Hey, these are autoexpress' own figures; the VRS was SIGNIFICANTLY quicker between the ranges quoted, it was quicker than the 182 bhp clio and the 148 bhp fiesta and Ibiza. Autoexpress call this the 'real world pace'. Gears used were the same for each car.

But if a car is quicker through the ranges, then how come to get to the top of this range is still takes longer?!

Rob.

PS scooby chris

again, autoexpress own figures. 0-62 ST 8.2 secs VRS 8.5 secs.

Not that 0-62 times are particularly relevant anyway.

But if a car is quicker through the ranges' date=' then how come to get to the top of this range is still takes longer?!

Rob.[/quote']

Just quoting the figures, 0.3 secs is hardly significant.

Perhaps the VRS was not kept in the power band during a gear change. Agree it doesn't make sense.

The article in question is factually incorrect in at least eight instances on the summary spec table towards the end. With a piece of journalism so slapdash as this is, is it any wonder the author came to the misguided conclusions that he did ?

Suspect Ford know how to put on a better buffet...

Rob.

And/or offer bigger brown envelopes - surely not ! :eek:

Does anyone remember issue 833? Living legends?

They had a Fiesta ST in that and raved about it no end. But I would like to now how they drove it. The one they had, erm, had no engine!

It was a basic 3dr fiesta with the bumpers and stripes. If my friend still has the pics I'll put the links up if anyone is interested. He had the XR2, blue one.

Just a little fact of how they extend the truth sometimes.

Its called journalist licence - aka licence to bull**** !

But if a car is quicker through the ranges' date=' then how come to get to the top of this range is still takes longer?!

[/quote']

I'd imagine because of the way the vRS drives, its strength seems to be in the initial pickup. I find it accelerates hard up to > 4000 rpm, but then after that you need to swap a cog while the fiesta would still be revving. I agree that ultimately the Fiesta maybe *slightly* quicker, but the Fabia will feel the quicker car IMHO, and although the Fez may handle a bit better, the torque I feel would be a telling influence in why the Furby would probably be just as quick round a twisty, at least thats what I reckon anyway.

Also we know 0-60 isnt a diesel speciality but 8.5 aint bad for a diesel and its on par with the likes of the Puma 1.7 and Punto HGT, both of which should be quicker...if all we look at is pwr/weight again I can only imagine that the torque *does* help compensate somewhat for its weight penalty - pure speculation by me of course but its possible isnt it?

30-70 is a funny one. In mine it could probably be completed in 3rd, just, but theres the question of whether starting in 2nd would really be any quicker since you'd be changing at about 45 anyway and 3rd has plenty of go from 30 (as you can see by the figures).

IMO the Fiesta would win a drag but the Furby wouldnt be disgraced, and on the road it could be argued the Furby is possibly even more potent because of its midrange performance, and lets face it, most fast driving is carried out while on the move, not from standing starts.

if i remember right round a track the ST (new fiesta) is nearly as quick as a focus RS' date=' according to certain reports/tests. the thing about massive torque that always crops up with fabia vrs's, they do have more torque granted but do they rev to near on 7k? no, is that torque available for nearly all of the rev range? no. so although it gives you a good strong pull it soon runs out of breath. personally i'd rather have a 150bhp petrol engine, in comparison the st gives around 135 bhp per tonne and the fabia gives 98bhp p/t, and the st gives 126 lb/ft p/t and the fabia gives a good 172lb/ft p/t but the st will win because that power is available for a lot longer.

this is probably why the ST is around 2 seconds quicker to 62 than a STANDARD vRS, add to that the cornering ability and 200Kg weight advantage and it is clearly has much more potential as a 'hot hatch'[/quote']

Having a wide rev range on a car will help driveability. It may allow you you an option to "hang on" to a gear longer rather than change up. What it will not effect is ultimate performance PROVIDING there are sufficent gear ratios spaced so as to allow the engine to operate at max power over the full speed range.

Formula one car drivers would regard the Fabia rev range as enormous compared to their racers. However with seven gears and LOADS of changes they keep them on the boil to devestating effect.

If the gearing is adequate then weight and power will determine acceleration with aerodynamics coming in to play to limit top end.

I used to have a Fiat 127 Sport 1050 with 70bhp red lined at 7250rpm. What a screamer and great fun.

It was replaced by a 127 1300 GT with 75bhp and red lined at 5750rpm. The GT was faster cos it had more power and torque. Ulimately that is what counts.

The article in question is factually incorrect in at least eight instances on the summary spec table towards the end. With a piece of journalism so slapdash as this is, is it any wonder the author came to the misguided conclusions that he did ?

Please describe, as I'm looking at it at this moment, and the only differences are in the speed times, which would have beenm their figures and not Skodas.

I take it you have now bothered to read the article, which will tell you reasons why they voted it 3rd, as their bad points are a bit more than the crap dash of the fiesta when it comes to a 'hot hatch'

The Fabia vRS is not as agile as a standard Fiesta, so it's not going to be better than the ST or the smaller Clio, it also rolls a bit too much, but as the Fabia range is geared towards comfort and has a heavy diesel engine, this is to expected. And no 3 door model, while obviously not essential, it helps when you are trying to sell a hot hatch as most 3 door models, look more asthetically pleasing then their 5 door counterparts.

If this test was on value for money and build quality, than the Fabia would win hands down, but hot hatch buyers want fast, good looking cars that handle like go-karts, while it goes fast enough, it is let down on the other two as it's rivals look more asthetically pleasing than the more raw and brash styling of the Fabia.

They are thinking about what a boy racer would want in a car, and if this result keeps them away from the Fabia, than my only disapointment is that it did not come fourth.

They still say that the bargain is the Fabia, yet you are still moaning that it came 3rd. Live with it, I know which car of the 4 I'd rather have, and it's not the other 3 (although I could live with the Ibiza).

Does it say how they acheived the in-gear times for the narrow ranges, did they use comparable gears, or did they use optimum gears for each car?

In gear times are precisely that. Drive along at x mph in y gear and measure the amount of time it takes to reach z mph. This will be the same test for all cars participating. A Furby, as long as on-boost, will always be very strong here due to the torque.

30-70mph times are taken by having the car in the optimum gear and then max acceleration through the gears. This isnt very "real world" which is why TD engines cars can often catch petrol cars 'napping'.

where do the figures of 8.5 for a standard fabia come from? i was working on topgear figures of 9.6 for the fabia and 7.9 for the fiesta. and how can anyone say that a car that is 200Kg lighter and setup with tracks and handling in mind handle the saeme as a fabia. the skoda would get killed on track if driven by the same driver. the fiesta is nopt meant to comfortable, smooth and well equiped like the fabia. thats what the fiesta ghia is there for. with fettling the fabia could be faster than the fiesta IN A STRAIGHT LINE easily but when it came to corners it wouldn't be able to keep up and lose out.

and how often do you thrash it from 40 - 60 and stay there??? much more likely to go as said earlier from 30 - 70, where the fiesta is quicker

where do the figures of 8.5 for a standard fabia come from? i was working on topgear figures of 9.6 for the fabia and 7.9 for the fiesta.

These are their figures and not manufacturers. It is easy to get a standard Fabia to do mid-low 8's in a 0 - 60 run. (although Skoads figure is for 0 - 62 (100km/h) and you can take off .3 for that)

Good points, Jeff

The only people who should be fascinated by 0-60 times are the boy racers willing to rag the nuts of their engine from the lights. Surely there's a bit more to a car than that?

The fact that the furby vRS is a 5-door diesel is enough to lose it serious marks in the eyes of a wannabe 18-year old boy racer. If the test (which I haven't read) was geared at that demographic, then the results are fairly indicative of what said youngster might go for...

[insert standard disclaimer - not all boy racers are 18, fabia drivers aren't old and slow, etc...]

Good points' date=' Jeff

The only people who should be fascinated by 0-60 times are the boy racers willing to rag the nuts of their engine from the lights. Surely there's a bit more to a car than that?

The fact that the furby vRS is a 5-door diesel is enough to lose it serious marks in the eyes of a wannabe 18-year old boy racer. If the test (which I haven't read) was geared at that demographic, then the results are fairly indicative of what said youngster might go for...

[insert standard disclaimer - not all boy racers are 18, fabia drivers aren't old and slow, etc...']

Well, as a long standing Fabia owner, you will agree that unlike the other 3 cars involved (Fiesta, Clio, Ibiza) Skoda have never pitched the Fabia (or octavia for that matter) at the younger, more sporting driver apart from the vRS models, preferiing to concentrate on the comforting, high quality/value market as opposed to driving ability (even though it is one of the better cars in it's class).

and how often do you thrash it from 40 - 60 and stay there??? much more likely to go as said earlier from 30 - 70, where the fiesta is quicker

More often than you think. The point of the (mis-leading) 30 - 70 increment is that the driver has the car ready to go for max acceleration (e.g. in 2nd gear) with the engine thrashing away around the 4k+ rpm mark. Therefore for this to be true the unsuspecting chap in his ST has to be driving along in a full state of readiness... Unlikely as he cant see past the end of his (fake) burberry cap and bling frosted jewelery (innit)..... :P

Anyway, back to normality. The 40 - 60 increment is different as it is timed IN GEAR. It demonstrates the flexibility of an engine. On that front the vRS will anniliate an ST...

so flexability means needing to change gear every 20mph then? well giVe me an inflexable petrol engine anyday

and 4k isn't thrashing a petrol engine, most NA petrol engines are coming on song at about this point and going strong onto around 6k

Someone mentioned factual inaccuracies...

How's about for the Furby:

Cruise control - not available

Stability control - not available

Xenons - not available

Just some I noticed..

I also wondered about the 30-70 dash. I have to presume that they did it in 3rd then 4th. Mine pulls hard to over 70 now remapped, but I can't rememeber if it could get there convincingly as standard?

needing to change gear every 20mph then?

Why's that then?

and 4k isn't thrashing a petrol engine, most NA petrol engines are coming on song at about this point and going strong onto around 6k

You're missing my point and quoting me out of context. The point is, who drives around with the car 'on the boil' at 4k rpm just in-case somebody decides to race them...? Hence the Fabia driver will blow away the unsuspecting petrol driver.

But this is all just speculation. The driver has to be unsuspecting etc etc...

Lets not turn this into a petrol vs diesel debate. People who want a diesel for it's merits will buy a diesel and visa versa.

Mind you - did you see the Autoexpress fuel consumption figures for the test: 22.6mpg / 25.9mpg / 22.0mpg / 40.0mpg. Which one was the Fabia again...

PS. The vein of the article seems to be an emphasis on 'fun', which perhaps explains to some degree the result. I guess it all depends on your idea of fun. Having driven a 182 and my Furby, I can say that the 182 is an absolute hoot on a B road thrash, goes and handles like you wouldn't believe, and the engine is a rev happy beast, so I can quite see how the 182 (and ST) might be judged more 'fun' than the Furby. However, I think I would tire of it day to day as I don't drive like that 99% of the time.... Personally, I find it just as 'fun' to tootle around most of the time, cruise nice and relaxingly on the motorway, and then providing the occasional lesson to the odd BMW driver on the merits of the little Furby....

Horses for courses...

duncan, i believe that is the whole point of buying this sort of car. as said you don't buy them for the comfort and ability to drive 400miles comfortably. for everyday use the fabia will win hands down due to the cost/comfort/economy/spec etc but i wouldn't buy this sort of car with this in mind. me personally wanted a comfortable car that could also go when i wanted it too, which it should after jabbafaction. but for stupid chuckable fun i bought a light, sparse cheap little car(my

Well, as a long standing Fabia owner, you will agree that unlike the other 3 cars involved (Fiesta, Clio, Ibiza) Skoda have never pitched the Fabia (or octavia for that matter) at the younger, more sporting driver apart from the vRS models, preferiing to concentrate on the comforting, high quality/value market as opposed to driving ability (even though it is one of the better cars in it's class).

Indeed - I originally looked at Clios and Ibizas all those years ago I only went to the Skoda dealer because Jane had an octy vrs and had said how good the service was. When they quickly let me have a 1.4 to drive round for a couple of hours (and told me to thrash it a bit to get the best from it) I soon came round.

Even to this day my dealer has absolutely nothing (except the bolt-on exhaust trim) that would remotely appeal to a "young" driver. Usually the other customers in there are all 60+!

At the end of the day, one "bad" review doesn't make it a bad car...