You can get big numbers with a remap, more than 200 bhp and 340 lb ft, but be prepared to upgrade the clutch. Star Performance do a "conservative" remap that takes it to approx 175 bhp and its supposedly totally safe for the cars components.
If it's totally safe, and that easy, why doesn't Skoda offer a 175PS version straight out of the factory? They could add £2k+ to the price for no extra cost in manufacturing/parts terms, and a token (by manufacturer standards) amount of R&D. No car manufacturer's marketing or accounting teams would pass that up.
They don't because it has implications for engine life and reliability (and therefore reputation). I suspect whatever guarantees these aftermarket re-mappers offer, they are not the "all covered" 3yr unlimited mileage jobbies you get from the manufacturers.
Tuning for those kinds of percentage power increases takes a lot more than a chip or a plug in box. You need to start changing and uprating components in the engine and gearbox too. It reminds me of the old Cosworth days. Big bhp for a few hundred quid. Total reliability.
For 40,000 miles and then it's a new engine please. I bet these are the same.
Above comment's probably correct if you take the power into 'silly' numbers, but I bet that most people who have it done only plan on keeping the car for a couple of years anyway, therefore when the engine does become knackered, it'll be in the hands of a new owner. It's selfish, but you can't blame people for doing it.
Having just received my Fabia VRs back from Skoda after nearly 2 MONTHS worth of major engine repairs (two boxes worth of engine components shown to me upon collection). I am told the turbo and intercooler played a big part in my cars failure. I wonder just how reliable these cars will prove to be as the mileage mounts up. I am fast approaching the 45,000 mark on a 54 plate which I know is excessive, but Skoda themselves admitted there aren't many VRS's with this mileage yet. Is my cars problem I sign of things to come?. Despite this episode I am pleased to have the car back though would feel a little more uncomfortable if it weren't company owned and was my financial responsibility.
The power/reliability debate is certainly heating-up!
I cannot help thinking that if power increases or ultimate BHP outputs are so important - Buy something else...
Certainly for the fairly high screen price of a used Fabia Vrs there is plenty of choice out there.
My last car was an Audi S3 with an chip to 265bhp and cost £10k, from a dealer (OK it was high mileage).
It wasn't perfect and lacked steering feel - There is no such thing as a perfect car.
The 'Vrs' is a good, if not perfect package and well priced - Its already plenty quick enough and has done a good deal to blow away the old Skoda jokes.
Ranting on about how much Bhp can be squeezed out of it and more importantly reducing its reliability just gives more ammunition to the 'anti-Skoda' brigade.
One 'knackered' Vrs seen at the roadside will be long-remembered by the average motorist!
The way forward? Discreet tuning and keeping quite.
Now where did I see that Ad for 'Nitrous Kits'...
"He who laughs last - didn't get the joke'
The 0-62mph for the Fabia vRS is 9.5 seconds, not 10.6.
I would think that the 0-100 is less than you state too, although I do not have any figures to show it.
Totally agree vrs are WELL SLOW, I test drove one, felt like an old boat. 0-60mph in 10.4sec though.
Maybe the person in the comment above should perhaps read some road test figures, and then they will see that the vRS is much quicker than you seem to think. Mid 8's from 0-60 and 24 seconds from 0-100. Also 30-70 is done in 7.6 seconds.
I agree its not a hot hatch, a warm hatch yes. I also appreciate that not everyone prefers diesel (and in fact I am one of them).
I've actually owned one of these cars. They are not the best handling or the fastest, but they feel suitably quick and can still be hustled around quickly. For £12k what do you expect?
Still it wasn't mental enough for me in the end, and I've now got a Clio 182, which sure enough is quicker, but in every day driving, it does not feel it. And yes the Clio handles better, but then its not built as well. Horses for courses.
It would be nice if people who clearly have never driven a car would not comment on it!
You guys who say WELL SLOW were obviously driving your own cars and can't accept that Skoda are simply a brilliant package. Look at the J. D power surveys. Comments from real people who have owned these cars. 2nd to Lexus 2005 and finishing in the top 5 for the past 4 years, now stick that in your pipe and smoke it. As for slow, well Autocar did 7.2 second 0-60 and Auto Express did 8.1 second 0-60!!
The Fabia vRS does 60mpg as well, has genuine VW build quality and is assembled in one of the most modern factories in the World. VW finished 19th in the same survey. Someones getting it right, yeah and that's Skoda.
Well as someone who has owned the Fabia and 182 the poster in the above comment speaks of, then I too agree its surprising the result Autocar got from 0-60 with the Fabia... but I digress, I've actually had experience of both cars, and you saying you have seen an Autocar test with 9.7 / 31 whatever seconds, I think you must be on drugs.
Autocar have never published such figures.
The Skoda vRS diesel is not a hot hatch in 2005/6, hot hatches now produce 150+ BHP and do 140+ mph and 0-60 in <7seconds. Cars like the Clio 182, Leon Cupra R petrol model, Golf GTi, Astra VXR, Focus ST etc etc.
The Fabia is a warm hatch only, like the Fiesta ST150, Mini Cooper and 206 GTi 140.
Have a look at the Ford Puma 2002 review if you want to see a very similar debate, or the 1988 Vauxhall Carlton 1.8i review for a flight of pure fantasy!
OK, hands up, so the vRS isn't a hot hatch. Amazing - Skoda never actually claimed it was one...
It's 0-60 time is limited by the chassis' ability to get the torque on to the road, but in the mid range it feels great. Most ordinary drivers haven't the skill to utilise 160+ bhp in a petrol front-drive car.
What makes it a good car to drive is the simple fact that you don't have to rev the nuts off it to get some useful throttle response. This makes it easy to drive... which is what most drivers really need.
My previous car was a BMW 530i V8 (1993, did 120K miles in it, then it blew up) - on paper a faster car, but the Skoda *feels* faster on the road.
OK, it's not the same animal, but I actually enjoy driving the Skoda more.
So, do you pay £12K and get insurance group 9 and 45 mpg, or 35K and insurance group 17 with 18 mpg?
I don't find this too hard to answer, and I've nearly paid off my mortgage with the difference in running costs :-)
When the weather is warm, almost any bike 250cc+ is more fun than almost any car, but I don't think that most of the t***ers posting on here have the balls to use one properly.