Any Fabia vRS owners?
- Thread starter MikeHiow
- Start date
And useless for someone who states a Fabia as the smallest they'd go on size.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,853
[TW]Fox;16773123 said:
Oh come on it was too good an opportunity it wasnt serious!
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 324
Never realised how huge the fabia was
My point was that we are dealing with woman logic ITT
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
The only 120d you can get for under £8k is rubbishy and nasty.
My old man has had one for a good few years and he loves it. I'm a bit biased as (at this moment in time) it's everything I don't want in a car. The Golf GTI-esque status they've accumulated makes them pretty overrated - the PD130 is getting on a bit and the MK1 Fabia was showing its age well before the vRS was released.
Ours has the white seats and they're a nightmare to keep clean. I'd opt for one with leather (as standard with the blue limited edition one I believe). Not driven one with a remap, but the engine pulls fairly well. Handling is a bit vague and wallowy, although I'm sure this could be rectified with a few tweaks. General servicing costs don't seem massive, but the cam belt needs done fairly frequently.
I'd say it's ideal for someone wanting a diesel hatch for above average miles. Not really 'a driver's car' though.
Ours has the white seats and they're a nightmare to keep clean. I'd opt for one with leather (as standard with the blue limited edition one I believe). Not driven one with a remap, but the engine pulls fairly well. Handling is a bit vague and wallowy, although I'm sure this could be rectified with a few tweaks. General servicing costs don't seem massive, but the cam belt needs done fairly frequently.
I'd say it's ideal for someone wanting a diesel hatch for above average miles. Not really 'a driver's car' though.
I think you've just got a wrong 'old' car. Plenty other old cars still retain that 'near new' drive you're on about, mine just had dead low mileage when I bought it and was literally only used to long trips when needed.
I went from a brand new Fiesta, to a now 8 year old Passat.....and now I'd never buy a Fiesta again!
I went from a brand new Fiesta, to a now 8 year old Passat.....and now I'd never buy a Fiesta again!
Echo what others are saying - fabia vrs' are ok cars but no way would I drop 7.5k on one now! I bought one 3 years ago for 7k to replace my Octy vRS and after 4 months I sold the fab and went back to the Octy. For me the Fabia was less well built, less comfortable, I couldn't get on with the power delivery, the interior materials felt of a lesser quality and basically I just didn't like it as much as I thought I would. That's not to say they are 'bad' per se but at 7.5k you can definitely do a lot lot better...
Polo, which makes them all The more amusing. Sure it has an economical engine but It's a city car so the fact it would be cheap to do 30k a year in is laughable as the rest of the car is not designed for that. One of the most over rated cars of recent years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,685
Mk5 Polo chassis which was really still the Mk4 chassis so a old platform from the 90s.
The vRS is a OK car but too expensive second hand for what it is. The performance is pretty brisk and despite being noisy on the outside surprisingly quite for the 1.9PD engine inside. Remap it and it is fast 0-100 in mid 15s and 30-70 in the low 5 seconds can't really be called slow. The better alternative is a 1.8T Ibiza Cupra this is the same car underneath with the better engine and 4 pot AP brakes as standard.
Personally with 7.5k I would be looking for a 182 Clio and banking a couple of k.
I've had mine for three and a half years, 40k miles. I really like it.
It's enjoyable to drive, comfortable on long journeys and short, fuel efficient and has all the advantages of a smaller car. It's pretty much perfect for my needs.
On the downside, the thick pillars at the front are annoying, it's too small for four adults to be comfortable in, suffers a bit from condensation when you're only doing short journeys in winter (although I think that might be down to the down to the door seals never being quite right since some **** smashed in the side of it) and there's quite a bit of road noise when you're on a poorly maintained road surface.
It's enjoyable to drive, comfortable on long journeys and short, fuel efficient and has all the advantages of a smaller car. It's pretty much perfect for my needs.
On the downside, the thick pillars at the front are annoying, it's too small for four adults to be comfortable in, suffers a bit from condensation when you're only doing short journeys in winter (although I think that might be down to the down to the door seals never being quite right since some **** smashed in the side of it) and there's quite a bit of road noise when you're on a poorly maintained road surface.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,685
[TW]Fox;16776830 said:
I am surprised myself but that is what they do it in they have when remapped around 175bhp/280lbft to the ton which is about right for getting in the 15s to 100. I can't remember exactly what they clock as but 15.6 rings a bell.
It seems insane to me to spend so much money on a little rattly diesel. The most logical course of action to me seem to be to let your wife use the ST as a main car if she likes it and then you buy something more focused that you actually want. Even a normal 2.0 Focus would make more sense taking into account your limited miles and need for room for baby stuff. I'd bet it'd be more fun to drive too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,685
We are not talking about a standard one but a remapped one which has the power to weight ratio about 20bhp/ton higher than a Mk5 Golf GTI or Focus ST.
If you actually put the stats into that site for a remapped vRS it says below, most owners get in the low 14s for a 1/4 mile so that seems about right.
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 179.58
0 - 60 (Secs) : 6.19
0 - 100 (Secs) : 15.77
60 - 100 (Secs) : 9.58
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.60
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 96.21
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.40
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 97.92
I still wouldn't buy one as a 1.8T Ibiza remapped which is cheaper to buy would be knocking out over 200bhp to the ton and as already said I would rather have a 182 Clio.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,685
Just looking at that site again the stats for each car listed seems off a bit a E39 530i doing 0-100 in 19.2 seconds surely this must be around the mid 16s which I am sure Fox has mentioned it was timed in. The same goes for the Mk5 Golf GTI it says 18.6 yet all the reviews have timed them in the high 16s.