2004 Skoda Fabia vRS from UK and Ireland - Comments

OK then go on google type in fabia vrs autocar and then read it they say 9.5.

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.

'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.

www.fabia-vrs.com/press/autocar.htm

It makes for impressive reading, particularly the in-gear acceleration figures.

OK this will settle it. Here s a link to the Autocar review, which 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.

http://www.fabia-vrs.com/press/autocar.htm

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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"

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?

If you thought about it enough you would realise the Skoda costs an awful lot less. As far as my mate this and Saxos etc... you are definitely showing what age you are. I'm sure your Nova or Astra can 'smoke' everything in the traffic light Grand Prix, I bet the guy in his Lamborghini Gallardo felt so ashamed.

It does amuse me how much this car seems to wind up boy racers. If you knew anything about the RX-8 etc... driven one? You would realise it is wearisome and doesn't feel particularly fast, regardless of the figures... not to mention the epic oil usage.

"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?"

Nobody is saying the Skoda is faster, the Honda is fine if you do standing starts everywhere, which is not realistic, remember that is a car with zero torque, drop 3 gears to overtake, get in the powerband, change gear then nothing until you wind it back up again. Totally impractical. If you used to own one, you would know the only good thing about it are the gearbox and brakes.

Anyway, I think people are missing the point, nobody is comparing 0-60 and top speed times, the point is that for the money, the Fabia has a lot going for it, and has been said earlier, a lot of people downsize to them for the mixture of performance and MPG.

"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."

The Fabia's torque standard is 229Lb/ft or 310nm, and it is a lighter car. Also bear in mind the power outputs of the PD engines are conservative; it is common in standard form to be over 140bhp, and even over 150 bhp, proved in RR tests.

There are those drivers who enjoy a responsive, torquey engine, and there are those who like the frantic experience that is the revvy low torque engine.

Personally I don't like revving much above 4500rpm, and I prefer diesels, American muscle cars etc..

I think you Fabia fans are wasting your time, you will never convince the rev happy brigade.

It's not just about 0-60 and top speed though. As a whole package, its hard to beat the vRS. And it shouldn't be compared to any of the cars mentioned above, as they cost a hell of a lot more to buy, & more importantly to run.

The great thing about the vRS is that because of all the torque, you can accelerate reasonably quickly all the time, and still get 45-50mpg. Similar driving in a CTR & you'd be lucky to get 25mpg.

Nuff said on the last comment, I don't think many petrols with decent performance will ever match a diesel for economy, BUT, they are so much better to drive fast I think.

The diesel always will sound awful, no matter how quiet they manage to make it, and the Fabia looks bloody awful as well, so that's not gonna sway my decision.