re: Skoda Octavia RS 245 confirmed for India. Edit: Launched @ 36 lakhs Quote:
Originally Posted by suhaas307 Well, to be honest I'm no expert on homologation either. But if I remember correctly, Skoda's reasoning for bringing the vRS via the CBU route was to avoid expenses they would have to incur towards homologation.
……... |
I believe when RS230 was launched, there wasn't option for the manufacturer to skip homologation requirements even if it were a CBU (unlike the more expensive M or AMG models which had bigger displacement engines as well as a higher import price). So to keep it reasonably priced and considering a then unknown demand, they chose the CKD route (homologation cost offset by reduced duties).
Homologation exemption to CBUs (based simply on volume, and no longer limited to engine displacement / import price) I believe came afterwards. In that sense, considering end of product life for the model in its home markets, bringing these limited volume to a salivating market as CBUs makes perfect sense Quote:
Originally Posted by itwasntme :reate this last remaining combo? Is it because the ~50 extra horses will be somewhat negated by the ~80 kg 4x4 weight thereby depreciating the vRS badge? I would have thought it would easily as fast as the FWD, because of the added traction from the Haldex sending upto 50% power to the rears. |
As answered by others on this thread already, Golf R or an S3 was always faster, but GTI badged cars were more fun. Golf R, especially in its estate variant was positioned as a more practical and discreet performance car. A vRS petrol 4x4 would have cannibalized Golf R/S3 sales. Per unit, I would imagine VW/Audi equivalent models provide more profit.
Skoda whose brand instead revolves around practicality, roominess and being clever, provided 3.6FSI 4x4 or 2.0TSI 280PS 4x4 in the Superb, in both saloon/estate variants. However the Passat/CC always had slightly better performance numbers from the same powertrain. Quote:
Originally Posted by //M How does the 7-speed DQ381 transmission fare in terms of reliability?
I am guessing it should be much better than the DQ200/DQ250 boxes as the DQ381 is an improvement over the DQ380, which in turn is derived from the DQ500 box that does duty in cars like the VW Tiguan. |
My understanding is that DQ381/380 are essentially the same 7-speed wet clutch DSG intended for transverse engine applications. Only difference being DQ380 is the FWD version and DQ381 the AWD version (Note: Though I have seen during VCDS scans that FWD versions also read DQ381).
It is a little too early to comment on long-term reliability of these transmissions as they have been around only for 2.5 years roughly in all markets. General consensus is that it has similar or slightly better reliability level as DQ250 (which relatively is far more reliable than DQ200 dry clutch 7-speed).
On maintenance front, DQ250 requires an oil change every 4yrs/60,000km which has been increased to 120,000km for DQ380/381 (maintenance recommendation in Europe). We will have to wait and see if Skoda will recommend this drain interval for Indian market also and if the 4year period will stretch to 8years. Going forward, DQ250 will be phased out by DQ380/DQ381.
Last edited by suhaas307 : 3rd February 2020 at 11:14.
Reason: Spacing for improved readability
|