Fabia Hatch 2.0 Performance Figures Rqd

[Cliveski]

I have the skoda figures (0-60 / Top Speed) but what I'm really after are the 30-70 through the gears, 30-50 in 3rd, 40-60 in 4th, 50-70 in 5th, etc you get with road test. . . . . anyone . . . . .

[HellFire]

Do you have one? If not try buy a PD100 and enjoy the torque

[L-Y-K]

Originally Posted by Cliveski

I have the skoda figures (0-60 / Top Speed) but what I'm really after are the 30-70 through the gears, 30-50 in 3rd, 40-60 in 4th, 50-70 in 5th, etc you get with road test. . . . . anyone . . . . .

i think auto express had one

...

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/preview..._fabia_20.html

[Fabpreza]

Originally Posted by Cliveski

I have the skoda figures (0-60 / Top Speed) but what I'm really after are the 30-70 through the gears, 30-50 in 3rd, 40-60 in 4th, 50-70 in 5th, etc you get with road test. . . . . anyone . . . . .

They're better than you'd think, but the mid-range is never going to be as good as a torquey turbo diesel.

Having bought one for my parents and driven it to them, I'd say that (as usual) the official figures are conservative. I'd say around the 9 second dead mark for 0-60 and 30-70. Good on the motorway also. They've average 34.4 mpg over the last year.

Rob

[Tom_vRS]

*awaits Mil's defence"

[Mil]

Actually with the 2.0:

From 0mph-40mph you'll get about 2 seconds, 1st gear.

From 38mph-62.5mph it takes about 6 to 6.5 seconds, 2nd gear.

50mph to 75mph it takes about 6.5 to 7 seconds, 3rd gear



I'm giving you these figures based on times calculated with my brother.

With a petrol 2.0 you can't test times from 30-50 in 3rd, 40-60 in 4th, 50-70 in 5th, because the gear ratios are different.

If I try doin' 30-50 on 3rd, the engine speed will drop to 1500rpm. 3rd is most effective at about 55mph.



Tom, I ain't defending anything I know I'm capable of taking a standard vRS. If I can take a 206 RC quite easy, I can easily take a vRS. Not in the mid-range of course, I'll bow down to that...but my 0-60 time is decent for 1190kg car with 122bhp, mid-8s. Checked so many times to make sure I wasn't exaggerating, WITH my brother. And after 75mph my car will just pull straight to about 110mph on 4th (that takes about 10 seconds, and from there to about 137mph on 5th.

No jokes, no exaggeration, I don't need to.

[ScoobyChris]

Originally Posted by Mil

Tom, I ain't defending anything I know I'm capable of taking a standard vRS. If I can take a 206 RC quite easy, I can easily take a vRS. Not in the mid-range of course, I'll bow down to that...but my 0-60 time is decent for 1190kg car with 122bhp, mid-8s. Checked so many times to make sure I wasn't exaggerating, WITH my brother. And after 75mph my car will just pull straight to about 110mph on 4th (that takes about 10 seconds, and from there to about 137mph on 5th.

No jokes, no exaggeration, I don't need to.

Were these figures off the speedo or a GPS? I only ask as Skoda claim the car's top speed is 121mph, but then they also claim the PD100's top speed is 115mph and I've seen comfortably over that on the speedo!

Chris

[Mil]

These figures are off the speedo...137 mph flat.

Think about it.

2.0 only doing 121mph? I don't think so.

Not only that, the engine runs at 5000rpm at that speed, and the 2.0 has 6200rpm before the red.

[pbirkett]

10 seconds to get from 75 to 110 in a 2.0 litre fabia?

LMFAO!

My Golf is faster than your Fabia (except for top speed due to gearing) and it is in no way is capable of doing that...

Edit: Assuming its standard anyway.

[Mil]

Originally Posted by pbirkett

10 seconds to get from 75 to 110 in a 2.0 litre fabia?

LMFAO!

I said 'about', I din't say flat. 75mph is 120kmph and 110mph is 176kmph. And yes, it does it at about that time. 176kmph is not very fast, especially where I live. If I'd said 120kmph to 200kmph then I'd laugh with you.

[pbirkett]

OK, lets think about this for a minute.

Autocar's figures for the Fabia vRS (dont dash off just yet)...

0-70 mph in 9.0 seconds, 0-100 mph in 23.8 seconds.

This means it took 14.8 seconds to reach 70-100 or nearly 5 seconds to gain 10 mph.

And you are saying you can get from 75-110 (which would take longer still) in 10 seconds in a car that IS slower than a vRS?

Give me a break

I reckon 20 - 25 seconds would be closer to the mark.

[WW_VRS]

Remember though he can stay in the same gear whilst doing so, whereas the Furby vRS would probably require 4th then 5th to do the same.

Not sure what times I'd get at those speeds as I dont time myself doing illegal stuff

[Mort]

Originally Posted by WW_VRS

Remember though he can stay in the same gear whilst doing so, whereas the Furby vRS would probably require 4th then 5th to do the same.

Don't see one gearchange taking up the 10 seconds pbirkett is talking about though?

(Not that I'm saying either way. I've never timed myself and honestly have no clue which would be faster except from skoda's offical 0-60 times.)

[pbirkett]

Originally Posted by WW_VRS

Remember though he can stay in the same gear whilst doing so, whereas the Furby vRS would probably require 4th then 5th to do the same.

Not sure what times I'd get at those speeds as I dont time myself doing illegal stuff

Yes, but the very slight amount of time the Fabia would lose changing gear is more than made up for by the sheer shove offered by the torque.

Also you could probably accelerate in 5th quicker in a vRS than you can in 3rd in a 2.0 model - he said 50 - 75 in 7.5 seconds in 3rd, well a vRS can do 50-70 in 6.4 seconds in 5th.

I find it difficult to believe that he'd be just as fast - my Golf is not far off the same power as a 2.0 Fabia, yet it weighs about 300 kg less, and I know for a fact I'd have my work cut out to get past a vRS driven in a determined fashion.

[Mil]

Dude, the vRS Fabia is 130bhp standard. STANDARD. MY car is 122bhp. The mere 8bhp remaining makes very little difference.

With 4th gear from 120 kmph I can pull to 176 kmph in just above 10 seconds, whether you like to believe it or not. From a 0-62 kmph pull I would take the vRS simply because it has a longer rev range. I mean come on, 62kmph on first gear? That's pretty good for a small car like that isn't it? The only reason I believe the book quotes a 0.3 sec faster 0-100kmph time is because by the time I've hit second gear, you will have already shifted up and are pulling off already.

My car is not slow, and I'm not the one who says this. I have friends with very fast cars here, and they're impressed with the performance of my car.

And yes, from 120kmph to 176kmph I can hit it in just above 10 seconds starting 4th shift 5th.

Originally Posted by pbirkett

he said 50 - 75 in 7.5 seconds in 3rd, well a vRS can do 50-70 in 6.4 seconds in 5th.

That 5 miles an hour makes a difference, that's almost 10kmph more, and you're quoting 50-70 for the vRS at 6.4 secs while for the 2.0 you're quoting 50-75 at 7.5 seconds, which is not what I said is the time it can do that run in...

Originally Posted by Mil

50mph to 75mph it takes about 6.5 to 7 seconds, 3rd gear

2nd & third gear pull like a b**** on the 2.0. It doesn't feel as fast as a TDi, like I've said before, I've been in an Ibiza GT which was 100bhp, and it felt faster than my car...but it ain't.

Believe it or not, the 2.0 is a quick car. It won't feel as quick as a vRS but you can sure watch that needle move quick to 100kmph.

[pbirkett]

The 2.0 is nippy yes, but its not as fast as a vRS.

Even Skoda themselves say this... in case you forgot:-

0-62 - vRS 9.6 seconds, 2.0 9.9 seconds
Top speed - vRS 128 mph, 2.0 121 mph.

Given that 0-60 aint its forte anyway, in the real world, the vRS is a significantly faster car.

[Mil]

Man I'm gonna stop arguing with you.

I've told you way too many times I've clocked 0-100kmph in about 8.5 seconds many times, and the top speed of my car is 220kmph (which is 137mph), like it was made by the factory that way. What do you want me to do, be in denial of my own vehicle which I drive everyday and have been for the past 2 years and a half, BEFORE the vRS came out???

And in standard? the vRS 'significantly' faster? I think not. Not with the times I'm quoting and the times Skoda quote themselves. Skoda quote 0.3 seconds faster 0-100kmph. What is 0.3 seconds? I quote a little above 8.5 seconds for my car. And I also quote 220kmph.

[pbirkett]

I'm not denying what you think you can get, but what you can actually get in reality is different. My car does 0-60 in about that time, but is only slightly down on power and significantly lighter, so i'm wondering whether it can *really* do 0-62 in 8.5 seconds.

Also 137 mph? Thats as fast as a 180 bhp Renault Clio.

Sorry, but i think your talking out of your botty.

Also, regarding the vRS, it might have only 130 bhp but it has 230 lb ft of torque as well. While that might not matter much on an out and out sprint, it does make it significantly faster when one plants their foot down on the accelerator whilst already on the move.

[Mil]

Originally Posted by pbirkett

I'm not denying what you think you can get, but what you can actually get in reality is different. My car does 0-60 in about that time, but is only slightly down on power and significantly lighter, so i'm wondering whether it can *really* do 0-62 in 8.5 seconds.

Also 137 mph? Thats as fast as a 180 bhp Renault Clio.

Sorry, but i think your talking out of your botty.

Also, regarding the vRS, it might have only 130 bhp but it has 230 lb ft of torque as well. While that might not matter much on an out and out sprint, it does make it significantly faster when one plants their foot down on the accelerator whilst already on the move.

Dude! I've timed my car, it does 0-100kmph in 8.5 seconds, and it does a 137mph top speed. Stop contradicting me, if it's faster than your car then so be it, but what I don't like is when someone takes me for a bullsh***er which is exactly what you are doing with me. 'In reality', my car does those times. I don't know about other 2.0s but mine is certainly hitting those numbers.

Originally Posted by pbirkett

I'm not denying what you think you can get...

Do I sound sick to you? Deny what I think I can get? It's not what I think I can get, it's what I'm getting everytime I make the run!


Talking out of my botty?? What the hell is a botty?? You mean a*s?? No, I'm not. If you want, bring your Golf down here and we'll have a race. I've had races with 3 206RCs on my roads and I've beaten all three of them, and DON'T tell me they were not trying, cars that don't try don't swerve in the traffic trying to fly by other road users.

Originally Posted by pbirkett

...it might have only 130 bhp but it has 230 lb ft of torque as well...

230lb ft of torque huh? If that's the attitude you have in the subjects of torque and power then the vRS should be doing a 0-100kmph run of 4 seconds, even with 130bhp. That 230lb ft means it can take a steep hill much more easily than the average hot hatch. The torque figure means your car can pull a house down easier than the average hot hatch. A regular 115bhp Mini Cooper has LESS torque than my 2.0 by 20+Nm and the vRS 'only' makes it past the finish line in a race.

A tractor has 2000lb ft of torque and more and it moves slower than a snail. But it can take those hills, regardless of it's weight. You misunderstand the meaning of torque, because without power, torque doesn't matter. It isn't torque that makes the vRS time of 0-100kmph 9.6 seconds, it's the power that does that.

[cmcm789]

You are both going round in circles.

There is no point in arguing, because you aren't using the same benchmark.

Point 1:
A car manufacturer may quote a time of 9.0 seconds for 0-60 for a given car, but depending on the car itself this figure could be 0.5 seconds out easily.

Point 2:
The 2.0 fabia may well reach an indicated 62mph (100kph) easily in 8.5 seconds and an indicated top speed of 137mph, but this is unique to this car. With an average speedo reading 5-8% out, the actual time recorded could be for a real speed of 0-55mph, and the top speed could be out by as much as 11mph (giving real reading of 127mph).

So, unless you are going to find a nice private road where you can put one car up against the other in identical conditions, then i don't think it is worth arguing over.

JD

[SteVRs]

Yay! Peace and harmony restored to the forum!

[Mort]

Originally Posted by Mil

I've had races with 3 206RCs on my roads and I've beaten all three of them, and DON'T tell me they were not trying, cars that don't try don't swerve in the traffic trying to fly by other road users.

Regardless of who's is quicker, this sounds incredibly dangerous.

And how can you judge which car is faster if you are 'dodging' traffic? My 0-60 time could be 30 minutes if the road is covered in cones and tractors and small fluffy puppies that I'm trying to avoid!

[pbirkett]

You are really touchy.....

Originally Posted by Mil

Dude! I've timed my car, it does 0-100kmph in 8.5 seconds, and it does a 137mph top speed. Stop contradicting me, if it's faster than your car then so be it, but what I don't like is when someone takes me for a bullsh***er which is exactly what you are doing with me. 'In reality', my car does those times. I don't know about other 2.0s but mine is certainly hitting those numbers.

OK, i've just seen a roadtest result for a 2.0 GTI Golf Mk4 and it did 0-60 in 9.0 seconds. Your car is lighter also, but how is the car geared? Can it do a genuine 62 in 2nd? If so, thats why... one gearchange. If not, then you are quite possibly looking at a difference of up to 0.5 seconds between 60 and 62 - possibly more, so you are telling me it can do 0-60 faster than quite a few cars with equivalent weight and much more power?

Well ok... i'll give you that one, i wouldnt want to cause you a stroke or anything.

Do I sound sick to you?

No, you do however sound very stressed out and angry.

Talking out of my botty?? What the hell is a botty?? You mean a*s??

Botty is slang term for anus. I dont know if you are from the UK or not... however, an *** is a donkey, if we are going to get pedantic about it

No, I'm not. If you want, bring your Golf down here and we'll have a race. I've had races with 3 206RCs on my roads and I've beaten all three of them, and DON'T tell me they were not trying, cars that don't try don't swerve in the traffic trying to fly by other road users.

I would happily except for a number of reasons. One that I dont feel the need to prove my car is faster, but I think it will be. However, most importantly is that I dont really care if it is faster or not. Another slight issue is the fact that with a slightly dodgy clutch, other miscellanious problems and no rev counter probably tips the advantage to you. But like i say, its not that important to me. Power to weight ratio tells me that your 1190 kg Fabia with 122 bhp has 102 bhp per tonne, whereas mine is 112 bhp and weighs 940 kg, giving it a power to weight ratio of 119 bhp per tonne. I am sure you will agree that my car should definitely be faster.

230lb ft of torque huh? If that's the attitude you have then it should be doing a 0-100kmph run of 4 seconds. That 230lb ft means it can take a steep hill much more easily than the average hot hatch. A regular 115bhp Mini Cooper has LESS torque than my 2.0 and the vRS 'only' makes it past the finish line in a race.

When you quoted my quote, you forgot this very important bit of information that makes what you have said an irrational rant.

I said:-

"While that might not matter much on an out and out sprint, it does make it significantly faster when one plants their foot down on the accelerator whilst already on the move."

If anything the vRS is poor at 0-60 times. Sure it has excellent torque, which in theory, should help it launch quickly. But wheelspin is a very real issue, as is the fact it wont even crack 25 mph in 1st, or 50 mph in 2nd. I would be inclined to agree you'll worry a vRS up to about 60 or so, but after that, it should start pulling ahead, i think you would probably find.

However, I was not talking about 0-60 which should be obvious. How many people do 0-60 sprints in the real world? The performance of the vRS is all about its midrange, the grunt it has while its on the move. It can power out of corners very quickly, and it can leave many cars for dead on the motorway without dropping a gear. In this respect, it IS significantly faster in the real world.

A tractor has 1000lb ft of torque and more and it moves slower than a snail. But it can take those hills, regardless of it's weight. You misunderstand the meaning of torque, because without power, torque doesn't matter. It isn't torque that makes the vRS time of 0-100kmph 9.6 seconds, it's the power that does that.

I dont misunderstand that at all, but you dont seem to be prepared to accept the fact that the torque DOES have an impact on performance. Otherwise, how could a 1300 kg car with only 130 bhp perform so well in real world situations?

In a 0-xxx sprint your car will be reasonably close, but when that 30 turns into a 60 road, the vRS will be leaving you far behind in a smokescreen.

[Mil]

Originally Posted by pbirkett

...you sound stressed out and angry...

If someone indirectly calls you a bullsh***** then I'm sure you would too.

Originally Posted by pbirkett

Power to weight ratio tells me that your 1190 kg Fabia with 122 bhp has 102 bhp per tonne, whereas mine is 112 bhp and weighs 940 kg, giving it a power to weight ratio of 119 bhp per tonne. I am sure you will agree that my car should definitely be faster.

Well good for you then. If you can claim a faster time than 8.5 seconds on a 62 run and 220kmph then it is indeed faster.

Originally Posted by pbirkett

Can it do a genuine 62 in 2nd?

62mph is 99.2kmph. My ride hits 101kmph on second.

Originally Posted by pbirkett

The performance of the vRS is all about its midrange, the grunt it has while its on the move. It can power out of corners very quickly, and it can leave many cars for dead on the motorway without dropping a gear. In this respect, it IS significantly faster in the real world...when that 30 turns into a 60 road, the vRS will be leaving you far behind in a smokescreen.

That's what happened with the Mini Cooper when Clarkson was in the vRS. The Mini Cooper wasn't that far out. My car has quite a good amount of torque more than the Mini Cooper (they bow to me). Not only that. Given the fact that I'm riding on 15" rims (smaller rims always= faster) with low profiles and have already dropped my car about 35mm (now about 40mm after settling in), my car is lower than a vRS by almost 75mm...those corners aren't difficult for me, and with the tyres I have, I hardly ever suffer from understeer. EVER.

Considering these advantages plus 'unique' (as cmcm789 put it) times on my car, for example the already tested 50mph to 75mph time of around 7 seconds and the vRS time of 6.4 seconds 50mph to 70mph, I really doubt it could pull away from me so easily to 'leave me in the far behind a smokescreen'. It will pull away, but not as easy as you think, and most certainly not as easy as they screwed that Mini Cooper.

You really underestimate the 2.0. You really do.

[Mil]

Originally Posted by Mort

Regardless of who's is quicker, this sounds incredibly dangerous.

And how can you judge which car is faster if you are 'dodging' traffic? My 0-60 time could be 30 minutes if the road is covered in cones and tractors and small fluffy puppies that I'm trying to avoid!

I'm not talking heavy traffic, I'm talking traffic at 12 midnight.