2005 Skoda Fabia vRS from UK and Ireland - Comments

Fuel flap opening cable faulty at 2000 miles, easily fixed by dealer under warranty.

Air conditioning empty after 5000 miles, re-gassed but empty again at 7000 miles. Dealer examined problem very efficiently found that a stone had damaged the condenser. Repair cost to me £500.

Rear o/s passenger door leaking at 7000 miles, dealer said it was a known fault and had the door resealed under warranty.

Rear n/s passenger door leaking at 10500 miles, still under warranty so I will be taking it back to the dealers for resealing.

This is the most fun car I have ever driven and feels so safe in cornering and on the flat, it accelerates much faster than the brochure gives it credit for and I have not found many cars which can out accelerate off the lights.

I think the interior is comfortable on even the longest of journeys and it is simple but pleasing to the eye. Load space is very good for a car of this size and my son gets all his fishing gear in no problems.

The standard of equipment on this car is excellent lots of it are employed just to keep the power on the ground in slippy conditions. I have never felt unsafe.

A wolf in sheep's clothing, you can see the surprise on peoples faces when that boring Skoda comes up in their rear view mirror.

The only disappointments have been the water leaks on the rear doors which I have been told are a known problem!

"A wolf in sheep's clothing"? You are making me laugh!

The VRS has has a power to weight ratio of only 98bhp per ton! Hardly impressive.

YES it has a lot of torque, but then again, so does a tractor.

The Fabia VRS is nothing more than a lukewarm shopping/city car; nothing more, nothing less. Also 0-60mph in 9.8sec "as quoted by SKODA" is NOT fast!

There are too many VRS reviews with people slating a car they have never driven. To say it is a wolf in sheeps clothing is in no way innacurate, the car looks very subtle and is a skoda. There is a debate on the 0-60 times, skoda had a full car, magazines got consistent times of around 8 seconds.

It is torquey which anyone with any sense knows does effect pulling power and how fast a car will accelerate, as it compensates for weight. Look at the bhp per tonne of most diesels and they aren't impressive as diesels shouldn't be judged this way, but it doesn't mean they aren't nippy.

Either there are a lot of disgruntled people out there who have been overtaken by a VRS or it is the same person with a chip on their shoulder against the VRs. I don't think anyone would claim it's a fast car, but it is defintely nippy and that is enough to make it suprising, hence wolf in sheeps clothing.

'Also 0-60mph in 9.8sec "as quoted by SKODA" is NOT fast!'

Skoda quote 9.6 actually for 0-60. And this is a very conservative figure. High 8s is probably about right. The only reason why it's not quicker is because its very difficult to put the power down until you get into 3rd gear, before then its hard to stop the wheelspin.

Drive one then see if you still feel the same. I had a similar opinion to yours, but after 5 minutes of the test drive it all changed, and now I have one.

I used to own a 2005 Fabia VRS and it wasnt at all fast as standard. 0-60mph in 9.6sec as quoted by Skoda seems about right. It will NO WAY dip below 9sec unless you have it remapped.

Remember, this car was designed for good fuel econemy... NOT PERFORMANCE.

I very much doubt that the last poster actually owned a VRS, and its probably just the same person who was badmouthing the Skoda earlier on in the review.

Why is there no way it won't do 0-60 in under 9 seconds? Look at it this way: the MG ZR diesel with only 99bhp does 0-60 in 9.7 seconds (official figures) and is only about 100kg lighter. With an extra 30bhp, the Fabia should be more than 1/10 of a second quicker to 60. Common sense says between 8.5 and 9 seconds is a realistic figure.

To argue that it was built for economy is dribble. Diesels very often give better mpg as they produce more power. It is not uncommon for a remapped VRS running 165/170bhp to return the same or better mpg than a stock one, because the low down torque allows you to change up earlier, and so mpg increases.

'I used to own a 2005 Fabia VRS and it wasnt at all fast as standard. 0-60mph in 9.6sec as quoted by Skoda seems about right. It will NO WAY dip below 9sec unless you have it remapped.'

I don't believe you have owned one but anyway, just about every 0-60 test done on the car by journalists/magazines has resulted in under 9 seconds. Autocars time of 8.2s being the best that's been in a review.

Sheesh can't believe everyone is arguing over the speed and acceleration of a skoda fabia. More to the point why would anyone ever want to race around in a skoda.

I never really understood why skoda released the fabia vrs, skoda badge is just not in line with the boy racer image.

The skoda marque, like that of proton, kia & hyundai, is one of economy motoring...

Its not a case of racing it, just pointing out that it is quick for what it is. What brand it is seems pretty irrelevant to me, infact the most 'chavy' brand cars I can think of are probably citreon saxo's or vauxhall corsa's etc which I don't view as being any higher in terms of brand heirarchy, than Skoda's are.

It shouldn't be so hard to put the view that the VRs is a decent little hatch with enough punch to keep you smiling and that it is underrated. Far too many badge snobs ready to blindly swear against the possibility anything skoda could be good.

Those that know nothing about cars will shun the VRS. Who do you impress with a badge anyway? If its the ladies, then a girl who's shallow and materialistic enough to make their mind up about you by what brand of car you drive isn't worth knowing anyway.

What chavs don't realise is that 0-60 doesn't actually count. How often do you have a drag race from stand still? Most acceleration battles are in gear and this is where the VRS chews up and spits out anything with illuminated washer jets. It out accelerates a Porsche Boxster 3.2S in gear for goodness sake.

Power sells cars, torque wins races, the VRS has 310Nm of Torque, read the torque figure for your ST, VTS, Type R and weep. In fact, look it up in the handbook next time a full tank has been emptied in less than 200 miles, and let it all out. The VRS costs £50 for a full tank & that will get you a minimum of 400 miles of thrashing it within an inch of its life. You won't get that sort of mileage even when driving before the V-Tec in the power of dreams.

Lol everybody with a turbo diesel talks about torque and in gear acceleration. And as for out accelerating a Boxster, so what. Look at the episode of Top Gear where a 1.6 litre people carrier out accelerated a 400bhp Evo... does that make it a better car... er no! If the Boxster dropped a gear it would easily out accelerate the vRS. You're talking about a car producing less than 150bhp that sounds like a tractor and saying it's a sports car, it ain't!!

The only way a vRS would beat any Type R is if you were both in the same gear. Did you ever think that you could just change down on to the Hondas power band and leave the vRS for dead, as let's face it, the vRS isn't even close on power or performance figures!

If you remember back on Top Gear a few years back they raced the vRS against a Mini Cooper and it only just beat that, and thats 15bhp down on the vRS so a Type R I don t think so!

For the record I quite like the vRS as it's nippy and economical, but think it looks god awful.

I drive a diesel car with 130bhp ish and 210ft lbs of torque, and trust me it isn't faster than other cars with more bhp but less torque such as you listed like Type R's and Clios etc etc. Torque does not win races, torque just excuses weight and so you still need the bhp to actually move anywhere quickly.

The vRS feels fast because of the torque, and while you may shock cars in gear, you will look foolish when both cars are being driven hard. Even traveling at 50mph and putting your foot down would be embarrassing if a Type R driver changed down into Vtec.

I do think the little Skoda is good fun and nippy enough to shock some cars out there, but let's not kid ourselves about it being faster than anything which does 0-60 in under 8 seconds, as all these cars need to do is drop a gear.

The vRS is for someone who wants a car they can drive fast everywhere all day every day. I've had a race with a CTR and it was only pulling away slightly on the straights. Round the corners there was no contest. -Probably, because his windows were misted up and he couldn't see the apex of the corners. -Is that why all CTR drivers drive with their fog lights on? The Honda is a fraction faster but only if you have no luggage or passengers and avoid any inclines, the vRS is not affected by these factors.

The vRS isn't as fast as the CTR as standard but it has a turbo diesel engine, this is the most tuneable type of engine available. With a mere chip, it is faster than a CTR, with a larger turbo, intercooler and injectors it has the same BHP and triple the torque.

The vRS is a far better looking car too, it looks like a Wild Cat, the Honda looks like some kind of Japanese cartoon cat, Hello Kitty perhaps.

The newer CTR looks great I must say, but isn't it heavier and slower than the original?

If you don't believe power sells cars and torque wins races, look at the winner of the 24hr Le Mans -a TDI V12 R8. Or the Seat Leon in the British Touring Car Championships. A bigger car with the same TDI as the vRS, finishing 1 & 2 in most of the races. Where are the Hondas? The Hondas which have as much torque as a Fisherprice lawn mower sadly, are at the back making lots of noise and going nowhere.

The Skoda produces 104bhp per ton, a Civic Type R is 166 per ton; that's a big difference.

The Civic will crack 100 in about 16.5 seconds, the Fabia takes over 30; do you get the picture?

And before you bang on about torque again, a Leon Cupra R has far more torque than a Civic Type R, yet the Civic is still the quicker car.

And as for tuning the Skoda up, you could just bolt a supercharger to the Civic if you wanted to go down the "but my cars got this done to it" route as you should be comparing standard specs, and unless you spend a lot on the Skoda, it will not be a patch on the Civic, as the Civic is also lighter than the Fabia, even though it's the bigger car, and would need at least the Civic's 200bhp to even pose a threat!

I hope you do realize the Fabia vRS is in the same performance bracket as a Saxo VTR.

Very few Civic Type Rs even have fog lights!

A Skoda Fabia vRS is hardly either a LeMans racer or touring car now is it, it's more of a pensioners shopping cart!

The diesel won the 24hr race because of economy and less pit stops, and if you'd care to see, Vauxhall are winning the touring cars in petrol cars, and the Team Halfords Hondas are doing pretty well. I'll admit the Seat team are doing well with their diesel cars, and yes the Fabia does have a diesel engine, but so does a tractor!