I've been toying with the idea of treating myself to another car! I like the Fabia, so would the best option be VRS? or is the 2.0 an option?! There doesn't seem to be many about, where as there are loads of VRS about in various conditions.Performance wise it seems very similar but is that true? Is it a viable option or a waste of money( I don't want to be chucking money at it).Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially running costs.Thanks!

It's thirsty and slower than a VRS under real world conditions.

It's thirsty and slower than a VRS under real world conditions.

It just seemed to be a bit more subtle ie looks like a bog standard Fabia but with more poke! I don't drive like a racer anyway it was just a thought about having a car with more options but not one that breaks the bank.

It just seemed to be a bit more subtle ie looks like a bog standard Fabia but with more poke! I don't drive like a racer anyway it was just a thought about having a car with more options but not one that breaks the bank.

 

The 100 BHP 1.4 16v is nearly as quick and much more economical.

The 100 BHP 1.4 16v is nearly as quick and much more economical.

Ah, but can a 16v take a Mustang like a king?

As above. The 2.0 is thirsty and not actually that quick. Better off with the 1.4 16v 100BHP.

 

Both engines are just not comparable to the 1.9 TDI vRS though.

 

The 1.4 has 93 lb-ft of torque, 100bhp and 0-60 of 11.1 seconds

 

The 2.0 has 125 lb-ft of torque, 115bhp and 0-60 of 9.6 seconds

 

The 1.9 has 229 lb-ft of torque, 130bhp and 0-60 of 9.2 seconds

 

In the real world though you will have to thrash the 1.4 and 2.0 to get moving. The 1.9 with it's massive lump of torque low down will get you moving with no trouble and will feel much faster.

 

Other option is the 1.9 PD100 model.

 

Ah, but can a 16v take a Mustang like a king?

 

Wondered how long it would take!

The 2.0 could make a decent tow car or load-it-up type of bus. Or as a decent base for a 1.8T sleeper or 2.0 Tsi sleeper. Depending on gearing and the like it could be a much nicer car on the motorway.

Better off with the 1.4 16v 100BHP.

 

 

My bet would be on the 2.0 version. Yes, it might be taxed a bit more than the 1.4 one, and it might have a some extra weight on the front axle as well, but there is a huge torque difference. You could play or overtake something in 3rd gear from 25 to 75 without any problems. With that amount of power, I bet you can get a better mpg as well.

Edited 31 July, 201510 yr by Alexandru

My bet would be on the 2.0 version. Yes, it might be taxed a bit more than the 1.4 one, and it might have a some extra weight on the front axle as well, but there is a huge torque difference. You could play or overtake something in 3rd gear from 25 to 75 without any problems. With that amount of power, I bet you can get a better mpg as well.

 

How much you wanna bet? I speak from experience, I'm not guessing.

 

I have the 1.4 16v now and I used to have a Golf Mk. 4 2.0 with the exact same engine, the all-alloy 1.4 is much revvier, has a much lighter flywheel and can easily exceed 50 mpg which I can assure you is impossible with the ancient 2.0 8 valve cast iron lump.

 

It might make a decent tow car for dragging a plastic shed about.

 

The 0-60 difference is explained by the fact that the 1.4 needs an extra gear change due to its close ratio box, the 1.4 is much more fun to drive. No contest Alex. End of story.

Golf mk4 is a different class. You cannot compare them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 31 July, 201510 yr by Alexandru

Golf mk4 is a different class. You cannot compare them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Same engine, flywheel, clutch, gearbox, driveshafts, hubs and very nearly the same weight.

 

Why not?

As far as I know, Fabia has been built on Polo platform. Golf is about the same as Octy, so they are totally different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I know, Fabia has been built on Polo platform. Golf is about the same as Octy, so they are totally different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The entire drivetrain of the 2.0 Fabia is lifted from the Golf because the Polo isn't available with that drivetrain.

Yes the Fabia 2.0 uses the Polo 9N floorpan but like the VRS (which is treated as a separate model) it uses the golf hubs and 288mm front disc brakes so it's effectively a hybrid of a Polo 9N and a Golf IV.

I wouldn't bother saying this if it weren't true, you should know me well enough by now.

How about tires? Golf has different tire sizes IIRC. This might make a difference in wheel torque, performance and handling as well. Please don't get me wrong, I might make statements that aren't that true. I just researched a few dyno graphs on the internet at lunch break and I saw the numbers. You can correct me if I'm wrong, I really don't mind, but IMHO, even with the same drivetrain, engine and transmission, Fabia and Golf have totally different dynamics. We should compare two fabs, 1.4 16v and a 2.0, same body etc. I've also checked average mpg for those two cars on spritmonitor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 31 July, 201510 yr by Alexandru

It's **** to drive honestly. Tested one and hated it, I'd rather this Clio than the 2.0.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The entire drivetrain of the 2.0 Fabia is lifted from the Golf because the Polo isn't available with that drivetrain.

Yes the Fabia 2.0 uses the Polo 9N floorpan but like the VRS (which is treated as a separate model) it uses the golf hubs and 288mm front disc brakes so it's effectively a hybrid of a Polo 9N and a Golf IV.

I wouldn't bother saying this if it weren't true, you should know me well enough by now.

That's utter rubbish..

Surely the 2.0 8v Fabia has better gear ratios than the 1.4 16v though?

 

The latter is doing 4,000rpm at 80mph...

That's utter rubbish..

 

Which part please?

Surely the 2.0 8v Fabia has better gear ratios than the 1.4 16v though?

 

The latter is doing 4,000rpm at 80mph...

 

It has longer ratios because it's a lazier engine, is that better?

Surely the 2.0 8v Fabia has better gear ratios than the 1.4 16v though?

The latter is doing 4,000rpm at 80mph...

Yes, iirc it's running the GGU box which isn't listed for a 2.0 Fabia for some reason on the site but is for the TDI models

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sepulchrave is right for my side of the argument, I agree with everything he's said really...

I also had a 2.0 mk4 golf, was a gti as well actually... Such an awful car, just repeating what's been said but heavy old technology that's rubbish on fuel and feels very underpowered.

I'd almost say my current little 1.2 petrol is faster... Much nicer to drive.

It has longer ratios because it's a lazier engine, is that better?

 

Not better, but appreciate you answering the question.

I was just curious as I find the 16v very good, but a bit revvy on the motorway.

I've been toying with the idea of treating myself to another car! I like the Fabia, so would the best option be VRS? or is the 2.0 an option?! There doesn't seem to be many about, where as there are loads of VRS about in various conditions.Performance wise it seems very similar but is that true? Is it a viable option or a waste of money( I don't want to be chucking money at it).Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially running costs.Thanks!

 

2.0 8V or a 1.9PD? That's pretty much got VW's worst and best engines or the time in the same sentence. Yeah, the 2.0's a bit torquey, but that's the start and end of it's talents.

 

Other option is the 1.9 PD100 model.

 

 As Phil-E says, PD100, you would still get all the toys (heated seats, parking sensors etc) but have a more usable engine with great economy. Or what about a run-out model Bohemia (estate only) with the nicer interior and a few "toys".

Having driven one when first available I decided that I was better off in my 1.4 16v 100bhp. The front end is lighter & the engine revs so much quicker to the red line & beyond it is like being dragged down the road by an over enthusiastic puppy!!

 

I would recommend the 1.4 16v if well looked after, in a heartbeat...I had mine from new (Feb 2001) to Jan this year (2015), so I'm one of the few people to have one for the longest time!

 

As for comparing the MK4 Golf to Fabia, having worked on & driven both down the same back roads, the golf & fabia share a lot of suspension/brake components as it also does with the Audi TT & MK1 Octavia. Just the Fabia is shorter in the wheelbase. The Golf feels bigger because it is.

 

However the Fabia just feels so "nippy", & chuckable. I had massive fun in mine down back roads & on standard height (but very modified) suspension. & the gearbox is quite good also, infact it is better than my new Golf MK7, but that still has to bed in (cables to re-adjust).

 

Get the 1.4 16v, do a full service, run on Mobil 1 engine oil, millers motorsport gearbox oil, NGK iridium plugs, Shell nitro petrol only..................195 max width on 15" rims is what I had for summers on Toyo TR-1..? Proxes, all you need really for fun. Also super pro/powerfex all the suspension/gearbox bushes as well, & use Koni FSD dampers.