IMO.

0-60 standard vRS vs standard 2.0 petrol = the same

0-100 will also be similar I believe in stock form and the vRS would edge it.

Even though I do love my vRS and not trying to take sides but when people qoute 50-70's etc, what are they measuring the torque? in which case doesnt the vRS out accelerate BMW M3's? However if both were at peak rpm for the quickest 50-70 the M3 would leave a vRS behind.

I believe this is why the Fabia vRS looks better on paper as 40-40, 50-70 runs are an indication of torque in 4th/5th gear, the 2.0Ltr will have no acceleration at that speed, however if it were in 2nd it would be more even.

50-70 runs are an indication of torque in 4th/5th gear, the 2.0Ltr will have no acceleration at that speed

In 4th the 2.0litre will pull very nicely between 50 and 70...

I think there's a little bit too much of a focus on numbers sometimes.

Rob.

mil, from what you said earlier i understood that you had fitted lower profile tyres than standard which would have made your wheels smaller and affected your speedo.

and the wheel size doesn't affect the acceleration when they are standard as the car is setup for certain size wheels through the diff and gearbox so saying that your cal will accelerate quicker cos it has smaller wheels is non-sense, if it were true when a 1950's mini would kill everything

Why you mocking me man ?

Because you are far too easy to wind up

but seriously, theres no malice in my comment. Looking at the official figures i will admit that there probably isnt as much difference as i first thought.

So there - we were both wrong about certain things.

I think hellfires got a point about the paper figures too - the Fabia vRS looks good on paper because the +20 mph acceleration tests are very much torque orientated. Beyond that they are nothing special - the Fabia vRS is very much a "short burst" type of car.

Thats why I believe my Golf GTI could give one a run for its money, or maybe even exceed it. Certainly the NA petrol cars feel quite slow compared to diesels when you first boot it, but i've found as long as you use the revs a bit in the golf it is in fact a fairly quick car.

In fact i think the very nature of the vRS power delivery was what caused me to get bored with it - i felt it to be a very all or nothing car - and when you wanted that bit extra, it just didnt have much left to give. This is the opposite to the Golf that feels quite slow in comparison most of the time, but when you want that bit extra, it really does deliver, and makes those times you do want to push it feel a bit more special.

IMO.

0-60 standard vRS vs standard 2.0 petrol = the same

0-100 will also be similar I believe in stock form and the vRS would edge it.

Even though I do love my vRS and not trying to take sides but when people qoute 50-70's etc' date=' what are they measuring the torque? in which case doesnt the vRS out accelerate BMW M3's? However if both were at peak rpm for the quickest 50-70 the M3 would leave a vRS behind.

I believe this is why the Fabia vRS looks better on paper as 40-40, 50-70 runs are an indication of torque in 4th/5th gear, the 2.0Ltr will have no acceleration at that speed, however if it were in 2nd it would be more even.[/quote']

Okay guys, answer me this.

What are the vRS runs from 50 - 70 in the relevant gears?

Because I intensively ran my car in that range on 3rd, 4th & 5th gear, of which I got an average of 5.5 seconds, 6 seconds and 6.7 seconds respectively. This is the 50 - 70 run, not 50 - 75.

So what are the runs?

Like I said, and like what pbirkett says...NA petrols don't feel quick, but they are.

Want me to do mine?

Yours isn't a Fabia...but okay go ahead.

50-70 in 6.7 seconds for a NA car in 5th is very fast indeed - even the likes of the Clio 182 only just manage it in about 8.5 seconds or so.

IIRC the vRS is 5.6 seconds in 4th, 6.4 secs in 5th and 8.8 seconds in 6th. I'm not sure it could reach 70 in 3rd (it can on the clock, but whether it is in reality...).

I'll do it later this evening and post up the results for you. I assume I do an average of 3 runs in each gear?

Yes.

BTW, how did you do it? Do you have proper timing gear?

No. Not everyone has proper timing gear.

I've used a stopwatch of mine for 3 runs on each gear. As soon as you hit 50 you start, and as soon as you hit 70 you stop. It isn't difficult. I had my girlfriend with me as a witness, but I had the stop watch since I'm sitting right in front of the speedo.

I know the times are correct because I don't have to change gear on either of them.

was wondering this myself, might do some runs too to see how it fares against a fabia

You know what? Why not all standard Fabia owners here time their runs?

Go on. This is going to be interesting.

but we need an accurate way of doing it. two blokes anda stop watch isn't really accurate enough. how are you doing yours mil?

That is as accurate as you can get unless you have proper timing gear.. Since you don't need to change gears and you don't need to look atthe stopwatch to hit it, it is not difficult or unaccurate. As soon as the needle hits the number, punch in and when it hits out, punch out. My girl was just a witness to the times and then add the three different runs and divide it by 3 to get your average. Not difficult at all and it's pretty much spot on.

Trust me. If you don't try it you won't know.

Apart from speedo error and parallax error when looking at the speedo.

Apart from speedo error and parallax error when looking at the speedo.

Steve, empty road equals no parallax.

I don't believe in this speedo error talk, simply because my radars are proof enough to me that my speedo is accurate. Don't know about yours, but mine is accurate.

Steve' date=' empty road equals no parallax.

I don't believe in this speedo error talk, simply because my radars are proof enough to me that my speedo is accurate. Don't know about yours, but mine is accurate.[/quote']

No. It's not.

All speedos are out, maybe by varying amounts, but your speedo will not be 100% accurate no matter what car you own.

When I have looked at 50

If i were doing it, i'd be adding 10% to the speeds. So 50-70 would be an indicated 55-77. Its still not accurate but its better than taking exactly what it says on the speedo.

Also, you have to factor in reaction times of both the timer and driver.

Then theres the slope of the road you use. The temperature, the weather, and so many other things have a bearing on the result.

Without a calibrated speed reading and proper timing gear, you'll never find out exactly what it is. Ask anyone to reproduce times in any standard cars and you'll find wildly differing figures.

That is how I have understood these times to be attained' date=' and what they stood for, have I got it wrong?

[/quote']

No you have it spot on there mate.

You should be cruising at the speed and then put your foot down. An already accelerating car has already done half the work IMO...

It explains how a 2.0 litre fabia can do 50-70 faster than many V6 or turbo petrol engined cars..

Glad to hear I sparked such a healthy debate . . . . I was hoping for figures taken from magazine road tests . . . . but in their absence I guess the stopwatch ones will do (don't want to spoil all the fun now do I?).

I don't have a car at present (hence considering the 2.0) but I had a Road Angel in my last car - a Fabia 1.4 16v and it showed that the car's speedo was a fair bit out (85mph on the speedo was 78mph on the Road Angel).

The 30-70 time would be useful as the magazines say that that is one of the best ways of measuring useable performance. . . . .

The 30-70 time would be useful as the magazines say that that is one of the best ways of measuring useable performance. . . . .

For me that is one of the best measurments for real world performance, as it a measure of midrange performance when the vehicle is flat out, not just from low revs in a particular gear.

People go on about the midrange of diesels, which isnt bad, but not as good as sometimes suggested IMO, because when most people say midrange they actually mean ingear acceleration, which is very good in the diesels. But when you drive a diesel flat out, its not really any quicker than its BHP figure suggests.

However, that still does make the vRS quicker than a 2.0 :P (but probably only just)

"You should be cruising at the speed and then put your foot down. An already accelerating car has already done half the work IMO..."

Yes, Yes, Yes - that makes sense!

The reason why they give out these figures in road tests (I guess) is to show how well a car would overtake - so yes, you are doing a steady 50mph behind a lorry - you then pull out and accelerate past it - so I'm certain the times are from a steady starting point . . . .

Well done that man!