Got round to photographing the car tonight...

[red_leicester]

However, give the Fabia 283lb/ft carried from 2500 to nearly 4000 rpm and 193bhp and it gets still harder to get off the line. However, once up and running it can be quite nippy. Have not timed 0-60 full chat but have seen sub 7 seconds without really trying

The vRS doesn't have 193bhp does it?  If it did I could understand what you're saying, but isn't only 130bhp?

Not quite sure what you're getting at Chris.  Sub-7 seconds 0-60... in an MR2 (doubtful?) or a VRS (very doubtful?!)

[Anonymous]

I had a Fabia vRS for a year before changing for the '2.

I'd have to agree, once you are up and running the vRS is quicker than the MR2. I tried to race a vRS recently coming off a roundabout in second gear and he wiped the floor with me   s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  

You can get them chipped to 195bhp for £400.

[Anonymous]

My remapped Fabia vRS was faster in a straight line.....

However the MR2 is much more fun   s:D s:D

[ChrisGB]

However, give the Fabia 283lb/ft carried from 2500 to nearly 4000 rpm and 193bhp and it gets still harder to get off the line. However, once up and running it can be quite nippy. Have not timed 0-60 full chat but have seen sub 7 seconds without really trying

The vRS doesn't have 193bhp does it?  If it did I could understand what you're saying, but isn't only 130bhp?

Not quite sure what you're getting at Chris.  Sub-7 seconds 0-60... in an MR2 (doubtful?) or a VRS (very doubtful?!)

Hi

My VRS does have 193bhp and 283lb/ft. It is a nippy little item. Had a chance to drive both today back to back. To put things in context, 60-80 in the MR2 in 3rd takes just a little longer than it does in the Fabia in top at just under 6 seconds. However, run in 4th and the Fabia will pull the same increment in 3.4 seconds. 70-90 in 5th is a shade under 4 seconds. Believe me, I have caused a few red faces when out driving the Fabia.

As for 0-60, the standard Fabia is booked at 9.6 seconds, but in reality, I and many others have no problem putting in consistent 8.3s. One magazine (might have been what car) even had a 7.6. The main issue is traction. If you get the grip, it really flies. The other thing that makes it punch above its bhp figure is the torque delivery. There is a swell 229lb/ft of torque on the standard car from 2-3000 rpm and peak power at 4000 where torque has fallen to around 170lb/ft. This means that unlike in a petrol car, as you run up through the gear toward peak power, the torque in the midrange is pulling harder than at the top, so it actuallu feels like the power is falling off as you go past 3000rpm. It is a bit wierd, but fast. Modify the Fabia to make the peak 283lb/ft and keep that figure out to nearly 4000 rpm and you have a pretty nippy car. I have been under 7 seconds to 60 without pushing it hard. The MR2 has excellent tracion and although I have yet to time a full chat run, it seems that getting into the low 7s should not be too much of a problem. Cant see it going sub 7 without a lot of engine work though.

Driven side by side, the MR2 would jump off the line much more quickly than the modded Fabia, hence the MR2s keeping near the Fabia in 0-60 terms. However, once into second gear, the modded Fabia will be gone in a cloud of soot, third is where you see a bigger difference, then fourth and above the Fabia is just storming away.

HOWEVER, put some bends in and the MR2 will fare so much better. Speed is not everything. If I want to enjoy my drive, I always pick up the MR2 keys.

Chris

[Chris_h]

Chris,

Is this the Fabia that you take learners in??? does it play havoc with the insurance?

Blimey!! what happened to the 1.0 Micras that I had to drive....

[Anonymous]

However, give the Fabia 283lb/ft carried from 2500 to nearly 4000 rpm and 193bhp and it gets still harder to get off the line. However, once up and running it can be quite nippy. Have not timed 0-60 full chat but have seen sub 7 seconds without really trying

The vRS doesn't have 193bhp does it?  If it did I could understand what you're saying, but isn't only 130bhp?

Not quite sure what you're getting at Chris.  Sub-7 seconds 0-60... in an MR2 (doubtful?) or a VRS (very doubtful?!)

Hi

My VRS does have 193bhp and 283lb/ft. It is a nippy little item. Had a chance to drive both today back to back. To put things in context, 60-80 in the MR2 in 3rd takes just a little longer than it does in the Fabia in top at just under 6 seconds. However, run in 4th and the Fabia will pull the same increment in 3.4 seconds. 70-90 in 5th is a shade under 4 seconds. Believe me, I have caused a few red faces when out driving the Fabia.

As for 0-60, the standard Fabia is booked at 9.6 seconds, but in reality, I and many others have no problem putting in consistent 8.3s. One magazine (might have been what car) even had a 7.6. The main issue is traction. If you get the grip, it really flies. The other thing that makes it punch above its bhp figure is the torque delivery. There is a swell 229lb/ft of torque on the standard car from 2-3000 rpm and peak power at 4000 where torque has fallen to around 170lb/ft. This means that unlike in a petrol car, as you run up through the gear toward peak power, the torque in the midrange is pulling harder than at the top, so it actuallu feels like the power is falling off as you go past 3000rpm. It is a bit wierd, but fast. Modify the Fabia to make the peak 283lb/ft and keep that figure out to nearly 4000 rpm and you have a pretty nippy car. I have been under 7 seconds to 60 without pushing it hard. The MR2 has excellent tracion and although I have yet to time a full chat run, it seems that getting into the low 7s should not be too much of a problem. Cant see it going sub 7 without a lot of engine work though.

Driven side by side, the MR2 would jump off the line much more quickly than the modded Fabia, hence the MR2s keeping near the Fabia in 0-60 terms. However, once into second gear, the modded Fabia will be gone in a cloud of soot, third is where you see a bigger difference, then fourth and above the Fabia is just storming away.

HOWEVER, put some bends in and the MR2 will fare so much better. Speed is not everything. If I want to enjoy my drive, I always pick up the MR2 keys.

Chris

Excellent little write up!

[ChrisGB]

Chris,

Is this the Fabia that you take learners in??? does it play havoc with the insurance?

Blimey!! what happened to the 1.0 Micras that I had to drive....

Yes and a bit. Micras? Hell no.

Chris

[Chris_h]

Chris,

Is this the Fabia that you take learners in??? does it play havoc with the insurance?

Blimey!! what happened to the 1.0 Micras that I had to drive....

Yes and a bit. Micras? Hell no.

Chris

And I remember the instructor who had a Nova 1.3 SR - that was like automotive porn to a 17 year old in 1992. My parents refused to pay the premium he charged for having such a desirable car!!! So a noddy white Micra it was...

PS - I did actually mean to ask what the MPG effect is following management change. Am thinking of taking a similar route, albeit at a lower level on my other car which is a VAG TDI

Cheers

[ChrisGB]

Chris,

Is this the Fabia that you take learners in??? does it play havoc with the insurance?

Blimey!! what happened to the 1.0 Micras that I had to drive....

Yes and a bit. Micras? Hell no.

Chris

And I remember the instructor who had a Nova 1.3 SR - that was like automotive porn to a 17 year old in 1992. My parents refused to pay the premium he charged for having such a desirable car!!! So a noddy white Micra it was...

PS - I did actually mean to ask what the MPG effect is following management change. Am thinking of taking a similar route, albeit at a lower level on my other car which is a VAG TDI

Cheers

The map was a cutom job from Jabbasport. The throttle response is reduced at smaller openings and boost is reduced also, so engine runs a little richer in the lower speed work. This gives an improvement of around 2 -3 mpg in general driving. This is offset by having more performance, but in all honesty, I do no less MPG now (when I drive) than I did before unless in traffic where it is a little better.

At the top end, or bigger throttle openings, boost and fuelling are increased (but not by a huge amount) to get the performance. I could have had 310lb/ft instead, but opted for clutch and DMF preservation over outright performance. Limiting peak torque and keeping it near to a flat output rather than peaky also helps immensly with traction.

Just do it!

Chris

[Chris_h]

Chris,

Is this the Fabia that you take learners in??? does it play havoc with the insurance?

Blimey!! what happened to the 1.0 Micras that I had to drive....

Yes and a bit. Micras? Hell no.

Chris

And I remember the instructor who had a Nova 1.3 SR - that was like automotive porn to a 17 year old in 1992. My parents refused to pay the premium he charged for having such a desirable car!!! So a noddy white Micra it was...

PS - I did actually mean to ask what the MPG effect is following management change. Am thinking of taking a similar route, albeit at a lower level on my other car which is a VAG TDI

Cheers

The map was a cutom job from Jabbasport. The throttle response is reduced at smaller openings and boost is reduced also, so engine runs a little richer in the lower speed work. This gives an improvement of around 2 -3 mpg in general driving. This is offset by having more performance, but in all honesty, I do no less MPG now (when I drive) than I did before unless in traffic where it is a little better.

At the top end, or bigger throttle openings, boost and fuelling are increased (but not by a huge amount) to get the performance. I could have had 310lb/ft instead, but opted for clutch and DMF preservation over outright performance. Limiting peak torque and keeping it near to a flat output rather than peaky also helps immensly with traction.

Just do it!

Chris

Brilliant!!

Is the rationale for custom mapping (was it on rollers?) that each engine is very slightly different? or do they simply have various software maps that you can choose from?

Any views / verdicts on some of the off the shelf tuning boxes? - I imagine they are not a patch on the Jabba custom job. Problem I have is I don't want to spend masses on a 1998 car... Although it is an immaculate sub 70k, FASH A4 Avant TDI 110SE - but still, only worth 5k at the very most..


PS - sorry to folk who think this is way off MR2 topic, but nice to have a less bias view, rather than a plethora of opposed opinions.

[red_leicester]

HOWEVER, put some bends in and the MR2 will fare so much better. Speed is not everything. If I want to enjoy my drive, I always pick up the MR2 keys.

Chris

That's what I wanted to hear   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[ChrisGB]

Is the rationale for custom mapping (was it on rollers?) that each engine is very slightly different? or do they simply have various software maps that you can choose from?

Any views / verdicts on some of the off the shelf tuning boxes? - I imagine they are not a patch on the Jabba custom job. Problem I have is I don't want to spend masses on a 1998 car... Although it is an immaculate sub 70k, FASH A4 Avant TDI 110SE - but still, only worth 5k at the very most..


PS - sorry to folk who think this is way off MR2 topic, but nice to have a less bias view, rather than a plethora of opposed opinions.

Hi

The remap was a rolling road job. Cost £380 with a group buy discount. Custom mapping allows them to provide the delivery characteristics you want. They run, on the rollers, a before plot of the engines output and you draw the torque curve you want on it. They then go away and spend around 3 - 4 hours running it up and tweaking the map parameters. It is very much a bespoke map, not an off the shelf one (although they do that as well for around £325). Having said that they still have to operate within safe parameters, so mine was actually backed off a bit at the top end after a test drive to preserve the turbo.

The tuning boxes just fool the engine into thinking the air is cooler than it really is, so overfuel. I beleive they add a fair bit of power, though not as much as a remap, but also are more prone to smoking and throwing up error codes on VAGCOM. Fuel economy is generally improved as the engine is not being run as lean as standard.

Chris

Chris

[ChrisGB]

HOWEVER, put some bends in and the MR2 will fare so much better. Speed is not everything. If I want to enjoy my drive, I always pick up the MR2 keys.

Chris

That's what I wanted to hear   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

Its not all plain sailing for the MR2 if the bends are big sweepers as the Fabia is very stable in high speed corners. Maybe I just need to get more used to the MR2, but it sometimes feels like it is running out of puff and cant settle its tail properly when the bends get very fast leading to a need to lift off a bit to counter understeer.

The Fabia is much less subtle but can be leaned on more easily.

Chris

[red_leicester]

the MR2, but it sometimes feels like it is running out of puff and cant settle its tail properly when the bends get very fast leading to a need to lift off a bit to counter understeer.

I've never driven a Fabia.  But are you saying that at similar speeds an MR2 is more prone understeer round long sweeping bends than a front-wheel-drive shopping car (with a very torquey engine) ?

[Chris_h]

. Fuel economy is generally improved as the engine is not being run as lean as standard.

Chris

Chris

Chris,

That bit doesn't make sense to me... If its being run richer (not as lean) surely it uses more fuel (richer mix??)   s:?: :?: s:?:     s:? :? s:?    s:? :? s:?

[ChrisGB]

. Fuel economy is generally improved as the engine is not being run as lean as standard.

Chris

Chris

Chris,

That bit doesn't make sense to me... If its being run richer (not as lean) surely it uses more fuel (richer mix??)   s:?: :?: s:?:     s:? :? s:?    s:? :? s:?

Stoichiometric combustion is the ratio at which the fuel is theoretically completely burnt and to achieve emissions targets particularly unburnt HCs and CO, this ratio is used as the fuelling regime whenever possible. However, from a power and efficiency point of view, this is too lean a mixture. The engine will yield better MPG if it is allowed to run a little richer than stoichiometric ratio (for petrol, stoichiometric ratio is around 14.8:1 air / fuel). As any engine tuner will tell you, that is officially a weak mixture. Depending on compression ratio, ignition timing and load, you get more power per volume of fuel used if you run richer. So although you may burn 20% more fuel, you will produce 25 %more energy. Net effect is better fuel economy.

Been tuning stuff for years for road use and always found that fuel economy was better if running richer. You generally get a better torque curve and throttle response to go with it. I would reckon that the Dastek chip works in the same way, producing better fuelling.

Chris

[Chris_h]

Stoichiometric combustion is the ratio at which the fuel is theoretically completely burnt and to achieve emissions targets particularly unburnt HCs and CO, this ratio is used as the fuelling regime whenever possible. However, from a power and efficiency point of view, this is too lean a mixture. The engine will yield better MPG if it is allowed to run a little richer than stoichiometric ratio (for petrol, stoichiometric ratio is around 14.8:1 air / fuel). As any engine tuner will tell you, that is officially a weak mixture. Depending on compression ratio, ignition timing and load, you get more power per volume of fuel used if you run richer. So although you may burn 20% more fuel, you will produce 25 %more energy. Net effect is better fuel economy.

Been tuning stuff for years for road use and always found that fuel economy was better if running richer. You generally get a better torque curve and throttle response to go with it. I would reckon that the Dastek chip works in the same way, producing better fuelling.

Chris

Cheers   s:) s:)  

That sort of makes sense... I wish I'd listened more when I had many meetings with the R&D boys at Ford Dunton - it was at that point I used to glaze over...

But it makes sense to me now - thanks.. It also makes sense why these chips can achieve so much 'safe' gain if the original map was compromised by emission targets.

Thanks

[ChrisGB]

the MR2, but it sometimes feels like it is running out of puff and cant settle its tail properly when the bends get very fast leading to a need to lift off a bit to counter understeer.

I've never driven a Fabia.  But are you saying that at similar speeds an MR2 is more prone understeer round long sweeping bends than a front-wheel-drive shopping car (with a very torquey engine) ?

Well not so much understeer as a vagueness around the front end that cant be nailed with more power because there isnt any and cant respond to more steering because there is no more grip available. Its like the car would like to take on more slip angle but the power is just not available. It is I suppose the natural bias of the car coming to the fore at the limit. At lower speeds and in lower gears, the same feeling can be instantly neutralised with more power. Lifting off a tiny bit settles it down nicely but at the expense of acceleration. In the Fabia it is just a lot easier on some of these fast sweepers (3 figure speeds here) to keep it smooth and settled. The Fabia tracks easier at these speeds because it has a lot of weight over the front wheels, so acts like a dart.

Just different characteristics. Neither is better, just different. My preference is for the MR2s way of doing things even though the Fabia is easier in these circumstances.

Chris

[spit]

Fuel economy is generally improved as the engine is not being run as lean as standard

Presumably this only applies when you can utilise the power though, yes?

If you're stuck in traffic or simply maintaining your rolling momentum its better to be back at stoich....isn't it?.....or am I just having a bad day?!

[ChrisGB]

Fuel economy is generally improved as the engine is not being run as lean as standard

Presumably this only applies when you can utilise the power though, yes?

If you're stuck in traffic or simply maintaining your rolling momentum its better to be back at stoich....isn't it?.....or am I just having a bad day?!

I think, and I am not sure here, but even at idle, you get better results from slightly richer mixture. Thinking about stoichiometric combustion, as the mixture density falls (with part throttle reducing cylinder pumping efficiency) the problem becomes even worse.

Part of the appeal of richening up the mixture is much better part throttle response. There are undoubtedly circumstnaces where running lean can help with economy, I just have never seen these show themselves as beneficial against a properly fuelled engine.

Chris

[ChrisGB]

Chris, I ordered the wax (cheers TC for the detailing world discount   s8) s8)  ), but you lying sod!  Perhaps I laid the wax on thicker than you did but it took two hours of hard rubbing (oo er vicar   s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  ) to wax the car - the stuff is a right bleeder to get off compared to your cheapo liquid waxes - either you're used to hard rubbing (:shock:) or I'm an utter wimp. Still, if Mother Nature has as much trouble wearing the wax away as I did putting in on then I'm looking forward to not having to wax again for 10 years   s:D s:D    s8) s8)

As per the title, how is the wax holding up now it has had time to see some rain? Noticed if bugs and bird poo come off any easier when washing than with whaever you were using previously?

And of course, has your arm recovered?

Chris

[proeliator2001]

It needs waxing again - the paint feels totally bare.  I thought it would have lasted longer but it is washed with a microfibre mitt at least once per week so it hasn't been too bad.  But then, 2-3 months for what is supposed to last a Canadian winter isn't that good is it???  When it was on though, it was excellent at beading water and far easier to wash.  Might have to re-do it but put it on thinner and allow longer to dry - might give a better shell.

[ChrisGB]

It needs waxing again - the paint feels totally bare.  I thought it would have lasted longer but it is washed with a microfibre mitt at least once per week so it hasn't been too bad.  But then, 2-3 months for what is supposed to last a Canadian winter isn't that good is it???  When it was on though, it was excellent at beading water and far easier to wash.  Might have to re-do it but put it on thinner and allow longer to dry - might give a better shell.

Strange.

The Fabia needs doing again, however it was last done in October last year an has seen at minimum, 2 automatic car washes a week. So far, the MR2 seems to be beading up perfectly still. Done in May or June. Remember, thin layer applied with damp sponge, allow to haze then off with microfibre cloth should make it easier.

Chris