3rd Sep 2007, 05:00

You are absolutely right; that was my point.

I closed on him through 3rd gear. I know I would have pulled past him in 4th, and 5th, but I gave up at that point, as I was cruising at 75ish, but he was travelling quicker.

I was saying that that Saab driver is probably now convinced his car was faster, when I don't think it was.

And I am sorry but I think the same about the Rover. I don't think the driver of the vRS was trying.

4th Sep 2007, 04:24

What is with you people? The fabia VRS is NOT a performance car, it cracks 60mph in just under 10sec in standard form and has a power to weight ratio of only 99bhp per tonne, (hardly impressive). I would say its more of a relaxed city cruiser, definitely NO road burner, as its BARELY even a warm hatch. If you all want a fast car, sell the SKODA and get something else!

4th Sep 2007, 06:21

As a vRS owner, I know full well about the smoke it produces. I quite like the fact it produces so much smoke as it covers the car I've just overtaken in vRS fumes. But at the same time, because it produces smoke even under very light acceleration, it gives a false impression to other cars as to how hard you are accelerating. (i.e smoke from the exhaust doesn't always mean we've got our foot to the floor)

4th Sep 2007, 16:05

It does when your coughing on that Cra*!

There merely a warm hatch that's it, what about the atrocious handling of them, no one seems to have mentioned that?

I'd like to see it stay with a Saxo VTS, that would be funny, it even has the power advantage too, I'm not saying I like Saxo's, because I wouldn't personally own one, but I have seen what they can do, and the Fabia would be so far behind its laughable.

I think the vRS owners need to wake up and accept they aren't driving a hot hatch, just a cheap VW.

6th Sep 2007, 06:30

I think all owners of vRS know that they're only a warm hatch and that there is a lot of body roll. But for under a grand you can get it re-mapped to 170/180bhp (without the need to upgrade the clutch), add a rear ARB & and lower it. Then the handling and performance would be similar to a hot hatch, & yet it would still be much much much cheaper to buy & run.

In terms of value for money, it really is nearly impossible to beat!

7th Sep 2007, 07:03

Oh, it will definately be cheaper to run.

However a re-map is definately not advised on these 'PD' engines, they won't see the other side of 40k if they are, I've seen it happen on numerous models with this engine, not just the fabia.

Also to make it a fair comparison, the extra money spent 'improving' the Fabia would be a waste anyway as a new engine is not cheap.

The other hatch should also be modified the same to make it fair, I don't think these are all that cheap to buy and looking at them objectively I don't see anything other than a nippy economical car.

Theres plenty out there cheaper and more fun to drive.

8th Sep 2007, 01:01

"In terms of value for money, it really is nearly impossible to beat"

It's a skoda and everybody other than the strange skoda owners laughs at them so in my opinion it isn't very hard to beat.

9th Sep 2007, 09:21

Actually, not everyone still laughs at them, and the people who do are just enforcing their poor automobile intellect. I wouldn't comment on your car without driving it, so I don't see how you can comment on a car you clearly have never driven.

A 5 minute test drive is all it takes to change most people's views on the vRS; even Jeremy Clarkson was astounded by its power delivery!

And to the person who thinks that re-mapping it will make the engine 'go pop', I suggest you have a look on briskoda.net; 100s of owners who have remapped with no problems. The only problems (with the odd exception obviously) have occurred when people have tried to get too much power or used a non-reputable company.

10th Sep 2007, 01:45

The simple fact is, I have driven one, and there not a particularly nice car.

That is my opinion and if your stupid enough to up the cars power with these chips then I reckon you don't know what your letting yourself in for, in 40k miles or less the engine will be in trouble. FACT I work for an engine building/tuning firm and these engines, whilst quite strong as standard won't withstand a chip the internals are too weak.

As for none drivers laughing at Skoda's, well, I don't see why not, they look like crap and they just borrow from the bottom of VW's parts bin. (cheap and nasty)

11th Sep 2007, 06:17

You may work for an engine/tuning firm, but you are completely wrong. The problems that vrs have had due to remaps, are mainly to do with the clutch & dual mass flywheel. Only when owners have tried to get stupid amounts of bhp like 200+ without doing other necessary mods has it caused engine problems.

11th Sep 2007, 06:31

'these engines, whilst quite strong as standard won't withstand a chip the internals are too weak.'

Not true. Don't forget the PD150 & PD160 engines are nearly exactly the same (but obviously have more bhp & torque). They have the same shaft, the only differences being the compressor & turbine are slightly larger, but the outside housing is the same.

12th Sep 2007, 01:41

Actually its not just a bigger turbo on these pd 150 & 160 models.

The internals are also beefed up and the intake manifold is also uprated as well.

I still stand by my comments that a chip simply is not the safe option to up the power on these engines, you are only deluded if you believe that these are going to withstand such abuse, to get the 150 & 160 engines to there power levels, VW did a lot of work to make sure reliability wasn't an issue, why do you think there is such a premium over the 'normal' models if it's only a bigger turbo? surely it would be more prudent to charge accordingly?

When you have taken one of these engines to bits yourself and examined the pistons etc. then you will see what I am talking about. (it is under the shiny plastic cover by the way.)

13th Sep 2007, 07:06

Listen to the actual owners, we know if it works or causes problems. Mines done nearly 40,000 miles since being re-mapped by Angel to 170bhp, and I've had no problems at all.

Go on briskoda.net; you'll find almost all re-mapped vRS have had no more problems than ones not re-mapped.

17th Sep 2007, 07:01

I don't think I'm being paranoid when I say this about these engines: http://www.carsurvey.org/viewcomments_review_81604.html#c197732, check out this review from Croatia from the top. All comments left are mostly by the owner with updates. The last one confirms what I have been on about, and also shows that the engines will not stand the test of time with these supposed 'safe' modifications.

If VW's best effort with this engine is 160PS in the Seat Ibiza etc., then you should take note that with extensive mods to the engine this is possible whilst keeping the reliability, firms offering to 'up' the power considerably are not thinking longer term reliability I'm afraid, and it just shows that people will believe anything you tell them.

For instance, by trade I tune and build engines for a living mostly, and I could say to someone that I will increase the bore of their 1.6 Zetec Focus engine to 2.0 and it will still be as reliable as before due to blah blah blah, and they might believe me, but the engine block would be so weak that a sudden increase of heat could crack the block, therefore one broken engine.

It's the same with these 'tuning' firms; they may be able to offer the remap, our firm also offers this, but we only put the power up safely to match engine spec., not as much as possible, as this is just asking for trouble.

In closing, if you feel the need to have your car 'chipped', then by all means do so, but don't go crying to momma when your engine is breaks and you're not under warranty to get it fixed.