diesel vs petrol power

Peerzy said:
What are the correct figures from Skoda then?

Googling seems to tell me its 9.5/9.6 seconds to 62?
Click to expand...

Wiki said:
Official figures state 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) takes 9.5 seconds, but several motoring magazines and websites have measured faster times (around the 7.0-7.5 seconds range) (Autocar: 7.1 seconds,[1] Auto Express: 8.1 seconds,[2] and FastHatchbacks.com: 8.5 seconds[3]).
Click to expand...

I admit it's Wiki, but their claims are referenced to the articles.

Apparantly as well, popping it in for a remap can get even more off that time.

I have to say, the 7.1s looks very optimisitic though, not sure I believe that one. It would put it right up with the best, which I can't see on a 130bhp car.

[Edit] From looking at the article, it seems the 7.1s is with the remap. Not bad though, that certainly makes it "hot".
 
Last edited:
Those are the Skoda figures, however it's 0-100kph, and it's measured two up with a boot full of crap and a full tank of fuel.

Autocar figured their long termer at under 8 seconds when run in, with a one off run of 7.2s IIRC.

As stated a bit earlier today most put out more than 140bhp on a rolling road.
 
Tute said:
I admit it's Wiki, but their claims are referenced to the articles.
Click to expand...

Thats a difference of 1.5 seconds between 3 different publications. Someone is either counting in there head, or Skoda are throwing out some very dodgy engines.

To get 7.1 seconds out of a derv you're gonna need to be looking at about 180-190bhp. So to be giving an engine an extra 50bhp is a bit strange isn't it?
 
Peerzy said:
Thats a difference of 1.5 seconds between 3 different publications. Someone is either counting in there head, or Skoda are throwing out some very dodgy engines.

To get 7.1 seconds out of a derv you're gonna need to be looking at about 180-190bhp. So to be giving an engine an extra 50bhp is a bit strange isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry, seems that was with the remap, which Wiki didn't mention in the article.

Remap gives another 30-50bhp though, which I think is where the performance comes from.

[Edit] Superchips claims 31bhp and 56Nm torque.
 
MagicBoy said:
Those are the Skoda figures, however it's 0-100kph, and it's measured two up with a boot full of crap and a full tank of fuel.

Autocar figured their long termer at under 8 seconds when run in, with a one off run of 7.2s IIRC.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a 128bhp 1.9 derv can hit 0-62 in 7.2 seconds without modifications.

The 1.9 Grande Punto dervs are 130bhp and hit 60 in about 9 seconds (claimed as well) they map to around 195bhp and I'd expect them to hit 62 in about 7-7.5 seconds.

Are Skoda selling a 128bhp car and casually adding an extra 60bhp?
 
Peerzy said:
Thats a difference of 1.5 seconds between 3 different publications. Someone is either counting in there head, or Skoda are throwing out some very dodgy engines.
Click to expand...

Peerzy said:
I don't believe a 128bhp 1.9 derv can hit 0-62 in 7.2 seconds without modifications.

The 1.9 Grande Punto dervs are 130bhp and hit 60 in about 9 seconds (claimed as well) they map to around 195bhp and I'd expect them to hit 62 in about 7-7.5 seconds.

Are Skoda selling a 128bhp car and casually adding an extra 60bhp?
Click to expand...

Dodgy engines - that would be a lot of VW, Audi and SEAT's as well then. That's a lot of "dodgy" engines.

The 7.2 was a one off run and Autocar said it was far quicker than average which was 8 secs.

The 128bhp engines routinely put out around 140bhp on a RR without mods. If you don't believe me then check some of the owners forums.

As I've said before to Fox when he kept insisting the Fabia vRS was a diesel city car a while back - stop forming an opinion off the spec sheet and drive it first.
 
The 7.1 to 60 figure is totally crazy. You'd need 150hp/ton from a FWD to get that sort of time.

I have access to a huge amount of weight and performance data. Let me get some averages.

Edit: Actually I can't be bothered. It's so out there it needs no verification :p

Edit2: Interestingly the Polo GTI, with 150PS (20 more), has a 0-60 of ~7.7.
 
Last edited:
Tute said:
I have to say, the 7.1s looks very optimisitic though, not sure I believe that one. It would put it right up with the best, which I can't see on a 130bhp car.
Click to expand...

That Novitec MiTo has 186bhp and only manages the 0-60 sprint in 7.4 seconds.
Personally thats poor considering its a small car. Roll back the clock to the early 90's and yes mid 7 second 0-60 times were possible with 130/140 bhp, not the case anymore as the 140 bhp isnt sitting in a 1,000kg(ish) car. Diesel technology has improved leaps and bounds in the last decade. On the whole the time of clattery, smelly and slow diesels has gone and been replaced by some very capable engines. Thankfully petrol engines have also improved, yes in some scenarios having a diesel is a no brainer but in others you just cant beat a petrol engined car.
 
No one takes AutoExpress seriously. It's only good for Photoshoped concept cars and what deals Halfords are doing at the moment.

Try Evo:

Evo said:
Turbodiesels are very good for some things but not - on this evidence - for a hot hatch....With a 0-62mph time of 9.6sec the Fabia is slower than its competitors....Delivering a modest 130bhp.....Where frustration begins to build is when you're braking late into a corner and need the help of some engine braking, for it becomes very difficult to match engine speed with road speed. Similarly, when you're overtaking it requires steely nerve to short-shift and rely on the torque to surge you past slower traffic rather than hanging on to the gear in search of top-end response that isn't there....the vRS lacks that real hunger for corners and feels as though the emphasis is on safe predictability rather than all-out fun.
Click to expand...
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/37420/skoda_fabia_vrs.html
 
MagicBoy said:
Dodgy engines - that would be a lot of VW, Audi and SEAT's as well then. That's a lot of "dodgy" engines.
Click to expand...

Dodgy as in massivly overpowered. Like I said for 7.1 seconds to 62 you would need 160bhp at least, if not more. I'd expect a derv to hit that time with about 180bhp~.


MagicBoy said:
The 7.2 was a one off run and Autocar said it was far quicker than average which was 8 secs.
Click to expand...

How do they hit 7.2 seconds once and then 8+ the rest. I can understand hitting 7.2 then 7.3 and then 7.25 etc but nearly a second off sounds very dodgy for one special run.

MagicBoy said:
The 128bhp engines routinely put out around 140bhp on a RR without mods. If you don't believe me then check some of the owners forums.
Click to expand...

I can believe they come out of the showroom at 140bhp, Fiat do this with the Tjet engines, the 120T's come out at about 135bhp and my 150 came out at 165. But like I said 140bhp isn't going to hit 62 in 7.2 seconds with a Fabia.

MagicBoy said:
As I've said before to Fox when he kept insisting the Fabia vRS was a diesel city car a while back - stop forming an opinion off the spec sheet and drive it first.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of driving one. I've driven a 130bhp Grande Punto 1.9 derv which going by figures is practically identical to the Fabia, and without a remap and induction kit it was nippy at best.

You don't own a hot hatch, you own a midly warm hatch at best.

No matter what Evo, Autocar or Hawt Skoda Weekly says a small derv Skoda thats running 140bhp~ is not in the same league as a 200bhp Civic, Golf, Focus or Astra.
 
If you're talking about them coming out of the showroom at 140bhp, then with the remap you're talking ~170bhp.

Admittedly 7s still sounds unrealistic but not unobtainable.

I'm seriously considering one of these, first thing i'd do is get it straight in for a remap - not only does it increase BHP and Torques but fuel consumption as well, apparantly.

Still a long way to go with my choice though. I'm actually impressed with myself that I have eight grand in my bank and i've not touched it. I've not been pushed into getting the first thing I see, or the hard sale.

I'm down to five models now, the Fabia vRS being the only diesel. The others are petrols.

Just to add, it's really grating with me that everyone raves about the noise and feel of a petrol engine, but I just don't get that "epiphany" at all. I guess i've not been in a powerful enough petrol car yet, that i've had authorisation to "open the taps" with. Amusingly, of my friends with petrol engines, one has a 1.2 Corsa with an idiotic exhaust, and the other has a 2.0 Calibra, but is laid up with a broken leg and can't drive.
 
Last edited:
Tute said:
If you're talking about them coming out of the showroom at 140bhp, then with the remap you're talking ~170bhp.

Admittedly 7s still sounds unrealistic but not unobtainable.

I'm seriously considering one of these, first thing i'd do is get it straight in for a remap - not only does it increase BHP and Torques but fuel consumption as well, apparantly.

Still a long way to go with my choice though. I'm actually impressed with myself that I have eight grand in my bank and i've not touched it. I've not been pushed into getting the first thing I see, or the hard sale.

I'm down to five models now, the Fabia vRS being the only diesel. The others are petrols.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about the Fabia engines to comment on how tunable they are but the 1.9 Multijet Derv engine used by Fiat is claimed at 130bhp, most come out a tad more (140-150bhp) and a simple map and induction kit (GSR) they see between 190bhp and 200bhp (anymore and you have to look at uprating other parts - the turbo can't take much more than 190bhp really).

Derv's are not geared for fast 0-62 sprints, they are all about the 40-60 in sixth gear and other stuff like this.

190bhp in the Grande Punto should see 7.2 seconds to 62, so how a 140bhp Fabia (same weight roughly) is suppose to see the same time is amazing.

Fuel consumption will go up in thoery, basically if you drive the car exactly the same as you did before a map you should see 5-8mpg better. Thing is with all the extra powah and talkies you never will drive it the same, more foot down = slightly worse mpg.

I've had a map done and if I drive like a nun I'll see 50mpg (which is 10 more than I ever saw before a map), my average is now 32mpg compared with 33mpg before.

Drive like a nun and the map will give you better fuel consumption but you'll never see any other benefits of the map, drive and have some fun and you'll get more powah and fun for about the same fuel consumption.
 
One thing thats always puzzled me about Turbo Diesel engines in cars is the lag.

Some are worse than others but they all seem to have a bit of a flat spot before they pick up & go as it were.

On the other hand, apart from the whistling, you'd be hard pressed to tell an HGV's engine is turbocharged at all, they seem to pick up from tickover with no noticable (to my mind) lag at all.

I suppose this is the difference between a 2Litre engine with a garret T4 turbo and a 14litre engine with the same......
 
Tute said:
Just to add, it's really grating with me that everyone raves about the noise and feel of a petrol engine, but I just don't get that "epiphany" at all. I guess i've not been in a powerful enough petrol car yet, that i've had authorisation to "open the taps" with. Amusingly, of my friends with petrol engines, one has a 1.2 Corsa with an idiotic exhaust, and the other has a 2.0 Calibra, but is laid up with a broken leg and can't drive.
Click to expand...

I havent really been reading this thread but perrhaps its the turbo torque of a diesel you like, and hence a more linear power delivery of a NA petrol engine doesnt feel so eager on acceleration. You should try a turbo petrol as Im sure that would be more to your liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom