A Fabia with a GT Bumper

[AnnoyingPentium]

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

 

If I remember it was the old 8v from the Mk3 Golf Cabriolet..

 

Same engine IIRC.

 

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

I decided against the 2lt as it was 115BHP & 125lbft  & 0-62mph in 9.9secs & 36.2mpg combined -vs- the 1.4lt 16V 100BHP & 92lbft  & 0-62mph in 11.5secs & 39.8mpg combined

 

From what I've read, the 1.4 is more spritely compared to the heavier 2.0 lump.

[fabdavrav]

3 hours ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 

Same engine IIRC.

 

 

From what I've read, the 1.4 is more spritely compared to the heavier 2.0 lump.

 

Way more spritely!!..

 

That 2lt 8V..dates from 1988..used in other 1st gen Skoda (totally new cars under VW)..& various older Audi (80 & 100 series)...

 

VW Audi Engines - VW 2.0 EA827 engine (1980-2013) (motor-car.net)

 

List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines - Wikipedia

 

 

Edited 9 December, 2021 by fabdavrav
clarity

[AnnoyingPentium]

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

Way more spritely!!..

 

I mean, either beats a 1.2...

 

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

That 2lt 8V..dates from 1988

 

Thought so, I've got a friend in Latvia (met through a car group) with an Audi 80 with said engine IIRC.

[sepulchrave]

Sorry girls, having owned both I can report the 2.0 is much quicker but is a little thirstier, I don't mind spending a couple more quid on petrol though and it is just so RELIABLE, I have had nothing at all go wrong with the drive train in six years.

[TMB]

39 minutes ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 

I mean, either beats a 1.2...

 

 

 

 

I wonder how that engine compares with the 1.4 mpi 8v for performance.

[AnnoyingPentium]

2 minutes ago, TMB said:

 

I wonder how that engine compares with the 1.4 mpi 8v for performance.

 

Drag race?

 

The 1.4 MPI is 15.6 seconds to 60 from a standing start, according to Skoda. The 1.2 12v is 15.9 apparently. So you've got that wee 0.3 seconds on me.

 

I think, obviously there's a slight difference. I'll need to get my mitts on a 1.4 MPI to test this now.

[TMB]

1 minute ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 

Drag race?

 

 

 

It's the only way to settle it, Ryan

[fabdavrav]

26 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Sorry girls, having owned both I can report the 2.0 is much quicker but is a little thirstier, I don't mind spending a couple more quid on petrol though and it is just so RELIABLE, I have had nothing at all go wrong with the drive train in six years.

 

Doubt it against mine....even the head mechanic/tech at the Skoda garage (who I knew) said was faster than any other (non vrs) Fabia MkI that he had driven & that included the 2lt....but mine was modded!..

 

Also I had nothing go wrong with my 1.4lt AUB drivetrain in 14yrs of ownership....😛

[sepulchrave]

12 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

Doubt it against mine....even the head mechanic/tech at the Skoda garage (who I knew) said was faster than any other (non vrs) Fabia MkI that he had driven & that included the 2lt....but mine was modded!..

 

Also I had nothing go wrong with my 1.4lt AUB drivetrain in 14yrs of ownership....😛

 

It's the torque, torque is cheap when you have a 2.0.

It's night and day compared to the 1.4 and it pulls cleanly to 125 mph, the 1.4 couldn't get close.

[AnnoyingPentium]

I'll just sit here like "uh-huh, I can totally understand what it's like to drive either of these cars, yes."

[Stewartasb]

1 hour ago, AnnoyingPentium said:

 

Drag race?

 

The 1.4 MPI is 15.6 seconds to 60 from a standing start, according to Skoda. The 1.2 12v is 15.9 apparently. So you've got that wee 0.3 seconds on me.

 

I think, obviously there's a slight difference. I'll need to get my mitts on a 1.4 MPI to test this now.

I will do a test once mine is fixed lol atm mpg and performance is shot.

[juanse_2691]

6 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

 

It's the torque, torque is cheap when you have a 2.0.

It's night and day compared to the 1.4 and it pulls cleanly to 125 mph, the 1.4 couldn't get close.

True. Truckloads of torque. Having owned both variants, the 2.0 is way more pleasant to drive daily than the 1.4 16v. My BBZ Fabia only moves decently because the gearbox ratios are extremely short, anything over 60 mph will have the engine running at 4500 RPM+ and it tops at 118 mph at 6300ish RPM. That gets old quickly in motorways. The 2.0 used much longer ratios, which ultimately even saves fuel and makes trips bearable. The 2.0 pulls from any gear, at any point in the rev range. The 1.4 16v is gutless under 3000 rpm but it gets to redline in the blink of an eye. 

 

It's good to let the BBZ breathe every once in a while but I still miss that 2.0 dearly. 

 

 

[fabdavrav]

10 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

 

It's the torque, torque is cheap when you have a 2.0.

It's night and day compared to the 1.4 and it pulls cleanly to 125 mph, the 1.4 couldn't get close.

 

3 hours ago, juanse_2691 said:

True. Truckloads of torque. Having owned both variants, the 2.0 is way more pleasant to drive daily than the 1.4 16v. My BBZ Fabia only moves decently because the gearbox ratios are extremely short, anything over 60 mph will have the engine running at 4500 RPM+ and it tops at 118 mph at 6300ish RPM. That gets old quickly in motorways. The 2.0 used much longer ratios, which ultimately even saves fuel and makes trips bearable. The 2.0 pulls from any gear, at any point in the rev range. The 1.4 16v is gutless under 3000 rpm but it gets to redline in the blink of an eye. 

 

It's good to let the BBZ breathe every once in a while but I still miss that 2.0 dearly. 

 

 

 

 

The advantage of the 1.4lt 100BHP is its a high revving nat asp buzz box.....& with 45kgs less nose weight the handling on twisty roads if far better!

 

I used to drive mine through the gears using the full rev range...limiter didn't kick until 7,200rpm...red line started at 6,200rpm......& mine got there so fast & would headbutt the limiter if I wasn't quick!..

 

My AUB made circa 120-125BHP after the mods...If I'd have bought the ABT kit it would have had 140BHP...

 

 

I suppose I just hate heavy nose weights & what I would call "leaden" diesel like engine responses....🤷‍♂️

 

Mind you I drive my cars "rally" style...especially given the roads local to me....😎

Edited 10 December, 2021 by fabdavrav

[AnnoyingPentium]

1 hour ago, fabdavrav said:

Mind you I drive my cars "rally" style...especially given the roads local to me....😎

 

Might be quite similar to roads down here then, makes the 1.2 12v that wee bit more fun as it'll rev out not too badly.

 

The 1.4 16v (either AUB or BBZ, depends what I can get in better condition) is up there for future vehicular considerations.

[KenONeill]

Well, when/if you actually want to go flat out maximum attack then the 1.4 sure. For the 80% pace I normally use because I literally can keep it up all day, the 1.9TDi torque will win out every time.

[AnnoyingPentium]

4 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

For the 80% pace I normally use because I literally can keep it up all day, the 1.9TDi torque will win out every time.

 

Of course. I'm going to wait and see what the market is like when I finally get round to making the next purchase or just wait until any that meet my needs in regards to spec pop up. The 1.9 has cheaper road tax than my current 1.2 (£170) and the 1.4 (£210, according to AutoTrader and Parkers). So although, not much, £155 is music to my ears, being a bit of a tight-arse.