I have just read the Autocar test report and noticed that this model has 140bhp & 236lbf with weight of 1451kg.

They also quote the following test data using the datron system (most accurate in existance)

0-60 = 8.2 Seconds

0-100 = 24.4 Seconds

1/4 mile = 16.5 seconds & 85mph

Now the weight of the Fabia vRS is 1315kg and it has 130bhp & 229lbf (you'll even notice that the Cupra 160 et al all hold their max torque at 236lbf for drivetrain longevity).

The quoted test data is:-

0-60 = 8.5 seconds slightly ahead of the Skoda claims (but they did state that this may be due to the fact that they were very light on fuel).

Anyway there is no official 0-100mph test data.

So the question I have here is Ive seen many people post before that their vRS's are really fantastically quick to the ton yet the power & torque increases are not significant enough to back up these claims.

Can you all who have official no bull **** Santa Pod 0-400m times & speeds this can then be compared to the Mark 5 Golf GT 140bhp TDI and also please state chipped or not this will then once & for all sort out roughly what the 0-100mph time is.

Let me state for the record I anticipate the time to be maybe 23seconds at the quickest for a std car, Remapped cars say 160-190bhp I'd assume it will calculate to be about 21-22 seconds. I think mainly the problem being axle trump preventing quicker times.

You're quite boring.

Please change the record.

I am often amused by the rose tinted anals on here but your trolling and baiting really is getting a bit long in the tooth.

??

Exactly ?? no idea what P.G. is going on about its a simple question as Im tired of hearing the endless vRS beat everything threads this will once and for all kill those boring debates.

If your not interested in the thread please dont post to it.

Also as for some reason there are no moderators here you can post what ever you like....

Exactly ?? no idea what P.G. is going on about its a simple question as Im tired of hearing the endless vRS beat everything threads this will once and for all kill those boring debates.

If your not interested in the thread please dont post to it.

Also as for some reason there are no moderators here you can post what ever you like....

I understand exactly what he is saying :thumbdwn: Your not trying to generate a discussion more like trying to cause an arguement :thumbdwn: There have been about 100000000000000000 threads detailing a lot of various Fabia performance stats, you could find the information there if you really need to without just generating another non conlcusive thread that you claim to be trying to end, you will not kill those boring debates just create another one.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a FABIA forum and a certain amount of gushing admiration for the car will exist even if it is put on slightly thick and a little too regular. It's what people do and if you are ever going to put on a pair of rose coloured specs over this then this is the place to do it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Stop trying to throw arbitary stats from a magazine you have read into lame posts and come to some track days instead.

As you are "tired of endless vRS beat everything threads" perhaps you should try a Vauxhall forum and there you can read "vRS beat my Corsa" threads instead.

I keep reading the initial post and don't see what the issue is?

can someone explain?

welshy...what are you trying to say?

I beat an MX-5 yesterday. It was wicked

I beat an MX-5 yesterday. It was wicked

:rofl: :rofl:

Shall we not go there.....

Im simply trying to find out the approx 0-100mph time for the vRS based upon peoples actual 0-400m time & speed and extrapolating this taking weight into consideration.

You seem to think its a dig it is not its a quest to find out the correct approx time.

Im simply trying to find out the approx 0-100mph time for the vRS based upon peoples actual 0-400m time & speed and extrapolating this taking weight into consideration.

You seem to think its a dig it is not its a quest to find out the correct approx time.

That is not how it came across.

Your post was far from clear and quite antagonistic. You could have just asked the question rather than bury it in superfluois words.

From the last thread which resurfaced a few days ago it was obvious that these threads always end in a bigger dog than yours slanging match, so you decide to get another one going :eek: :eek: :mad: :confused: :confused: Do a search, you will get the information without winding people up.

How about the actual time of 23.8 secs for 0-100mph. Autocar recorded this in their standard long term test car.

My standard car did 16.03 @ 84mph 1/4 mile

End of discussion.

Ok so there we have it the Golf does it in 24.4 seconds vs the vRS 23.8 seconds a difference of 0.6 seconds.

This is due to the following -

The Golf weighs 136kg more than the vRS

& the following

BHP/Tonne Golf = 96.49

BHP/Tonne vRS = 98.96

LBF/Tonne Golf = 162.65

LBF/Tonne vRS = 174.14

For these sprint times it is the power that is key not torque and as such the 2.47bhp/tonne advantage the vRS has over the Golf delivers a 0-100 time reduction of 0.60 seconds.

I can't record my 0-100 times at the moment because I have not got a stopwatch that can measure in nano seconds.

Hope that helps with your dilemma.

Don't forget the new vs old gearboxes though You also forgot to factor in the weight of all the saved cash the Skoda driver will be carrying, over the Golf driver

Chris

I can't record my 0-100 times at the moment because I have not got a stopwatch that can measure in nano seconds.

Pretty sure 1/10th's of a second will be accurate enough :P;)

Chris

DYou also forgot to factor in the weight of all the saved cash the Skoda driver will be carrying, over the Golf driver

Chris

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:orb_lol: superfluois:orb_lol:

Main Entry: su·per·flu·ous

Pronunciation: su-'p&r-flü-&s

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin superfluus, literally, running over, from superfluere to overflow, from super- + fluere to flow -- more at FLUID

1 a : exceeding what is sufficient or necessary : EXTRA b : not needed : UNNECESSARY

2 obsolete : marked by wastefulness : EXTRAVAGANT

- su·per·flu·ous·ly adverb

- su·per·flu·ous·ness noun

Sorry could not resist

yeah yeah....

Spelling is the least of my worries.

It just goes to show you that if its pure speed you are after then the vRS makes a lot of sense if buying brand new.

I know that the BMW 535d covers the 0-100in 14.5seconds I believe the 530d/330d is in the reigon of 18 seconds.

So which TD car in the market place std can break the 20 second 0-100mph time?

I really cannot understand, this fixation of 0-60 times, and standing 1/4 mile timings, and speed reached at 1/4 mile.

Who the **** drives these in every day use. These times are generated on tracks, razzing the engine to max rpm in each gear to get these timings.

Isn't it time these stupid, pointless, idiotic benchmarks were removed from advertising the cars? because regardless of whether its an M5 BM, a MK5 Golf, or a slimmed down Elise, owners are going to drive thier cars as they feel comfortable , race driver or granny or somewhere in between.

I have driven the GT 2.0 TDI, it is a nice car, and at 70 MPH, "feels" slower that my Fabia vRS, probably isnt, its just a perception .

Figure can be made to show whatever you want to show in a good light, so I just ignore the race boy figures, look at the 30-50/ 50-70 time and take it with a pinch of salt as again this will be timed in race boy mode.

A Fiat Panda could beat a Ferrari, to 30/50/70 if the Ferrari driver wanted to stick to the speed limit and pootle along. Time to get away from the racing figures and enjoy driving the best car around - " The one YOU currently own "

- steps off soap box -

So what exactly is axle trump?

Is that when the car makes a farting noise?

So what exactly is axle trump?

Is that when the car makes a farting noise?

You spotted it too

It's the extra methane given off to propel the car even fasta

Purists give this off at axle level so as not to affect the centre of gravy

Now if the gearing is set to favour a 0-60 or a 0-100 mph time this extra blast can make all the difference . But, one has to be careful one isn't smoking at the time, one does :eek:

Ok so there we have it the Golf does it in 24.4 seconds vs the vRS 23.8 seconds a difference of 0.6 seconds.

This is due to the following -

The Golf weighs 136kg more than the vRS

& the following

BHP/Tonne Golf = 96.49

BHP/Tonne vRS = 98.96

LBF/Tonne Golf = 162.65

LBF/Tonne vRS = 174.14

For these sprint times it is the power that is key not torque and as such the 2.47bhp/tonne advantage the vRS has over the Golf delivers a 0-100 time reduction of 0.60 seconds.

So my Smartie @ 118bhp/ton is quicker than them both then?

Edit: Sorry, I'm trolling

Methinks there's more to life than power/weight ratio...

So my Smartie @ 118bhp/ton is quicker than them both then?

It probably would be with a manual gearbox :P:rofl:

Chris

So I shouldn't Mention that the Golf GT TDI is a PD170 then not a PD 140

I'm guessing this just made all those figures rather pointless as you now need to run off, get the correct figures and find new figures so that everyone can have a good old argue over what is quicker and how one is quicker if you remapped it over another when stock.

Did you know a maclaren F1 is quicker than a BX19 RD?, but if you tweak the BX's fuel pump it will have the F1 in the corners

Ok so can we stop this d*ck waiving competition now or what?