The thing is, with advances in car design generally, there's little difference (in performance terms) between 'warm' hatches and a lot of repmobiles. I'm pretty sure the current Astra 1.6 (depending on the exact model) does 0-60 in approx. 8.5s. Some of the diesel Insignias will also be pretty rapid.

0-60 is not really a good figure for comparisons.

Mathematically you can have 2 cars that do 0-60 in say 10 seconds but one will destroy the other in a race.

You need time to distances rather than to speed. Thats why 1/4 miles are very good for comparing cars.

Are you pushing it or driving it?

18 is probably not far off the mark for 0-100. At least for a bone stock car. That last bit from 80 to 100 won't be that quick.

I found out the OP is local to me so going to try and help him at least sort the washer pipe thing.

18 is probably not far off the mark for 0-100. At least for a bone stock car. That last bit from 80 to 100 won't be that quick.

I found out the OP is local to me so going to try and help him at least sort the washer pipe thing.

If get chance over the weekend I'll try it on my Private road and see. I'll warm Bert up properly first though.

@fred44 (on phone so can't quote)

I thought that first of all. But I'm getting good Mpg and had mine rr twice at different places and both have been mid 140's.

Also my 20-40mph is roughly 2.2 and 30-70 in third is around the 7 mark which most seem to do on here.

@jason - I'm sure a car magazine quoted around 21 seconds for 0-100 times.

softscoop knows what he's talking about my standard mark II can easily be all over the back of his remapped mark I (brakes and suspensions sorted on his car too) on any given road, I think we proved that at the last couple of meets when following tiggers standard mark one at the weston meets, i have to back off quite a substantial ammount all within the speed limits of course, so no 0-100mph here....

the mark II is much quicker.... this is many many miles of genuine "brisk" driving to give this opinion... on real road situations, where i think the gearbox makes up a huge difference over the mathematical figures....

*ducks the flaming from the mark I section! lol...

softscoop knows what he's talking about my standard mark II can easily be all over the back of his remapped mark I (brakes and suspensions sorted on his car too) on any given road, I think we proved that at the last couple of meets when following tiggers standard mark one at the weston meets, i have to back off quite a substantial ammount all within the speed limits of course, so no 0-100mph here....

the mark II is much quicker.... this is many many miles of genuine "brisk" driving to give this opinion... on real road situations, where i think the gearbox makes up a huge difference over the mathematical figures....

*ducks the flaming from the mark I section! lol...

As Dave said, the mk2 is by far a quicker car. It doesn't feel as punchy but it will run rings around even a modified mk1.

Once you start going down the route of hybrid turbos etc, then I suspect it will swing back the other way, but because of the DSG and the speed it changes gear, the power is pretty much constantly on, whereas with a mk1 you've got to change gear, power off, power on, power off etc. No way can you change as quick as a DSG.

I was intrigued about the mk2 so looked into it.

They do 0-100 in about 18 seconds (on speedo) which is really not that impressive at all.

I know the mk1 does 40-100 in 10 seconds using just 4th.

It's not going to take 8 seconds to do 40 so the mk1 is clearly the faster car regardless of a fancy gearbox.

I had a SEAT Ibiza Bocanegra on demo for a week. It is a faster car than a standard Mk1 vRS - that's all I can say.

The DSG will shift cogs much faster than any human can, all day long.

0-100 in 18s is not hanging about for a car that size with 180hp.

The Mk1 vRS is punchy in gear, but the way the torque is delivered makes it feel quicker than it is. Still a good fun car though.

Edited 18 November, 201114 yr by Dave_G

I've jsut had a conversation with a guy at work who is really into his VWs.

He was at Santa Pod a month or so ago and a few of them Seat Boccachoccamoccas or whatever they are were there. He said they were doing very high 14s/low 15s. So lets call it 14.9 - which is pretty good to be fair, faster than I thought.

The Fabia though is bit heavier, so a bit slower.

So for arguments sake lets say it does a 15.0 vs the 15.3 I did in a MK1.

So yeah, its a bit faster in that standing start scenario, but not by any large amount.

Other scenarioes such as moving or in gear the MK1 will be faster so its swings and roundabouts.

The bottom line though is contrary to what a few people have said the MK2 is not loads faster etc, its actually very close.

What we can also learn is a lot of MK1s are clearly faulty and could do with a checkup

From real life driving on the road with my mates 3000 mile old MK2 vRS my MK1 fabia at 197bhp was on a par with it. Anything I gain in engine power, I loose in the gear changes. We have tried both ways round swapping cars (his very trusting lol) and its pretty much blow for blow. We didnt try anything off the line, so I would be interested to see how much the MK2 would gain, and also after I tweak my map.

Another mate has a "Stage 2" boca, intake, cooler, exhaust and map, pull`s quite strongly on me.

From real life driving on the road with my mates 3000 mile old MK2 vRS my MK1 fabia at 197bhp was on a par with it. Anything I gain in engine power, I loose in the gear changes. We have tried both ways round swapping cars (his very trusting lol) and its pretty much blow for blow. We didnt try anything off the line, so I would be interested to see how much the MK2 would gain, and also after I tweak my map.

Another mate has a "Stage 2" boca, intake, cooler, exhaust and map, pull`s quite strongly on me.

spot on....

A Mk1 with 200 BHP (I presume you were running a different turbo?) should be doing low 14 second 1/4 mile times which is a lot faster than a Mk2 VRS does.

I cant really comment on santa pod times, I know a 200bhp fabia should do around 14.5 1/4 mile, whats a standard MK2 do?

I was interested in a real on the road (within limits) comparison. I`d dearly love to say I the MK1 was quicker, but it just cant get away from the MK2`s DSG changes! The MK1 fabia is running spot on, 197bhp (in 35 degree heat) and the MK2 has been owned from new so we know both are kosher cars. I`m a reasonably capable driver so its not like there's a moose at the wheel

From real life driving on the road with my mates 3000 mile old MK2 vRS my MK1 fabia at 197bhp was on a par with it. Anything I gain in engine power, I loose in the gear changes. We have tried both ways round swapping cars (his very trusting lol) and its pretty much blow for blow. We didnt try anything off the line, so I would be interested to see how much the MK2 would gain, and also after I tweak my map.

Another mate has a "Stage 2" boca, intake, cooler, exhaust and map, pull`s quite strongly on me.

Yep, that pretty much ties up with what I've experienced. With my mapped car (around 165hp), the mk2 will pull away.

I cant really comment on santa pod times, I know a 200bhp fabia should do around 14.5 1/4 mile, whats a standard MK2 do?

I was interested in a real on the road (within limits) comparison. I`d dearly love to say I the MK1 was quicker, but it just cant get away from the MK2`s DSG changes! The MK1 fabia is running spot on, 197bhp (in 35 degree heat) and the MK2 has been owned from new so we know both are kosher cars. I`m a reasonably capable driver so its not like there's a moose at the wheel

Standard MK2 will be about 15 dead. Like I said above, them seat things which are a bit lighter where hitting 14.9s.

A 200 BHP MK1 should be about 14.2

Yep, that pretty much ties up with what I've experienced. With my mapped car (around 165hp), the mk2 will pull away.

If a standard MK1 can do a 15.3, a remapped one shoudl be 14.8 ish.

A MK2 is abotu 15.0, so there is no way one will pull away from a remapped MK1. Not unless its been driven badly.

I'm sure your now thinking "but I'm a good driver". Well go to santa pod and see what times you get. if your not under 15 in a mapped MK1 then soemthing is wrong with the car or your technique needs altering.

I dont proclaim to be a race driver, but I can get my car shifting well enough. From looking I cant find many standard MK2 1/4 mile times, but there are a few Boca times, around 14.6 standard, your MK1 times are for a very good 1/4 mile driver IMO. So in real terms, over a 1/4 miles we are talking less than 0.5 seconds, which would tie in with what everyone else is saying. Worth remembering the pod is a very different setup to normal roads. In my group of mates, there is a couple who cant get on with the super stick surface, but can fly on a more normal surface, santa pod isnt the be all and end all.

Post wash:-

If a standard MK1 can do a 15.3, a remapped one shoudl be 14.8 ish.

A MK2 is abotu 15.0, so there is no way one will pull away from a remapped MK1. Not unless its been driven badly.

I'm sure your now thinking "but I'm a good driver". Well go to santa pod and see what times you get. if your not under 15 in a mapped MK1 then soemthing is wrong with the car or your technique needs altering.

I'm don't claim to be a brilliant driver, but I'm talking about real roads with camber, crappy surfaces, corners etc, and not a drag strip.

I agree it's not spmething that's a final say on how fast a car is overall.

It's a very good benchmark though and from everything I have seen/experianced they are pretty close. The mk2 is faster but not enough to say its destroys it or whatever. If that's what certain people experiance then it's a faulty car or poor technique.

Remapped then there will be nothing it all out but the mk1 will have an advantage in gear and mid range.

As for handling/braking etc I have nothing to compare the two but can easily see how the mk2 will be a huge amount more advanced.

As for handling/braking etc I have nothing to compare the two but can easily see how the mk2 will be a huge amount more advanced.

The mk2 outhandles a standard mk1 quite easily. It's lighter for a start so isn't cooking the brakes, the weight is also better balanced as it doesn't have an anvil under the bonnet pulling into understeer.

The XDS helps massively too as you can apply full power mid corner without ending up in a ditch, and as the DSG changes so fast, you can also change gear mid corner without worrying about weight shifting etc.

In terms of weight the mk1 is only 1230kg (ish) dry.. The exact dry figure for the mk2 is 1243kg.

A better chassis, modern suspension etc is where the mk2 is light years ahead.

In terms of weight the mk1 is only 1230kg (ish) dry.. The exact dry figure for the mk2 is 1243kg.

A better chassis, modern suspension etc is where the mk2 is light years ahead.

Yep. That said, I'm more than happy with my mk1 as it never fails to put a smile on my face.

Doesn't really matter which is fastest to me, so long as it's an engaging entertaining drive, it's all good

The mk2 is faster but not enough to say its destroys it or whatever. If that's what certain people experiance then it's a faulty car or poor technique.

Remapped then there will be nothing it all out but the mk1 will have an advantage in gear and mid range.

What are you basing this on?

Read the last pages, I've quoted a few figures and sources.