ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Should I sell my 182 cup for a Fabia VRS
- Thread starter inferno cup
- Start date
Nissan 350Z
Right I went opposite way from Fabia vRS to 182, and I definitely wouldnt go back.
The vRS is a nice car. And there is a certain novelty at first to the shove in the back it has as well as the overall quality, comfort and ride quality.
But believe me, after a few months when you are out on a country road, it will frustrate with its lack of feedback, poor brakes, an engine than runs out of puff far too early and makes little in the way of a decent sound. Its not satisfying to drive hard at all. It gives its best under normal driving really.
No doubt in my mind the Fabia is a decent car and it does have a certain charm when you first drive it, but that wore thin for me just months after getting it. As a serious drivers car, theres just no comparison between a vRS and a Cup / 182.
Oh and did I mention its not all that economical... many owners will tell you they get "60 MPG and I thrash the nuts off it". Let me tell you now, that is pure bullshit. You'll get more like 35-40 if you drive fast. I regularly had it into the high 20's and early 30's on B-roads. On a country road thrash its no more economical than a Clio.
Sure there are lots of tuning options because a lot of other VAG parts are just straight swaps. Yes you can go for a chip and it'll make it faster, but it wont change the engine note (still crap) and the intercooler will heatsoak reducing performance over long drives. The brakes are too puny for the car and the suspension is poorly damped and barely able to cope with the standard power. The power is difficult to put down in the low gears and that'll be even worse with a chip. Its not as cheap to modify as you think because its hard to stop once you start and theres so many areas needing improvement. For me that means the car is deeply compromised out of the box.
Sure it had good reviews, and by and large I agree with them IF you want a sensible car and plan on just normal drives and whatnot. However if you want an exciting car, it'll leave you wanting more in the long run.
Its up to you, but I think if you do it, several months down the line, you WILL regret it if you are a keen driver. I had a choice between spending a few grand on mine or getting the Clio. I knew it wouldnt deliver what I wanted, and with the Clio its easy enough to put up with the relative lack of torque because if driven right its not really any slower it just needs to be driven right.
As always, each to their own, but it amazes me how many people w**k themselves daft over this car, yet I had one and I liked it but didnt see what the fuss was about.
The vRS is a nice car. And there is a certain novelty at first to the shove in the back it has as well as the overall quality, comfort and ride quality.
But believe me, after a few months when you are out on a country road, it will frustrate with its lack of feedback, poor brakes, an engine than runs out of puff far too early and makes little in the way of a decent sound. Its not satisfying to drive hard at all. It gives its best under normal driving really.
No doubt in my mind the Fabia is a decent car and it does have a certain charm when you first drive it, but that wore thin for me just months after getting it. As a serious drivers car, theres just no comparison between a vRS and a Cup / 182.
Oh and did I mention its not all that economical... many owners will tell you they get "60 MPG and I thrash the nuts off it". Let me tell you now, that is pure bullshit. You'll get more like 35-40 if you drive fast. I regularly had it into the high 20's and early 30's on B-roads. On a country road thrash its no more economical than a Clio.
Sure there are lots of tuning options because a lot of other VAG parts are just straight swaps. Yes you can go for a chip and it'll make it faster, but it wont change the engine note (still crap) and the intercooler will heatsoak reducing performance over long drives. The brakes are too puny for the car and the suspension is poorly damped and barely able to cope with the standard power. The power is difficult to put down in the low gears and that'll be even worse with a chip. Its not as cheap to modify as you think because its hard to stop once you start and theres so many areas needing improvement. For me that means the car is deeply compromised out of the box.
Sure it had good reviews, and by and large I agree with them IF you want a sensible car and plan on just normal drives and whatnot. However if you want an exciting car, it'll leave you wanting more in the long run.
Its up to you, but I think if you do it, several months down the line, you WILL regret it if you are a keen driver. I had a choice between spending a few grand on mine or getting the Clio. I knew it wouldnt deliver what I wanted, and with the Clio its easy enough to put up with the relative lack of torque because if driven right its not really any slower it just needs to be driven right.
As always, each to their own, but it amazes me how many people w**k themselves daft over this car, yet I had one and I liked it but didnt see what the fuss was about.
Bullshite....
This is pulled from Auto Express:
"Superchips plugs a laptop computer into the Engine Control Unit and adjusts the settings. Its boffins can do this because manufacturers factor in wide engine tolerances to cope with different driving conditions and changeable diesel grades world-wide. But since we have good fuel and decent conditions in the UK, the company can make the most of the engine's performance.
The work cost us £511.13 and took roughly an hour to complete. Superchips began by putting the car on a rolling road to measure power outputs, then various settings were tested until the ideal balance was selected. The results are impressive - originally measured at 137bhp and 317Nm (slightly higher than the manufacturer's claimed 130bhp and 310Nm), the vRS now develops a considerably more impressive 160bhp and 383Nm of torque.
The car's character hasn't changed a jot, but power delivery is smoother and more consistent at low revs, while the mid-range performance is frankly amazing. We strapped on our timing gear before and after to find out what differences the upgrade had made. The 0-60mph sprint time fell from 8.1 to 7.0 seconds, while 30-70mph took 6.2 rather than 7.7 seconds, putting the Fabia's performance on a par with that of the 197bhp VW Golf GTI. Perhaps most impressive is the sixth-gear 50-70mph time of 7.5 seconds - the Porsche 911 Carrera S is only 0.4 seconds faster.
We've had a bit more smoke from the exhaust, but fuel economy hasn't suffered unduly, falling from 44.1mpg to 42.5mpg. The only real faults are unrelated to the conversion: the CD player sometimes eats discs, and the driver's seat creaks. Yet my enthusiasm for the vRS remains"
Second opinion
A week in Cornwall was a good excuse to borrow the Fabia. I covered more than 1,300 miles in total, and with its brilliant fuel economy and fantastic performance, the Skoda was a perfect travelling companion. However, the vRS is so understated that its blistering pace often took other drivers by surprise. Perhaps the manufacturer could introduce some special editions with a couple of distinctive colours to help the fast Fabia stand out from the crowd.
Gary Lord, production editor
A week in Cornwall was a good excuse to borrow the Fabia. I covered more than 1,300 miles in total, and with its brilliant fuel economy and fantastic performance, the Skoda was a perfect travelling companion. However, the vRS is so understated that its blistering pace often took other drivers by surprise. Perhaps the manufacturer could introduce some special editions with a couple of distinctive colours to help the fast Fabia stand out from the crowd.
Gary Lord, production editor
172 CUP
check out the seat cupra diesel 180 bhp, bit more pricey but a very good car. id deffo swap. i used to have a diesel mk4 golf. and you can tell the differences in petrol/diesel cost/usage on runs you regularley do. at the end of the day if you wanna save bit of cash n still go fast get a vrs or some thing from the same group. if not keep the clio. there's positives and negatives on the topic! But you know it will take a bomb to break a VRS!, german built
ppl on here would say keep the clio, there biased lol
ppl on here would say keep the clio, there biased lolId go for the VRS. My mates is remapped, and is great fun- steering is vague, breaks abit spongy, he has had eibachs and lowered and it handles good. It is quicker than my 172,and it can really gain distance on the clio going up hills,pulls like a race horse, the torque really is something else, especially coming from a little skoda.I like the black smoke.
