More expensive to run yes but as its bought at a much lower price it will lose less in depreciation and overall total car costs may be the same or less than the 2.0ltr Fabia.

Having seen some of the insurance quotes people are getting given for the Fabia vRS, I'd imagine that Volvo would be prohibitively expensive to insure for quite a few people on here - certainly compared to a Fabia 2.0.

Remember the V70 built on the great BTCC Success of the 850T5 R which had amazing chassis.

But surely something with 300bhp and a BTCC-pedigree chassis is going to be so unchallenged in day-to-day driving that it'll just end up being a bit...well, boring?

Rob.

The vRS quotes I have seem to be around £260 per annum - which I believe is group 9?

My Fiat Coupe which is group 20 + modifications costs me a mere £350per annum

A T5 - R or just a normal T5 would cost me less.

As for that last comment about not being "challenging" !!! So you'd prefer to drive an inferior chassis & suspension?

Does that also mean for more of a challenge youd take the job paying the lowest wage too?

Also day to day driving is usually following traffic at 20mph so even the 2.0ltr Fabia would be pretty boring too. Good set up makes the drive once clear of traffic so much better

The vRS quotes I have seem to be around

Right. Firstly i havent abandoned my own thread my computer was bust.:(

Now...

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

Hence I advise you take it easy as maintainence costs will sky rocket due to burning up yours tyres through wheelspin.

Take care out there, be safe.

Yes i struggle from time to time to grab some traction in the wet, and tbh i dont really care, i see it as a bit of a challenge and one i enjoy. if i dont want to wheel spin i leave the traction control on.

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

yeah seems bout right.

Ok so looking at these private used values the difference between the Fabia and the Civic Type S is

*Takes a breath*

the 1.4 tdi is a cracking little engine, i had a 6n2 polo fitted with this engine and to my mind it was far more driveable than my 2.0 fabia, the place it was good was on motorways, squeeze pedal, and woosh, instant power unlike the 2.0 petrol, but in performance terms, the acceleration on the 2.0 fabia from a standing start is far better...... but going up a 1 in 10 incline/hill, i should imagine the 1.4tdi would be faster!!

This is probably why they're all using variable valve timing now on multivalve engines. This can adjust the duration of the cam(s) at lower rpm to improve idle and low end torque and adjust it again at higher rpm to improve air flow and power.

most cars equipped with vvt have a mechanical means of adjusting the relative position of the intake cam..... it advances it to give a wider power spread

Has the 2.0 8v been dropped now on all VAG cars or are they still using it? Seems pretty old school.

it seems they've finally phased them out in favour of the more efficient FSI engines, which are 16v too..

it also seems they are phasing the 20v turbo engine out too

The vRS quotes I have seem to be around

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

Not price list - 2nd hand market value.

Try one! Are you mad Im not interested in the low output 2.0ltr unit.

35mpg out of your 8v 2.0ltr well I average 32mpg out of my Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo which is modified to 280bhp.

With regard to the 1.4tdi ave 70mpg - yes they do seem to. And as one of my previous cars was a Golf GT TDI 115 which only once did 48mpg when only a few miles on the clock to a best of an average tank of 68mpg usually it was hovering around the 56-58mpg. So If I can achieve that in a heavy golf then an engine weighing much less in a body weighing much less with similar specific unit output it should deliver much higher.

Also maybe your too young to remember this but the Golf Mk 4 which used the 125bhp 2.0ltr 16v engine was described by all in the press (for which most rely on for fairly unbaised views) was a dreadfull car which didnt deserve the GTi tag. The Fabia isnt much lighter than said golf and it has less power....

Maybe its because you have yet to drive a fast car frequently to realise what is and what is not fast. A Saxo VTS was "nippy" in its day totally gutless mind and anything over 80 was really out of its depth.

Anyway choice of a

Great. As you've driven every car going... What would you prefer, Civic Type R or a Leon Cupra R?

This is a difficult one as I have not driven the 225 Unit in a Leon (Audi TT) however I'd say the LCR is the better long term car and in most real world situations will certainly have the edge over the CTR.

The handling is clearly better in the CTR and Honda's great enging engineering will ensure that a turbo will probably never be used by them they prefer instant throttle response of an N/A unit.

Out of interest have any of you driven a Honda CTR with a Spoon engine in it? It revs to just over 12,000 rpm....

looks wise I think I prefer the LCR in Grey, internally the CTR is better with the impression of space due to the fact the shift stick is mounted on the dash. And the seats in the CTR are much better than the LCR IMHO.

So overall I'd probably purchase a LCR225 over a CTR - if it was only for road use.

2 questions - was it 14 seconds to 100 for the Type S???

2nd Question - Focus RS has both problems with Torque steer and actually limits boost in first two gears to try and tame the handling issues with putting lots of power through the front wheels - er???

14 seconds is the 0-100mph time for a std Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo

A std Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo also limits boost in 1st & 2nd gear to avoid wheel spin and thats even though t has a LSD. A remap will remove this boost restriction so 0-60 drops from 6 seconds dead to apparently (according to the reviews when this car was first launched) 5.5 seconds.

Don't these Fiats have both comic electrics and not exactly the best build quality - by the time you've paid for a couple of breakdowns then I suspect the economy isn't really working when you consider the sum of fuel + repairs.

Well thats what I thought about Fiats however the fiat Coupe was actually built on the Pininfarina production line Fiat simply supplied the engine blocks. Hence there are very few electrical problems.

In the 4 years I have owned mine (and 50,000 miles) all that has needing replacing was 4 tyres, new pads, all filters oil, side light bulb (

This is a difficult one as I have not driven the 225 Unit in a Leon (Audi TT) however I'd say the LCR is the better long term car and in most real world situations will certainly have the edge over the CTR.

But you find it easy to respond to a thread about the Fab 2 litre, which you've also never driven? Typical.

The handling is clearly better in the CTR and Honda's great enging engineering will ensure that a turbo will probably never be used by them they prefer instant throttle response of an N/A unit.

Out of interest have any of you driven a Honda CTR with a Spoon engine in it? It revs to just over 12,000 rpm....

Your point?

You don't seem to be a Skoda enthusiast. This site is a Skoda enthusiast's site, maybe you should consider taking your blabbery elsewhere.

Well thats what I thought about Fiats however the fiat Coupe was actually built on the Pininfarina production line Fiat simply supplied the engine blocks. Hence there are very few electrical problems.

In the 4 years I have owned mine (and 50,000 miles) all that has needing replacing was 4 tyres, new pads, all filters oil, side light bulb (

So sir, I suspect you may be talking out of your behind, or you'll come back with some sort of 'the cambelt change interval is 73 squillion light years.

My car by the way runs on an egg cup full of water a year, was given to me with a £50 and can leap entire dimensions in the blink of an eye.

BTW - as it says at the top of this forum - it's for Skodas, and in case you hadn't noticed, Skoda Fabias at that.

:rofl:

My car by the way runs on an egg cup full of water a year, was given to me with a £50 and can leap entire dimensions in the blink of an eye.

BTW - as it says at the top of this forum - it's for Skodas, and in case you hadn't noticed, Skoda Fabias at that.

i've changed the belt on a fiat coupe 20v before and it's an all day job... not nice!!!! i've also changed the engine on one too and that is a horrible job!! my advice is dont buy one unless you can fix it yourself because labour charges are obscene for those things

So sir, I suspect you may be talking out of your behind, or you'll come back with some sort of 'the cambelt change interval is 73 squillion light years.' I'd also like to see 5.5 secs generated to 60 with FWD without the aid of the strip, some slicks and some serious tyre warming.

My car by the way runs on an egg cup full of water a year, was given to me with a £50 and can leap entire dimensions in the blink of an eye.

BTW - as it says at the top of this forum - it's for Skodas, and in case you hadn't noticed, Skoda Fabias at that.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :P Ditto i was asking about my 0-60 time and a general chat about the car(engine).

oh and his posts were painfully boring and Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong

to be fair; as long, boring and argumentative as his posts were/appeared, he kinda had a point - on paper (and i stress "on paper") there's basically f*ck all between say a 1.8 focus and a 2.0 fabia (the fabia has a like 10Nm more torque, but weighs an extra 75Kg), and i don't really consider my 1.8 focus to be anything more than average in terms of speed - neither "slow" nor "fast"

but he did go on a bit, didn't he :P

Ok