So, what are people's thoughts of getting an optimal hard launch on a Fabia VRS?

Revs and second gear!

Dont do it on a standard fabia as you will shred clutch and flywheel!!

Only if you have uprated flywheel smf and clutch like moi

way off topic, but has any one driven the the scooby with the boxer diesel engine ?

any thoughts ?

way off topic, but has any one driven the the scooby with the boxer diesel engine ?

any thoughts ?

Isn't the boxer diesel the worst engine ever built!?

So jeremy told me

way off topic, but has any one driven the the scooby with the boxer diesel engine ?

any thoughts ?

The engine looks nice.

I'll budget a clutch and flywheel in... i'll tell the bird that it'll make it easier for her to drive, or something. Double clutch is required on SMFs? She'll never get that.

Edited 9 September, 201015 yr by JesVRS

Personally, I don’t think you can separate the fuel from the engines characteristics. But having owned 2 early Scoobys, I can testify that few cars I have ever driven could get off the line as well. My BMW 123D was pretty quick, but it could in no way match the Scooby from a standstill, once underway, the BMW would eventually haul in the Scooby and pass it. I sold cars at Bauer Millet and was lucky enough to drive many seriously quick cars, but nothing under £50K (and many cars costing up to £100K) that I ever drove felt as quick 0-30 as my first Scooby. The exception being a Megabusa, but that was really a track car.

Once on the move a propely sorted and modded Furby is like any other properly sorted and modded car……QUICK!! I quote Shiftys car regularly, as it was heavily modded (about 240bhp), stripped out and the handling sorted. But, even then he struggled to leave my 123D in a straight line (only 204 bhp and probably 500kg heavier!!) and when going cross country my RWD proved to give much more traction out of corners than his exotic Furby and it’s FWD. Ultimately I was no match for Shiftys driving, but in a drag race the difference wasn’t that great. This is why I struggle to see how a lightly breathed on Furby could ‘leave by some distance’ a Scooby with roughly similar 'on paper' performance.

Imho the Scooby got it’s reputation because of things like my first one cost me £13.5K brand new on the road. Nothing, but nothing, in those days, came close to the performance for that kind of money. I even remember drag racing an M3 at the time away from a standstill and roughly holding it until I ran out of third gear and he left me for dead. Mind you it started raining and he wouldn’t play any more Then the Scooby became mainstream, other manufacturers caught up with it and the Chavs moved in. I think it was a similar story with the original Golf Gti as others made better Gtis and it took VW probably 20 years to get back to the top echelon again. I loved the character of my Scooby, but I won't be buying another (probably couldn't afford to run it either) as the 'specialness' has left the model

Every car's characteristics are difference, commonrail is difference to drive compared to the PD type IMO. Regardless, fuel types cant be used when quoting traction, fuel doesnt affect traction does it? not to quote your signature but "simples".

How can you make out that the above scenario isnt right when your claiming a 204bhp BMW can keep up with a 240bhp, lighter, Fabia, that to me makes no sense in itself. Some distance is defined by the driver, in formula one "some distance" could be half a second, to others it could be interpreted at 10 car lengths - which I think we all know wouldnt have happened unless the Subaru pull over to refuel - which we shouldnt rule out :giggle:

I dont really see how RWD helps you through tight twisty lanes either, powering out of corners with RWD usually means you get some tail end action (not that type lads, sorry) and with a FWD you will get a severe lack of steering, what seems more pheasable is that the BMW is better setup for handling generally, i.e. the wheels are usually so close to the bumpers and have next to no overhang thus being well planted. In a straight line race, I cant really see the BMW being close if it has less power and more weight - doesnt make sense unless it runs on pixie dust and only emits Carlsberg out of the exhaust too.

I'm not knocking Subaru as I was very close to buying myself an STi not so long back, there a great car, but the WRX no matter which was you look at it will never be much different to a remapped vRS, I think this screnario is simply down to driver ability, if you swapped the drivers over I think the Subaru would have taken off and left the Fab for dust, soot free dust, but never the less...

It would be possible for a furby to beat a scooby of the line but it would take a good driver who knows how to launch and a lemon in the scooby.

I used to destroy subabrus................... evo's, M3's, skylines.......bloody hell, I destroyed pretty much anything that was willing to have a go also destroyed many gearbox in the process

But that was back in the day when my pulsar gtir was used as a daily family car, with 500+bhp. it was featured in many of the top japanese mags back in 2004 -2007 and was timed at 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, 11.1 seconds quarter mile @ 132 mph all in full trim and baby seat in the back. competed at santa pod, york and ten of the best for years. Back then, privateer tuning was pretty rare.

The good old days

Just thought i'd share that you

Sorry, back on topic.

Edited 9 September, 201015 yr by kawi kid

Revs and second gear!

Dont do it on a standard fabia as you will shred clutch and flywheel!!

Only if you have uprated flywheel smf and clutch like moi

And a nice diff to help you out

And a nice diff to help you out

Mmhmm..

ON the topic, how do you pronounce Quaife? I say K-WAY-F - but i have heard a few people saying some pretty ridiculous things.

Edited 9 September, 201015 yr by JesVRS

fuel doesnt affect traction does it?

If you've got more torque delivered in a fairly unprogressive manner, you're more likely to have issues with traction. The fact you have to build diesel engines in a shape that delivers a higher level of torque (for comparable displacement) means that most likely the type of fuel you're running will affect your traction.

I dont really see how RWD helps you through tight twisty lanes either, powering out of corners with RWD usually means you get some tail end action

The advantage of RWD when cornering is that you're not trying to use the same set of wheels for both steering and acceleration. If you end up with the tail sliding, you've applied too much power...

If you've got more torque delivered in a fairly unprogressive manner, you're more likely to have issues with traction. The fact you have to build diesel engines in a shape that delivers a higher level of torque (for comparable displacement) means that most likely the type of fuel you're running will affect your traction.

The advantage of RWD when cornering is that you're not trying to use the same set of wheels for both steering and acceleration. If you end up with the tail sliding, you've applied too much power...

Regardless, fuel isnt the direct result of that...the direct result if bhp/torque.

&

Captain Obvious lol.

Yes the Fabia will keep you with a turbo 2000, and maybe a WRX if its one of the gash ones, but go into the first corner and its bye bye, as i found out thinking I could follow my Dad into the same corner at the same speed.

Every car's characteristics are difference, commonrail is difference to drive compared to the PD type IMO. Regardless, fuel types cant be used when quoting traction, fuel doesnt affect traction does it? not to quote your signature but "simples".

Diesel engines perform in a massively different way to petrol ones , so the fuel type is 100% relevant. A huge wodge of torque and FWD doesn't help a get away, especially if the revs then rise and the engine is almost immediately past it's peak torque. I now drive a 3.0 Quattro TDi and the 4x4 makes a huge difference in getting away. where as my old 130tdi (PD engine) and 140tdi (common rail) FWD VAG cars were hopeless at getting going initially. one was a DSG one so the blame could not have been all mine. So traction is also a massively important factor. Big torque spins up front wheels almost too easily and is harder to modulate in my experience.

How can you make out that the above scenario isnt right when your claiming a 204bhp BMW can keep up with a 240bhp, lighter, Fabia, that to me makes no sense in itself. Some distance is defined by the driver, in formula one "some distance" could be half a second, to others it could be interpreted at 10 car lengths - which I think we all know wouldnt have happened unless the Subaru pull over to refuel - which we shouldnt rule out

My point (if you read it) was the RWD traction made the difference, a Scooby has a surfeit of the stuff in a straight line. As for the 'some distance' remark, I think being pedantic is uncalled for really. We know what was meant.

I dont really see how RWD helps you through tight twisty lanes either, powering out of corners with RWD usually means you get some tail end action (not that type lads, sorry) and with a FWD you will get a severe lack of steering, what seems more pheasable is that the BMW is better setup for handling generally, i.e. the wheels are usually so close to the bumpers and have next to no overhang thus being well planted. In a straight line race, I cant really see the BMW being close if it has less power and more weight - doesnt make sense unless it runs on pixie dust and only emits Carlsberg out of the exhaust too.

Are you being serious? Why do you think the RWD BMWs have a weight penalty in Touring cars. I have spoken several times to the BTCC drivers and they all agree RWD gives naturally great traction out of a corner. the phrase #slow in, fast out' was invented for it. As for the performance benefit of the BMW, it has a twin turbo set up. The torque curve is very flat and the engine incredibly responsive for a diesel. Wheels being close to bumpers is not the important thing. The bumper weighs nothing of note, the important things are the real masses, such as the engine position in relation to the front axle amongst other things. Hence 50/50 balance is achieved, but the position of the axel to the bumper? I don't think so.

I'm not knocking Subaru as I was very close to buying myself an STi not so long back, there a great car, but the WRX no matter which was you look at it will never be much different to a remapped vRS, I think this screnario is simply down to driver ability, if you swapped the drivers over I think the Subaru would have taken off and left the Fab for dust, soot free dust, but never the less...

As for the difference is massive. My Quattro is probably as fast if not faster than my previous BMW, but it is light years away in the way it does it. The only thing that I can see the VRs and the Scooby having in common is they both naturally understeer unless severely provoked. If you think the two cars are similar, then I should think you will save yourself a lot of money in future years with your car purchasing.

Pink writing is annoying

Pink writing is annoying

OP here..

completely agree...

How my thread turned into a BMW versus a Skoda i will never know. Anyway, my BMW Z4M will destroy pretty much anything on the road. And that includes Impreza's or Skodas.

**Waves Willy**

Edited 9 September, 201015 yr by Beancounter1980

But that was back in the day when my pulsar gtir was used as a daily family car, with 500+bhp. it was featured in many of the top japanese mags back in 2004 -2007 and was timed at 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, 11.1 seconds quarter mile @ 132 mph all in full trim and baby seat in the back. competed at santa pod, york and ten of the best for years. Back then, privateer tuning was pretty rare.

Was this the car we called the Sunny Gti-r? It was a great looking hatch in it’s day, and quite overlooked by more popular 4x4s. Ah the good old days. Grolwers, Quattros, Scoobys, 6R4s. We never had it so good. Plus it was amazingly easy to pull a good looking guy with good hot hatch/rally replica. Mind you, I wouldn’t let them drive my car unless they were a keeper

Edited 9 September, 201015 yr by Lady Elanore

Pink writing is annoying

I’d advise the ignore facilitie, as I am unable to post in anything else Mind you my monitor has an odd cast so the colour looks more red to me

yawn... fabia's aren't fast.. get over it

Every car's characteristics are difference, commonrail is difference to drive compared to the PD type IMO. Regardless, fuel types cant be used when quoting traction, fuel doesnt affect traction does it? not to quote your signature but "simples".

Diesel engines perform in a massively different way to petrol ones , so the fuel type is 100% relevant. A huge wodge of torque and FWD doesn't help a get away, especially if the revs then rise and the engine is almost immediately past it's peak torque. I now drive a 3.0 Quattro TDi and the 4x4 makes a huge difference in getting away. where as my old 130tdi (PD engine) and 140tdi (common rail) FWD VAG cars were hopeless at getting going initially. one was a DSG one so the blame could not have been all mine. So traction is also a massively important factor. Big torque spins up front wheels almost too easily and is harder to modulate in my experience.

How can you make out that the above scenario isnt right when your claiming a 204bhp BMW can keep up with a 240bhp, lighter, Fabia, that to me makes no sense in itself. Some distance is defined by the driver, in formula one "some distance" could be half a second, to others it could be interpreted at 10 car lengths - which I think we all know wouldnt have happened unless the Subaru pull over to refuel - which we shouldnt rule out

My point (if you read it) was the RWD traction made the difference, a Scooby has a surfeit of the stuff in a straight line. As for the 'some distance' remark, I think being pedantic is uncalled for really. We know what was meant.

I dont really see how RWD helps you through tight twisty lanes either, powering out of corners with RWD usually means you get some tail end action (not that type lads, sorry) and with a FWD you will get a severe lack of steering, what seems more pheasable is that the BMW is better setup for handling generally, i.e. the wheels are usually so close to the bumpers and have next to no overhang thus being well planted. In a straight line race, I cant really see the BMW being close if it has less power and more weight - doesnt make sense unless it runs on pixie dust and only emits Carlsberg out of the exhaust too.

Are you being serious? Why do you think the RWD BMWs have a weight penalty in Touring cars. I have spoken several times to the BTCC drivers and they all agree RWD gives naturally great traction out of a corner. the phrase #slow in, fast out' was invented for it. As for the performance benefit of the BMW, it has a twin turbo set up. The torque curve is very flat and the engine incredibly responsive for a diesel. Wheels being close to bumpers is not the important thing. The bumper weighs nothing of note, the important things are the real masses, such as the engine position in relation to the front axle amongst other things. Hence 50/50 balance is achieved, but the position of the axel to the bumper? I don't think so.

I'm not knocking Subaru as I was very close to buying myself an STi not so long back, there a great car, but the WRX no matter which was you look at it will never be much different to a remapped vRS, I think this screnario is simply down to driver ability, if you swapped the drivers over I think the Subaru would have taken off and left the Fab for dust, soot free dust, but never the less...

As for the difference is massive. My Quattro is probably as fast if not faster than my previous BMW, but it is light years away in the way it does it. The only thing that I can see the VRs and the Scooby having in common is they both naturally understeer unless severely provoked. If you think the two cars are similar, then I should think you will save yourself a lot of money in future years with your car purchasing.

Getting bored now, and this is getting really repetitive.

The fuel DOES NOT affect traction...its simple, you are generalising performance of fuel, yet I have never seen anyone in an SDi struggling to hold back the sheer amounts of torque, is that not diesel? or do you think it got less character? see my 'pedantic' point?...

How on earth you're turning this into touring cars and what BMW have acheived in that I do not know, regardless, RWD isnt magic, it cannot make a car faster than somthing that has more power and less weight that is just using an alternative drive train...RWD does not permit cars to bypass the laws of physics, pass go or collect £200...

Who mentioned the weight of the physical bumpers??? traditionally in VAGs engines are pushed far forward and the wheels set back, thats a lot of weight especially to over hang by a few inches...BMW put there wheels right at the front, keeping the weight of the car more central. Im not arguing about track times, I simply said that IMO coming out of corners at speed in a RWD is pretty risky, too much throttle and the back becomes twitchy or steps out.

How can you say that after the figures I have quoted...do I need to digup that old video? straight line performance is affected by BHP at the wheels, weight, etc etc, theyre both similar, whats not sinking in? I wasnt comparing all round similarities, Subaru would win on handling by a million miles.

Please just...dont reply...my heads getting sore from what feels like im hitting it against a brick wall...

Might be time to let this thread die...

Yes the Fabia will keep you with a turbo 2000, and maybe a WRX if its one of the gash ones, but go into the first corner and its bye bye, as i found out thinking I could follow my Dad into the same corner at the same speed.

Corner issue proven here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rPhOApnSA

no let the thread live on i mean its not like we've had the "fabias are really slow" or the "my fabia beat a nova of the lights today", my understanding of it is....

Fabia vrs remaped to around my spec, in general are not "slow" dont get me wrong im not saying its bloody rapid, but does do well agaisnt some cars that you wouldnt expect them to, it all depends on what you are comparing them to, a alfa 147 3.2... no the fabia is not fast compared to that, a toyota corrola sr or whatever they are, yes it is quick, or a vtr-vts, its all what you are comparing slow or fast to. In my eyes your are not going to buy as good a car as a fabia vrs for 6000 taking in all things into consideration ie. speed, eco, comfort, looks, reliability, and insurance for us younger guys.

Well i hope you like my little rant if not go suck on some donkey balls you mongtard!

OP here..

completely agree...

How my thread turned into a BMW versus a Skoda i will never know. Anyway, my BMW Z4M will destroy pretty much anything on the road. And that includes Impreza's or Skodas.

**Waves Willy**

Most impreza's are ****ed now any. Even if you only keep within a short distance with him, just laugh that your derv skoda keeps with it

Matt

There are a lot of noligable people on here, but i must add this thread has bought some real duffers out. Subaru Turbo Standard UK MY99 Model runs 239.7 BHP and 231 Torque got the Graphs to prove, steering have the wheels aligned and do they turn quick, add Eibachs and 17s (Better). I could be right in saying MY99 0-60 5.7 seconds, I suffer no Turbo Lag. Off the line you have to be good even some big cars have to be good, have the short sprint through in a corner or 2 and its a lonley drive, Scoobs are not the best fastest and low in the comfort stakes but are bloody good at what they do.

Regardless, fuel isnt the direct result of that...the direct result if bhp/torque.

No, traction issues are a direct result of tyres which can't cope...

Diesel engines have more torque than a comparable-displacement petrol engine because of the way diesel engines have to be made in order for them to work - so the fuel type does affect traction.

yawn... fabia's aren't fast.. get over it

Neigh, neigh and thrice neigh.

I refer the honourabe gentleman to the 2.0l mustang slaying variant. Tis never a truer word spoken whence you doth be taken like a king :yes: