Here is something I was thinking about the other day. A friend of mine recently bought a MK4 Golf GT TDI 130 bhp with the ASZ vRS engine. Nice car, low mileage but there are a few things which I don't understand:

1. Why is a Fabia vRS heavier than what is a bigger car? How is effectively a Polo heavier than a Golf? Where's the extra weight if the engines and other bits are pretty much the same?

2. I still haven't been in it yet but he was in my dad's Octavia MK1 1.9 TDI SLX (110bhp) and reckons it's a lot faster than his Golf. I think there maybe something wrong with it. Timing out maybe? Has just had it's belt done.

But the main thing that I don't get is the weight difference. According to Parkers the Golf is 1226kg and the vRS is 1315kg, almost 90kg heavier. I know it's not much but it all counts. Even people I have asked about this think that the Fabia even looks a heavier, more solidly built car.

Weirdly they both have the same top speeds and 0-60 times? How is this so? Is it a different gearbox or something? I was told once but don't know if it's true is that Skoda have underestimated the bhp of its cars to get a lower insurance group for them. Is this true?

This has been mentioned before and the common opinion was that Skoda weigh their car with a full tank of fuel and people in it, whilst VW don't. But it has been mentioned that those vRS weight figures are indeed accurate, as people have had their vRS's on weighbridges.

Perhaps as it's (slightly) smaller, sturdier bits are required to meet the ever increasing safety standards? I've never seen anything sturdy and light

So I take it there's people on here who have put a vRS on a weighbridge? Anyone got any figures? Was it with a full tank or nearly empty? It would be nice to know as I can work out how fast it should go and not Parkers guesstimates.

Has anyone recorded the 0-60 time in a standard vRS and anyone got a "theoretical" top speed of their vRS's. I have read somewhere that some car magazines have recorded it being quicker.

Has anyone recorded the 0-60 time in a standard vRS and anyone got a "theoretical" top speed of their vRS's. I have read somewhere that some car magazines have recorded it being quicker.

If you want to know the top speed, surely you just need to drive flat out past a friendly speed camera and what for your personalised printed results to be posted to you.

the fabia does weigh alot! the back seats are really heavy by themselfs!

top speeds pretty accurate i recon i got 125 on gps in my 2.0 once on a nice long bit of land:) in books its 122, but speedo was reading a nicer figure of about 139 still pulling a bit, i chickend out after that and i could see my fuel guage move! haha.

So I take it there's people on here who have put a vRS on a weighbridge? Anyone got any figures? Was it with a full tank or nearly empty? It would be nice to know as I can work out how fast it should go and not Parkers guesstimates.

Has anyone recorded the 0-60 time in a standard vRS and anyone got a "theoretical" top speed of their vRS's. I have read somewhere that some car magazines have recorded it being quicker.

Silly question.

Did you search for any of this?

No. Sorry for being lazy. Just thought of something and posted.

the fabia does weigh alot! the back seats are really heavy by themselfs!

top speeds pretty accurate i recon i got 125 on gps in my 2.0 once on a nice long bit of land:) in books its 122, but speedo was reading a nicer figure of about 139 still pulling a bit, i chickend out after that and i could see my fuel guage move! haha.

Yeah but the 2l is quicker than a vrs:thumbup:

0-60 on a standard VRS being 9.5 seconds is not accurate I dont think.

most places I've read seems to have it at 8.5ish

And my fabia is quicker than a chipped S3..... work that one out!

I was told once but don't know if it's true is that Skoda have underestimated the bhp of its cars to get a lower insurance group for them. Is this true?

There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence on this site that the later vRSs (BLT engine) certainly put out more than the 130bhp claimed. Although it's difficult to get an accurate fly-wheel figure from a rolling road I have seen a number of threads that claim 140-145bhp without mods.

I have the ASZ engine and without any mods it was putting out 144 bhp on the rollers.

When you say he was "in" your dad's Octavia, I presume you mean as a passenger? It could just be that he hasn't got the hang of the Golf's power band, whereas your dad has... Remember, rapid driving is about a lot more than what a piece of paper says your car can do!

When you say he was "in" your dad's Octavia, I presume you mean as a passenger? It could just be that he hasn't got the hang of the Golf's power band, whereas your dad has... Remember, rapid driving is about a lot more than what a piece of paper says your car can do!

I was driving and he was passenger. As I haven't been in his car yet I can't comment on his driving style.

This has been mentioned before and the common opinion was that Skoda weigh their car with a full tank of fuel and people in it, whilst VW don't. But it has been mentioned that those vRS weight figures are indeed accurate, as people have had their vRS's on weighbridges.

it can't be down to having a full tank and people in the car; an average bloke is in the region of 80kg and a litre of diesel weighs something like just less than 1kg

but you would think putting the car on a weighbridge would give a pretty decent idea of heavy the car actually is (fluid levels etc aside)

Could be the difference between dry weight and wet weight??

Full tank of fuel, full washer bottle, full coolant and oil could add up to about 70-75 kilos?? (depending on SG of additives etc)

Or could be extra sound deadenning, beefier crash protection etc etc. Only has to be an extra 500g here, 750 there would soon add up!!!