some figures to ponder (all Quoted figures)

2.0l 96.6Bhp/1000Kgs

vRS 98.9Bhp/1000Kgs

2.0l 142.8Nm/1000Kgs

vRS 235.7Nm/1000Kgs

so its all down to how FAT the Driver is

I can appreciate that these debates rarely go according to plan' date=' 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 ?[/quote']

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Could it 'have' a vRS around a track ?

IMHO, assuming both were standard, yes.

I mean, none of them could outdrag / out handle my SDI taxi

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Only a fool would laugh to a sensible question like that....

I would love to see a 2 litre kill you in a race...then you'll be posting this....

:weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: ...

And Colin, since you bring up the issue of supercharging, do you know how much a supercharger costs including labour on average?

Only a fool would laugh to a sensible question like that....

I would love to see a 2 litre kill you in a race...then you'll be posting this....

:weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: :weeping: ...

And Colin' date=' since you bring up the issue of supercharging, do you know how much a supercharger costs including labour on average?[/quote']

A heads-up for ya.......

Whilst I accept you are naturally defending the car you have...please remember to keep remarks non personal...people's comments are about the car and not yourself.....

....and anyone replying to Mil's comments.....let's not let it degrade and become personal.

I don't have anything personal with anyone here, hence the grin at the end of it all

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

Statistics can be used to prove anything' date=' 80% of people know that!

Statistics can be used to prove anything, 80% of people know that! (quote=homer simpson)

:rofl: :rofl:

Hi

I did some informal 0-60s with a friend timing on a stopwatch. Got an average of 8.3 seconds for 60 from the Fabia vRS. Took speedo error into account but could not correct for lag so could be a bit quicker. Need to borrow me mates vbox when I next see him.

Chris

In amongst all the posturing, mathematics and "on paper" logic, has anyone actually driven the two cars against each other to see the difference?

Rob.

In amongst all the posturing' date=' mathematics and "on paper" logic, has anyone actually driven the two cars against each other to see the difference?

Rob.[/quote']

Hi Rob

I did follow one in a situation where we were both giving it plenty following an overtake on an A road. Speed was from 30 ish when we both began the overtake, to 70 ish when we got to more traffic. He was definately giving it lots, but not sure if it was full gas full revs. I started the overtake in 3rd and had to lift a bit to avoid getting too close, then short shifted at 3250 / 3500 and was gaining a little on him through 4th at full throttle.

Round the twisties, I would guess the uprated brakes and suspension of the vRS would offset the lighter engine of the 2L. I would like to get a drive in one (a 2L) but speed is such a subjective thing. The vRS just nevver feels fast because you are never revving it high enough to feel thrashed. I remeber when I used to frequent Santa Pod on a regualr basis. One mate did carbs (repalced FI with twin Webers), exhaust (Peco) and induction gear (K&N) on his car. Reckoned it really flew after the mods, with a big kick in the back at 5000 rpm as well. Miles quicker easily. Shame the Pod's timing gear saw his pre mod times at mid 16s and post mods at late 18s. An embarrasing way to spend the best part of £1300:O

Only the clocks can tell.

Chris

In amongst all the posturing' date=' mathematics and "on paper" logic, has anyone actually driven the two cars against each other to see the difference?

Rob.[/quote']

Not personally, but in my work I've spoken to a lot of engineers and marketing people, who are well aware that diesels can embarass petrol-powered cars in the real world. To the point where literature is often slightly 'fudged' so that performance petrol cars look a little better on paper than the lowly diesel versions.

A fair amount of nonsense has been said on the internet about torque and power. Lets remember that power is just torque times revs.

Diesels produce far, far more torque than petrol engines generally speaking. But they don't rev as high, which means that the petrol engine, on paper, will have more power. In addition, peak torque normally occurs lower in the rev range for diesel engines.

This means that, at 3,000 rpm, a diesel will produce far more power than a petrol engine at 3,000 rpm, because it will probably, in the case of these two engines, be producing something like double the torque, hence double the power.

However, the petrol engine will rev higher, and produce peak torque, typically, at around 4,000 rpm (compared to approx. 2,000 on a diesel). So ultimately, a petrol engine will be able to outdrag a diesel engine when it is towards the top of its rev range.

But you're not at the top of your rev range all the time, whereas the diesel will develop huge globs of torque all through the lower range. Hence, in the real world, the diesel will generally be able to out-accelerate the petrol engine most of the time...

I started the overtake in 3rd and had to lift a bit to avoid getting too close, then short shifted at 3250 / 3500 and was gaining a little on him through 4th at full throttle.

That's what I would expect - power delivery of the vRS comes in much lower down the rev range, so you would "surge" forward compared with the more progressive power delivery of the 2.0.

Rob.

Forgot to add:

0-60 favours petrol engines, because most are geared to hit 60 in second gear: most diesels will need to be in third or even fourth.

However, in-gear times are normally more impressive in diesels, which is why they're often hard to find if a manufacturer is pushing a performance petrol-engined car.

This all changes if the petrol engine has a turbo, though: the torque production changes significantly.

I'd rather have the petrol one, I reckon I could punt it round a track as fast as I could punt a standard Fabia RS round.

Any one want to lend me their cars? Purely in the name of science of course

Torque (on diesels) is to some extent, overstated IMO. Diesels have taller gearing, so often, the difference of torque at the wheels is not as big as the paper figures suggest. Also, because the torque is developed very low down the rev range, it gives that instant response. The diesel therefore is obviously better at low revs after just putting your foot down, but thats where any advantage ends.

Torque (on diesels) is to some extent, overstated IMO.

Surely not...

Rob.

The crucial issue here is whether anyone really cares - the vRS is quicker on paper (and I'm sure quicker in the real world) but it's down to driver skill.

I reckon a decent driver in a Seicento sporting could lap a track quicker than a rollovermeister in a quicker car

I'm here James

You guys will never know the actual performance unless you stepped up against one' date=' 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.

[/quote']

This quote I find rather amusing. You admit you will never know what it's like to take on a vRS Fabia, yet you still insist you could beat one. And saying that you're engine has loads of torque when you're comparing to a diesel......

We even had a go with a Mini Cooper S' date=' which left the driver pist off. If he (my friend) were on this site he would vouch for me.

[/quote']

My car has 150bhp and 320Nm. A Cooper S driver cut me up while I was in a queue moving at about 50mph on the motorway. When the queue cleared he floored it. I did too, and was pulling ever so slightly closer to him all the way to 100 where I backed off. You can "p-off" a Cooper S with 35 less bhp and just over half the torque (170Nm)? Good on you.

Skoda-spec-wise' date=' 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.

[/quote']

Everyone knows that VAG tend to understate their performance claims, and tend to quote them with passengers and half a payload (or similar) so maybe you can beat the quoted 0-60 time. I wouldn't have thought you could by 1.2secs but I won't argue. Don't you think the vRS might be similarly underestimated in the official spec though.

And you can hit 133mph? Thats one inaccurate speedo you got there!

But here comes my favourite bit;

Fabia156 drives the 100bhp version of the Fabia' date=' 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.

[/quote']

So if 15bhp and 44Nm gives your car "a very noticable difference in performance" from the 1.4 100, why does 15bhp and 140Nm not give the vRS a noticable difference in performance to your car?

Finally;

the 2 litre is a quick car' date=' and it shifts pretty quick too. And with all the differences accounted for, it would have no trouble against the stock vRS at all.[/quote']

It may well be a quick car, no one is disputing that, but if it would have no trouble against a 130TDI, then why does the top of the range sporty model not have the 2.0 instead of the TDI (or even a choice of the 2.0)?

You need to stop blindly defending your car. No one is saying that it's not a good car. It doesn't have to be faster than a vRS to make it quick and nice to drive. I love both my cars but I won't go around saying my Golf or the Fabia could beat a (for example) Octy vRS.

(well we all know that the Fabia really can beat anything, even Scoobs! )

Great post Steve.

However, Mil's car is the RS, just so you know.

And I have drive the 2.0 - it is a very lazy engine. Its quite torquey, but doesn't rev that easily or high at all. A 130PD will spank it, simple really.

Oh, and on certain circuits, the Octavia vRS seems pretty evenly matched to the Fabia vRS

why does 15bhp and 140Nm not give the vRS a noticable difference in performance to your car?

It weighs a hell of a lot more

Chris

A 130PD will spank it, simple really.

Got anything to back that up. That's like me saying my Mondeo would spank your Fabia :P:rofl:

Chris

I'm here James

You guys will never know the actual performance unless you stepped up against one' date=' 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.[/quote']

Shut up, just shut up...

Shut up' date=' just shut up...

[/quote']

But he is right - right ?

I strongly believe that at the very least there will be nothing in it, but i think if push came to shove, a 2.0 would have the upper hand.

Steve...

I never said my car can beat a standard vRS, I said it could take it, which means either one could beat the other. I din't even say my car has a ****load of torque, I said it has excellent torque for it's engine in its class. Your misinterpretation in general would lead to stupid arguments, which I'm avoiding right now. You forget the much wider rev range & less weight the 2.0 has, plus the fact the engine is quite large for a car like the Fabia. Your choice.

I ain't afraid to take on Cooper S', 206GTis and Golf GTi's. I know which cars I'm capable of taking, and which cars I wouldn't dare try, unless it's just to see them take off like rockets.

My speedo isn't off, it's pretty accurate, seeing as I know where each and every radar is in this country, having been here for 23 years, and so know at which speeds it will flash and whatnot. Don't question me there.

I'm not going to argue about this again from now, because there is no point. I've put my message across. I've had my car for almost 3 years, and in that span of time I've driven many other plenty fast cars to know exactly what I'm talking about.

Unless your nan also told you not to talk to men with unibrows.

Tom...

Rent a 2 litre if you can, and get a friend with a standard vRS to have a go with. Please.

Chris...

Word up