a quick question for all 2.0 owners out there. what did you do to your car first and what would you suggest as the first thing to do?

ok was 2 questions

i did the koni fsd & eibach front antiroll bar, then powerflex/cupra bushes..... rear arb to come next, then 312mm brake conversion.....

then i'm goin to have a play with the gearbox ratios, then fiddle with the engine a little:)

That is probably because that design of engine is aproaching 14 years of age , it made its debut in the mkIII Golf GTi 8V in 1993 IIRC (in Germany at least) , and was rated at 115 BHP even then , so it has changed very little , if at all.!!

yes and no....

although basically it is the same, there are a few minor detail differences in the engine block..... plus the mk3 golf has a sidedraught cylinder head whereas the fabia has a crossflow unit

I believe the 2.0 has traction issues, especially in the wet.

only trouble i get in mine in the wet is a bit of understeer, but it is something you get used to quite quickly!!!

Also be careful not to snap a driveshaft on the strip

i dont really ever push my car this hard (4k starts etc;) ) but i cant see the driveshafts being a problem, they are fairly solid....... more likely to make the clutch go pop from drag starts:)

oh, and as for oil, mine uses about 2 litres every 5k

ooo if your comparing similar weight and 2.0 engine cars then my old car is a good choice

Ford Sierra 2.0 GLX

Kerb Weight 1128Kg

125 bhp

power to wieght 110 bhp/ton

the fabia vRS is 109 bhp/ton

(according to the books)

Is it possible to bolt a 16v head on the 2.0 fabia to squeeze a bit more power out of it? IIRC the mk2 8v gti golf has 115bhp . . is it the same engine? The 16v gti of the time was 140bhp ish IIRC.

Skoda Fabia Hatchback (00-) 2.0 Elegance 5dr

2004 (04)

25,000 miles

Dealer

Therefore do you realistically think its possible to modify the car properly for £1.7k to up the BHP/tonne from 96 to 168? I dont think so youd have to go down Turbo routes however that would cost far more than this or youd have to go for NOS even the relativly more expensive Civic Type S it would just not be possible to get the BHP/tonne increases.

Well yes, you could do all that especially NOS for that budget (if you felt so inclined:rolleyes: ) a 50bhp increase in power on a 2.0l engine using a NOS kit would not be unreasonable and then if you were REALLY serious you could start lightening the car by totally stripping it out and removing every uneccessary component, seats, carpets, spare wheel, dash, door cards, replace the windows with perspex etc & I suspect that then you would get near (or maybe even exceed) the 168bhp/tonne figure.

Not really very practical though is it ! :confused:

lol @ the "nippy" 2.0ltr

The power to weight is 95.83bhp/tonne

Total power 115bhp weight 1200kg.

Official 0-60 is 9.6 seconds

So taking the above I hope you can see that these cars are ball park Fabia weight with varying degrees of power to increase the 0-60 time of your car you need significant power increases to have any noticable reduction in time.

Based on the fact the Civic Type S gets to 60 in 8.2 seconds using its power to weight as a proxy the Fabia would need 149bhp a significant 30% more than std and in a N/A engine economically unviable. Clearly it would be cheaper to sell the Fabia 2.0ltr and buy a 2nd hand Civic Type S. And the same applies to nearly all cases.

Welshy,

The reason it is 'nippy', which seems to have amused you, is because of the torque the engine carries for an NA petrol. The Civic Type-S has the same torque the 2.0 Fabia has, even though it has over 30 more horses, and doesn't kick until after 5,000rpm, where as the 2.0 Fabia kicks in with 170Nm at 2,500rpm.

On the road, the 2.0 is quite a quick little car, regardless the not-so-cool 0-62 time. Keep in mind that the time you claimed is official is the same time quoted for a diesel Fabia vRS, which we all know is quite a bit faster than that in reality. Same applies for the 2.0. I don't get 9.6 secs on my timings, I get less.

Also, the 14 year old engine will happily allow us VAG 2.0 owners to engage in 3rd at 60km/h with no problem in overtaking when required. Your Type-S will cry to do the same.

And value for money? I spent 30% less than I would have for a less spec VW Polo, and over 40% less for German quality over Japanese. Nothing racist here, just purely the fact that the Germans make better quality cars than the Japs.

Harry,

Yes, it does have traction problems in the wet, and even in the dry. It spins too much unless you have grippy tires, and in the wet will even spin in 2nd at 70km/h.

Also torque steer in first gear when flooring it at high revs.

Husky,

When I got my car 4 years ago, I remember the first thing I needed to do was get a tailpipe for the hole on the rear bumper. As for performance, I got myself a set of H&R 35mm lowering springs.

Your Fabia is a 5 speed the Type S is a 6 speed, it is irrelevant which gear you use.

I mean so what if the Lotus Carlton has a 6th Gear which means at 70mph your barely reving over idle when it has a rev range of 7k.

The TVR cerberas have 1st gear which goes to nearly 70mph.

You chose the car with the Vtec which revs to 8k (no surprise there) if you choose the Clio Sport 172 (which can be bought for far less than £3k) this offers far more power better MPG and superior BHP/tonne

Its totally missing the point you drive the car to its best abilities.

I like the benefits a TDi offers however too many people state its 50-70mph in 6th gear/5th gear is quicker than a number of hot hatches however if I wanted to at those speeds I would drop to 2nd and totally destroy you likewise anyone in a hot hatch would.

With regard to the loss of traction you seem to be suffering you must be using poor quality rubber or your suspension is worn or the tyre width isnt optimal. Remember the narrower a tyre is the less forward loss of traction it will suffer while a wide tyre suffers less cornering loss of traction - hence Dragsters have very low widths in relation to their rim ratio.

To add to this the Torque/tonne for the cars I mentioned is as follows

Astra VXR

Torque = 320Nm Weight = 1230kg

Torque/tonne = 260Nm/Tonne

Renault Clio Sport 172

Torque = 200Nm Weight = 1021kg

Torque/tonne = 196Nm/Tonne

Honda Civic Type S

Torque = 179Nm Weight = 1264kg

Torque/tonne = 142Nm/Tonne

Fabia 2.0

Torque = 170Nm Weight = 1200

Torque/tonne = 142Nm/Tonne

Clearly choosing the Vtec as a comparitor which is a highly strung high power low torque engine against an 8v low stress engine in a lighter car is always going to win that stat. Against the other two as you can see its miles off.

One fair comparison (rather than stats) that is easy to do is 30-70 through the gears this will give the cars true strength to shine.

Also the 0-100mph is again a strong indication of the cars real power

Note due to the car I drive I consider anything above 14 seconds to 100mph average at best.

Welshy the poor guy only said it was nippy not hot hatch fast. I think the arguement you have raised and the vehicles you have listed are on a different level to a 2.0 Fabia. I for one would'nt pick any of the models you have listed if you want to see the best power to weight ratio. How about picking up a mint 1996 Porsche Boxster for roughly

Welshy, I ain't talkin' about no Clio 172 or Astra VXR, those are hot hatches, and the Fabia isn't one of them.

This thread started off talking about how the 2.0 accelerates, and then you come in with a hint of sarcasm and wise-guy attitude. Have you even driven this model? AND THEN you tell me that the reason my wheel spins in first gear is because I have sh!!ty tires or a worn out suspension??? Where are you from? Mars? This has been the case since I first bought it 4 years ago.

And not only that, every 2 litre owner on here said the same...now surely, 4 guys who own the car and drive it everyday know their car better than some random Honda lover who for some reason decided to bash into a thread throwing in a post completely off topic? Unless you're special.

And 30-70 quotes are based on 4th gear and higher...there is no way your lovely NA superpetrol Clio would be able to match to a vRS in a match from 30-70mph in 5th gear, your Clio would die.

And as for the Civic Type S, I'll consider your claim of victory over the 2.0 in a duel. Until then, to me, anything below Civic Type R is bloody annoying since you have to wait for 5,000rpm before you can begin to have fun.

Seriously speaking, you've managed to destroy a nicely started thread with your wise-guy theory. If you really were that wise, you wouldn't even be comparing a Fabia 2.0 to a damned VXR.

lol @ the "nippy" 2.0ltr

The power to weight is 95.83bhp/tonne

Total power 115bhp weight 1200kg.

Official 0-60 is 9.6 seconds

Now lets look at a Honda Civic Type S:-

Total power to weight is 124.21bhp/tonne

Total power 157bhp weight 1264kg

Official 0-60 8.2 Seconds

Now lets look at a hot hatch Renault Clio Sport 172

Total power to weight is 168.46

Total power 172bhp weight 1021kg

Official 0-60 7.1 seconds

Now a current Hot Hatch Astra VXR

Total power to weight is 191.87

Total power 236bhp weight 1230kg

Official 0-60 6.2 Seconds

So taking the above I hope you can see that these cars are ball park Fabia weight with varying degrees of power to increase the 0-60 time of your car you need significant power increases to have any noticable reduction in time.

Based on the fact the Civic Type S gets to 60 in 8.2 seconds using its power to weight as a proxy the Fabia would need 149bhp a significant 30% more than std and in a N/A engine economically unviable. Clearly it would be cheaper to sell the Fabia 2.0ltr and buy a 2nd hand Civic Type S. And the same applies to nearly all cases.

i really like how you have attempted to pit a fubry against a vxr :rofl:

Um I see no quoted times for the 30-70 or 50-70 in your thread just your thoughts.... really come on if your going to debate then you need to have accurate data.

If your suffering loss of traction as easliy as you say then clearly your tyres are either poor cheap makes or very worn out, there is no two ways about it. You cannot say "oh its all the power" as thats just not the case. You must also realist that if your wheel spinning you are wasting time and your opponent is waving at you smirking.

Initially the thread was about someone trying to time their 0-60 run and they think its a good second quicker..... well firstly the official time is always 0-62mph (this is 0-100km/hr) and may or may not require two gear changes. The timing gear was a stopwatch.... well thats very accruate & the speedo is very accurate too. Makes you wonder why Autocar etc use £100k of timing gear to get proper times.

I also would like to correct you on the 30-70mph this is always "through the gears" so no its not 4th or higher the 50-70mph is done in 5th or 6th gear to show the flexability of the engine yet its clear to see anyone comparing accelerating in 5th vs 6th and still think they have won is truely the loser.

As for Honda lover well they are fine machines indeed and come with longer warrenty than any of the VW brand so you could argue on that point that they are better made cars, then again you could say the same about Kia with their 7 year warrenty.

Clearly it is pointless trying to make a 2.0ltr Fabia worth circa £5-6k as quick as a Clio Sport 172 when the Clio as std does that acceleration in a much quicker time near on 3 seconds quicker. Especially when you can buy a Clio Sport 172 for near on half the value of the £5-6k Fabia.

If you think the loss of traction = big torque etc your wrong (especially at these levels) its purely the suspension set up and tyre quality. The Focus RS with 212hp would really struggle to lose traction due to the fact it has a limited slip diff and fantastic suspension and chassis.

Final note the sole reason I put in a VXR was to illustrate how much power you need to get from 6.7 seconds to 6.3 seconds and from there down it takes much more power and mechanical grip. So this was to highlight to you dont waste your cash trying to make it something it is not it will be a total waste of money and will seriously reduce the engine life due to additional stress.

Thinking about it again if your hankering after a sub 6 second 0-60 why not straight swap the 2.0ltr for a 3.8ltr M5? with the Nurembourg suspension.

If you want a fast car buy a fast car in the first place.

i really like how you have attempted to pit a fubry against a vxr :rofl:

Its purely for illustration.

Some ***** seem to think their Saxo VTS's etc are the dogs danglies and nothing can touch them then they quote lol 0-60 times based upon a stopwatch in hand and looking at the speedo.

I could have pitted the Furby 2.0ltr against the Astra GSI 200bhp similar purchase price & age.

Note I'm certainly not having a go at the Furby I like the vRS & 1.4 TDI a lot (the petrol versions seem totally gutless IMHO) I like the 5 doors I like the advertised economy but please please dont make yourself look silly in thinking its anything more than a small city car as it is not. Its a run of the mill sub

Torque at a decent RPM you don't have to wait for is supremely handy when blowing away other cars.

Before I had a BMW 318iS (140bhp 16v jobby). That thing needed to be revved hard to make it go, and at a certain point on my way to work there's a bit of motorway on an incline that I used to have to drop it to third and red line it all the way to 80 mph in order make any decent progress. Even doing that to the iS, my new vRS is still faster on the same bit of road staying in 6th and flooring it and that has less overall power and a similar power to weight ratio.

So, the argument that a petrol hot hatch can simply drop it a cog to beat you is flawed. After owning high revving hot hatches in the past (1 x MR2, 2x CRX's) and a couple of other petrols that had to be worked hard to make them go (318iS, 320i) I'd take a more torquey, lazier engine any day. It's less fuss for more go.

Yes, 115bhp is a little low from 2000cc's.....as previously quoted Ford managed to get 128bhp from a 2.0 8v 4 pot years ago and Vauxhall managed 130 from the same size in the old Cavaliers (the SRi's) but I imagine these engines all produced their power at higher RPM's. Hondas are noted for their power being high in te rev range and have never been ones for low down peak grunt.

A look at the torque curves would be interesting as a basis for comparison.

140bhp IS is not quick especially in the lardy 3 series shape.

The power to weight is in the vRS's favour and the torque/tonne certainly is.

Lets be fair here let the 2.0ltr fabia drop from 5th to third at 70 then beside it doe the same in a CIvic type S or Clio Sport 172 or VXR and it will be destroyed yet they are only a slight bit quicker to 60.

I fully agree the vRS is a nice lazy Drive but please dont think that a 2ltr petrol is, remember thats in a heavy 1200kg car.

As for power from a 2.0ltr dont forget the 155bhp Cavalier GSi (which I owned) from a 2.0ltr and that was a J Reg which red lined at 6,250rpm.... now getting 115bhp from a 2ltr nearly 17 years later is a ROFLOL highlight at how VW really got egg on their face when they put that engine in the Golf and called it the GTi (which they removed pretty quickly).

Yeah you do have a point, the 2.0 is not quite up there in terms of specific output.

The fact that it still has an 8v head puzzles me. Having said that, 8v heads are known to produce more torque lower in the rpm range than 16v ones due to how the air flow goes. This would make the 2.0 a more sensible choice round town where the engine speeds don't get high enough to warrant a 16v head.

Thing is though, if it's going to stay round town, why get a 2.0? Why not get a 1.4 or even the 1.2 12v and relish in decent fuel economy too?

But funnily enough, the rated weight of the iS in the E36 is about 1275kg. What does the vRS weigh? I didn't think it was that different as it's a tad lardy itself.

The iS had more BHP but god did it struggle up hills.....it was bloody painful sometimes having to constantly reach for a lower gear. :(

The 2.0 probably fits into the category of someone wanting a more gutsy petrol in the Fabia but Skoda not wanting (or not being allowed to) to embarrass the parent company VAG and slap in the 1.8 20v. I imagine it's more of a marketing thing than anything else. It fills the gap...

I know I keep harking back to my BMW days but it reminds me a lot of the 318iS 320i debate. BMW produced an E36 318iS 4 pot 16v with 140bhp and also a 320i 6 pot 24v with 150bhp. The 2.0 was thirstier and no faster than the iS as it had a slightly lower power to weight ratio but 2 more cylinders. BMW dropped it after about 3 years and replaced it with the 323i - a detuned 2.5 6 pot.

People weren't buying the 320i because it was a bit of an odd one out.

Too slow to be sporty, too thirsty to be an economical choice, and when buyers were presented with the option of the cheaper iS or the better 325i, they didn't see the point in the 320i.

now getting 115bhp from a 2ltr nearly 17 years later is a ROFLOL highlight at how VW really got egg on their face when they put that engine in the Golf and called it the GTi (which they removed pretty quickly).

Hey, the Americans are still at it! 275bhp from a 5.7lt V8 is downright laughable. (Top Gear - Clarksons Camaro)

Works out at 48bhp per litre.

The 2.0 Furby works out at 57.5 bhp per litre.

The 2.0 GSi Cavalier is 77.5bhp per litre

The 3.2 M3 and 2.0 Civic Type R are both around 100bhp ler litre.

It can be done, but it's whether the manufacturer chooses to push the envelope.

One thing I do think is that the 2.0 VAG engine should be pretty much bullet proof in theory. An engine that is not that highly tuned should not be stressing it's internals much and should go on for ever.....in theory.

Fully agree with that lower tuned engine = longer engine life (in theory - driving style dependant).

But if this chap wants to do sub 8 second 0-60 sprints and really struggles to get anywhere near with 320DSe's and 330Dse etc all flying past it. Buy a faster car and then still do 8 second 0-60 times yet have no need to rev beyond 4.5k (with 7.5k on the rev range available).

Do you remember the Diahatshu Chriade GTTI it was a 997cc 3 cylinder engine with a turbo this had just over 100bhp/ltr incredible machine.

I was told about the Charade Turbo. Apparently a proper grin inducing machine.

I bought the vRS for it's decent (not storming) levels of performance.

I think between the 1.4 16v and the vRS, the 2.0 seems a bit of an odd character.

I bet it's fairly easy to drive though providing adequate mid range pulling power but I doubt it's Santa Pod material.

I think between the 1.4 16v and the vRS, the 2.0 seems a bit of an odd character.

Yes exactly its not that efficient and its not that fast nor powerfull.

I would imagine in the real world a 1.4 TDi would give it a very close run while still returning near on 70mpg.

I think between the 1.4 16v and the vRS' date=' the 2.0 seems a bit of an odd character.

Yes exactly its not that efficient and its not that fast nor powerfull.

I would imagine in the real world a 1.4 TDi would give it a very close run while still returning near on 70mpg.

This is wierd....we're agreeing.....

Savour this moment!

Is it possible to bolt a 16v head on the 2.0 fabia to squeeze a bit more power out of it? IIRC the mk2 8v gti golf has 115bhp . . is it the same engine? The 16v gti of the time was 140bhp ish IIRC.

yes a 16v head will bolt directly onto the 8v block, but the timing belt drive arrangement is totally different so it isn't worth doing

yes the mk2 1.8 8v gti was 114bhp, it's a very similar engine externally but there are a lot of internal differences, oil pump drive, dizzy drive, etc.... plus the 2 litre block is 15mm taller than the 1.8 8v block.

most of the difference in perfomance comes down to camshafts/valve timing, remember emissions laws weren't so strict then, some didn't even have a cat.... dont even think about using a mk2 golf gti cam in a late 2 litre, it will never pass the emissions tests

the 16v version was 137bhp but they had to be revved hard, and in the mk3 16v it was 150bhp from 2 litres

one thing that could be done tho is fitting a G60 supercharger to the late 2.0 litre engine, you could even use oe bracketry and fixings, you might have to move the air-con pump to the bottom tho:)

Yeah, the timing case on the 16v engine would gradually get wider at the top for the twin cam head. Means the 8v timing case would not be right with the bigger head on. Could you do it if you exposed the belt, kind of Cosworth style?

Would be interesting with a hotter cam on though if all else fails...