Fabia 240bhp upgrade

[CDOG]

Hi

Just read the performance tuning vw mag reviewing a group of tuned diesels up against a standard Mk5 VW GTI. The diesels consisted of astra, bmw, lukes fabia at Jabbasport with 240bhp and 450lb torque, the fabia was the main one I was interested in as I have had my car tuned to 190bhp and was considering spending the 3.5K to tune it to the equivalent of Lukes.

In short the VW which was standard nailed all the cars even though they were tuned including the Jabba car, there were a number of tests carried out on 0-60, braking, top speed etc, and I would recommend anyone looking at tuning the fabia to read this edition - it shows up the fact that cars overtuned just cannot:

1) Put the power down without losing most of it to wheelspin
2) The chassis just cant handle the power as well as a car originally built to take the power
3) Tuners who offer large power upgrades in reality the cars arent even as good as a standard VW GTI, read the article the testers gave the VW first place and quite rightly stated that the car beat all the contenders in STANDARD form. Now if you do the same to the golf a mild chip and suspension mods as offered by a number of tuners the car is different league!!

The test did prove that tuners just chasing figures will often look great on dyno but on the road you have to be able to put the power down. Something the golf appears to do very well.

I love the fabia when mildly tuned but anymore and I tend to agree with the test result a bit "law of diminishing returns"

To anyone considering spending 3.5K dont!! just buy a standard Golf GTI it will be better from standard (in every form) - not my opinion the magazines!!

[Basil]

Thanks for the heads-up mate. Will have to read the article.

doesn't sound right tbh... Tuning is about upgrading all components to work together well - a well-tuned Fabia would perform very well in braking, handling, top speed. 0-60 is always a diesel's achille's heel.....

One thing is that if you know how to design any experiment/comparison it's easy to skew outcome in favour of a particular car, all cars being fairly comparible..... Being a VW mag, it'd be pretty bad if the VW was matched......

The upgrades I'm hoping to do by the end of the summer dont come anywhere close to 3.5K...
Interesting, thanks again...

[Lummox]

Somehow comparing a turbocharged petrol engine against a turbocharge diesel engine doesnt seem all that fair (even if the diesel has an extra 40bhp). he petrol makes its power for longer and has a lot more revs to play with.

[Basil]

another thing - I got my Fabia for about GBP 7.5K - 2005 model brand new, in the showroom (in 2006). Even adding up all the parts I've put in - it comes nowhere near the local cost price of the VW GTI (the VW dealers are known to have a generous (??) markup).

Add in the far cheaper running costs (diesel is 30% cheaper here) and the need for a service yearly only (petrol ones are advised a 10-15K km service!!!), and you can see why I'm glad I chose a Fabia vRS. (Also I love pretending that I too am a knucklehead, er I mean mechanic, in my spare time) I can say I really enjoyed fitting all the mods in my sig apart from the Eibachs, with my own hands...

[CDOG]

Some valid points, some not, I tend to agree with lummox's points of petrol versus diesels but.........
What I love about forums is the fact everyone has there point of view (always subjective to there opinions, biased, perceptions etc). I always consider a test by a magazine a far higher authority whether it be Evo, Peformance tuner, etc.
In actual fact I think most sales of vehicles are down to these reviews given by the only validated sources for obvious reasons, from these most normal people then make there purchasing decisions.
I was just pleased they did this review as it saved me a pot load of cash and cleared my head on a number of issues,
Not meaning to appear rude but I thing forums are sometimes not disimilar to men raving about there private parts....have you ever heard someone say I've got a small one!!!
Magazines just measure the private parts and give real figures and performance not ego driven exageration....sorry as anygood business person or accountant will tell you "figures never lie"!!! Now in Lukes case the figures on the dyno stack up but just dont cut the mustard!!

[VRStu]

Originally Posted by Basil

(Also I love pretending that I too am a knucklehead, er I mean mechanic, in my spare time)

[redbaron]

so the real issue is the Fabia / Polo chassis is not as capable as the larger Octy Golf chassis - - which was also the case with the Fabia vs Mk1 Octy/Mk4 Golf

and if you really want to go fast a turbo petrol is faster than equiv size turbo diesel.

Not to mention the revelation that a car with good dyno figures may be pants in real life....

If the article had also stated that 4x4 is quicker in the wet but slower round a dry track and that rwd cars put the power down better then they could have been in the running for the 2007 "stating the bleeding obvious" award.

[oilburninnut]

they did say tho that lukes car with an lsd and some decent tyres would have monstered the golf and it did beat it at some of the tests,they also said that the in gear times were poor for the fabia because of the huge amount of lag.
I am the opposit as i don't believe any thing i read in car mags because sometimes i swear they never even drove the car they wrote about.

[devonutopia]

I really need a LSD and decent front tyres. Also could do with a bit more power.

[ScoobyChris]

Originally Posted by oilburninnut

they also said that the in gear times were poor for the fabia because of the huge amount of lag.

So by running big power, it has compromised the only thing the diesel is good at (strong mid range and good in-gear stats)?

Chris

[VRSpirit]

i agree with the petrol vs diesel replys as being unfair in the way of the performance. as to believing what i read and making my judgements on it no way. the fabia for example go on what cars webiste and watch the video review and they say how impeccable the fabia is for reliability and how their are no faults. its only when you look on these fan sites and you read how people who live with these cars and drive them for thousands of miles find such things. are the doors falling off, has the black paint been chipped back to metal, does the ejector seat work ok. as to vw mag praising the gti thats a bit obvious as it wouldent look to good seeing it thrashed. just last week i got a stupid little booklet with different texture card/paper/rubber pieces in it with about 5 words on each saying how good the golf is. the thing is vw mag just like ford mags etc is not just for owners or enthusiasts its also brochure promoting their product over others so its bias. mind you anyone who writes a car review will be bias somewhere.. just look at clarckson lol hes biast about anything that doesent do 200mph. anything else he gives mixed reviews on

[vindaloo]

Originally Posted by ScoobyChris

So by running big power, it has compromised the only thing the diesel is good at (strong mid range and good in-gear stats)?

Chris

I've got the very edition of the mag in question. They seemed to think that Luke's car was a whole hoot of laughs even if it was just because of the amount of tyre they could melt in one spot. It also posted 140+ and still accelerating before they ran out of runway.

Main issues they had were smoking, more lag and lack of cohesion in cornering/handling. They liked the Astra 888 for handling and Luke's car for - well - silly amounts of tyre-melting grunt really.

The other tuner cars it was up against were far less modified but based on larger/more expensive platforms to begin with.

J.

[Fab vRS]

Remember that we are comparing a £12K diesel to a £19K petrol car!

In value for money terms the vRS wins every time (even with the mods) but for OVERALL pleasure (handling, power etc) a remapped GTI will always win because it has an extra £7,000 worth of kit in it over the vRS.

The Golf (like a Type R car) will almost always out-handle a vRS because it has been designed to do that from the outset.

However, a vRS even with 240bhp will still look like a stock vRS, so will not be nicked or scratched or raced by other cars - and for me (who sold a 209bhp Accord Type R for the vRS) THAT is its biggest plus. The 50mpg and tuning potential are *just* happy coincidences . . .

[jabba_luke]

haha,
scince then i have done 14.0 to 100 which they quoted 16 something!!!!
they even atmitted they were driving it like a diesel and it needs to be revved!!!
if they would of driven it properly it would of trounced the GTi
We got a video of the whole time they were out on the track, and it was quite funny really!!!

BTW the gti was chipped too, paul told us that before we started.

[Welshy]

Originally Posted by ScoobyChris

So by running big power, it has compromised the only thing the diesel is good at (strong mid range and good in-gear stats)?

Chris

And BMW have answered this issue with the sequential turbo chargers found in the 123d & 335d & 535d sso they have NO turbo lag and petrol like rev ranges.

One thing though if your revving a diesel hard every one Ive heard it isnt an exciting noise rev a turbo petrol or highly strung petrol and the noise is very entertaining and it encourages driving it hard like that a diesel does the opposite.

[redbaron]

yes came across one of those 535d things on a private road running next to the the m67.... he was a little upset that he got out dragged by what he considered inferior machinery.

poor man with his 155 limiter....

[Welshy]

Then again he could map his for <£500 and be up to 170-180mph.

[Basil]

Originally Posted by jabba_luke

haha,
scince then i have done 14.0 to 100 which they quoted 16 something!!!!
they even atmitted they were driving it like a diesel and it needs to be revved!!!
if they would of driven it properly it would of trounced the GTi
We got a video of the whole time they were out on the track, and it was quite funny really!!!

BTW the gti was chipped too, paul told us that before we started.

Thanks Luke - good to hear reliable confirmation of what I suspected. I was positive that you weren't driving it. (you have some track cred I see....)
(And I did wonder if the GTI was chipped.)

TBH, no one wants to buy a VW tuning mag and then told that a diesel skoda was even comparable to a GTI, let alone capable (in the right hands) of kicking a GTI's a55!

Thought the whole thing sounded fishy.... Was gonna read the article and then dissect it, but won't bother - wonder if the initial post was to boost mag's sales?????

what a load of rubbish!!!!

( several points were just made, all valid, logical, and if anyone doen't like them, they can go buy a GTI

Cheers
Bas

[jabba_luke]

Originally Posted by Basil

Thanks Luke - good to hear reliable confirmation of what I suspected. I was positive that you weren't driving it. (you have some track cred I see....)
(And I did wonder if the GTI was chipped.)

TBH, no one wants to buy a VW tuning mag and then told that a diesel skoda was even comparable to a GTI, let alone capable (in the right hands) of kicking a GTI's a55!

Thought the whole thing sounded fishy.... Was gonna read the article and then dissect it, but won't bother - wonder if the initial post was to boost mag's sales?????

what a load of rubbish!!!!

( several points were just made, all valid, logical, and if anyone doen't like them, they can go buy a GTI

Cheers
Bas

LOL well it makes scence really when you think about it!!! how could 197bhp beat 247bhp and loads of torque???
Not even the ability to rev on further is going to make up for the weight dis-advantage 40bhp and about 140lbft of torque that the golf is down on!!!! (if it was in standard form)

[WW_VRS]

I'm a tad surprised about the lag thing really though, I can't say mine is particularly laggy compared to standard - sure I'm not running 240bhp by any stretch but still?