we discussing pros and cons.

Those are not figures quoted by Skoda btw, they are still figures tested by Autocar which you are comparing to your own test. FYI in the manual in my vRS the 0-100 time is given as 7.9 seconds.

Compare an apple to an apple, which in this case happens to be tests conducted by the same person in similar conditions. Comparing your test to Autocars when we don't know how the car was launched in their test nor the conditions holds no value.

Either way, I'm done explaining myself and will not participate in this discussion any further.

If I'm not wrong you had booked an Octavia before cancelling and booking the Jetta. So if this comparison makes you feel better about your decision, then go right ahead. But don't mislead people.

[aseem]

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Stage 2 Octavias may not have an as big advantage since its a front wheel drive and cannot put the power down efficiently.

There are many FWD cars that do 0-100 in 5 seconds. So even though power might not be efficient there are a lot of gains to be made by doing Stage I,II & III in these cars. Specially as the TDi in Octavia/Jetta/Audi A3/A4 comes in tune of 170 with a slightly bigger turbo and different injectors. These cars on Stage II can easily do 200+. For that matter they can easily do 170-180 stock with Stage I. You can easily shave off 1-2 seconds depending on the tune from stock.

Originally Posted by akshay1234

No one is starting a Skoda vs VW discussion, nor are we discussing pros and cons.

I am not sure thats true. I posted a comparison between Jetta, Octavia & Audi A3. All of a sudden you started posting about Skoda. I didn't know at the time which car you own and nor did I want to start a comparison thread. Each is a great car in its own right.

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Those are not figures quoted by Skoda btw, they are still figures tested by Autocar which you are comparing to your own test. FYI in the manual in my vRS the 0-100 time is given as 7.9 seconds.

Well those figures are posted on Skoda India's website. If they feel they are incorrect they should change/publish new figures:

http://www.skoda-auto.co.in/Reviews/...Octavia/01.pdf

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Compare an apple to an apple, which in this case happens to be tests conducted by the same person in similar conditions. Comparing your test to Autocars when we don't know how the car was launched in their test nor the conditions holds no value.

I am not stating it holds any value. Its the only valid data I have and I wanted to share it in the forum and I didn't take into account things like wind speed, altitude, tyre life, etc.etc. You can never do that kind of comparison there will always be something variable.

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Either way, I'm done explaining myself and will not participate in this discussion any further.

If I'm not wrong you had booked an Octavia before cancelling and booking the Jetta. So if this comparison makes you feel better about your decision, then go right ahead. But don't mislead people.

Mislead is a very strong word. You are blaming me of deliberately forging something or intentionally lying. Which is not the case. I got the figures of 0-100 from Skoda's website (which any normal bloke wood), I posted my 0-100 from vBox which is the same tool that autocar uses. I also stated that there are Octavia's that can do 7.9 seconds.

Now in the same way I can say that you are getting worked up by my posts as you own an Octavia and want to feel better that yours is faster then mine?

I am sure its not the case. Please note that I totally respect Octavia but at the time of purchase didn't feel it offered the same value (pricing) that Jetta was offering and also was worried about their post sales service.

If I had to buy a car again I would most likely upgrade to an Audi or BMW. Jetta and Octavia in my opinion are essentially the same cars give or take.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by aseem

1) There are many FWD cars that do 0-100 in 5 seconds. So even though power might not be efficient there are a lot of gains to be made by doing Stage I,II & III in these cars. Specially as the TDi in Octavia/Jetta/Audi A3/A4 comes in tune of 170 with a slightly bigger turbo and different injectors. These cars on Stage II can easily do 200+. For that matter they can easily do 170-180 stock with Stage I. You can easily shave off 1-2 seconds depending on the tune from stock.

2)I am not sure thats true. I posted a comparison between Jetta, Octavia & Audi A3. All of a sudden you started posting about Skoda. I didn't know at the time which car you own and nor did I want to start a comparison thread. Each is a great car in its own right.

Well those figures are posted on Skoda India's website. If they feel they are incorrect they should change/publish new figures:

http://www.skoda-auto.co.in/Reviews/...Octavia/01.pdf

I am not stating it holds any value. Its the only valid data I have and I wanted to share it in the forum and I didn't take into account things like wind speed, altitude, tyre life, etc.etc. You can never do that kind of comparison there will always be something variable.

3)Mislead is a very strong word. You are blaming me of deliberately forging something or intentionally lying. Which is not the case. I got the figures of 0-100 from Skoda's website (which any normal bloke wood), I posted my 0-100 from vBox which is the same tool that autocar uses. I also stated that there are Octavia's that can do 7.9 seconds.

4)Now in the same way I can say that you are getting worked up by my posts as you own an Octavia and want to feel better that yours is faster then mine?

5)I am sure its not the case. Please note that I totally respect Octavia but at the time of purchase didn't feel it offered the same value (pricing) that Jetta was offering and also was worried about their post sales service.

If I had to buy a car again I would most likely upgrade to an Audi or BMW. Jetta and Octavia in my opinion are essentially the same cars give or take.

I have put points to your reply so I may reply with more ease. Let me reply point by point, since you seem to be missing the point I am making.

1)The number of FWD cars doing 0-100 in less than 6 seconds is very limited. Below 5.5 seconds there may be just a handful. All of them have advanced traction control systems and differentials which are calibrated and optimised for the power they put out. Hence those cars can put the power down more efficiently. When it comes Octavias Stage 2, etc which put out 220-240bhp, they don't really have fancy differentials or traction control and hence the wheels do end up spinning a lot more, that's why the 0-100 time may not improve a huge amount by going stage 2, but yes the overall benefits and speed after a 100 will improve largely. 1-2 seconds being shaved off, is not as easy as you think buddy, those are big numbers and even a 40-50bhp gain may only shave off 0.5 seconds.

2)This is the point you are not understanding. You posted a comparison, but the numbers really cannot be compared since the sources are totally different and there are too many variables to take into consideration. You have posted one car driven by you, probably launched optimally. The rest are taken by different magazines, where the cars may or may not even be in sport mode and god only knows what the conditions are. Now yes all conditions cannot be the same, but at least the driver or launching style or road could be the same. Then the comparison would hold value.

Also again those are not Skodas official figures, they are figures from a 3rd party review which the Skoda site has simply linked to. They cannot be called official in any way.

My point being if you test the Octavia, and A3 and put up your figures. Or if you get the Autocar figures for the Jetta DSG (the Autocar figures for the Jetta manual is 9.7 btw, and the DSG would shave off maybe .2 seconds) and then compare it with the rest, then the comparisons would be valid.

3)The comparison is misleading. I'm not saying you are doing it intentionally, but I have tried to explain to you why I think it is misleading. You have not mentioned in your original comparison that the other numbers are from a different tester in different conditions. Anyone seeing it may wonder how the Jetta is quicker than the Octavia and A3 by such a big margin, which is not true. I'm 100% sure if you tested all 3, the A3 would be the quickest, followed by the Octavia and then the Jetta, and yet the differences would be maybe 0.1-0.2 between each of them.

4)My friend, my Octavia (Actually Laura) is running a stage one map. I have no doubts it is significantly quicker than your Jetta. But that is not the point. Even if your Jetta had actually been much faster than any Octavia, I would have still said this comparison of yours with data collated from different sources with no uniformity (besides the same testing equipment) cannot hold any value.

5)We are not discussing VW vs Skoda, frankly I couldn't care less. I only picked up on the point that in your comparison the Jetta is a second faster than the Octavia, which is impossible. Had someone with an Octavia Tdi posted a similar comparison with his car 1 second faster than the Jetta, my response would have been the same. I didn't mean to offend you with my earlier post on your booking an Octavia.

Your last line in bold, saying the Jetta and Octavia are pretty much the same cars proves that the comparison cannot be considered valid.

[aseem]

Alright folks... the car is nearing 1 year completion by October 20th. Just got the 15k Service done. Total damage 11.3k including balancing and alignment which I had not requested. The dealer has agreed to do polishing/buffing complimentary in lieu of this.

So this year I had a few mods done to the car. Including tire upgrade to Yokohama's and ICE.

For the ICE I am absolutely loving the results. Not a single wire was cut for the install I ended up using the head unit itself.

For folks with VW Jetta RCD 510, the HU can be programmed with the VAGCOM cable to output line level (3V). There are plenty of threads online of how to program using VCDS. So Step 1 for me was to procure VAGCOM cable and program the HU to line level. I checked with multimeter, the output is 3V.

Then I procured the Sosche/Metra Connectors for HU from Amazon (have a couple of spares left). These plug into the back of your existing Head Unit and Wiring Harness. All your inputs you take from here. Simply plug an RCA Female to Speaker Cable to this and you have "pre-outs" on your Jetta.

The only trouble encountered was that Jetta doesnt have a remote for the Amplifier. Using cigarete lighter etc creates a "click-click" noise during start. So I ordered a PAC speaker sensing remote-trigger for 10 dollars.

I used JBL MS 62C front components, Polk DB 651 for rear, Rockford Fosgate R600X5 amplifier, and EpiCenter Bass Processor EPICENTER. Net result simply amazing budget sound at under 55k excluding subwoofer which was something I had from my previous install (200 dollars + 2k for box). Puts a smile to my face everytime. In addition its near stealth install and no wire cut.

Just putting some pics post install:




Look at the placement for Bass knob for the amp and Bass Processor:

[ethanhunt123]

Aseem - where did you get this install done in Bangalore ?

[aseem]

Originally Posted by ethanhunt123

Aseem - where did you get this install done in Bangalore ?

I got it done from motor concept Delhi. I have done more expensive installs in the past but this one is just awesome. Bass processor and JBL's have taken this thing to a whole different level. I can only imagine what an active setup with a sound processor would sound like.

[ethanhunt123]

Originally Posted by aseem

I got it done from motor concept Delhi. I have done more expensive installs in the past but this one is just awesome. Bass processor and JBL's have taken this thing to a whole different level. I can only imagine what an active setup with a sound processor would sound like.

Oh ok. I was under the impression you are still in Bangalore :-)

A couple of questions if you can help -

- How do i program RCD510 to give pre-outs ? Any links ?
- Which are the Scosche connectors you are talking about to convert the speaker outputs to RCA ?
- Why didn't you consider installing Amp under the passenger seat - i found that to be the best location in my Cedia before this as Boot space is not compromised at all
- Which amplifier switch are you talking about ? The unit which i changed to in my Cedia didn't have a separate amp switch if i recall - amp was always on. Or maybe my understanding was wrong ?