is the fabia vrs faster than a polo gti??

Forum to discuss the Skoda Fabia
Post Reply
danthemanpologti
Bronze Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:21 am
Location: derbyshire Drives: clio sport 172

is the fabia vrs faster than a polo gti??

Post by danthemanpologti »

is the polo 6n2 gti quicker than the fabia vrs?????????????
toXXin
Moderator
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:42 pm
Location: Northampton

Post by toXXin »

Fabia: 128mph, 9.2 to 60
Polo: 127mph, 8.4 to 60

According to Parkers, it is! In real life, I'm not too sure!

(opens can of worms!)
danthemanpologti
Bronze Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:21 am
Location: derbyshire Drives: clio sport 172

Post by danthemanpologti »

so its slower in acceleration the vrs fort so!!!!!!
DanDiesel
Sponsor
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:38 am
Location: Kent Drives: VW Bora Highline

Post by DanDiesel »

what matters wih the fabia vrs is the torque figure!!
the in gear acceleration is very impressive!!

hopefully at the gti spring festival, i should be putting my ibiza (same engine and torque as fabia vrs) up against a polo gti!!!

we shall see!!!! :D :D
Wardy
Sponsor
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:27 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by Wardy »

Do people find the GTi quicker to 60 than the stock, quoted figure? The Skoda brochure figure for the vRS is 9.6, but I know I wasn't alone along with other Briskoda members in finding it was nearer 8.5. Some had done timed runs with GPS equipment etc.

True, the 60 dash isn't the vRS's forte, but once you got 1st gear out of the way, it went quite well :D

Steve
vw polo gti
New
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 4:27 pm
Location: cannock staffordshire

Post by vw polo gti »

when i was at santapod (bigbang) there was a girl with the vrs
and she was running 16.6 was her best.

my best in the gti was 16.3 so it will be close!

also my 0-60 times was dead on 8 secs.
on my 16.3 run.


hope that helps.
Wouter
Bronze Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: Belgium

Post by Wouter »

Depends on many factors:

- person handling the car
- full/almost empty fueltank
- weight of person and/or other persons in car ?
- (how much) faster originally than the 130hp/310nm stated according VAG ? (quite common with VAG TDI's)

For example - I read about a guy having the Cupra D (1.9 TDI PD 160HP) having 184HP already standard (measured on rollingbank). Also I do know a guy with a Polo 9n 1.9 TDI 100HP that had like 15HP more on the rolling bank also. Not to mention my car is faster than according to the specs also... You've got to be lucky I guess ;p

all these "little" things might make the difference, and when the tdi 130 gets chipped the gti doesn't stand a chance anymore, when not it might be close.
Wardy
Sponsor
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:27 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by Wardy »

VAG TDi units producing more than stock figures maybe a bit of urban myth. I suppose it depends on whose rollers you're measuring on!

When I had mine I recorded 129.7bhp and 229 lb/ft on JBS' rollers.

To be wholly accurate, both the Polo and Fabia would have to be rolling roaded at the same place, so that they were directly comparable.

What can be said is that the 9.6sec 0-60 figure quoted by Skoda is quite conservative. Many standard cars can achieve high 8 figures, which would mean a 60 dash outcome between the Polo and Fabia would be very close indeed.

As said, the 0-60 test will never be the Fabia's strongest card anyway. Do a 30-50 or 50-70 test and then see what happens :D

Steve
Snoopie
New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by Snoopie »

No point in comparing the two to 60 mph.
Compare them from 0-100 mph. A standard vRS will do it in the low 23 seconds and high 24 seconds depending on driver ability... due to rubbish first gear.
I think the polo gti is roughly 27/29 seconds.
Compare the two from 20 mph to 100 ... Thats the best one...
Comparing a chipped fabia is completely out of the range of the polo gti.
I reckon once my engine (vRS) has been properly worn in. Currently has 530 miles on the clock, i should be looking roughly at 17 seconds to 100. If not a little bit less.
Post Reply