2004 Skoda Fabia vRS from UK and Ireland - Comments

Nothing to report.

This car is serious value for money.

The most fun part of owning this car is seeing the look on other peoples faces when they see the badge after giving them a spanking on the by-pass!

For anyone considering this car the 0-60 time is reported to be 9.6...Wrong...I can say with confidence this little rocket will surge to the magic 60 in 8.2 seconds. All you existing Vrs owners - get yourself a stopwatch and see for yourself.

For £500 quid you can have the ecu re-mapped to produce 170 bhp.

I am to Fab vrs owner and have to say the comments made about 0-60 era pretty pointless. Yes the times stated from Skoda are a lot less than they really are, but who cares. Who actually charges around from a standing start! No one! The cars strength is the mid range, 30mph in 3rd pulls strongly through to 70+, 4th is similarly quick from 50mph! One car mag. actually recorded average 50-70 time in 4th gear as under 5.5secs the BMW 330d was timed at 6sec. That's where this car is great, not from standing!

Oh 170bhp after remap is a bit conservative, around the 190 mark is more like it!!!

Before considering wild bhp claims for ecu remaps of over 180bhp it might be worth bearing in mind that VAG had to substantially modify the TDi PD 130 motor to make it reliable in it's 150bhp guise...

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.

The past two or three comments are unfortunately wildly inaccurate and unfounded.

VW uses the same engine at 150BHP in the Golf, Seat uses the same engine in the Ibiza Cupra R with a power rating of 160BHP. The engine maps on the standard cars are restricted to get a balance between performance and economy.

The engine in the Skoda is restricted to 130 for a number of reasons, primarily to get the right balance of BHP for insurance purposes and MPG for other reasons. Skoda cannot charge £15K for a Fabia, which is why they don’t add £2K on to the cost of it and sell it as a 160BHP car. Funnily enough it’s the marketing that causes this restriction, not the other way around. Why make the 160BHP Skoda for £15K when you could the same powered Seat Ibiza, a better all round car for the same money?

As for not being covered by warranty, of course it won’t be! It’s someone else’s product. If you replace the wheels or suspension or stereo etc you wouldn’t take it back to Skoda and expect a warranty so why would you if you use someone else’s engine maps?

As for 40,000 miles for a new engine, I tried not to fall off my chair with laughter. The engine components and gear box components are used throughout the VAG range with cars going to much higher power than 160BHP. And most people who tune their cars do more than just the ECU anyway. I think there is a lot of rubbish spouted by people who actually do not know much about cars.

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'

Seat cupra r is not a diesel.

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.

I have seen autocar test the fabia vrs 0-60mph in 9.7 sec and 0-100mph in 31.4 sec, Similar to SKODAS CLAIMS. Evo magazine on the other hand thought the cars performance looked better on paper than in real life testing, and was slower on around a circuit and down the straight than the 100bhp sport Ka. Remember the vrs "only" produces 100bhp per ton!

What you are saying is that it has been tested at 7.1sec to 60mph! That's identical to the clio 182 sport, and the new 200bhp turbocharged golf gti!

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.