Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75, 76-90, 91-105, 106-112
'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!
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.
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.
Search for New and Used Skoda Fabias available in the UK
Click here to advertise your car
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 your 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.
'And if your 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.'
Not really, given the difference in cost of buying from new, it's only fair that you spend the difference on improving the vRS. In which case it would be far faster in a straight line & through the twisties.
The 2 cars shouldn't really be compared, given that they are completely different.
According to www.whatcar.co.uk the vRS does 0-60 in 9.6. Hardly impressive is it.
Search for New and Used Skoda Fabias available in the UK
Click here to advertise your car
It doesn't matter what the 0-60mph times say. What is it with 0-60mph times? Try 15-135mph and realise these cars really shift. Forget 1st, that just gets things moving. Unless you have only ever driven one car in your life, you would understand that 0-60mph times are totally irrelevant.
'According to www.whatcar.co.uk the vRS does 0-60 in 9.6. Hardly impressive is it.'
Yes, but the figure of 9.6 seconds was given by Skoda, who did the time with 4 passengers I believe.
Read Autocar's review, they regularly got 8.2 seconds 0-60 & one non wind-assisted run of 7.2 seconds... quite impressive considering that the vRS struggles to get its power down for the first 2 gears. Its real power comes between 30-90mph.
No they aren't. I have owned four cars; first a 1.1 Saxo, then a 1.6 Pug 306, then a 2.0 Ford Focus, and my current car is an Astra VXR. All of these cars were pretty similar in first gear performance; there is a bit of difference between the VXR and the Saxo, but not a lot.
The difference is the Saxo had nothing in second, whereas the VXR is ballistic. The vRS isn't a slow car, but it certainly isn't a fast car either; its 0-60 time is 9.6 for a reason.
Search for New and Used Skoda Fabias available in the UK
Click here to advertise your car
The last reviewer obviously knows what he is talking about.
Finally! 0-60 does not really matter, not in day to day driving anyway.
For the same sort of money I would probably go used and buy something quicker and better looking.
For instance I'm not totally sure how much the vRS costs, but say it's £10k the amount of decent vehicles for that money is brilliant, An st220 with 11k on the clock for £8.5k would surely prove a much better car? faster, better looking (for me definitely), a lot more comfortable and sounds great.
Even on the small car front there's the used Audi A3 2.0tdi for £8k; again faster, and more comfortable, and will hold onto its value better over time.
'According to www.whatcar.co.uk the vRS does 0-60 in 9.6. Hardly impressive is it.'
VRS will do 0-60 in 8.2s read the Autocar review. Skoda deliberately said it did it in 9.6 to keep the insurance group down.
No they didn't, they said it was 9.5.
Search for New and Used Skoda Fabias available in the UK
Click here to advertise your car
The vRS is an amazing car for the money.
Yes it has its floors like getting the power down in first/second gear, but from then on even a standard car is seriously quick.
After an engine re-map mine produces 179 bhp. Forget the figures because let me tell you, it will take on anything on the road including your Celica and Golf and blow them away!!! See you later!!!
I have 2 other cars, a Subaru Impreza STi with 340bhp, and a Golf GTI with power unknown.
Obviously my Subaru is the fastest car on the road, and the gearing ensures that Celica man will still be at the lights long after I have gone.
Get a vRS; it will be well worth it. If you need more speed then chip it. If after that, and the fact that you can blow away most cars on the road, including all your Celica's and GTI's, BMW's, Civic Type something or other's, then spend more money and get a Subaru.
Skoda vRS performance figures from zeperfs.com website (in km/h) :
0 à 60 : 3.9 s.
0 à 80 : 5.9 s.
0 à 100 : 8.7 s.
0 à 120 : 12.3 s.
0 à 140 : 17 s.
0 à 160 : 23 s.
Very much a warm hatch. Also, these diesel "hot" hatches are slow around tracks and sound crap.
'No they didn't, they said it was 9.5.'
Read the review, you clearly haven't.
It says 8.2s & one none wind assisted run of 7.2s.