9th Apr 2006, 17:25
Fabia vrs covers 0-60mph in 9.8sec and 0-100mph in 31sec. tested by autocar. Very poor power to weight ratio. Skoda claims 9.7sec to 60mph, so the above figures seem about right.
11th Apr 2006, 10:16
On the 0-60 times, I agree with the chap with the bmw. The car cannot actually get all the power on the road till well above 30mph, so the power to weight debate is pointless.
The car gives an enormous shove in the back when you hit the throttle, even in standard guise (mine is tuned to 175 bhp, and is so understated it's like a stealth bomber for Mercs). Forget 0-60, use one to go overtaking with that enormous torque. Mine is as fast as 911 Turbo 30-80. It's superb fun, and that's what is important.
Like the guy before, I've owned two big BMWs and this car is just better, feels quicker, and puts a big smile on your face. Those that have driven one and had the pleasure of owning one, you can see the passion in what they say, so please don't tell me what a poor car this is by stating 0-60 times, get out of your chair, drive one, then tell me it's rubbish - but you will have to tell me how it's rubbish, cos after owning one for 6 months, I can't. Its the best compromise between speed, comfort, fun, economy and practicality on the market, let alone sub £12,000
29th Jul 2006, 11:32
I have had vRS 130 from new, have done 19,000 miles, spent not a penny on it. 55.8 mpg without trying, very quick, very cheap. Would I buy another Skoda? Yes I would
27th Nov 2006, 19:22
Bought a Fabia vrs last month, and have been interested in the 0-60 mph debate. Some of you have said that it's slower than the 9.6 seconds, and others, 'faster'. One person who left a comment said that you should take a stopwatch with you to test its acceleration to 60 for yourself. I eventually decided to take up this challenge. I managed 0-60 in 8.8 seconds (without any re-mapping etc). The best way to manage the gears seemed to be 0-20 in 1st, 20-42 in 2nd, and 42-60 in 3rd. Is there a better way of using the gears to get a quicker time?
23rd Feb 2007, 06:12
You might want to put TT brakes on it as well, otherwise you might not be alive to use that power for long.
6th Jun 2007, 11:03
My celica 190 eats the fabia vrs. never mind a good mid range pull a sudden surge of power between 6000-8000 revs is what you want. nearly 70 in 2nd gear and 90 in 3rd.
7th Jun 2007, 05:49
Yes, but costs about 4-5K more. And while you'd be lucky to get 20mpg at 6000-8000 revs, the vrs will still be getting about 40mpg at 2000-3000.
If you spent 4-5K on a vrs, you'd blow a Celica 190 away on any road.
8th Jun 2007, 10:19
No, I don't think it would keep up with a Celica, even if you did spend that. Rolling start 40 in 2nd gear, it's every bit as fast as a Civic Type T as it is rolling start at 65 in 3rd. The only reason the Celicas 0-60 time is only 7.2 is because of how slow it is below 6000 rpm, which hinders it in a traffic light drag race in first gear, but every day driving i.e. rolling starts, in its zone, it's very fast.
And by the way, I've had a quote of £520 + vat for an engine remap and a few other tweeks to stop it from becoming unreliable. This would make the second cam lift up at 3000rpm instead of 6000rpm, and they have estimated that will take it to 240 bhp, maybe more. And you would have to be completely insane to buy a Fabia vRS and then spend 4-5k tuning the engine. There are so many better things in the world to spend that kind of money on.
9th Jun 2007, 09:57
'And you would have to be completely insane to buy a Fabia vRS and then spend 4-5k tuning the engine.'
Well there are a few 'insane' people on briskoda.net... they've spent sums of money like that and more. Your Celica would be so far behind them, you wouldn't even be in their notorious diesel fumes!
20th Jun 2007, 12:37
The Celica comment made me laugh. I bought a Corolla T-Sport; same 190bhp engine as the Celica, and WOW what a mistake that was.
Lots of people assume 190bhp is impressive, well it isn't in the Toyota form, utterly gutless and I ended up hating my car due to the lack of torque and useable power.
My neighbour has a Seat Cordoba 130SE (same engine as the Fabia); after driving his car, I was converted.
In the T-Sport, the so called 'lift' high in the rev range pales into insignificance compared to the urge and mid range punch of the Cordoba. Bear in mind the output of all PD130 engines are notoriously conservative, I've read that in standard form, it is common for them to produce between 140 and 155bhp in RR tests.
A totally standard vRS would comfortably pull away from a Celica 190, no contest. You do not need to spend any money upgrading the vRS. I am a convert because I have had the T-Sport experience.
The Celica has one thing in its favour, which is a nice chassis/suspension set up, but that's it. Absolutely no contest in normal driving conditions, the Fabia is far superior in the grunt department. Sorry Toyota fans, it's true, get a test drive and get enlightened.
21st Jun 2007, 12:03
Its true, it has a 0-60 time of 7.2; as fast as the new Golf GTI, faster than a BMW 325, and a lot faster than a Fabia. Who cares about low down torque? It makes your car slower because it's a constant pull; utterly gutless and then utterly insane is far better.
22nd Jun 2007, 07:15
Well all can say is that people like the skoda/diesel/vw brigade all seem to be in the same boat.
Fair enough the fabis rs is nippy, but as fro being quicker than the celica I don't think so.
It may feel quicker due to the talk, but the celica would easily see one off and in the bends the skoda driver would probably be eating the hedge on the first one.
I raced a fabia vrs when I still owned a rover 216gti and the fabia was more or less level till 60 then the rover was pulling away and would definatly prove more reliable.
And if you're talking of modding the skoda then its only fair to do the same to the comparison car, so as a guy on a previous post has said the celica with a uni-chip could achieve 240bhp and to keep up the fabia would have to be significantly tuned more or less flat out to achieve similar results.
Modern diesel engines are good for what they are, but they are forced induction (turbo) so therefore a good race would be an similar sized petrol with a turbo, therefore what will it be up against? something that will trounce it with ease.
Comparing the diesel fabia to any car is pointless because it already has an advantage due to the turbo, why not give the petrol the same advantage and then race?.
So if you think you can beat the celica 190 then maybe they should install there supercharged unit from the new exige 's' with 250bhp from the factory then see which can win.