2004 Skoda Fabia vRS from UK and Ireland - Comments

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

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.

'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.

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.

Yea well I know what happened that night and the skoda just didn't seem all that fast, even compared to a much older car.

Now I'm not saying the rover is better in any way although it is better to drive, I have recently borrowed one of these vrs fabias from a friend and it was OK, but but not super quick like people make out and the quality certainly wasn't much to write home about.

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.

A standard Fabia vRS, Seat Ibiza/Cordoba PD130 would frankly spank most Saabs bottoms mid range way past 100 and onto 135 etc where frankly the sheer weight of the Saab (regardless of what top speed times say) would come into play and after driving loads of Saab Turbos, the Aero variety, but especially late 70's early 80's ones they are bloated, heavy and cumbersome and quite scary at speed.

My Cordoba which is sensibly modified is frightening mid range, it is so light and grunty, a real little Q Car, looks totally inoffensive, but I really cannot think of any car in that price bracket and far above that has given me such a huge grin factor.

The power band is exactly where you want it in day to day driving, 30 to 70mph times are almost a blur, just seconds and once its in 5th or 6th it just surges on relentlessly with no power drop off whatsoever, one day I'll take it on a track, ruin some tyres and see how quick it really will go. I would recommend one to anybody.

Well maybe he wasn't trying hard, but I have to point out the exhaust was letting out the normal black smog crap that turbo diesels do when you put your foot down so I assume he was.

And considering how it was nearly crashed on a bend indicated he was doing close to 75 as my speedo showed.

You are absolutely right; that was my point.

I closed on him through 3rd gear. I know I would have pulled past him in 4th, and 5th, but I gave up at that point, as I was cruising at 75ish, but he was travelling quicker.

I was saying that that Saab driver is probably now convinced his car was faster, when I don't think it was.

And I am sorry but I think the same about the Rover. I don't think the driver of the vRS was trying.

What is with you people? The fabia VRS is NOT a performance car, it cracks 60mph in just under 10sec in standard form and has a power to weight ratio of only 99bhp per tonne, (hardly impressive). I would say its more of a relaxed city cruiser, definitely NO road burner, as its BARELY even a warm hatch. If you all want a fast car, sell the SKODA and get something else!

'Well maybe he wasn't trying hard, but I have to point out the exhaust was letting out the normal black smog crap that turbo diesels do when you put your foot down so I assume he was.'

As a vRS owner I know full well about the smoke it produces. I quite like the fact it produces so much smoke as it covers the car I've just overtaken in vRS fumes. But at the same time, because it produces smoke even under very light acceleration, it gives a false impression to other cars as to how hard you are accelerating. (i.e smoke from the exhaust doesn't always mean we've got our foot to the floor)

It does when your coughing on that Cra*!

There merely a warm hatch that's it, what about the atrocious handling of them, no one seems to have mentioned that?

Id like to see it stay with a saxo vts that would be funny, it even has the power advantage too, I'm not saying I like saxo's because I would'nt personally own one, but I have seen what they can do and the fabia would be so far behind its laughable.

I think the vrs owners need to wake up and accept they aren't driving a hot hatch, just a cheap vw.

'There merely a warm hatch that's it, what about the atrocious handling of them, no one seems to have mentioned that?'

I think all owners of vRS know that they're only a warm hatch and that there is a lot of body roll. But for under a grand you can get it re-mapped to 170/180bhp (without the need to upgrade the clutch), add a rear ARB & and lower it. Then the handling and performance would be similar to a hot hatch, & yet it would still be much much much cheaper to buy & run.

In terms of value for money, it really is nearly impossible to beat!

Oh, it will definately be cheaper to run.

However a re-map is definately not advised on these 'PD' engines, they won't see the other side of 40k if they are, I've seen it happen on numerous models with this engine, not just the fabia.

Also to make it a fair comparison, the extra money spent 'improving' the Fabia would be a waste anyway as a new engine is not cheap.

The other hatch should also be modified the same to make it fair, I don't think these are all that cheap to buy and looking at them objectively I don't see anything other than a nippy economical car.

Theres plenty out there cheaper and more fun to drive.

"In terms of value for money, it really is nearly impossible to beat"

It's a skoda and everybody other than the strange skoda owners laughs at them so in my opinion it isn't very hard to beat.