1.4TSI 1/4 mile leaderboard

[sharkrider]

That said, i misread your post about 183hp. Though i had read 193hp. Senile moment.

yeah, i'd be questioning it at 193bhp....

[T. Spark]

Just quickly read the replies. So the 2013 versions = Skoda is lighter? What about the pre-2013 versions?

I don't know that much about the new set ups in fairness, Seat vs Skoda vs Audi.

When I went out to Barcelona earlier in the year to test drive the new 2013 Cupra it seemed nippy enough as standard, but as with the earlier models I drove for SEAT UK very uninspiring after the initial flappy paddle fun wore off. The MK1 Fabia vRS and the MK4 Ibiza FR both seemed to have a character about it due to the punchy engine. I feel this is a little lost on the new versions? That said, a little unfair as I am judging based on both of mine, not stock models.

In fact i'd love a PAX ride in one of these well modded versions?

[Ootohere]

2009 Ibiza Cupra Official Unladen weight 1172kg (1226kg other places.)

2013 Ibiza Cupra Official Unladen Weight 1259kg

http://www.autoevolu...tsi-180-hp.html

http://www.evo.co.uk...tsi_review.html

*weird that if the original weights were accurate, then the new revised engine that has the same given Power/performance Figures even if remapped & the DSG changes differently can be equally as fast yet is so much heavier.*

They do drive nicely, but are not noticably any faster, in fact it matters what car it is, miles, tyres etc, just like it does with all brands.

http://www.fastestla...14_tsi_180.html

http://www.fastestla...a_fabia_rs.html

http://www.fastestla...gti_14_tsi.html

http://www.fastestla...fsi_136_kw.html

I do not believe the 2013 vRS are any lighter or heavier than the ones from 2010.

Hatch vRS 1243kg, Estate 1238kg

(only change from a few trim bits and pieces, is a CTHE engine/ECU instead of the CAVE.

The Unladen/kerb figures they give for Audi, VW, Seat, Skoda are from a Standard Model taken off the Production line seemingly

& does not reflect how the vehicle might be with optional equipment.

(then the 90% full fuel and 65kg driver (or 75kg) allowance etc.)

Thats why 'Official figures' mean nothing compared to weighing an actual car ready to roll, then real timing.

(the Polo GTI Official 'Kerb Weight' Figures when first launched were changed by VW a year later, and showed the correct heavier weight..)

A Standard/ basic equipped car with cloth upholstery, that might only have Leather & a Spare wheel/Battery Cover etc as an option,

get weighed as a 3 Door Version without the options, and also often no figures given for the 5 door leave customers of a Polo/A1 none the wiser really.(They say allow an extra 25kg for 5 door in some of the blurb.)

george

[Ootohere]

I just put my vRS on the weigh bridge to get the gross weight as it sits today and as it often is driven.

so 1440kg with me in & full tank of fuel.

(So standard but with weights removed. -25kg, & Standard spare and jack removed, -19 kg.)

but

2 spare Gigaro & tyres in the boot, 39 kg

5 gallons of extra petrol, 20kg

Trolley jack and some tools,

& bits and pieces, 11 kg

me 120 kg = 190 kg.

*1440kg minus 190kg = 1250kg*

So just a vRS Hatch with a full tank of fuel, ready to go,

carrying spare wheel/jack kit (19kg) & weights (25kg) = 1294 kg,

then driver plus passengers to add..

[OzFabia]

Turn "you" into 75kg (like me), and I think you'd find a bit of extra performance.

[JCT 1991]

Is anybody going to challenge for the top spot ? I'm going to GTI International in July made some minor tweeks and I'm going to attempt to shave a further 10th of a second off ! In the long run I'm aiming for sub 13 but don't think this is going to happen in the near future !

Edited 17 June, 2013 by JCT 1991

[vRSy]

I reckon mine would have topped it if i had of taken it to the pod before all the parts were taken off. Ill never know now though lol

[Ootohere]

This vid from a post in another thread,

shows the advantage of a hot surface with grip/traction, no wheel spin & no need to short shift.

up to second at 6000rpm, 2nd to 3rd @ around 6000rpm, & then changes above 4500rpm

(i find that for best 0-80 mph, & 0-100 plus, its 6000rpm before going to 5th.

but 6200 rpm in 4th can easily have you at 100 mph.)

http://www.performan...on-review-video

[lol-lol]

This vid from a post in another thread,

shows the advantage of a hot surface with grip/traction, no wheel spin & no need to short shift.

up to second at 6000rpm, 2nd to 3rd @ around 6000rpm, & then changes above 4500rpm

(i find that for best 0-80 mph, & 0-100 plus, its 6000rpm before going to 5th.

but 6200 rpm in 4th can easily have you at 100 mph.)

http://www.performan...on-review-video

quoted the fuel wrong as 95 RON/Octaine?

[Ootohere]

We know this because we already have the cars,

(98 ron recommended, 95 ron minimum.)

In the UK VW Quote the same '95 ron' for the Polo GTI, Seat for the Ibiza Cupra & Audi for the A1 185 ps Twinchargers in the (EDIT) brochures & Skoda do not even say in their Brochures.

(& VW now in 2012/13 give the correct weights for the 3 door and 5 door Polo GTI,

which shows it is actually heavier than the vRS Hatch or Estate.

It always was, they just showed the wrong weights as they did with the Seat Ibiza Cupra.

This inaccurate figures were what were used for the EU tests, & wrongly gave them the Co2 of 139 g/km while the vRS is at 148 g/km, same engine, lighter car.)

http://www.carpages....1.4-tsi-dsg.asp

You need to read an owners manual before you know to go check the fuel filler cap before it says what Octane fuel to use.,

and salespeople seldom tell a customer before they buy a new or used car.

(OzFab can maybe tell us what it says in the brochures or literature in Australia.)

george

[lol-lol]

We know this because we already have the cars,

(98 ron recommended, 95 ron minimum.)

In the UK VW Quote the same '95 ron' for the Polo GTI, Seat for the Ibiza Cupra & Audi for the A1 195 ps Twinchargers in the brochures & Skoda do not even say in their Brochures.

(& VW now in 2012/13 give the correct weights for the 3 door and 5 door Polo GTI,

which shows it is actually heavier than the vRS Hatch or Estate.

It always was, they just showed the wrong weights as they did with the Seat Ibiza Cupra.

This inaccurate figures were what were used for the EU tests, & wrongly gave them the Co2 of 139 g/km while the vRS is at 148 g/km, same engine, lighter car.)

http://www.carpages....1.4-tsi-dsg.asp

You need to read an owners manual before you know to go check the fuel filler cap before it says what Octane fuel to use.,

and salespeople seldom tell a customer before they buy a new or used car.

(OzFab can maybe tell us what it says in the brochures or literature in Australia.)

george

Thought the A1 was just 185 (euro ponies, cp), 182 brake horse power.

I have a theory that Skoda will rarely give a better figure for a Audi or a VW whether for HP, CO2 etc. A sales thing I expect.

The Fabia has a pretty awful Aerodynamic Drag Coefficient at 0.37 which does not help.

That said I am amazed that Skoda, VAG have not nudged the many Fabias that have CO2 around the 121-125 range to get them under 120 so they beneift from much cheaper road tax in the first and subsequent years, so how little they consider the UK annd even the EU target for average vehicle!

The Octavia usually seems the odd one out where the top speed is higher than the Golf, A3, Leon for the same horsepower due to the better shape etc ie 151 for the Octavia VRS TSI and less for the 210 hp Golf variants.

[Ootohere]

typo sorry,

'Audi A1' 182 bhp/185 ps,

(just like many 'minimum' 178 bhp/180 ps twinchargers actually put out as standard when you put them on a Dyno.)

VAG are very good at trying to manipulate 'Official' figures to suit the customers and the price being paid for vehicles.

You never see a car that is the same model, or another similar competitor from the same Manufacturing group that has better Economy or speed but costs less than the one they show as being a 10th or 2 of a second faster or a mile or 2 more top speed..

**Again, sorry, My bad if they do, do Skodas that have better speed figures and lower prices,

than the VW, Audi market competitor, hatch/saloon/estate/cabrio of the same weight and power.**

(is the official figures for the 200 ps Octavia vRS not 147 mph estate & 149 mph Saloon.& slower 0-62 than the Golf ?)

http://www.vrsworld...._vrs_specs.html

Good review here.

http://www.petrolblog.com/revies/golf-in-sheeps-clothing-skoda-octavia-vrs-2-0-tsi

An example of 'taking the pith' charging seen within Skoda, is where the prices are so different/higher for the same car and engine but with only a different map, 86 ps /105 ps

george

[OzFabia]

Fuel rating according to the brochure I have here is 98RON. Inside the fuel cap it has "98 (95) RON/ROZ", which I have taken to mean use 98 for preference, but 95 is acceptable. In any event, I only put 98 in it - for the extra power, alleged cleaning properties, and better economy. For the first two alone I think it's worth the extra 7c/L over 95.

My last fill-up was $1.63/L, which is on the high side of what I've had to pay over the last couple of years. I've been down to around $1.40 with supermarket vouchers and the Oz dollar at its strongest against the Greenback.

Edited 19 June, 2013 by OzFabia

[lol-lol]

typo sorry,

'Audi A1' 182 bhp/185 ps,

(just like many 'minimum' 178 bhp/180 ps twinchargers actually put out as standard when you put them on a Dyno.)

VAG are very good at trying to manipulate 'Official' figures to suit the customers and the price being paid for vehicles.

You never see a car that is the same model, or another similar competitor from the same Manufacturing group that has better Economy or speed but costs less than the one they show as being a 10th or 2 of a second faster or a mile or 2 more top speed..

**Again, sorry, My bad if they do, do Skodas that have better speed figures and lower prices,

than the VW, Audi market competitor, hatch/saloon/estate/cabrio of the same weight and power.**

(is the official figures for the 200 ps Octavia vRS not 147 mph estate & 149 mph Saloon.& slower 0-62 than the Golf ?)

http://www.vrsworld...._vrs_specs.html

Good review here.

http://www.petrolblo...via-vrs-2-0-tsi

An example of 'taking the pith' charging seen within Skoda, is where the prices are so different/higher for the same car and engine but with only a different map, 86 ps /105 ps

george

Hi George

The facelift Octavia add a couple kilometers per hour over the pre-FL.

Top speed went to 242 kph ie 150.4 mph think the Estate is 240 kph ie 149 mph.

Yes they are a tenth or so slower than the Golf but that is as much to do with the weight bias to the rear compared to the Golf rather than Acc = Force/Mass

Interesting to look at the 4 wheel drive versions of some of these cars and despite the much higher weight some of the 4 wheel drives are quicker than the front wheel drive. The A3 quatro 2 litre wiesel with 170 hp is about half a second quicker than the 2 wheel drive version according to Audi !

180 hp in the Fabia VRS keeps the TCS busy, need some new PS3s!

[Kingfish9307]

Hi guys I did a rwyb a few weeks back at York raceway and never got round to posting my results up. The spec of my car is:

 

REVO Stage 1, ITG maxogen induction kit, milltek non res cat back system, universal fmic kit, Forge custom bov, coilovers, standard road tyres and the back seats where removed for the day.

 

my best time was

 

Reaction - 1.7

0 - 60 ft - 2.3559

1/8 et - 9.0682

1/8 mph - 81.05

1/4 et - 13.9053

1/4 mph - 101.05

 

is this the fastest fab so far?

 

[sharkrider]

certainly very quick, the 0-60 is a little slow, I've seen standard cars better that, but 13.9 is bloody fast... think sy's car ran 13.9 before....

[devonutopia]

certainly very quick, the 0-60 is a little slow, I've seen standard cars better that, but 13.9 is bloody fast... think sy's car ran 13.9 before....

 

It is quick!  I think this shows how DSG saves some tenths compared to a manual box.  101mph isn't the quickest ever terminal speed, but when I was doing 101mph terminals, my time was around 14.5.  By the time I reached 13.9 territory my terminals were up to 106mph, and now I am doing 13.4, terminals are up to 113mph.

[Kingfish9307]

Thanks for the replys, i didnt manage to get a 0-60 time all day, even though i was in the right lane but nevermind eyy.. I presume its somewere around 5.5 ish.. Plus i never really crossed the line much quicker than that all day

[T. Spark]

They mean 0-60ft aka your 2.3 second time.

 

 

It is quick!  I think this shows how DSG saves some tenths compared to a manual box.  101mph isn't the quickest ever terminal speed, but when I was doing 101mph terminals, my time was around 14.5.  By the time I reached 13.9 territory my terminals were up to 106mph, and now I am doing 13.4, terminals are up to 113mph.

 

I must have DSG built in to my left hand side of my body then as I ran regular 13.7's down at Santa Pod with sub 100mph terminals. OK it was my 60ft time really but still :P

 

How does York compare to the likes of Shakey and Pod?

[Kingfish9307]

From what I can gather from friends and other peoples results pod gives quite allot quicker times. Whether that's due to the track been better or the timing been slightly more accurate/inaccurate I don't know but that's just my opinion. The track isn't terrible however its far from good and the entrance road is disgracefull if your car is lowered you fooked. as for "shakey" I have never heard of it so cant realy comment on it. a couple of my friends have been down York and santo pod and they are all there abouts (give or take a tenth or two) .5 quicker down pod not trying to slate you guys who have been down pod that's just from what ive seen.

[vRSy]

think sy's car ran 13.9 before....

 

Mine ran a 14.002@ 105.6mph.  That was on absolutely fooked stock tyres, with the massive misfire and limp mode issues that the car was suffering in the BETA test sofytware, and my best 0-60ft time was 2.8 seconds which was horrific.!  Mine should have been 13.5 easily when you consider an acceptable FWD 60ft time would be around 2.2-2.3secs.

 

Gutted i never ran again with the suspension/semi slicks/lightweight alloys/brakes etc and the full blown stage 3 setup.

[Sparkly]

Mine ran a 14.002@ 105.6mph

[vRSy]

Shocking time!!!  Not even remotely reflective of what it could/should have done.  It was only running the Loba and decat OEM downpipe then.  The intake, WMI chassis mods and final BETA software made the car much much faster, just a shame the steering failed on it.  If it had been fixed i would have took it ot the strip again before selling it, but ultimately i got so p!$$ed off with the issues i just sold it!!

[sharkrider]

its a shame sy, if you would have had a good car (no power steering issues, no misfire issues) you could have built a nice weapon!

[vRSy]

its a shame it was never 100% finished, especially after all the time and money put into it.  The pistons i accepted, that was always a risk we were taking, so i dont factor that into my decision to sell.  The final map i had on the car didnt misfire, it was really strong as well so that wasnt an issue, the voice in the back of thehead about reliability never helped but ultimately it was the power steering that did it for me.  Such a shame as it was a really competent little bit of kit punching far and beyond where it should have.  It was a joy at trackdays when people come up to you in pure shock at how you just cruised past them.

 

Still, im in a happy place with the new wagon.  Its no record breaker but its just amazing fun to drive.