I can appreciate that these debates rarely go according to plan, but I am genuinely interested to hear reports from the 2.0 Fabia chaps on how their cars perform point to point.

My biggest reservation with the vRS is it's heavy nose weight and its subsequent epic plough on under steer - compared to a 1.2 loan car I recently had, that felt a lot more neutral.

So with the slight weight saving that the 2.0 has, does this make up for the power difference point to point.

Could it 'have' a vRS around a track ?

Mil, where are ya?

simple answer: NO

The 2.0 is a very old design lump.. just as heavy as the tdi engine.. naff all torque, and has a serious oil drinking problem.. seems the 1l of oil per 1000miles was designed for this engine!

Nope. As well them having similar weights in the end, I believe the boost and torque of the TDI lump will pull it ahead. The 2.0 will need ragging to really keep up, which it will to a point. I also believe the TDI lump will keep pulling well up to a ton+ whereas the top end of the 2.0 is lower and I don't think it will do the usual 80 onwards acceleration as well.

It won't be bad at all - Not dissing it. It just won't be "as quick" as a vRS - IMO (using two standard out-the-factory versions - no mods.)

The biggest problem with the vRS is the weight of the engine causing massive dive under braking, which uprated suspension will help with (but not sort out).

I'd have thought the 2.0 petrol would be plenty fast too, as it will rev higher per gear. True, mid-range torque of the vRS would have a good impact, but you have a better range in-gear in the 2.0, so I'd guess it would be dependant on the track etc.

To refer to Mil's car though - even if it was standard - with the temperatures as they are where he lives, the vRS would not perform at it's best, and a FMIC would be a requirement I would expect.

Definitely agree that the lighter engine (Fab Sport 1.4 I drove) made the diving thing disappear completely, far less weight transfer apparent anyway.

No 2.0 Fabia it is not quicker than the vRS :P

My dad had a 2.0 litre Golf Mk4 GTI. He says even his current PD100 Polo outperformed it.

Therefore, I'd say the answer was an unequivocal no.

With that said, there is only 0.3 seconds difference to 60, but I'd say the approx 6 mph extra top end is quite a significant difference above 60 mph.

"Re: Is the 2.0 Fabia quicker than the vRS ?"

Power to weight ratio, inertia, moment of inertia, suspension, drag etc., etc., all of these things come into it.

In some cases yes, quite possibly, in most normal cases, in the mid-range and at higher speed, probably not. Ultimately though, the Octavia is bigger car with a bigger boot -which is why I bought one!

Another comparison, a 2.0 Focus is on a par with a TDI 130 Golf for peak power and overall acceleration, but the Golf feels fasterin the mid-range as there's a kick from the turbo and you don't need to rev it like crazy to go fast. It runs out of puff at a ton though...

"Re: Is the 2.0 Fabia quicker than the vRS ?"

Power to weight ratio' date=' inertia, moment of inertia, suspension, drag etc., etc., all of these things come into it.

In some cases yes, quite possibly, in most normal cases, in the mid-range and at higher speed, probably not. Ultimately though, the Octavia is bigger car with a bigger boot -which is why I bought one!

Another comparison, a 2.0 Focus is on a par with a TDI 130 Golf for peak power and overall acceleration, but the Golf feels fasterin the mid-range as there's a kick from the turbo and you don't need to rev it like crazy to go fast. It runs out of puff at a ton though...[/quote']

I think the original comparison was between the 2.0 Fabia and the vRS Fabia.

The vRS Octavia is quite a bit faster than either.

2.0 faster than the vRS - very unlikely.

The 2.0 is underpowered, inert and a bit rough. It's also drinks more oil than the TDIs! I'm sticking the proviso in I've not actaully driven a Fabia with the 2.0, but I have driven Mk4 Golf/Bora's with the 1.6, 2.0 and PD115 TDI.

I never really got the point of the 2.0 in that range - the 1.8 20v was a much more refined engine. Why sideline it and reuse an old engine? The only thing I found to like about the 2.0 is the higher gearing which made fast motorway work more relaxing than the 1.6. Real world performance was little different - the 2.0 was 0.2s faster to 60 and 2mph faster up top with an extra 15bhp.

Funny that mate, my dad also had a 1.6 mk4 and it didnt really feel any slower than the 2.0.

That 2 litre lump is the same one 1st used in the MK3 Golf GTI back in 1992!!

It was pants then and it certanily aint great now either!

The biggest problem with the vRS is the weight of the engine causing massive dive under braking' date=' which uprated suspension will help with (but not sort out).

I'd have thought the 2.0 petrol would be plenty fast too, as it will rev higher per gear. True, mid-range torque of the vRS would have a good impact, but you have a better range in-gear in the 2.0, so I'd guess it would be dependant on the track etc.

To refer to Mil's car though - even if it was standard - with the temperatures as they are where he lives, the vRS would not perform at it's best, and a FMIC would be a requirement I would expect.

Definitely agree that the lighter engine (Fab Sport 1.4 I drove) made the diving thing disappear completely, far less weight transfer apparent anyway.[/quote']

thats because the 1.4 can't manage a speed at which it would dive under braking and of course the brakes are utter crap on it so wouldnt make it dive either

Funny that mate, my dad also had a 1.6 mk4 and it didnt really feel any slower than the 2.0.

You've got to rev the 1.6 a bit more as peak torque is at 3.5k. The gearing is a bit lower and it makes a decent sound so it's not really an issue. The 2.0 has peak torque from 2.5k but is just inert past 5k and sounds strained. Plus the 1.6 does 5mpg more driven normally and hardly uses any oil.

A more valid comparison would be the 1.8T vs the PD130 in a Fabia. Or we could just cheat and argue over some SEAT Ibiza FR stat's...

From the Tech Spec brochure:

Fabia 2.0 Hatch

Max speed - 121 mph

0 - 62 mph - 9.9 secs

Fabia vRS

Max speed - 128 mph

0 - 62 mph - 9.5 secs

Or other words.

Max speed - 121 mph

0 - 62 mph - 9.9 secs

Fabia vRS

Max speed - 128 mph - 7 mph more :P

0 - 62 mph - 9.5 secs - 0.4 secs quicker :P

Time to lock the thread now I think - the most senior mod has stepped in with the definitive answer.

I'm here James

You guys will never know the actual performance unless you stepped up against one, as I would never know what it would be like to take on a vRS Fabia. For an N/A 2.0 litre, other cars in its class don't have the torque it has, including the old Golf GTi the lump is taken from.

On 3 different occasions with my best friend in the car (who drives the 1.4 16v), I've had a go with Pug 206RCs mid-range and left them with their mouths wide open. We even had a go with a Mini Cooper S, which left the driver pist off. If he (my friend) were on this site he would vouch for me.

The 2.0 wouldn't feel as fast as the vRS given the torque difference, but it is quite a nippy car and would have no trouble taking on a standard vRS. Let's see, it has 170Nm torque, has a max rev range of 6,200RPM and 115bhp. Its kerb is also 1,190kgs, whereas the vRS has 1,315kgs, which is a significant difference in weight when talking performance. I've driven a Seat Ibiza GT TDi (100bhp), and it certainly felt faster than my car (it obviously has more torque), but it isn't. I've taken on a Fabia PD100. the only one here in Dubai, and I murdered him (again, my best friend was with me at the time). And before you go on to say he wasn't trying, I can tell you he was smoking the whole road up flooring it.

Skoda-spec-wise, the 2.0 is stated to do 0-100km/h in 9.9 seconds. I've managed it in below 9 seconds, around 8.7 secs. Top speed? Once attempted, I hit 215km/h at about 5,600rpm.

Fabia156 drives the 100bhp version of the Fabia, which used to belong to the salesman who sold me my car. He used to race on the track regularly here, and usually win his category with it. He himself has said there is very noticeable difference in performance between the 2.0 and the 1.4 MPi 100bhp, as he's had both.

We've been through this topic many times before, so I'm expecting the usual counter moves. I don't really care if you believe me or not, i'm not expecting you to as you're so taken by the stupid amount of torque the Fabia vRS has, but the 2 litre is a quick car, and it shifts pretty quick too. And with all the differences accounted for, it would have no trouble against the stock vRS at all.

Good - i knew someone would make sense of it. I felt a bit foolish a few years ago when my friend bought a 1998 Ibiza Cupra with the 2.0 8v 115 bhp engine. I took the **** lots and lots as i had driven the lardy Mk3 and thought there was no way you could make a fast car with that engine. Then i went in the Ibiza and took it all back. For those of you making your comparison or judgment based on a MK3/Mk4 golf driving experience, there is a whole world between them. This is what interested me as i knew the 2.0 is lighter, and when racing i.e straight line stuff it is power that is more significant, and both Fabia's are reasonably easily matched power to weight wise. The vRS would have the advantage out of the bend because of the torque, but with less weight and more neutral handling the 2.0 could potentially out brake and out handle the vRS. And if i remember correctly the 2.0 has the same width tyres as the vRS ?

Anyway, good thread so far

I'm sure both are great cars, the 2.0i is more suited to Mill's climate regardless

Personally I'm still awaiting Mill to do the 1.8T conversion as his car has the petrol thing going for it already, and as Mr Jason did his PD100 to PDxxx conversion it would be great to see the 2.0i converted to the 1.8T 20V engine

I'd take the 2 litre.

would be great to see the 2.0i converted to the 1.8T 20V engine

It would probably be easier just to supercharge the 2.0...

Rob.

My Golf GTI was 2.0 8v 115 bhp.Nice car.Not a quick car though.GTI badge made it look fast though

driver skills/madness comes into it more than any other factor. if the vRS driver is inept or the 2.0 driver is a **** willing to drive his car at 100 mph into a corner with no consideration for others then on the road it will be quicker.

but statistics show it's a fair bit slower bar the 0-60 run.

what tuning is available for the 2.0? cams/head work/throttle bodies? the only reason I ask is that VAG tuning is somewhat unique and there seems to be somekind of tuning for every car in the VAG lineup.

It would probably be easier just to supercharge the 2.0...

Rob.

Fair point

It would probably be easier just to supercharge the 2.0...

Rob.

Yep.. awesome gti do a off the shelf supercharger kit... gives 150bhp and about the same with torque