25th Jun 2007, 06:44
'And if you're talking of modding the skoda then its only fair to do the same to the comparison car'
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.
26th Jun 2007, 12:23
According to www.whatcar.com, the vRS does 0-60 in 9.6. Hardly impressive is it.
27th Jun 2007, 12:59
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.
28th Jun 2007, 06:45
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.
28th Jun 2007, 11:30
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.
29th Jun 2007, 02:19
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.
29th Jun 2007, 06:36
The 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.
2nd Jul 2007, 22:40
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.
16th Jul 2007, 14:07
Skoda vRS performance figures from http://www.zeperfs.com/ website (in km/h):
0 to 60: 3.9s.
0 to 80: 5.9s.
0 to 100: 8.7s.
0 to 120: 12.3s.
0 to 140: 17s.
0 to 160: 23s.
Very much a warm hatch. Also, these diesel "hot" hatches are slow around tracks and sound crap.
19th Jul 2007, 01:48
To the 6:21 commenter, 18th June:
7.2seconds?! You've gotta be kidding right? I agree with Autocar 9.5secs, I've beaten one in my old 216gti no problem, they are quick mid range, but acceleration from rest is not.
They are also very ugly and cheap on the inside.
19th Jul 2007, 06:22
'OK then go on google type in fabia vrs autocar and then read it they say 9.5.'
Read THEIR review, not the figures that Skoda have released to them.
It makes for impressive reading, particularly the in-gear acceleration figures.
19th Jul 2007, 08:13
OK, this will settle it. The Autocar review clearly states consistent times of 8.2 seconds, and a non wind assisted run of 7.2 seconds.
I also have reviews with similar times recorded by Seat Ibiza/Cordoba 130's, and they are a tiny bit lighter.
19th Jul 2007, 10:53
I have read that review, but it still doesn't mean I believe it 8.2 is being optimistic, but 7.2 is an absolute joke. That's new Golf FTI, Seat Leon Cupra, or Celica 190 kind of pace. Just because they say it, doesn't mean that it's true. They say its slightly faster than a 330 in 4th gear, 50-70. Who cares, as the BMW driver could put down into third or maybe into second, depending on its ratios and watch the Skoda badge get smaller and smaller.
20th Jul 2007, 06:45
Well said, who cares if it's faster in 4th gear. Any petrol would just drop a gear and leave the Skoda. Torque is nothing without bhp.
21st Jul 2007, 03:52
Any petrol car would not just leave it behind. Believe it or not they are quite revvy, its not just a spurt of power and nothing, it is a continuous surge through the gears that catapults you up to and well beyond 100mph effortlessly.
They are great fun to drive, infinitely preferable to screaming high revving no power at all set ups like the Celica T-Sport which really is a tiresome car to drive, on a par with the shocking Honda Civic Type-R, which is only suitable for a billiard table smooth track.
The Fabia and similar are cars people would keep for a long time, the Celicas, Mazda RX-8's etc... have all lost their novelty, most owners change them sooner rather than later as they prefer a non steering wheel chewing driving experience.
21st Jul 2007, 07:56
I'm sure anyone out there would buy a Civic Type R, Celica, or RX8 over the Fabia vRS; it's a Skoda and it looks crap. It might have torque, and might be quick midrange, but from a set of lights it would get smoked by a Saxo, so don't bother comparing it with the cars mentioned above.
I was in my mate's Golf GT TDI 130; it has over 300nm of torque, and it got left behind by a Civic VTi whilst rolling in second gear, so again torque ain't nothing without bhp.
21st Jul 2007, 12:41
I honestly can't believe I just read that. I used to own a Civic Type R, and in its v-tec it would leave the Skoda for dead. Who cares about mid range grunt; it makes your car slower.
I would much rather have a car that was slow bottom end, and then very fast top end compared to a nice constant pull.
As stated above, the Skodas 0-60 time is 9.6, and the Type R is 6.4. Need I say anymore?