Seat Performance Figures

[steve998]

Hi,

I was on a private road last night and clocked a 0 - 100 time of 16.5 seconds in my TFSI FR. I did the run again in the opposite direction and got 16.3. I have a manual gear box and tbh if I was a better driver i am sure I could have got a better start and better gear changes.

My point is do Seat,Audi, VW and Skoda 'massage' their cars figures in accordance with thier marketing stratagy? I seem to remember EVo testing the Leon FR at exactly the same time (or quicker?) than the Golf GTI? The official figures dont represent this? (I think EVO mag recorded a Leon FR 0-100 time of 17.7 seconds?)

My test is of course not particularly scientific (GPS used to ascertain what indicated speed is an 'actual' 100mph on the speedo) but it would seem that the performance of the FR TFSI is quicker than officially stated. My 120I BMW was quicker than the official figures.... although not to the same extent as the FR. I timed a sub 6.5 second 0 - 60 (not 62) last night in poor traction conditions and me at the wheel! (1/4 tank of petrol and NO passengers.... although I am sure the timing is + or - half a second due to innacurate timing).

All this performance from a stock 197hp Leon?

I can certainly say that 60 - 100 mph in less than 10 seconds certainly has certainly impressed me!

Please dont flame for my less than scientific approach to the timing...... I suppose I am just chuffed to how good the TFSI engine is in stock form. Are some stock TFSI engines better than others?


I love my FR and it is just better than my old 1 series in everyway (except FWD)

 

[phil3012]

Not a comparable test really as it's not the same as a manufacturer or magazine would do.

GPS will be slightly inaccurate on actual speed, but better than the speedo.

0-60 is generally nowadays the 0-62 figure and I'm pretty certain it is normally 2 passengers and I think half laden.

Also whether or not you power shift can make a difference.

0-60 or 62 is a good way of comparing cars like for like in the same magazine or across brochures but that's about it.

Glad you're please with the FR thought and prefer it to the. I looked at the coupe for about a nano second when chaning my Cupra. I was in one a couple of years ago and found for a 5 door car, the back doors were terrible to get in and out of.

 

[steve998]

Agreed... its not comparable. Only in that I timed my 120I under the same conditions and got a 0 - 100 in 22+ seconds and even with timing errors 6 seconds quicker to 100 is pretty impressive.

I had the 3 door m sport which was a lovely car to drive except for the squeeks and rattles and the dreadful electronic assited steering , the pre facelift cars (before the start stop technology) were far nicer to drive.

I have the figures (but not the review) from the EVO magazine where they compared the Type R, Focus ST, VXR, GTI and Leon FR and I was genuinly suprised how good the FR came out. It beat the GTI to 100 and was comparable from memory to the Type R. The ST beat it to 100 by about a second which is to be expected, but it certainly shows how good the standard leon is. I think the 0-80 time was the same as the ST but the ST pulled away from there on. (Anyone have the written review for this test?)

I test drove the ST before choosing the Leon and I was surprised how revvy the Leon was, in comparison with the mid range boost and 'wheezy' top end of the ST. The ST probably had more power for any given rev, but the additional mid range wollop made it seem as if the power had tailed off where the FR 'felt' better to drive?

Any one else here prefer the FR to the ST?

 

[phil3012]

Over the period of a about 18 months I test drove the VXR, ST, Golf GTi, Leon Fr and Leon Cupra (from that sized car group).

The VXR has amazing but too much torque steer and boring interior.

The ST felt special to drive, but too common, a bit too chavvy and too thirsty.

Golf GTi, nice car just a bit dull to drive

FR I liked, but the Cupra was just that bit more special. Both were more fun than the GTi.

I could have chosen any of them, and could have had a brand new VXR for less than an FR but opted for the Cupra, second choice the FR.

Interestingly enough I worked this all out statistically using weighted evaluation criteria and the FR came out top.

If I was choosing between the same cars again, I'd actually go for the Golf I think.

 

[JD_SCN]

Hi,

I was on a private road last night and clocked a 0 - 100 time of 16.5 seconds in my TFSI FR. I did the run again in the opposite direction and got 16.3. I have a manual gear box and tbh if I was a better driver i am sure I could have got a better start and better gear changes.

My point is do Seat,Audi, VW and Skoda 'massage' their cars figures in accordance with thier marketing stratagy? I seem to remember EVo testing the Leon FR at exactly the same time (or quicker?) than the Golf GTI? The official figures dont represent this? (I think EVO mag recorded a Leon FR 0-100 time of 17.7 seconds?)

My test is of course not particularly scientific (GPS used to ascertain what indicated speed is an 'actual' 100mph on the speedo) but it would seem that the performance of the FR TFSI is quicker than officially stated. My 120I BMW was quicker than the official figures.... although not to the same extent as the FR. I timed a sub 6.5 second 0 - 60 (not 62) last night in poor traction conditions and me at the wheel! (1/4 tank of petrol and NO passengers.... although I am sure the timing is + or - half a second due to innacurate timing).

All this performance from a stock 197hp Leon?

I can certainly say that 60 - 100 mph in less than 10 seconds certainly has certainly impressed me!

Please dont flame for my less than scientific approach to the timing...... I suppose I am just chuffed to how good the TFSI engine is in stock form. Are some stock TFSI engines better than others?


I love my FR and it is just better than my old 1 series in everyway (except FWD)

I think it's just that avery car is different when it rolls off that assembly line, and they also respond to how they are driven, i remember my dad's mazda being really 'tight at first' but faster the miles he did.
I've been on rolling roads and seen 'identical cars with various bhp and torque differences.
TBH, all manufacturers tend to put extreme figueres in, like mpg's and 0-62 etc.

Basically there are so many factors that decide the speed/acceleration and velocity of a car that you're bound to get differences.

My FR when standard ran pretty much 6 seconds flat to 62mph! others get 7.5...it just happens!