[Ctn]

Quote:

Originally posted by becomethemould why not a opel corsa or holden barina?

I mite be joining you with a barina sri hahahaha *im laughing at the thought*

 

[D-EJ915]

The Seat Cupra R looks really nice too. Doesn't it have a V-6??

It's SEY-AAT right??

 

[pbirkett]

AFAIK, all of the hot Seats either use one of the Turbodiesel engines (1.9 and soon 2.0) or the 1.8 Turbo 20v unit from the Audi TT. And it is indeed Sey-at.

 

[marios_mar]

you know what . I was browsing the Skoda Octavia RS brochure and it is Octavia RS not vRS!

On the photos the car has "OCTAVIA RS" plates and it is mentioned and called Octavia RS. Only the sign on the front grill and back has a V like shape.

So Ive seen the V but Skoda calls it Octavia RS at least round here.

Btw have you decided on when exactly youll buy the Fabia?

It will be one hell of a great car I am sure.

 

[Permonic]

Paul, I would do the tuning, for 1.9 TDI-PD it's 96kW/130 bhp and 310Nm for serial, e.g. Powerbox tuning makes it to 114kW/155bph and 350Nm. With a "full" chip tuning you might go higher.

BTW As far as I know it's "RS", however in UK, you might have different name.

 

[pbirkett]

I've got my Skoda Fabia vRS now

, and its certainly a nice car. Its still a little bit tight at the moment, needs running in, but its clearly showing its potential performance even as standard. Its enormous torque output (for a car of its size) really makes itself felt, pinning you back to your seat once the turbo comes on song, and excellent power is available in all gears, even 6th.

On paper, its performance looks modest, but let me tell you that this car is certainly quicker than it appears on paper. The book 0-60 time is 9.6 seconds, but I think in reality that is easily more like 8.5 seconds, even bearing in mind 2 gearchanges to get to 60. Its midrange grunt where it really excels, I reckon 30-70 when its run in will be in the 7 second mark. On the motorway, it can embarass pricier cars by leaving them for dead

Also, its claimed power output is 130 bhp, but people who have put them on rollers usually get 145 - 150 bhp as standard, and torque is usually claimed to be up at 240 lb ft. Chipping this car will usually get up to 190 bhp and 300 lb ft of torque.

Its only got 750 miles on at the moment, but apparently these engines take a long while to run in and loosen up, and its not uncommon to find they are a lot better after a good few thousand miles.

As for the badge, in the UK, it is definitely a vRS, but I cannot speak for other countries. The Octavia used to be called RS, but Ford Motorsport got upset about this as their performance models are called RS as well, so Skoda changed it to vRS.

I'll try and get some pics of the beast later and post them up

 

[marios_mar]

Nice. If I had a camera I would post for you some pics of our Octavia Turbo.


Chip tuning on a diesel motor? This could be dangerous couldnt it? A diesel pump will cost a lot if damaged. Isnt there any extra danger?

 

[marios_mar]

pbirkett do you write at briskoda under the same nick too?

I think I saw such a nick there yesterday.

Any objective impressions on the Fabia interior and quality?

Are they a match to those of the larger cars like the Octavia?

What do you think about the new petrol 115hp Fabia that came out now?

 

[pbirkett]

Hi Mario,

I do indeed occaisionally post to briskoda, so it would have been me

Interior quality. Well my dad has a VW Polo TDI Sport 100, and another friend has a Seat Ibiza TDI Sport 130. The common theme here is that all of these cars top their respective ranges and are all based on the Fabia platform.

Both the Ibiza and Polo are £1,500 ($3,000) more expensive than the Skoda vRS, but you would not think it when you sit in these cars.

To me, the VW seems slightly ahead of the Seat, but for me, both trail the Fabia in interior quality. The seats are much nicer, the dash looks better quality and you simply get more kit than the other two cars in terms of comfort and looks. The vRS is definitely the most sporty out of the three. It has more power than the Polo, and although the Ibiza matches it for power, the Skoda has shorter gear ratios giving a feeling of subjective superior acceleration.

The Fabia vRS for me is a nicer car and better value than its rivals. Let us not forget, that all three cars I mention here are generally superior build quality to any other rivals its price.

Also, Autocar tested the Fabia vRS this month, and severely bettered its claimed 0-60 time.

According to them.....
0-60 mph in 8.2 seconds (Faster than a Fiat Punto HGT, or Mini Cooper for example)
30-70 mph in 7.6 seconds (Faster than a BMW 330d)
20-40 mph (2nd gear) in 2.4 seconds (On par with a Lotus Elise 111R)
0-100 mph in 24.4 seconds (Over 1 second faster than a VW Golf GTI 1.8 20vT, nearly 4 seconds faster than a Mini Cooper).

Not bad for a diesel

Oh, and 40-45 miles to the gallon

As for the 2.0 litre car, well that uses an ancient 8-valve engine, which gives far worse fuel economy and performance than the 1.9 TDI PD engine in the vRS. On paper, the 0-60 is close, in the real world, theres no comparison. My dad had the Golf GTI Mk4 with the same engine in, and it was nowhere near as quick.

 

[marios_mar]

Hey you still owe us some pics

In Greece rhe Fabia RS is not imported at all because Diesel is not allowed in big city centres. (It is going to happen soon though!)

I might try to get some pics of our silver
Skoda Octavia 1.8T with 16 inch alloys.

Which might soon have round 200 hp via ABT probably with a switch to go back to 150 hp for economy and less wear to the engine.

 

[marios_mar]

in my country Seat is marketed as the sporty division of VW, VW as the quality division and Skoda as the Economy.

Comparing the 1.4 16V 100hp models of the three brands the Fabia is the quicker according to the tests. The prices are pretty much the same for all models.

I would be interested in getting one of those 100hp Fabias soon in the future or the TDI 100hp model.

Durability as well as tunability is important. And pricing as well. What do you think?

 

[pbirkett]

Quote:

Originally posted by marios_mar Hey you still owe us some pics

So I did

Enjoy!

 

[pbirkett]

And some more....

 

[marios_mar]

Your car is gorgeous. If only the driver's position was a bit more on the left

The interior looks pretty decent. Simple and elegant. The seats seem comfortable.

I wish that you enjoy it in good health!

So tell me what do you think about thos models I told you and especially the petrol 1.4 16V?

 

[pbirkett]

The Petrol 1.4 16v (100 bhp) is probably, for me, the pick of all of the petrol powered models, even over the 2.0 model. The 1.4 is only 15 bhp down on the 2.0 model, but the 1.4 is a much more revvy engine which will return superior fuel economy without much of a deficit in performance. The 1.4 16v Petrol is definitely the pick of the petrol powered cars, if you cannot get a vRS.

0-60 in around 11 seconds with the 1.4 16v (10 seconds or so with the 2.0), but as I said, the 1.4 needs to be worked harder, but will be more economical, barely any slower, and probably more fun (IMO).

The 2.0 is a pretty ancient engine, and I would avoid it.