Standard Fabia VRS...

[Grant Lowery]

When I say town driving I'll be doing maybe 2 miles a day so nothing major, I imagine it will hardly affect consumption at all.

[Slamby]

Have an idea of 50mpg in your head, and it prob won't be far wrong. You'll get 48 or 52 sometimes. Just don't trust the trip computer. A brim to brim calc is the only accurate measure.

['Little' John]

I agree that A&B road driving plus some town driving will not achieve 60mpg. However, my post is still valid as it shows that 60mpg is achievable without 'free-falling down a cliff'.

It's all useful information.

Why don't you post your mpg figures for your Mazda and give us all a laugh...........

Haven't done enough miles to do a calculated figure yet, but the figures on paper compare favourably with the Fabia. Mixed driving over the moors to Whitby on saturday and back via the coast road gave a trip computer figure of 55.8mpg, which if accurate is probably better than the Furby would have done on the same run driven in the same way.

It probably helps that it has a sensible gearbox unlike the later vRSs. Revs at slightly less than 2000rpm at 70mph in 6th.

Anyway I'm not expecting the same level of economy in a car which has twice the space of the Fabia and 180bhp as standard.

Edited 7 September, 2010 by 'Little' John

[Grant Lowery]

you say the later VRS's have a different gearbox? I take it they're 5 spd, which year did they start putting 5spd boxes in?

['Little' John]

you say the later VRS's have a different gearbox? I take it they're 5 spd, which year did they start putting 5spd boxes in?

They all have six speed boxes, but the earlier one's have longer gear ratios which mean they rev lower at a given speed. I don't know exactly when they changed them, but I'm sure somebody will be along to tell you soon.

[JesVRS]

Is it more desirable to have it reving higher, for 'performance' or is there negligible difference?

[Wardy]

In March 2004 the 'box was altered, which changed the final ratio meaning the newer cars cruise at slightly more revs in 6th. This equates to around 200rpm at 70. So the older ones are slightly more economical.

But I've owned one vRS with the 'long' box and two with the 'short' box and the economy hasn't been noticeably different. All have achieved 48MPG in mixed driving, not particularly hanging about and at stage-1 remap power (so circa 175bhp). The 2nd one I tweaked a little further, to 220bhp and mixed economy was around the 45MPG mark.

All above figures calculated using the brim to brim method, i.e. the proper way! Computer was usually around 2MPG more optimistic.

Hope that helps.

Steve

[Wardy]

Is it more desirable to have it reving higher, for 'performance' or is there negligible difference?

Negligible in my experience. Perhaps with the longer box I changed down from 6th a few more times, when acceleration was required at motorway/fast A-road speed.

['Little' John]

Is it more desirable to have it reving higher, for 'performance' or is there negligible difference?

I think it's to do with the way that the engine picks up. As far as I know there seemed to be issues with not pulling well when people wanted to speed up to overtake but couldn't be bothered to use the gearbox. Skoda felt this didn't fit in with the 'sporty' character of the car and packed the gear ratios closer together so that it revved higher which means it's in a better place in the powerband at that sort of speed. It probably also helps the 0-60 time marginally. There's not a massive difference - I think you're looking at about 200-300 rpm at seventy in 6th. However, that is enough to have a negative effect on your economy.

[Wardy]

As said, they only altered the final ratio.

[DRJ]

In March 2004 the 'box was altered, which changed the final ratio meaning the newer cars cruise at slightly more revs in 6th. This equates to around 200rpm at 70. So the older ones are slightly more economical.

As said, they only altered the final ratio.

Please note that the above information is somewhat incorrect.

Here is the evidence:

Comparing those you can see that as well as altering the final drive ratios (plural note - it's different in the higher gears) they also altered 4th, 5th and 6th.

On standard tyres the earlier car is doing 1841rpm at 70mph whereas the later car is doing 2153rpm at 70mph - a difference of 312rpm - but more significantly 17% more revs...

[Guest BigJase88]

im thinking this means the earlier vrs's would have a better top speed as they could be in the turbo band?? where as the 04 onwards would be revving the nuts off them?