Well' date=' covered 700 miles in some sh*te conditions - covered in rock salt, mud and dust, but seems to scrub up will enough. Credit due to the AutoGlym stuff the dealer applied maybe?

Will add the pics to my gallery as I'm not sure how to insert images into this forum (does it need to be hosted on the www somewhere)??? The insert image button starts talking script kiddie speak...

Cheers

Dave (rsfab)[/quote']

Dave,

Well done!

It looks magnificent, and you must have driven it there (where ever there is!) very carefully, especially through that muddy puddle!

You take some more (under bonnet, interior?) pictures and I'll vote for them too.

Oh, I am looking forward to mine now!

Thanks,

Cheers Wayne!

Think I've worked out the insert image thing now - need to add photos to Gallery, then use the URL from there to insert image here! If I'm right, something should appear below:

[/img]

Cheers Wayne!

Think I've worked out the insert image thing now - need to add photos to Gallery' date=' then use the URL from there to insert image here! If I'm right, something should appear below:

[img'] [/img]

Keep them coming. Interior next please?

My wife has a puma, looks good and handles but the brakes are toytown and the engine lacks either torque or real top end oomph. I can't help but think that a 1.7 zetec with advanced variable cam timing (developed for the sporty puma only ) is a failure when it gives out 123bhp. Give Honda such a clean sheet with its variable valve timing engines and it produces peaches like the 250bhp (2litre) s2000 lump!

My fabia vrs arrives next month, wife was impressed by my punto jtd's torque (145lb) so look forward to her reaction to skodapower.

Nice one Barrie - the good point about the 1.7VCT Puma engine was that (unlike to Honda's vvt) you don't need 7000rpm on to get moving! Same with the Toyota 190 1.8 engine - you need crazy revs on for decent performance, and low-down torque is the price paid. However, a decent diesel (like to PD130) has shed-loads of low-down torque AND plenty of BHP.

Agree on the brakes - they are straight from the Fiesta and are rubbish.

You (and your wife) should enhoy the vRS - power, refinement, build quality and really decent brakes (uprated on the vRS) should keep a smile on your face!

Hope to hear from you when it arrives!

Dave

(rsfab)

Nice one Barrie - the good point about the 1.7VCT Puma engine was that (unlike to Honda's vvt) you don't need 7000rpm on to get moving! Same with the Toyota 190 1.8 engine - you need crazy revs on for decent performance' date=' and low-down torque is the price paid. However, a decent diesel (like to PD130) has shed-loads of low-down torque AND plenty of BHP.

Agree on the brakes - they are straight from the Fiesta and are rubbish.

You (and your wife) should enhoy the vRS - power, refinement, build quality and really decent brakes (uprated on the vRS) should keep a smile on your face!

Hope to hear from you when it arrives!

Dave

(rsfab)[/quote']

My wife called Autosales, Bilston again yesterday to firm up our intention to buy. In about a week (when the cheque comes through from BMW/MINI) it'll have our name on it! Hoorah.

Nice one Barrie - the good point about the 1.7VCT Puma engine was that (unlike to Honda's vvt) you don't need 7000rpm on to get moving! Same with the Toyota 190 1.8 engine - you need crazy revs on for decent performance' date=' and low-down torque is the price paid. However, a decent diesel (like to PD130) has shed-loads of low-down torque AND plenty of BHP.

Agree on the brakes - they are straight from the Fiesta and are rubbish.

You (and your wife) should enhoy the vRS - power, refinement, build quality and really decent brakes (uprated on the vRS) should keep a smile on your face!

Hope to hear from you when it arrives!

Dave

(rsfab)[/quote']

As a former owner of both a Ford Puma and a Honda Integra Type R i feel im qualified to answer this one .Honda VTECS(vvt is toyota) produce as much or more torque than any equivilent N/A engine of similar displacement at low revs (1500 to 5000).The added bonus with vtec is a high lift cam(which engages at 5800 to 8900 RPM in the ITR) and stratospheric revs.The old chestnut of vtecs being gutless below the high lift cam is simply not true due to combinations of low overall weight,gearing and revs.

To put this in perspective:-

Ford Puma= 1.7 litres.......123 BHP.......115 lb/ft........1050 ish kilos

Honda ITR= 1.8 litres.......187 BHP.......131 lb/ft........1100 ish kilos

CRUCIALLY with the itr 115 ib/ft of that 131lb/ft of torque is available as low as 1500 rpm rising to 131 at about 8000 rpm....effectively giving you a usable zone of 1500 to 8400!!

Comparing that with the puma which has approx 100 lb/ft available at 1500 but only as far as 5800 before peaking out at 115lb/ft.effective rev range of 1500 to 6300 in the real world.

The upshot of this is that,even if driven below the high cam,the integra is still noticebly quicker than the puma.....driven in the ZONE(5800 to 8800 rpm which it is meant to be )the puma would be simply Blitzed.No doubt about it .AND i may add,with one of the finest engine notes you could hope to hear(you havent lived until youve changed gear at 8800 with the windows down in a tunnel....oooohhhhhhhh baby .

As a side note.....the previous model JAPAN only civic type R was a 1.6 L N/A engine.It generated 180 BHP.

Moral of the story.....dont underestimate DOHC VTECS low down pull.Like barrie502 said....if honda had done the puma engine...well......they did....they put it in a coupe and called it the Integra Type R instead(it also had a limited slip dif......like **** to a blanket,but thats another story ).

Yours

Dash

P.s As a comparison to the TAVIA,i had to get it chipped to 230 BHP and 240lb/ft of torque to get a car that would actually beat an ITR in a straight line.In standard form the ITR wins.Mind you.....to quote that old scoobynet mantra ....throw in a few twisties and even a chippped octy would be struggling BIG time to hold off an ITR.....that LSD really does give it tenacious cornering ability .

As a former owner of both a Ford Puma and a Honda Integra Type R i feel im qualified to answer this one .Honda VTECS(vvt is toyota) produce as much or more torque than any equivilent N/A engine of similar displacement at low revs (1500 to 5000).The added bonus with vtec is a high lift cam(which engages at 5800 to 8900 RPM in the ITR) and stratospheric revs.The old chestnut of vtecs being gutless below the high lift cam is simply not true due to combinations of low overall weight' date='gearing and revs.

To put this in perspective:-

Ford Puma= 1.7 litres.......123 BHP.......115 lb/ft........1050 ish kilos

Honda ITR= 1.8 litres.......187 BHP.......131 lb/ft........1100 ish kilos

CRUCIALLY with the itr 115 ib/ft of that 131lb/ft of torque is available as low as 1500 rpm rising to 131 at about 8000 rpm....effectively giving you a usable zone of 1500 to 8400!!

Comparing that with the puma which has approx 100 lb/ft available at 1500 but only as far as 5800 before peaking out at 115lb/ft.effective rev range of 1500 to 6300 in the real world.

The upshot of this is that,even if driven below the high cam,the integra is still noticebly quicker than the puma.....driven in the ZONE(5800 to 8800 rpm which it is meant to be )the puma would be simply Blitzed.No doubt about it .AND i may add,with one of the finest engine notes you could hope to hear(you havent lived until youve changed gear at 8800 with the windows down in a tunnel....oooohhhhhhhh baby .

As a side note.....the previous model JAPAN only civic type R was a 1.6 L N/A engine.It generated 180 BHP.

Moral of the story.....dont underestimate DOHC VTECS low down pull.Like barrie502 said....if honda had done the puma engine...well......they did....they put it in a coupe and called it the Integra Type R instead(it also had a limited slip dif......like **** to a blanket,but thats another story ).

Yours

Dash

P.s As a comparison to the TAVIA,i had to get it chipped to 230 BHP and 240lb/ft of torque to get a car that would actually beat an ITR in a straight line.In standard form the ITR wins.Mind you.....to quote that old scoobynet mantra ....throw in a few twisties and even a chippped octy would be struggling BIG time to hold off an ITR.....that LSD really does give it tenacious cornering ability .[/quote']

Dash

I do agree with your overall premise that the variable valve timed engines offer similar if not better low down power when compared to their cooking counterparts of a similar capacity.

The problem arises when you look at max power outputs and max tourque outputs. A Honda Vtec will always feel flat at lower revs compared with a larger capacity engine of similar bhp because it has a wider low/hi power differential. It has to be compared to a larger capacity engine as it is aimed at (and priced similarly to) other powerful cars. A 330i Beemer and your Integra will throw out 190 or so horses when flaked within inches of their lives but the Beemer has a far stronger low and midrange to call on when not in that mood. The Puma is a failure in my mind because Yamaha did not get radical enough with the cam shape and timing. However it is not a bad engine and, with torque at 95% of bhp value, it probably is better than Honda in that respect.

My very old friend and mentor used to own a Ford Rally sport centre and owned various 911's in the late seventies and early eighties. He was a great driver and always had a Capri 3.0s in his fleet. Reason? He always argues that when he had to drive 200 miles at night on mixed roads, maybe rain, certainly tired, the Capri was the faster car and the one of choice - four gears and bucketloads of power at any revs. I can see why he said that,

my only experience with a VTEC is a Civic Typ R ( my brothers), great car, fabulous engine but on the tired- long-mixed road- wet journeys, I (as an old fart) will take a Cupra R instead and I will go faster for longer without my engine dicatating how, or at what revs, I need to drive it.

Dash

I do agree with your overall premise that the variable valve timed engines offer similar if not better low down power when compared to their cooking counterparts of a similar capacity.

The problem arises when you look at max power outputs and max tourque outputs. A Honda Vtec will always feel flat at lower revs compared with a larger capacity engine of similar bhp because it has a wider low/hi power differential. It has to be compared to a larger capacity engine as it is aimed at (and priced similarly to) other powerful cars. A 330i Beemer and your Integra will throw out 190 or so horses when flaked within inches of their lives but the Beemer has a far stronger low and midrange to call on when not in that mood. The Puma is a failure in my mind because Yamaha did not get radical enough with the cam shape and timing. However it is not a bad engine and' date=' with torque at 95% of bhp value, it probably is better than Honda in that respect.

My very old friend and mentor used to own a Ford Rally sport centre and owned various 911's in the late seventies and early eighties. He was a great driver and always had a Capri 3.0s in his fleet. Reason? He always argues that when he had to drive 200 miles at night on mixed roads, maybe rain, certainly tired, the Capri was the faster car and the one of choice - four gears and bucketloads of power at any revs. I can see why he said that,

my only experience with a VTEC is a Civic Typ R ( my brothers), great car, fabulous engine but on the tired- long-mixed road- wet journeys, I (as an old fart) will take a Cupra R instead and I will go faster for longer without my engine dicatating how, or at what revs, I need to drive it.[/quote']

Hold on on barrie,i was agreeing with you! ,hence the line "Moral of the story.....dont underestimate DOHC VTECS low down pull.Like barrie502 said....if honda had done the puma engine...well......they did....they put it in a coupe and called it the Integra Type R instead(it also had a limited slip dif......like **** to a blanket,but thats another story )."

My reply was to rsfab's accertion that the puma and other cars of similer displacement actually have a low down torque advantage compared to the ITR.This isnt true because VTECS give you the best of both worlds....they GIVE you the best torque you could reasonably expect from a road car of the 1.6 to 2.0 litre N/A range at low revs and then they give you the nutty mode .The reason fab possibly thinks that the puma feels like it has more low down pul is possibly because of the vtec changeover on the teg.......because its such a noticeable increase in pace what goes before tends to feel like it's goin slower,but the overall torque curve of an ITR is very flat,dipping slightly before vtec which gives the impression of a surge,like a boost spike if you will .Think about it as if the octy was running before the turbo at 2000 rpm,if you boost spiked it at 2500 you would feel like pre 2000 rpm it was undriveably slow.Similer sitition on the ITR,but obviously much less prenonuced than a turbo kick .

As to your comparison with a bimmer 330,well i cant argue with ya there .One of the reasons i traded my teg after 2 and half years is because i fancied something with the torque advantage and a bit more comfort,But i dont regret ever buying the teg at all,its some of the best fun you could ever ask for in a car.In fact when im in the "mood" i miss it a lot, all that frantic ear piercing engine scream and mad scramble for gear ghanges .But yes,i understand what you mean if driven flat out its comparable to a 330 but if driven normal its off the pace,but not as much as the low torque reading would have people think.

Any way part of the fun was thrashing its bo**lox off and after the initial first few weeks of getting it,where you think NO ENGINE can survive the punishment youve given it you begin to relax and trust it.It really is a remarkably "undestroyable" engine when you consider the punishment it gets,that would leave lesser engines in a smoking wreck if revved similerly high .

So in conclusion,vtecs give you the best you could expect from low displacement N/A engines.And then on top of that they give you a high revving beast which is used to "catch" more exotic,expensive,larger displacement machinery.It was never intened to be a relaxed soloution to the inherent disadvantage of no forced induction or higher engine capacity.The ONLY way you can increase torque and produce the power figures nessecary to compete is to make the engine spin faster,motorbikes have been using that idea for years .

Yours

Dash

Hold on on barrie' date='i was agreeing with you! ,hence the line "Moral of the story.....dont underestimate DOHC VTECS low down pull.Like barrie502 said....if honda had done the puma engine...well......they did....they put it in a coupe and called it the Integra Type R instead(it also had a limited slip dif......like **** to a blanket,but thats another story )."

My reply was to rsfab's accertion that the puma and other cars of similer displacement actually have a low down torque advantage compared to the ITR.This isnt true because VTECS give you the best of both worlds....they GIVE you the best torque you could reasonably expect from a road car of the 1.6 to 2.0 litre N/A range at low revs and then they give you the nutty mode .The reason fab possibly thinks that the puma feels like it has more low down pul is possibly because of the vtec changeover on the teg.......because its such a noticeable increase in pace what goes before tends to feel like it's goin slower,but the overall torque curve of an ITR is very flat,dipping slightly before vtec which gives the impression of a surge,like a boost spike if you will .Think about it as if the octy was running before the turbo at 2000 rpm,if you boost spiked it at 2500 you would feel like pre 2000 rpm it was undriveably slow.Similer sitition on the ITR,but obviously much less prenonuced than a turbo kick .

As to your comparison with a bimmer 330,well i cant argue with ya there .One of the reasons i traded my teg after 2 and half years is because i fancied something with the torque advantage and a bit more comfort,But i dont regret ever buying the teg at all,its some of the best fun you could ever ask for in a car.In fact when im in the "mood" i miss it a lot, all that frantic ear piercing engine scream and mad scramble for gear ghanges .But yes,i understand what you mean if driven flat out its comparable to a 330 but if driven normal its off the pace,but not as much as the low torque reading would have people think.

Any way part of the fun was thrashing its bo**lox off and after the initial first few weeks of getting it,where you think NO ENGINE can survive the punishment youve given it you begin to relax and trust it.It really is a remarkably "undestroyable" engine when you consider the punishment it gets,that would leave lesser engines in a smoking wreck if revved similerly high .

So in conclusion,vtecs give you the best you could expect from low displacement N/A engines.And then on top of that they give you a high revving beast which is used to "catch" more exotic,expensive,larger displacement machinery.It was never intened to be a relaxed soloution to the inherent disadvantage of no forced induction or higher engine capacity.The ONLY way you can increase torque and produce the power figures nessecary to compete is to make the engine spin faster,motorbikes have been using that idea for years .

Yours

Dash[/quote']

I think we share a wavelength. There are lots of good and interesting cars and engines out there. The dull anodyne ones do little for me but I do have a wide appreciation. One of my previous cherished possessions (despite fuel consumption and reliability horrors) was a V8 Rover Vitesse. Very 'old tech' engine but such brawn and character. I loved it.

I like cars to have some strong quality, Fab vrs should have lots of torque, Vtecs have wonderful rev range and top end power, the ford vct - +well what has it really got?

Take care

Barrie

I think we share a wavelength. There are lots of good and interesting cars and engines out there. The dull anodyne ones do little for me but I do have a wide appreciation. One of my previous cherished possessions (despite fuel consumption and reliability horrors) was a V8 Rover Vitesse. Very 'old tech' engine but such brawn and character. I loved it.

I like cars to have some strong quality' date=' Fab vrs should have lots of torque, Vtecs have wonderful rev range and top end power, the ford vct - +well what has it really got?

Take care

Barrie[/quote']

Exactly m8,horses for courses and all that ,sometimes i like creamy smooth power delivery....other times i want screaming rev the knuts off it power :drivesaf: .Dull characterless transport pods send me to sleep :thumbdwn: .Im really enjoying my chipped octy at the moment and i reckon in terms of cost,thrills,comfort,speed and practicality it's a hard car to beat.I think like you said, we are on the same wavelength and any car that goes quickly and is fun,no matter what engine or power its got is always worthy of praise or at least acknowledgement .

Yours

Dash

P.s oh yeah i think the ford VCT unit is a pretty good engine myself,it does its job but you cant help but feel that it was only about 75% of what it could have been.To me the engine was adequate but a shame it couldnt have matched the handling and the chassis of the puma,maybe the racing puma got closer but ive never tried one so i dont know .Dont get me wrong im not dissing the puma....i really liked mine,but IMHO it just stopped short of the greatness of the TEG

Edited to answer barries last question....or was it a retoricle(defo spelling! ) question?

My wife called Autosales, Bilston again yesterday to firm up our intention to buy. In about a week (when the cheque comes through from BMW/MINI) it'll have our name on it! Hoorah.

I spoke too soon. Turned out that Autosales hadn't really ordered my exact specification at all! I was more than a little miffed as I took time out this weekend to sign on the dotted line for my vRS that I was told will be turning up in a week or so. I am now at the mercy of Skoda UK and Autosales as their going to have to modify the specification of another (future) car "in the system" in the hope that gets done really quickly. The salesman was quite apologetic but nevertheless we would really have liked to have known that he'd decided it was in his interest not to order my exact car, just in case I didn't want it! :thumbdwn:

Not as bad service as Rydale Central (UK) BMW/MINI mind you that wouldn't have said "Sorry." even if you'd paid them to say it.

Wish me luck. I was told that they'd expect to see the replacement vRS to my specification mid-April. Yip-eee.

Hi guys - just found the site after signing on the line for a Black vRS today. Had a fair bit of phoning round to find a black one that I could drive away before May' date=' but got lucky in Huddersfield! Collect Friday (yes, this week).

Previously got close to buying a MINI Cooper - think I've made the right choice with the Fabia vRS - more of a stealth machine!

Looking forward to getting the first few (careful) miles out of the way before the proper fun starts!

See ya

Dave

rsfab[/quote']

Dave,

Take a look here...

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9409

There's two videos that you NEED to see. One's a low quality one, the other (later) one is a high quality one that's 16.4Mb.

Enjoy.