In nearly every thread I read about the new Fabia vRS, the inevitable question always crops up somewhere - why didn't Skoda produce (or plan to produce) a diesel engined version of the car?

What I would like to know is why are people so keen to see a diesel version and what puts them off the TSI petrol engine?

Back in the days when I owned one of the first generation of Fabia Mk I vRSs, the efficiency of diesel was the deciding factor in choosing a diesel engined car. On top of this I was doing a fair old mileage per year and therefore it was easily justifiable, even though the prices at the pumps was near on identical for both petrol and diesel, making it a no-brainer for me.

These days the difference between petrol and diesel is around 4 - 5 pence a litre and therefore the money saved due to the extra efficiency with a diesel engine is effectively balanced out unless your mileage happens to be closer to 20 000 miles per year or more. In addition, the majority of diesel cars command a premium over their petrol counterparts in the showroom to the tune of a few hundred pounds at least, making the initial outlay of cost much higher and therefore making the 'saving money' game much harder to play.

With this in mind, I don't believe for a minute that the only reason people want a diesel engined Fabia Mk II vRS is purely down to the higher mpg produced by the engine. Am I totally wrong with this assumption or are there other reasons that the TSI engine isn't winning over hearts and heads?

In nearly every thread I read about the new Fabia vRS, the inevitable question always crops up somewhere - why didn't Skoda produce (or plan to produce) a diesel engined version of the car?

What I would like to know is why are people so keen to see a diesel version and what puts them off the TSI petrol engine?

Back in the days when I owned one of the first generation of Fabia Mk I vRSs, the efficiency of diesel was the deciding factor in choosing a diesel engined car. On top of this I was doing a fair old mileage per year and therefore it was easily justifiable, even though the prices at the pumps was near on identical for both petrol and diesel, making it a no-brainer for me.

These days the difference between petrol and diesel is around 4 - 5 pence a litre and therefore the money saved due to the extra efficiency with a diesel engine is effectively balanced out unless your mileage happens to be closer to 20 000 miles per year or more. In addition, the majority of diesel cars command a premium over their petrol counterparts in the showroom to the tune of a few hundred pounds at least, making the initial outlay of cost much higher and therefore making the 'saving money' game much harder to play.

With this in mind, I don't believe for a minute that the only reason people want a diesel engined Fabia Mk II vRS is purely down to the higher mpg produced by the engine. Am I totally wrong with this assumption or are there other reasons that the TSI engine isn't winning over hearts and heads?

Personally, I like the way the TDI's deliver their power, but you are right, in that financially it makes less sense than it used to.

Also if you want full power out of the little 1.4 engine you have to use 98RON fuel, which in my area, costs more than diesel.

I wouldnt mind initially paying a little more for a diesel just for the week to week cost to be lower. I like being able to fill the tank up and not having to do it again for a couple of weeks. When I had my petrol car it felt like I was there every 5 mins.

What concerns me about the TSI engine is having a heavy right foot. Once you start to have a bit of fun in the car, the mpg will drop a hell of a lot, not the case with the diesel.

These days the difference between petrol and diesel is around 4 - 5 pence a litre and therefore the money saved due to the extra efficiency with a diesel engine is effectively balanced out unless your mileage happens to be closer to 20 000 miles per year or more.

You see, that part is just nonsense.

So if petrol is 125p a litre and diesel is 130p per litre (that's approx what they are) then petrol is 4% cheaper.

If the petrol returned 46 to the gallon the diesel would only have to return 48 to the gallon to cost the same per mile (and there's no way it would only be 2mpg / 4% more efficient than the petrol)

Also the whole "you have to do X miles per year" thing is rubbish too. You only pay a premium to buy the diesel once but you save on every mile you drive. Therefore you only need to do X.000 miles in the time you own the car. And that ignores the fact you'll probably get most of the premium back when you sell.

Some people prefer petrol, for others diesel makes more sense but the general consensus that diesels don't save you money anymore because diesel is a few pence per litre more expensive than petrol is rubbish.

Edited 10 January, 201115 yr by Stevoraith

Petrol or diesel...a bit like politics and religeon. The subjects best avoided......

You see, that part is just nonsense.

So if petrol is 125p a litre and diesel is 130p per litre (that's approx what they are) then petrol is 4% cheaper.

If the petrol returned 46 to the gallon the diesel would only have to return 48 to the gallon to cost the same per mile (and there's no way it would only be 2mpg / 4% more efficient than the petrol)

Also the whole "you have to do X miles per year" thing is rubbish too. You only pay a premium to buy the diesel once but you save on every mile you drive. Therefore you only need to do X.000 miles in the time you own the car. And that ignores the fact you'll probably get most of the premium back when you sell.

Some people prefer petrol, for others diesel makes more sense but the general consensus that diesels don't save you money anymore because diesel is a few pence per litre more expensive than petrol is rubbish.

Just to add to this, as I said a few minutes ago, the Fabia vRS is meant to be run on 98RON to achieve the best mpg figures. At the moment 98RON costs more than diesel at the pump. Go figure!

When it was announced the new Fabia vRS was to be petrol I wasnt a happy chappy as the magic of the old one was being diesel, having the torquey punch and being great on fuel. Also, the old vRS came out nearly 8 years ago and at that time the 130bhp unit was a very powerful diesel engine, especially for a supermini so you could argue that the car was in a way pioneering.

For me, putting the 140bhp unit that the Ibiza FR uses in the new Fabia vRS wouldn't make the car as special as 1st time around, it would need to be the 170bhp engine to create the same sort of thrills and to re-establish the cult following the old car had. And as we hear the new Fabia uses the old platform so there is no space for either of these engines it was an obvious no go-er for Skoda.

My disappointment however soon changed when test driving the new Fabia vRS. My words when stepping out of the car were 'who cares about MPG anyway'. The pioneering for me is back, for the second time Skoda have produced a wolf in sheeps clothing. It has to be said to, that although I haven't heard of anyone achieving the 45MPG Skoda claim the car will do combined, that figure isn't too bad for a 180BHP hot hatch.

There's also the argument of user choice. The vRS obviously used to be diesel-only, whereas now it's petrol-only. So are they not effectively alienating their existing customers? I'd imagine they'd quite like a stream of repeat custom, into the next generation of the car.

Give people the choice, and let them decide which is best for them. Same goes for the DSG-only gearbox option.

Surely the key reason is that one of these is the absolute minimum you need to spend to get 25-30% more power out of a diesel engine:

(...not that I'm recommending it as a long-term tuning solution!!!)

Unfortunately lots of people do have to care about MPG these days. For me, all the money I save in fuel by running a diesel pays goes a long way to paying for a track day once a year. If I was out on a sunday blast in a petrol I would simply be kissing goodbye to these nice little extras I can afford at the moment. Sad I know, but for now the diesel has to stay!

Also the whole "you have to do X miles per year" thing is rubbish too. You only pay a premium to buy the diesel once but you save on every mile you drive.

Sorry but you can't dismiss the extra cost of a diesel car over a petrol equivalent just because you only have to pay once! You still have to pay it regardless and it increases the cost of ownership, therefore of course it has to be included in the total calculation.

Some people prefer petrol, for others diesel makes more sense but the general consensus that diesels don't save you money anymore because diesel is a few pence per litre more expensive than petrol is rubbish.

I agree that some people prefer the power delivery of diesels but as for the saving money part, read the following as an example:

Petrol vs Diesel

In my opinion there's a real argument at the moment for choosing petrol over diesel, preference over driving style aside. If the cost of the diesel car cost the same as the petrol then there would be less of a case to argue. If it costs more though, as is the case with the majority of cars, then the extra cost has to be factored in when calculating the true cost of ownership.

It has to be said to, that although I haven't heard of anyone achieving the 45MPG Skoda claim the car will do combined, that figure isn't too bad for a 180BHP hot hatch.

That point also interests me. How will this 1.4TSI engine respond to being used perhaps a bit more 'vigourously' than the combined MPG figure allows for? I always found the PD130 in the Mk1 vRS to give decent economy despite being used properly. Whereas the economy of the 2.0TFSI petrol I had in a Mk2 Octavia vRS used properly plummet when making progress. Now I'm sure they've made progress in this area and it's a newer generation petrol engine, but I still remain to be convinced about actually how good it is on fuel in real life.

Steve

Me too Ste. Thats was the great thing about the PD130. Taking it easy you can see up 50mpg. Used it well and you still see 40+mpg.

Like already mention you need to comapre the price of super unleaded to diesel. Filled the Clio up this morning. Nicci came back from paying and asked if I filled up someone elses car. £63 for 48l. Shocking.

Me too Ste. Thats was the great thing about the PD130. Taking it easy you can see up 50mpg. Used it well and you still see 40+mpg.

Like already mention you need to comapre the price of super unleaded to diesel. Filled the Clio up this morning. Nicci came back from paying and asked if I filled up someone elses car. £63 for 48l. Shocking.

That is still cheaper than what I paid for V-Power the other day

I could see the appeal of a diesel to some people, I think it is just purely down to preference.

I have the petrol VRS, and yes, it's not exactly 'brilliant' on fuel, but it is enjoyable nevertheless.

If I take it easy, it doesn't drink fuel at an alarming rate, but as others have mentioned, it can drink the juice pretty fast if you want it too.

Aren't diesels more expensive to service also?

Not too long ago diesel and petrol were the same price and it could happen again. In fact 98 RON and V power fuel would probably cost more.

I agree its a shame the Ibiza didnt get 170bhp but we are where we are and Skoda didnt see fit to offer a choice between petrol and diesel or manual and DSG.

Just to add to this, as I said a few minutes ago, the Fabia vRS is meant to be run on 98RON to achieve the best mpg figures.

Actually, you said 98RON for most power - which is correct because it improves the output when the engine is pushed hard. I don't think 98RON improves the best mpg figures, which are measured at a more relaxed pace.

Now I'm sure they've made progress in this area and it's a newer generation petrol engine, but I still remain to be convinced about actually how good it is on fuel in real life.

Me too. The few meaningful real-life consumption figures that are coming through on this forum indicate 30-35mpg, which tends to put it in the binge drinking class.

Me too. The few meaningful real-life consumption figures that are coming through on this forum indicate 30-35mpg, which tends to put it in the binge drinking class.

Binge drinking class, that made me chuckle

7000rpm? NO. THANK. YOU!

A clattery tractor like 4000 is what it's all about!

On a serious note I think the smooth effortless performance of diesel is the main draw.

The abundance of torque means you can go quickly without really trying and at no piint do you have to rag the nuts off it.

The new Ibiza FR does get the CR 2.0 TDI - it does seem odd given the strong following the MK1 VRS has that that CR unit hasn't made it into under the Fabia bonnet.

That said even if it did I think the Ibiza is now the better looking car :peek: :peek:

On the side of fuel consumption if you abuse a diesel hard enough it'll drop figures like nobody's businesses!

I reset the OBC before a 20 minute on a trackday and was shocked to see 18mpg at the end of it.

The ability to dawdle home at 50+mpg did balance it out though!

I'd like to see a new VRS do that or indeed any of the other machinery out there on track - I mean i doubt the TVR gets 18mpg on a gentle commute let alone hooning around a track!

Edited 10 January, 201115 yr by PastyBoy

Sorry but you can't dismiss the extra cost of a diesel car over a petrol equivalent just because you only have to pay once! You still have to pay it regardless and it increases the cost of ownership, therefore of course it has to be included in the total calculation.

I'm not dismissing it (although it could be argued that you could dismiss it as you will nearly always get that premium back when selling). I'll run through what I mean using the Octy vRS as an example.

If you pay extra for the diesel it effects you in one of two ways depending on how you pay for your car.

If you pay the full amount in cash then you will have to find an extra £800 or so for the Octy vRS. So you have outlayed £800 up front and you will save nearly £35 per 1000 miles (according to the parkers link you posted). You will therefore be out of pocket until you have covered about 24,000 miles (no matter how long that takes).

The other way is to finance some of the price of the car (the majority of people do it this way I would have thought).

In this case the higher cost of the diesel will mean you have to finance more, thus increasing the monthly cost of your loan.

If I had paid list for a standard petrol and a standard diesel, the finance for the diesel would cost me £18 a month more.

But the diesel would save me £35 a month on fuel costs (approx 13,000 miles a year). Obviously these figures will change depending on personal cicumstances but the diesel will always cost more for finance but be cheaper for fuel.

So if you look at the total cost of motoring every month, the diesel saves me money straight from the word go.

And both of those examples ignore the fact that you will get more back for a diesel, thus reducing the overall cost of ownership.

In my opinion there's a real argument at the moment for choosing petrol over diesel, preference over driving style aside. If the cost of the diesel car cost the same as the petrol then there would be less of a case to argue. If it costs more though, as is the case with the majority of cars, then the extra cost has to be factored in when calculating the true cost of ownership.

I defend everyones right to chose which fuel they want, and I would never say diesel is better in every case, and of course there is far more to a car purchase than a purely financial decision, but..... even factoring in the extra cost to buy, there will be only a tiny percentage of people / cicumstance/ car combinations where the diesel version is not cheaper to own.

It all comes down to personal preference. No one is going to persuade anyone to change their minds. It's futile to start arguing fuel costs alone. We can all make a case for what we drive. My little 3 pot 70 bhp loses out on performance to some yet still drives adequately at legal limits. Original cost of the car is cheaper than a diesel, petrol is cheaper, servicing is cheaper, I have no Turbo / injector failure to fear, Insurance is cheaper..... I still love Diesels too and could make a list of reason's for that. There will never be a clear cut winner IMHO so lets just all enjoy our choice. After all they are all cracking little cars to own in one way or another.

It all comes down to personal preference. No one is going to persuade anyone to change their minds. It's futile to start arguing fuel costs alone. We can all make a case for what we drive. My little 3 pot 70 bhp loses out on performance to some yet still drives adequately at legal limits. Original cost of the car is cheaper than a diesel, petrol is cheaper, servicing is cheaper, I have no Turbo / injector failure to fear, Insurance is cheaper..... I still love Diesels too and could make a list of reason's for that. There will never be a clear cut winner IMHO so lets just all enjoy our choice. After all they are all cracking little cars to own in one way or another.

Couldn't agree more Horkin.

The whole idea of the thread was simply for people to voice their opinion on why they'd prefer a diesel version of the vRS to the current petrol model. It's not up to me or anyone else to influence the decision on whether to go for petrol or diesel and I'd hate anyone to think I was trying. I just thought that there must be more to a buying decision than simply comparing mpg between both fuel types.

Personally I've been a devout diesel fan since I started driving and some of this has been down to financial viability but mainly because I prefer the torque you get from a diesel, particularly TDI engines. Having said this I was more than pleasantly surprised when I took the latest Fabia vRS for a test drive and subsequently ordered one. The running costs don't mean a great deal to me these days as most of my trips are relatively short ones.

Each to their own at the end of the day but you're right, there'll never be a clear winner when all is taken into account.

Im a fan of the torque as well and enjoyed how easy it was to drive quickly in the old vRS, however after driving the new one its clear that it would leave the old car standing. I think alot of Mk1 vRS owners would be pleasently suprised with the new car, regardless of running costs.

Diesel is for people who can't afford unleaded......................... -just kidding!

Having owned a mk 1 fabia vRS (50+mpg) and a Focus ST (20ish mpg) I'm hoping that when my new vRS arrives it will be somewhere in between the two for running costs and just as good for the fun factor!