23rd Jul 2007, 01:10

Nobody is saying the Skoda is faster, the Honda is fine if you do standing starts everywhere, which is not realistic, remember that is a car with zero torque, drop 3 gears to overtake, get in the powerband, change gear then nothing until you wind it back up again. Totally impractical. If you used to own one, you would know the only good thing about it are the gearbox and brakes.

Anyway, I think people are missing the point, nobody is comparing 0-60 and top speed times, the point is that for the money, the Fabia has a lot going for it, and has been said earlier, a lot of people downsize to them for the mixture of performance and MPG.

23rd Jul 2007, 01:18

The Fabia's torque standard is 229Lb/ft or 310nm, and it is a lighter car. Also bear in mind the power outputs of the PD engines are conservative; it is common in standard form to be over 140bhp, and even over 150 bhp, proved in RR tests.

23rd Jul 2007, 04:18

There are those drivers who enjoy a responsive, torquey engine, and there are those who like the frantic experience that is the revvy low torque engine.

Personally I don't like revving much above 4500rpm, and I prefer diesels, American muscle cars etc..

I think you Fabia fans are wasting your time, you will never convince the rev happy brigade.

23rd Jul 2007, 06:25

It's not just about 0-60 and top speed though. As a whole package, its hard to beat the vRS. And it shouldn't be compared to any of the cars mentioned above, as they cost a hell of a lot more to buy, & more importantly to run.

The great thing about the vRS is that because of all the torque, you can accelerate reasonably quickly all the time, and still get 45-50mpg. Similar driving in a CTR & you'd be lucky to get 25mpg.

24th Jul 2007, 02:02

Nuff said on the last comment, I don't think many petrols with decent performance will ever match a diesel for economy, BUT, they are so much better to drive fast I think.

The diesel always will sound awful, no matter how quiet they manage to make it, and the Fabia looks bloody awful as well, so that's not gonna sway my decision.

25th Jul 2007, 03:24

I've been in my mate's Civic Type R. You don't have to drop 3 gears; it's more like 1. The thing is the revs fly up so quickly and it gets into the VTEC zone straight away, and then it remains there if redlined. From a standstill you only need to rev it to 5.5 thousand in first gear, and from then on you're constantly in the VTEC zone, I think lazy people prefer cars with high torque, and proper drivers like high revs and power at the top.

26th Jul 2007, 06:37

'You don't have to drop 3 gears; it's more like 1.'

In a vRS you don't need to drop any. Even at 50mph in 6th gear it picks up speed pretty quickly. Maybe that does make us diesel drivers lazy, but at least the fuel needle doesn't visibly move whilst doing it.

26th Jul 2007, 11:47

Obviously vRS drivers aren't like me. I just love burning off boy racers in Saxo VTS' and 182 drivers in traffic light drag racers. Also I love it when they are behind me on a B road or even a single carriageway, and when they pull out to overtake me, I simply drop it a gear get in v-tec mode and fly off then slow back down, and when they pull out to overtake me again just repeat the process. Call me childish, but I'm showing off my cars power. You couldn't do this in a vRS; any half decent petrol boy racer car could overtake you because they are faster when revved compared to a diesel in its nice constant pull, and that's the crucial thing.

27th Jul 2007, 03:21

My Civic Type R returns 25-30 mpg no matter how hard I trash it. That's pretty good for a 2.0 200bhp car; it's more fun dropping a gear and nailing it.

29th Jul 2007, 14:03

I used to have a Saxo VTS tuned to 160bhp with a full system exhaust, Dastek uni-chip and a performance air filter. It hit 60 in 6.4 seconds, but only had 112lb-ft of torque (CRAP). Torque does not affect 0-60, bhp all the way.

I'm looking for a fast car that's cheap to run; the best I can see is a Lotus Elise around 5 seconds to 60 and still do 40mpg! My Saxo did about 30, but at present it's a bit out of my price range! So I'll carry on chugging around in my 106 diesel for the moment! LOL!

30th Jul 2007, 06:33

Accelerating when people try to overtake is not amusing; it's highly dangerous and results in many fatalities... nearly me, I was a victim of this type of stunt, they stayed level with me and wouldn't let me drop in behind or overtake. The car coming the other way meant I had nowhere to go other than off the side of the road... 2 weeks in intensive care, not nice!!!

30th Jul 2007, 06:36

'My Civic Type R returns 25-30 mpg no matter how hard I trash it.'

You obviously have never 'trashed' it then. Low teens is not impossible.

2nd Aug 2007, 06:27

I used to own a Civic type R, in fact I drove one for 2 years doing 16k mile on average each year.

The Skoda vRS is equally as quick in 'REAL LIFE' situations; yes on a track or empty road the Civic would be a flying machine, but the Skoda vRS remapped to 185bhp could easily out drag a Civic Type R; check the figures, lighter car, nearly equal BHP and torque around the 300 region, when the Civic has around 140 torque!!.

This is coming from a devout petrolhead who used to own Civic Type R; then recently downsized to a Skoda Fabia vRS from a PPP Subaru WRX. ;)

Trust me, diesel does seem to be catching up with petrol, especially when remapped.. LOL.

4th Aug 2007, 13:11

I've had my Vrs for about 2 months and must say that its not a bad car and for a diesel it's quick, before the Vrs I had a Leon cupra and that was very quick. at the end of the day some guys hear are comparing a civic type R and celica's to a Vrs, Why?? we all know these cars ARE faster 0-60mph, but it's like comparing chalk to cheese... surly we should be compairing the Vrs to other diesels??!! Sorry, but I just had to get that off my chest :)

By the way does anyone REALLY know the official 0-60 time of the Vrs?? It does feel quicker than 9.6secs...