Car is a Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo - modified to circa 285bhp.

Std 0-60 6 seconds

0-100 14 seconds

VMax 155mph.

MPG I achieve 30-32mpg and best ever 37mpg worst 25mpg.

Great a chipped up dated Fiat, that

Money & debt are very important especially with a 25 base rate rise going to happen this Thursday and then probably going up as far as 6% nearer the end of 2007.

This may seem irrelevant to many of you but think of it this way - most people are going to have less cash left over at the end of each month, this means they spend less and can save up at a lower rate than previously. The result for you trying to sell your car is its either going to take a long time to sell or your going to have to reduce the price or hold the car for longer.

Plus I am giving you advice for free on the

I'm very tentative to join this disscussion as a prepy but I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. I certainly agree that interest rates will rise and this will certainly leave most people with a decreased level of disposable income however this will not mean people have to drop the price of there fabias to sell. I think generally people will seek better value motoring and this will lead more people to the fabia and especially the vrs who seek good value against performance. with cheap insurance, cheap running costs and great residuals people will seap in from more premium brands from perhaps VW etc.. With the supply of the VRS fixed against an incremental increse in demand it should bolster second hand values. I know you are an accountant but I am an economist and thats why I just bought a VRS its the ultimate car for performance against running costs. 3 months ago I knew no one with a VRS now I know 3 owners and many of my friends want one. Its certainly becomming more popular. I know someone will grill me for these comments but I am a realist and think its a solid buy not because I wear rose tinted specs but because its an educated choice:cool:

I agree with your comments completely, I have many friends jealous that I can use my car for every occasions and they cannot use there new cars as it just costs them way too much in petrol!

I can see demand increase and supply cannot get higher! therefore you guessed!

This is why the 2.0 fabia is not in high demand due to poor performance and poor economy, it's the opposite of the VRS!

I feel that a number of other drivers whom have never experienced the VRS, are very biased towards the little guy because he is a Skoda. :(

Lot of my friend were like this ha they said Skoda is a step down from a Honda Civic , then you take them for a blast in it and their stories soon change. :eek:

On the point of value, I have never bought a car because it was a good investment no car is. I have always bought cars I like to look at and enjoy driving.

This is why the 2.0 fabia is not in high demand due to poor performance and poor economy, it's the opposite of the VRS!

A bit harsh, I think. 'Poor performance' with 0-60 a fraction of a second behind the VRS. 'Poor economy' is only 8% less than the 1.4 16V on mixed driving (I have averaged 34.5 mpg over 50,000 miles on two of them with mixed driving). Of course, there is no way petrol can match diesel on economy. Its plus points are quietness and less particulate emissions.

I think the main reason it is not in high demand is because people who buy Fabias think a 2.0 engine may be a bit OTT - a bit unnecessary and a bit of a luxury. Who would consider a Polo with a 2.0 engine? For me, it was a Golf GTI replacement because latter Golf models were too big for my garage. That is rather a unique requirement. I gave up sports suspension in favour of a smooth, quiet, comfortable and refined ride.

I test drove a VRS before buying my last 2.0. It was impressive, but did not suit me for several reasons. It was a close choice, though. I didn't try a 1.4 16V. It looks like I may have to settle for that with the new Fabia if I trade-in before anything more nippy comes out.

Great a chipped up dated Fiat, that

A bit harsh, I think. 'Poor performance' with 0-60 a fraction of a second behind the VRS. 'Poor economy' is only 8% less than the 1.4 16V on mixed driving (I have averaged 34.5 mpg over 50,000 miles on two of them with mixed driving). Of course, there is no way petrol can match diesel on economy. Its plus points are quietness and less particulate emissions.

Sorry but you would expect a 2.0NA petrol to be faster than a VRS to be honest. Im just saying in comparision to other 2.0 NA around that it is a "poor performer" that all, not saying it has it's advantages, just what I said.

You can't say it's not, the engine is dated! I'm in no doubt it is relaxing to drive with that torque I know the feeling

you need to know why the money is going elsewhere thats all IMO

A bit harsh, I think. 'Poor performance' with 0-60 a fraction of a second behind the VRS. 'Poor economy' is only 8% less than the 1.4 16V on mixed driving (I have averaged 34.5 mpg over 50,000 miles on two of them with mixed driving). Of course, there is no way petrol can match diesel on economy. Its plus points are quietness and less particulate emissions.

I think the main reason it is not in high demand is because people who buy Fabias think a 2.0 engine may be a bit OTT - a bit unnecessary and a bit of a luxury. Who would consider a Polo with a 2.0 engine? For me, it was a Golf GTI replacement because latter Golf models were too big for my garage. That is rather a unique requirement. I gave up sports suspension in favour of a smooth, quiet, comfortable and refined ride.

I test drove a VRS before buying my last 2.0. It was impressive, but did not suit me for several reasons. It was a close choice, though. I didn't try a 1.4 16V. It looks like I may have to settle for that with the new Fabia if I trade-in before anything more nippy comes out.

The thing is the 1.8 Turbo in countless Golfs/A3's/Octavias/Seats etc are far more economical and cleaner & have better performance.

It is very easy to go out and buy a VW Golf Mk4 GTi 1.8T i.e. the 150bhp one for less than what you would have paid for your 2.0ltr and thats the crux of the issue. If you want a nippy car you buy a Golf GTi if you want economical you buy the 1.4TDI or similar smaller engine the 2.0ltr is neither.

Look at Vauxhall & all the other makers (excl BMW for the moment) are all getting lower cc cars with turbos as this is the best of both worlds all the power of the old engine (and in many cases more) a lot more usable torque and when driven hard similar MPG but when crusing on the motorways MUCH higher MPG.

Well assuming it is worth

I remember looking at the Fiat Coupe's because they do have stonking performance but was put off by cost of cambelt service, the looks (but hey everyone likes different things ) and the reputation of Fiat. Ended up buying a Scooby instead

Interestingly the Scooby is now the car of choice for the ch@v, so I think you chose the right one!

Chris

Well I look after it myself - changing front pads are simple on this car the brembo calipers have a quick release mechanism so really the most time involved in changing the pads is jacking up the car and taking off the wheel - I kid you not dead simple & quick.

Tyres last an age - it has a limited slip diff well on the 20v Turbo model & only once in 4 years have I lost traction and that was a very greasy junction. This set has already done 30,000 and still have at worst 5.5mm of tread ( I rotate fronts to back every 5000 miles so they all wear out together & when I buy the next set it will be 4 new ones again and then you get the biggest discount).

The exhaust is over 10 years old now and still like new.

I will have to change the front discs before the next MOT but then 50,000 miles on the originals & 10 years of use is very good.

So many people dont realise that Chris Bangle designed the outside & Pininfarina the outside AND they were all constructed on the Pininfarina production line - hence maybe there are so few electrical faults we'd all normally associate with Fiats of old.

The engine really is a gem and is virtually lag free - they have been able to work this by having variable valve timing working in reverse i.e. the cam change opens up at low revs before the turbo is fully spooled up.

Peak Torque Std is 230lbf and thats at 2800rpm peak power is 5500rpm and std thats 220bhp though the red line is 7300rpm.

Std the ECU limits boost in 1st & 2nd gears to avoid wheel spin - and as such when you speak to any std 20vt owner they will always comment on the mighty 3rd gear which certainly feels faster than 2nd...

Std with this ECU limiter it does 0-60 in 6 seconds all day every day chip it up and your into the mid 5's - which is unrivalled for a FWD.

The later models had 6 speed gear boxes so economy improved but the older 5 speed box has a super long 3rd gear (longer than a Lambo Murco).

One thing you have to be carefull about is say your on an A road coming up to a long straight behind 10 odd cars all travelling at 55mph if you put it into thrid and put your foot down to the stop your on the limiter in no time then into 4th and youve passed the lot with so much space left you relise you could have done it in 4th easily.

But yes 50-125mph doesnt take very long at all.

However driving like that is exceptionally rare hence I have no points & never have had.

I remember looking at the Fiat Coupe's because they do have stonking performance but was put off by cost of cambelt service, the looks (but hey everyone likes different things ) and the reputation of Fiat. Ended up buying a Scooby instead

Interestingly the Scooby is now the car of choice for the ch@v, so I think you chose the right one!

Chris

Yes cambelt is costly

Main Dealer its

It is very easy to go out and buy a VW Golf Mk4 GTi 1.8T i.e. the 150bhp one for less than what you would have paid for your 2.0ltr and thats the crux of the issue. If you want a nippy car you buy a Golf GTi if you want economical you buy the 1.4TDI or similar smaller engine the 2.0ltr is neither.

Not quite that straightforward though...wouldn't dispute the 1.8T being better than the 2.0 unit in pretty much every respect, but the difference between insurance can be quite astonishing. If you're of a certain age living in a certain area with an absence of much insurance history, the difference can be hundreds if not thousands!

Smaller-engined cars are more desireable (and the 1.4TDI is relatively rare at a certain price point due to it being relatively new), so you're more likely to get a well-depreciated bargain in a 2.0.

The 2.0 is an old well-proven unit with a certain simplicity, which doesn't have turbos, etc. to go wrong on it (which can all add to up to expensive running costs).

So the 2.0 does still have a place in the line-up IMHO...

Rob.

What I can see happening in the future with car output is that at the current rate the kids of today are being prices out of car ownership - infact its cheaper for them to hire a car as and when they need it

Or it may be the case that you buy a car with x power but if your under a certain age you can only drive a vehicle with x power to weight and a simple switch/ECU map reduces the power accordingly.

Personally I think the 1.4TDI in any VAG vehicle is a cracking option fair pace with very good economy. If in the future they add stop start technology to it then MPG is going to jump an extra 10mpg on ave easily.

The thing is the 1.8 Turbo in countless Golfs/A3's/Octavias/Seats etc are far more economical and cleaner & have better performance.

I'm sure there are better engines out there, but my comparison was only amongst engines in the Fabia range.

The 2.0 is an old well-proven unit with a certain simplicity

That's why it suits me down to a T (and not down to a 1.8T)

I was gonna post but can`t be bothered.

P.S Why is everyone not at work?

... hence I have no points & never have had.

Although you have quite a few points to make here

Personally I think the 1.4TDI in any VAG vehicle is a cracking option fair pace with very good economy. If in the future they add stop start technology to it then MPG is going to jump an extra 10mpg on ave easily.

Dunno whether stop/start would be worth it on the 1.4TDI, as a short period of idling (e.g. at traffic lights or in traffic, where stop/start is supposed to be most effective) will use less fuel than the amount of burned turning the engine over to start it. Plus, the car will have to be considerably heavier because of the extra battery weight and larger alternator that will be required to support stop/start, and hence less efficient once in motion. It's important to realise when considering things like this, that at idle most of the energy required to keep the engine turning comes from the flywheel, with combustion supplying just enough to overcome internal friction. By way of comparison, just look at the massive plume of smoke from a diesel's exhaust on starting, even when the engine is warm...

Taking this a bit further, small-engined diesel cars have repeatedly been shown to be more efficient than hybrids, despite what Red Ken would have you believe!

Coming back to stop/start, VW tried this about 15 years ago on a Mk3 Golf development platform - I remember Chris Goffey doing a feature on it on the old Top Gear. The fact the technology hasn't resurfaced after such a long time speaks volumes IMHO!

Dunno whether stop/start would be worth it on the 1.4TDI, as a short period of idling (e.g. at traffic lights or in traffic, where stop/start is supposed to be most effective) will use less fuel than the amount of burned turning the engine over to start it. Plus, the car will have to be considerably heavier because of the extra battery weight and larger alternator that will be required to support stop/start, and hence less efficient once in motion. It's important to realise when considering things like this, that at idle most of the energy required to keep the engine turning comes from the flywheel, with combustion supplying just enough to overcome internal friction. By way of comparison, just look at the massive plume of smoke from a diesel's exhaust on starting, even when the engine is warm...

Taking this a bit further, small-engined diesel cars have repeatedly been shown to be more efficient than hybrids, despite what Red Ken would have you believe!

Coming back to stop/start, VW tried this about 15 years ago on a Mk3 Golf development platform - I remember Chris Goffey doing a feature on it on the old Top Gear. The fact the technology hasn't resurfaced after such a long time speaks volumes IMHO!

Only worth doing if it's a true hybrid IMO. Also IMO, battery technology has a way to go, LIPOs may be the answer if the thermal issues can be sorted out.

J.

Coming back to stop/start, VW tried this about 15 years ago on a Mk3 Golf development platform

It was actually in production in the 'E' series on the Mk1 VWs around 1981. I drove in a Jetta with it. There was an engine kill button. A jab on the accelerator started the engine again. I didn't like the idea much myself - much for the same reasons that you give.

BMW are doing it now with their 07 models.

The 118d used to be able to do 52mpg ave cycle this is now 60mph just due to the stop start technology and the 120d used to do 50mpg this with stop start does 59mpg.

Thread summary:

Forum troll gets bored.

Forum troll posts in the hope of winding people up.

People get wound up.

Forum troll realises that depreciation is not linear & as usual he's actually talking crap in order to get a rise from other forum members.

Forum troll becomes target of aggression & realises mistake.

Forum troll steers discussion to VAG/BMW engines as usual.

Everyone gets bored & starts slagging troll off.

Thread gets locked.

Welshy, I'm sure in real life you're a decent fella, as are most people on here (probably excluding the women, who I assume are not fellas!) but you post in order to get a rise out of people, not to be informative.

I don't own a Skoda (& when I sold mine my depreciation was 29.6% over 2 years and 33k, that's straight sale to a dealer with 4 bald tyres & a damaged fog lamp, not 4 months ago - kinda proves your figures are a little off doesn't it?) but I still find the tone of this post (and many of your others) to be a little out of line. You consistently post inaccurate information and back it up with easily disprovable 'facts' and you typically get upset with people who are tiring of your attitude.

Yes many people on here love their cars (and rightly so - they're a good car) and do look at them with rose tinted glasses but you post to provoke, and I for one find it tiresome and needless.

JMTPW.

BMW are doing it now with their 07 models.

The 118d used to be able to do 52mpg ave cycle this is now 60mph just due to the stop start technology and the 120d used to do 50mpg this with stop start does 59mpg.

Well, if it works as well as they claim, then great. But remember that the combined cycle data is generated under very tightly-controlled conditions, and I don't doubt for a minute that although the stop/start meets these requirements very well, they're not a particularly accurate reflection of most people's driving... Try as I might, I can't get my car to be as efficient as it should be on paper... And the last thing I'd want when stuck in a tailback in a car with stop/start is for me to have to stop, start, move 10 yards, and then stop again. I reckon you'd be stuck with a flat battery after a pretty short time :eek: