6th Aug 2007, 06:52

8.2secs is about the best that you can do, but it is down to trial and error as to how to go about doing it. As I'm sure your well aware, it's difficult to use all the power in first & second, because it struggles for traction.

10th Aug 2007, 05:13

The real 0-62mph in "standard" form is 9.6sec. 0-100mph is 29.6sec for the fabia vrs.

11th Aug 2007, 10:32

These were slow times back in 1985!! Diesel catching up with the likes of WRX or type R? I don't think so, the WRX will get to 100 in half the VRS's time and the type R is similar. Diesel turbos are only as good as a warm non turbo petrol, when both diesel and petrol both have turbos, the petrol destroys the diesel.

13th Aug 2007, 05:07

I get sick of the debate how fast is the Fabia vRS, I have bought a vRS and the reasons why are quite simple, I want a quick car that will do 50+ mpg. I spend most of the day stuck in traffic; since swapping to my vRS I save over £90 a month just in fuel over my old car (Corsa SXi).

For the most part people who buy the vRS aren't looking for a stupid, high revy car that does nothing to the gallon; they are like me looking for a quick car that is reliable and gives good fuel economy.

I would much rather get to 60mph 2 seconds slower and put money back in my own pocket to do other things with, and in the real world the vRS is very quick and will leave lots of "more powerful" cars behind.

I think it is great that all these people don't want a vRS because it is too slow; keeps my insurance premiums down and my residuals for the car high.

So if you require to always be revving the balls off your motor in the hopes that you can beat someone at the lights, whilst paying over the odds to keep the car filled up with fuel and crippled with the insurance premiums, then the vRS isn’t for you, however if you understand what Skoda has tried to achieve with this car, then it will be the obvious choice.

13th Aug 2007, 06:28

'The real 0-62mph in "standard" form is 9.6sec. 0-100mph is 29.6sec for the fabia vrs.'

Completely wrong, even my grandmother to get it to 60 faster than that. 8.2 seconds would be the official time if Skoda weren't so restrained & keen to keep insurance group down. As for 0-100, I believe 24 seconds is the norm, but few magazines state it.

Until you've test driven one, don't comment please. I was rather sceptical as to its performance, but after 2 minutes of a test drive, I fully understood all the hype that owners create.

13th Aug 2007, 07:56

Very well said. The vRS is a much better every day car than the revvy and peaky petrol sports hatches-and not having to change down one or two gears to hit the high rev power band every time gives you much better and quicker real world performance.

0-60 is irrelevant, it is the in-gear torque that makes a car good.

The vRS is an exceptionally good car, and you can revel in the fact that, actually, you do know better! It has become a cult car for a reason.

14th Aug 2007, 07:25

Vrs will crack 0-60 in 9.7sec and sail through the 100mph mark in 29.7sec. in base form.

14th Aug 2007, 08:37

I've been reading these comments and enjoying everyones different points of view VTEC or diesel.

I currently own a Honda Integra Type R, and just sold my last Integra Type R Turbo with just over 300bhp.

I haven't driven the vRS, but I have driven my friend's Seat Ibiza FR 130tdi many times, which I believe is the same engine (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Now to compare the two is like chalk and cheese.

On the one hand you have a very capable diesel engine with lots of torque; great for nipping about in town and cruising down the motorway with fantastic fuel economy.

On the other hand you have the Type R which can feel very normal driving through town, but comes alive on the back roads and anywhere where you can use the power of VTEC.

Personally I pick the Type R every day of the week for the grin factor and the sound of that glorious engine, and at the moment I can afford the insurance and petrol costs easily enough.

In a straight race there is no contest; the Type R will win hands down on any road, but that is what it was designed to do.

The diesel engine however is nippy enough to beat quite a few of the smaller boy racer cars, so can still be a bit of fun.

15th Aug 2007, 06:32

'Vrs will crack 0-60 in 9.7sec and sail through the 100mph mark in 29.7sec. in base form.'

The comment of someone who has never driven one I suspect. Read a review where the reviewer has done their own performance tests or do them yourself (with proper timing gear of couse). The results are much better. 0-60 low 8s & 0-100 around 24secs.

21st Aug 2007, 16:14

There are some very confused opinions here.

People who overestimate Turbo Diesels because of their torque.

People who underestimate Turbo Diesels because of their 0-60.

People who are looking at their vRS through rose tinted glasses, and let's be honest, we all do that!!

Diesels feel fast because of their torque. The in gear punch is what makes diesels feel quick, and easy to drive, as you don't need to 'drop it a gear'

I drive a Mondeo ST Diesel, which 0-60 and in gear times are actually not that disimilar to the vRS. And similarly, I was always impressed by the effortless torque. It is easy (and fun) on the motorway, as traffic clears, to accelerate from 50-70 and enjoy the look on the following drivers face as he sees he is being accelerated away from by a Mondeo with TDCI on the boot :)

Then I took it to a track day. Fun, but completely outclassed, in a way that my Audi S6 just wouldn't have been.

At the end of the day, I say it like this:

My car? Is it fast? - No, it's like all diesels, it's not that quick off the line. 0-60 in 9.4 (it's an estate, hatchback is 8.8) and that's not really very quick. On the other hand, 50-70 in about 6 IS fast, and it does that too.

The Rover owner who says he stayed side by side with the Skoda until 60, then pulled away from a vRS?

I reckon (diesel owners back me up here) you have got that the wrong way round.

I would have expected (maybe) you to have the edge until 60, then the Skoda's torque would have taken him sailing away from you.

31st Aug 2007, 18:33

Fair enough, You were driving I wasn't.

But, you can never tell, can you. He may have been racing up to 50-60, then short shifted into 5th.

I will agree as well that they are not that fast. But...

They are very torquey, and that really shows above 50-60 mph which is why I reckon he must have backed off.

I had a wee play (on a dual carrigway tonight, my ST TDCI) following a Saab 93 convertible turbo, and in fact I closed on him (not much in it) but as we passed about 65, I short shifted into 6th, then kept accelerating up to 75. No doubt he was looking in his mirror thinking, "Yes, I am leaving behind an ST220. No you were not, you were leaving an ST TDCI, and one who was no longer trying.

The Skoda, once above 50, really is pretty quick, and I don't think he was trying, sorry mate.