Extract from the Peugeot 206 GTI HDI review;

"The diesel GTI's biggest problem is the Skoda Fabia vRS, which is better to drive, better to look at, better built and cheaper to buy, run and insure. There's a deep-seated competence about the way the diesel Skoda goes, stops and steers that the 206 simply cannot match."

Not a bad mention at all by any standards!

At least it's a valid comparison, unlike some other magazines i could name

Cue Rob.

Well, yes, it is a valid comparison. Two diesel "hot" hatches at roughly the same price which will be competing in the same market...

Rob.

But strangely, on the Ibiza FR cupra R ABC 123 TDI review on the page opposite, there is no mention of the fabia...

The Ibiza FR is another level above amd is aimed more as a diesel alternative to the Clio 182 and Cooper S rather than the Fiesta ST and Polo GT that the vRS and 206 Gti diesel are up against. It would be more accurate to put the Ibiza TDi sport as a comparison as it has the same engine and lower springs as the vRS (plus a price hike of

Isn't the Ibiza FR the 150HP petrol turbo? It's the Ibiza Cupra that has the 160HP diesel...isn't it?

there have been no end of good reports on our baby vrs. as far as i can see, there have only been two that were derogatory.one of which worries me more than the other - evo magazine slated the fabia vrs and that hurts!

closer inspection reveals that their main gripe was that it was a diesel and that they didn't feel the diesel engine was born to be a winner in the 'sports' market .

i wonder why most major manufacturers haven't listened to them??

everywhere you look there are sportier models appearing in diesel form (the latest jag twin turbo diesel springs to mind), although mr. big at porsche has refused to have a diesel in his line up and they know a thing or two about performance cars!

i think the advent of performance diesel will prove to be as important as the advent of the 'hot hatch' twenty years ago (oooohhhh controversial!)and

it's good that our little 'roller skate' (keep the octy owners happy!) appears to be holding its own in a market which can only increase over the coming years

Who was it at Porsche who said that diesel engines have reached the limit of there technical advancement. Couple that with the fact that they are much heavier and cost (sometimes) twice as much to manufacture means that their days are numbered....

The Ibiza FR is another level above amd is aimed more as a diesel alternative to the Clio 182 and Cooper S rather than the Fiesta ST and Polo GT that the vRS and 206 Gti diesel are up against. It would be more accurate to put the Ibiza TDi sport as a comparison as it has the same engine and lower springs as the vRS (plus a price hike of

Couple that with the fact that they are much heavier and cost (sometimes) twice as much to manufacture means that their days are numbered....

Unless they start making them out of aluminium...admittedly they will still be heavier than the equivalent petrol, but still fairly light...

The cost will be higher though, and probably only worth it for high mileage users. Just think how cheap a Fabia vRS with a 1.8T engine in it would've been...

Rob.

thats just it though, Car manufactures just need to stop charging so much to make up the difference. a prime example being the fab vRS which is dirt cheap, rather nippy and a nice car, it dosn't need to have a petrol engine because its stupidly cheap to begin with.

What excuse have SEAT for the ibiza costing so much more?? I actually prefer the way a diesel drives over a petrol as well.

a long time ago they didn't think a car would ever excede about 5 mph so I don't believe anythign any of them say, if people can make a ship that goes to the moon they can make a diesel engine lighter.

that or super chip it and it doesn't matter how heavy it is :P

Car manufactures just need to stop charging so much to make up the difference.

They cost more to make, which is why they cost more to buy! It's not like they're making a whole lot more profit on cars with diesel engines...

And I wouldn't say

they are much heavier and cost (sometimes) twice as much to manufacture means that their days are numbered....

if their days are numbered are all of these new models coming out just using up all of the last diesel engines in the manufacturers' warehouses before they get back on with more petrol models??

don't think so !

they've realised how much sense a diesel makes -and (getting back to thread) so have a lot of journalists and those in the trade. with the advent of 'performance' diesels in the VAG stable, there appears to be a market forming which most manufacturers want a piece of.

perhaps 'old style' diesels have had their day in cars, but i can't agree with you on all diesels.

harking back to the auto express 'great drives' article (leave it rob ) the bmw 330cd gets a much better road rating than the bmw m3 csl. now we all know which is the quicker track car but the diesel wins cos its a better all round everyday car.

time will tell but i reckon there'll be a lot more soot in the air over the coming years - at least til they perfect the fuel cell !

time will tell but i reckon there'll be a lot more soot in the air over the coming years - at least til they perfect the fuel cell !

.. or the government decides to hike duty on diesel fuel

...but why would they do that? Diesel engines are kinder on the environment (hence low tax rating). Even if they do, we'll all just go to the local chippy and buy a boat load of chip fat to use (and with no modifications!)

...but why would they do that? Diesel engines are kinder on the environment (hence low tax rating). Even if they do, we'll all just go to the local chippy and buy a boat load of chip fat to use (and with no modifications!)

Diesel does actually release more hydrocarbons per litre than petrol, and the only reason they're slightly cleaner than petrol is because they use less fuel (generally speaking). They're by no means clean!

And the reason the government will hike diesel duty is because they want to extract more money from people, and if everyone's using diesel they'll have to make up the money somehow. You don't think it really has anything to do with the environment do you?!

Rob.

And the reason the government will hike diesel duty is because they want to extract more money from people' date=' and if everyone's using diesel they'll have to make up the money somehow. You don't think it really has anything to do with the environment do you?!

[/quote']

... if it was environment related you would expect that the duty raised would predominantly go towards protection / improvement of the environment, in the same way that tax on cigarettes should go to the NHS ..... but does it?

if they put diesel up petrol will follow so it doesn't really make a difference

if they put diesel up petrol will follow so it doesn't really make a difference

If everyone's using diesel then there won't be any point in raising the duty on petrol!

Rob.

If people want to be pedantic about it then yes, diesel's days are numbered.

But so are petrol's.

And so are any other cars that use fossilised fuel. :P

It's a mixed bag with diesel and the environment. C02 is a greenhouse gas and diesels release less per mile than petrol. However water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and (I'm not sure how) but the increased particulate emissions from diesel encourage more water vapour, something to do with water molecules clinging to microscopic bits of soot. This water-on-soot effect is enough to cancel out the reduced CO2 benefit.

However - CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades or even hundreds of years, soot on the other hand falls back to earth within a couple of years. So in the short term diesels are no better at preventing global warming than petrols, in the long term however they are better.

The increased particulate emissions also have an impact human health but I don't know much about that.

And so are any other cars that use fossilised fuel. :P

Talking of fossil fuel... these links are interesting.

This article is a good introduction: http://www.bigwig.net/sergey/hubbert.htm

A statement on Peak Oil: http://www.copad.org/index.php?doc=oilpeak-war.doc&expandMessage=3

Home of the association for the study of peak oil and gas (ex senior geologists and academics). The monthly newsletters are very good: http://www.peakoil.net/

Some coverage from their recent conference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm

Are rather extreme America

The soot particals emitted by modern diesel engines are indeed very harmful to the environment, and especially humans - that is, if the engines are not equipped with a soot filter.

Common rail and PD technology have indeed cut down on ppm, the measure with which the EU4 emission rates are calculated, but ppm is no longer the problem - it's the size of the particles getting smaller and smaller through the latest diesel technology. Here the asbestos analogy comes into play - the smaller the particles, the more carcinogenic they get. That's why diesel engines get taxed more, even though they comply to EU4.

A simple solution is the application of a filter, which would reduce soot particle emission by more than 99% or 3000 times less than without. It's simple, practicle and costs about 500 euros for a consumer as an aftermarket install, so the production price will be significantly less. But still there are only a few manufacturers willing to move ahead of the force of legislation. The Dutch government now wants to cut diesel-car tax if the car is equipped with a filter. Maybe that will help the others follow suit.

So diesel can be very harmful - some are moving cancer machines, and I'm afraid the Fabia vRS is amongst those, as VAG is the car company most actively opposing the standard installation of soot filters, using the reply that they conform to EU4, with no other legal obligation to adhere to. Other companies such as PSA and Mercedes have been installing filters as standard for a couple of years now, but VAG isn't going to.

What excuse have SEAT for the ibiza costing so much more?? You're paying for the badge (note, lack of smiley on this sentence!).

Either I don't get it or I just don't get it. Are you implying there actually is something in the SEAT badge worth paying for more than that of a Skoda?

Cause I don't really see it. Please help :eek: