280lbs/ft at 19,000rpm (approx)

Which is more than enough in something that weighs about the same as the driver!

280lbs/ft at 19,000rpm (approx)

so less than a

car then?

An RX 8 has 231 bhp ... 2.0 litre engine with 115 BHP is grandad power for old gimmers in comparison !

and half the weight of one too andy. I see your point, but lets be fair here, a F1 car/engine isnt in the same league as, well anything thats why its F1!

<> Minus the league of 2.0 Fabia power, which the F1 car, even with a hybrid Button/Hamilton crossbreeded driver would loose too. OBV! DUR!

Edited 28 September, 200916 yr by T. Spark
EDITTED to include 2.0 Fabia power...

RX8 Is an animal and that has less torque than a blender!

but eats more fuel than an evo...

but eats more fuel than an evo...

But wont make you look like a pikey. Trying to be diffrent and thought the scooby is to burberry pffft

RX8 Is an animal and that has less torque than a blender!

Well yes, but that's down to its positively poisonous handling on the limit.

but eats more fuel than an evo...

not to mention the oil consumption...:eek:

PL

not to mention the oil consumption...:eek:

PL

Maybe I should merge this thread with the one on putting 2-stroke oil in your fuel?

Maybe I should merge this thread with the one on putting 2-stroke oil in your fuel?

That's not as funny as you might think; the ****el engine has a fair bit in common with a 2-smoke cycle.

Well yes, but that's down to its positively poisonous handling on the limit.

Actually there one of the best cars to have for going "beyond the limit" And if you end up spinning and crashing it than quiet simply you cant DRIVE!! There not the best in the wet but then most rear wheel drive cars slide when its wet. To the point if you push any car "beyond the limit" on a public road then you have issues in the head. So ether way its not going to matter. Case in point Renualt clio v6

Is the point with both of those that there's little warning they're about to swap ends, rather than how 'easy' it is to do it?

Actually there one of the best cars to have for going "beyond the limit" And if you end up spinning and crashing it than quiet simply you cant DRIVE!! There not the best in the wet but then most rear wheel drive cars slide when its wet. To the point if you push any car "beyond the limit" on a public road then you have issues in the head. So ether way its not going to matter. Case in point Renualt clio v6

and exactly how good/expierienced are you?

and exactly how good/expierienced are you?

I'll put 50 quid on that hes never ragged one...

Classic case of HIOTG Syndrom.

I'll put 50 quid on that hes never ragged one...

Classic case of HIOTG Syndrom.

Well you can say anything on the internet. So regardless of whatever i would say am sure you would come out with some sly comment on how am lying blah blah. So i wont even bother. Keep your £50 in your pocket!

Well you can say anything on the internet. So regardless of whatever i would say am sure you would come out with some sly comment on how am lying blah blah. So i wont even bother. Keep your £50 in your pocket!

I just don't agree with people making comments on cars they have never tested. I have been in one in the more powerful (revised version) and found plenty grip in the damp under brisk driving. Much better than a Fabia will ever be, IMHO even better then the R32, and that takes a lot for me to say that.

Have you driven a clio v6? Or was it something you heard?

Back to topic.... I think I will just need to leave the 2.0 alone it seems to much of a match for the feeble vRS:)

The 2.0 is an old crude engine. Why would you choose the 2.0 over a vRS? Surely the figures say it all...

vRS = more torque, more power, better mpg, 6speed for motorway cruising, better spec/body styling, nicer rims, better handling, quicker 0-60, top speed and quicker in gear acceleration and more reliable

2.0 = erm, its petrol whoopy doo.

I just don't agree with people making comments on cars they have never tested. I have been in one in the more powerful (revised version) and found plenty grip in the damp under brisk driving. Much better than a Fabia will ever be, IMHO even better then the R32, and that takes a lot for me to say that.

Have you driven a clio v6? Or was it something you heard?

Back to topic.... I think I will just need to leave the 2.0 alone it seems to much of a match for the feeble vRS:)

NO! My point was that people go on about taking a car to its limit the case in point was the clio v6, not the best handling car, but it has plenty of mechanical grip so you will never no on public roads. And if you found that limit while on a public road! Then you drive with no care for other road users... That was my point

I'd take the vRS for various reasons, but I can relate to there being not much in it between the 2.0 v 130vRS to 80mph from an incident which surprised me how tractable and quick the 2.0 was.

I bought my parents an ex-demo 2.0 Fabia with demo mileage a few years ago and on the 200 mile trip to deliver it to them, an Audi A4 130PD was about a fag packet's width off my back bumper as I was followed another car overtaking in the outside lane.

As it was the M6 toll road with zero traffic in front and I was more stupid back then, I floored it from 70mph, moved over and accelerated until it wouldn't go any faster. The Audi was alongside but could not get past.

This was either due to the Audi driver being in shock at a Fabia keeping ahead (the vRS hadn't been launched) or it simply was more evenly matched than the on-paper outputs suggest !

...Or the Audi driver just didnt give a damn and didnt floor it.

Anyway, a simple remap takes care of the 2.0 vs vRS arguement as you cant remap a 2.0 to any great advantage.

...Or the Audi driver just didnt give a damn and didnt floor it.

Anyway, a simple remap takes care of the 2.0 vs vRS arguement as you cant remap a 2.0 to any great advantage.

Only days away

the thing i always hated about my 2.0 fabia was that is was massively over-geared, i can only presume this was done to make it quieter at motorway speeds and to 'make' it's acceleration slower than a standard vrs for marketing purposes.. there's a lot can be said for having a raw simple engine too, there's far less valves/turbo's/stuff to go wrong. mine had about 175k on it when it finally ate it's own piston rings which is a fairly good innings to be fair... i must say that i would not ever buy a 2.0 fabia again, but also i would never buy ANY fabia ever again, they are far too troublesome(suspension, bushes, hoses, aircon, arbs, electrics, etc etc) with the sort of mileages i drive...

i had made a few stealthy mods to mine, i had dropped the final drive ratio down using a few parts from a 1.4-16v fabia gearbox and bits from the 2.0 gearbox which made the accelerattion a lot more spirited. and i had a very mild fast road camshaft.. to be fair it was fairly nimble considering how much the fabia weights...

one place the 2.0 would shine though is if you were looking for a base/donor for a 20v turbo transplant, virtually everything is there that you would need

one place the 2.0 would shine though is if you were looking for a base/donor for a 20v turbo transplant, virtually everything is there that you would need

There speaks the voice! I'm really not sure why no UK projects have been attempted with this. You'd end up with something really quite interesting, if done properly

Steve

Is the point with both of those that there's little warning they're about to swap ends, rather than how 'easy' it is to do it?

As you say mate. I'll admit to never having driven either but I know professional racing drivers (not muttering rotters) who've driven both and complain about the poisonous way the back lets go.

Add to that the fact that I do occasionally (less often since I joined Briskoda; thanks to Nick, Chris and yourself) misread a corner and go in too fast...