After picking up my new silver Furby vRS on Saturday, there are a few things I will need to get used to.

1. Roundabouts on dual carriageways cannot now be taken at 35 mph.

2. Speed bumps however, can.

3. If in third at 3000 and wanting to give it some beans, change up not down.

4. Trips to Ikea no longer involve a large audience in the car park taking bets during loading.

5. Potholes and Golf TDIs are no longer things to be avoided.

6. I will need to buy a

I like the list - lol.

I found -25mm eibachs helped the roly poly effect, however, it is a bit crashy over bumps, and i have damaged my under engine guard which means i have to go even slower of the speed humps now. It will never ever handle like a puma though :(

I have yet to get a strut brace though - so i can't comment on that.

Enjoy your car.

Andy

I've experienced the same changing from a smart roadster to a golf gttdi w/DSG, however there are a few points that i find difficult to absorb

1) black pump not green

2) black pump not green

3) black pump not green

4) black pump not green

5) black pump not green

6) black pump not green

7) black pump not green

8) black pump not green

9) black pump not green

10) The driver is only there to hold the wheel. Smartar$e car does the rest for me

3. If in third at 3000 and wanting to give it some beans' date=' change up not down.

[/quote']

Wait until it's run in, then you won't have to change gear at all - there'll be lots of torquey power available until well past 4000rpm. That'll take you practically up to the legal limit in 3rd, and of course everyone on here always drives within the speed limits!

Cheers guys. I'll explore the eibach option once the car is bedded in. The number of speed bumps round here is silly though, and I do kind of like the cushioned feeling I got coming to work today!

Looking forward to the car loosening up, at the moment it seems to run out of steam as it approaches 37/3800. Still way faster real world than the Puma though.

Keep it above 2500 rpm though if you wanna go fast and not do too much damage to the clutch

Also above 4000 rpm there isn't much left (if any) and you'd do well to change up

2500-3500 is probably the best range to use day-to-day I can still do roundabouts at 35mph, just doesnt feel as nice

After picking up my new silver Furby vRS on Saturday, there are a few things I will need to get used to.

1. Roundabouts on dual carriageways cannot now be taken at 35 mph.

2. Speed bumps however, can.

3. If in third at 3000 and wanting to give it some beans, change up not down.

4. Trips to Ikea no longer involve a large audience in the car park taking bets during loading.

5. Potholes and Golf TDIs are no longer things to be avoided.

6. I will need to buy a

......does the SEAT brace affect ride quality or just stiffen things up?

It sharpens the turn in and reduces the understeer a little. ITS WELL WORTH GETTING !!

8. My girlfriend still does not understand torque' date=' though its effect now scares her.[/quote']

Do you?

You cannot understand torque without knowing the gear ratios.. After that you can tell how much torque is available at the wheels.

The torque itself doesn tell anything how the car performs/accelerates/moves/something..

Rough example: two same cars, only difference between cars is:

a: 400Nm of torque at 2000rpm (diesel) revs to 4000, gear ratio 2, first gear max speed 40mph

b: 200Nm of torque at 4000rpm (petrol) revs to 8000, gear ratio 4, first gear max speed 40mph

Gear ratio needs to be 2 and 4 that the both cars can achieve

40mph at their max revs.

400Nm x 2 = 800Nm at the wheels

200Nm x 4 = 800Nm at the wheels

With a little help from physics i can tell that both of the cars have the same amount of torque at the wheels when the engines are reving on their torque peaks (2000 vs. 4000). And that is why they accelerate at the same speed at that specific moment.

Its not the TORQUE, its torque, revs and gear ratios together, after that you can understand it.

And why did i wrote this: nothing else to do.. :P

But of course everyone knows that the car accelerates fastest to its top speed by keeping the revs as near as possible the power peak..

Blimey.

I guess its like the force in Star Wars. Many do not understand, but will know when they witness. When the student is ready the torque curve will appear!

Seriously though, isn't your (very succinct) example just demonstrating that for any final drive ratio, the lower down peak torque is, the more flexible the car? I'm not going to drive a petrol round at 4000 just so I can be on the top of the torque curve, whereas the vRS just happens to be there most of the time.

I just like the feeling through my pants.

Use the force!

Just wanted to make clear that a car that has less torque can have the same amount of force that moves the car forward. Many peoples talk about how much torque their cars have but dont understand its effects, and why a car with less torque car go as fast as the another.

I agree that diesel is much more "easier" car to drive then petrol because it pulls hard from the bottom revs..

When remapped, there is useable power well above 3000rpm. Although once past 3500 my max power has been passed, and there's not much point going to 4000. Keeping it in that 2500-3500 is the best.

My list of mods would be:

1) EVERYTHING mechanical / bolt on, etc

2) remap.

Always remap last.

"If" you choose to go down the modding route jason is right leave the re-map until last, that way you will be able to make the most of it.

But remember any mods carried out on your car will effect your warrenty, so make sure you plan for any other costs

Do you?

You cannot understand torque without knowing the gear ratios.. After that you can tell how much torque is available at the wheels.

The torque itself doesn tell anything how the car performs/accelerates/moves/something..

Rough example: two same cars' date=' only difference between cars is:

a: 400Nm of torque at 2000rpm (diesel) revs to 4000, gear ratio 2, first gear max speed 40mph

b: 200Nm of torque at 4000rpm (petrol) revs to 8000, gear ratio 4, first gear max speed 40mph

Gear ratio needs to be 2 and 4 that the both cars can achieve

40mph at their max revs.

400Nm x 2 = 800Nm at the wheels

200Nm x 4 = 800Nm at the wheels

With a little help from physics i can tell that both of the cars have the [b']same amount of torque[/b] at the wheels when the engines are reving on their torque peaks (2000 vs. 4000). And that is why they accelerate at the same speed at that specific moment.

Its not the TORQUE, its torque, revs and gear ratios together, after that you can understand it.

And why did i wrote this: nothing else to do.. :P

But of course everyone knows that the car accelerates fastest to its top speed by keeping the revs as near as possible the power peak..

Should this not be both cars have the same power when at their torque peaks, as power= torque*revs*a constant?

Anyway, thats just getting bogged down in boring stuff- the point is the boy likes the feeling in his pants and thats all that matters!

The vRS is a great car, I still grin every time I drive ours (and I've been used to the torque induced shove for 4 years in my 150bhp tractor engined Golf).

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can match it as an all round package for anywhere near the money.

And just think, now you no longer drive the Puma, you won't get people thinking you have stolen your sisters car;)

Back on the handling point, it is notable that the Puma handles very well "out of the box" (especially in Racing guise) where the Fabia has to be modified to come slightly close to it.

Perhaps I'm getting old but what the point in spending 9-11k on a car that doesnt do what it should?

Back on the handling point' date=' it is notable that the Puma handles very well "out of the box" (especially in Racing guise) where the Fabia has to be modified to come slightly close to it.

Perhaps I'm getting old but what the point in spending 9-11k on a car that doesnt do what it should?[/quote']

I agree with where you coming from but not all cars will do what you need them to, like me I do alot of miles so I need a diesel, in standard form the fabia is great, but I've had hot hatches that handle very well, so I've just improved on the fabia abit

thats bum goochie, it still handles "good", just not hot hatchy. what's the point in spending 9-11k on a 3 door clio 172 which is rattly, only has 3 doors and not much room, poor mpg, poor dealerships, dodgy electrics, rusts, generally breaks etc...

what i am trying to say is your comment about spending 9-11k on a car is completely based upon one thing being slightly wrong with it, as an overall package it pi$$es over many other cars in it's class.

Perhaps its just me getting old then

Back on the handling point' date=' it is notable that the Puma handles very well "out of the box" (especially in Racing guise) where the Fabia has to be modified to come slightly close to it.

Perhaps I'm getting old but what the point in spending 9-11k on a car that doesnt do what it should?[/quote']

Depends what you think it 'should' do. If it 'should' give you reasonable handling, high MPG and a fun feeling in your belly when you press the go pedal, I'd say it does what it 'should'.

Nobody said it 'should' be a diesel track-day car...

Stepping carefully around the potential for an argument here....... The puma was never marketed as a sporty car where the Fabia was/is. The thread started as acomparison betwene the teo vehicles and I was simply following this through.

to be fair the two cars shouldn't be compared, both are different tools for different jobs, but as are other cars which are compared with the fabia

Puma - Fast compact coupe

Fabia - Quickish Diesel hatchback

but I see where your coming from goochie

what's the point in spending 9-11k on a 3 door clio 172 which is rattly' date=' only has 3 doors and not much room, poor mpg, poor dealerships, dodgy electrics, rusts, generally breaks etc...

[/quote']

Birkett is gonna love you.....

Ref small hatches

if all i wanted was speed I would buy a cupra 1.8t

if all i wanted was handling i would buy a mini or a puma.

if i wanted 5 doors and economy i would buy a fabia

horses for courses. its easier to make a fabia handle than it is to make a cupra economical.

Im slightly biased as i love pumas.. they just corner like they are glued to the road. (brakes are crap though)

And just think, now you no longer drive the Puma, you won't get people thinking you have stolen your sisters car

They never did, though I did get people asking for hair styling advice.

Im slightly biased as i love pumas.. they just corner like they are glued to the road. (brakes are crap though)

Agree on both points, but the flip side of good handling is firm ride and consequently a Ka interior that squeaks and creaks, especially now its done 76K. The two cars do different jobs; my comparison was pointing differences on first impressions. Both superb cars in their respective sectors.

Cheers guys and girls.

Birkett is gonna love you.....

Thing is, I sort of agree with his points.

I bought a Clio 182 because I wanted a fast, good handling car, that is great fun to drive. And that it is, the rest, is just a bonus. :P

if all i wanted was handling i would buy a mini or a puma.

......

Im slightly biased as i love pumas.. they just corner like they are glued to the road. (brakes are crap though)

I too agree on both points... although having the Racing version of the puma myself, I have to say the brakes are a bit better on that than on the standard puma (had two 'standards' before the FRP) !

Puma and Fabia are 2 very different cars..... petrol and diesel for a start! I've driven both...... I love my puma, but she became a bit much for everyday use, and I was putting too many miles on her which is why I have an octy as well

Yup, horses for courses