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.

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.

Hi Scottpcs, for me it's what Stevoraith says above...and the whole diesel driving experience which I found non of todays petrol cars can quite match, for me anyway. A diesel VRs Estate would be my choice. However, I have a Fabia estate TDI and my wife and I are in the region of £40 pm better off than when we ran a new Fiat Punto petrol 1300. That takes into account the road tax too which was £150 for the Fiat and just £30pa for our Fabia diesel estate. We've got huge performance increase too with the diesel. The Fiat just couldn't manage more than 32-34mpg in town (pretty poor) against our Fabia which always turns in between 52-54mpg in town in winter and better in summer. On a run, again the Fiat was only just managing 37-39mpg against our Fabia diesel which turns in anything up to 74mpg, but more normal buzzing around doing something of everything giving 58-62mpg. After just 18 months our car had more than repaid the premium that we had paid up front and we are hundreds of pounds a year better off since and we know will get some sort of premium back too at the end.

But, my buying decision was based upon many things, for me it's about much more than the economics. So what put me off the petrol TSI's you asked! The TSI petrol engines for example are brilliant, I've driven a couple of them and enjoyed the experience, I'm not knocking them although it will sound as if I am. But even they don't give that same driving experience a diesel gives, although I admit they are coming closer. There is too the advantage the diesel engine gives in engine longevity which is inbuilt and due to many reasons won't change. For people wanting to keep their car a long time that's important. I doubt very much if the petrol TSI engines will come close in that respect. Small turbo'ed petrol engines have a reputation for rapid piston ring wear resulting in high oil consumption and performance drop off as the engine simply wears out sometimes at staggeringly low mileage. If you look abroad to the states and some other euro countries, you will see bio fuel makes it even worse and lowers the smoothness of the engines. I've rebuilt many modern Fiat turbo'ed engines, Nissans too with remarkably low miles on the clock. I'll bet the TSI's will be better but who knows how long they will last. There's usually a price to pay for making small petrol engines perform like a big un or in this case, a diesel!

Edited 10 January, 201115 yr by Estate Man

Ah, words of wisdom from the great Estate Man, I wondered how long it would take!

Seriously though, some sound words there and I appreciate your take on the pros and cons of the petrol engines, particularly the TSI. This is what I was intending the thread to be all about.

Rather than digging myself a deeper hole I think it's best that I surrender on this one and admit that I hadn't thought about some of the things both you and Steveoraith have raised

I do wish my PD diesel Octy vRS would achieve anywhere near what some of the figures you're quoting though. At best it achieves high 40s on a long run but very rarely into the 50s. Around town it's usually somewhere between mid and high 30s and has been since I bought it from new around 3 years ago.

For me I just wanted a change in the engine type and so I was one of the few who were pleased when Skoda announced that the Fabia vRS would be a petrol unit. Having said that I don't think petrol engines will ever match diesels par for par on economy simply due to the nature in which they work.

My wife has had a Fabia Vrs Diesel from new.

She was eagerly awaiting the new petrol VRS until we asked the salesman what real world mpg were they achieving on their demonstrator.

Now mpg isn't the No1 factor for her in choosing a new car but when the old car averages just under 50 mpg and the new one is around 25 - 30 mpg that is a huge cost difference. It's enough to be a deal breaker.

I had a new vRS diesel, it was a good car.

I wan't another new Fabia vRS and they don't make a diesel, so bought what was on offer.

I do less than 6000 miles a year, and usually swap cars when then get near the end of their warranty.

The cost of running this new petrol over the diesel isn't going to bother someone like me, and I hate getting diesel all over my hands when filling up when the freebie plastic gloves have ran out. Also...................... cheese sandwiches taste foul with one minute spot of derv on your fingers

Badgersport: Bear in mind that the demo car will get driven hard quite a lot

Edited 10 January, 201115 yr by Mike Wrightson

Badgersport: Bear in mind that the demo car will get driven hard quite a lot

And gives you a better idea of what real life consumption might be like....

15MPG less than the official combined cycle? That was my point about the PD130 consumption earlier. I would have had to drive the Mk1 EXTREMELY hard to get a tank average 33 (I usually got calculated tank average of around 48).

Hang on to your petrol engined cars guys because we all know, as Car Mfctrs turn more and more to Diesel, the price of that fuel will rocket whilst Petrol, hardly being used will become the really cheap option. It's the way of the world!!....

Great post, something I have wondered for a while esp since the original Vrs was not that good.

I used to have PD150 Golf which I moved into from a 1.8T Golf. I know cars have moved on since then however whilst the Diesel had more torque and was probably faster I have no fond memories of it at all. You just can beat a free reving petrol in a hot hatch.

Diesels are for big saloon cars, high mileages and taxis.

i for one, hate the way diesels drive. they are very peaky, in the power torque dellivery and im just not into that. i like progressive free reving engines.

That said i like my trackdays so diesels just aren't as good there, and thats a big reason for me. that said i would like the economy, but im more than happy to sacrifice that for a good petrol engine. which the 1.4TSI is.

Cramming that much horse power out of a 1.4 is simply asking for trouble though. It will be a very highly stressed unit, and no doubt failure rates will be high. As stated before, rings, and seals and the old chestnut, HGF...As well as cooked turbos. (how many of you leave your turbo cars ticking over before switching off??)

I'm expecting to hear plenty of tales of woe once these motors get miles under their belts. The DSG gearbox is just another way of VAG ripping people off, because when it goes wrong, expect bills into the thousands for repair.

They would shift more if they bunged the oil burner in, and fitted all versions with a manual to make them cheaper.

i for one, hate the way diesels drive. they are very peaky, in the power torque dellivery and im just not into that. i like progressive free reving engines.

Have you tried the CR. That's not peaky...just silky smooth and my passengers have questioned whether the car is petrol or diesel, it's that good. I do the mileage so it makes sense for me but if I had the choice, I'd have the Polo GTi as I'm not keen on the Fabia or Ibiza.

Cramming that much horse power out of a 1.4 is simply asking for trouble though. It will be a very highly stressed unit, and no doubt failure rates will be high. As stated before, rings, and seals and the old chestnut, HGF...As well as cooked turbos. (how many of you leave your turbo cars ticking over before switching off??)

I'm expecting to hear plenty of tales of woe once these motors get miles under their belts. The DSG gearbox is just another way of VAG ripping people off, because when it goes wrong, expect bills into the thousands for repair.

They would shift more if they bunged the oil burner in, and fitted all versions with a manual to make them cheaper.

Continuing the prophet of doom theme...don't forget these are 'charged' engines as well as 'turbo'ed' and that supercharger, whilst technically perfect can be a mechanical liability once you get a few miles on the clock. I've seen a few go bang (not on the TSI yet!). Bankruptcy for some owners will be inevitable once the car is out of warranty. But hey, one heck of an engine and who cares when it's that much fun!

Cramming that much horse power out of a 1.4 is simply asking for trouble though. It will be a very highly stressed unit, and no doubt failure rates will be high. As stated before, rings, and seals and the old chestnut, HGF...As well as cooked turbos. (how many of you leave your turbo cars ticking over before switching off??)

I'm expecting to hear plenty of tales of woe once these motors get miles under their belts. The DSG gearbox is just another way of VAG ripping people off, because when it goes wrong, expect bills into the thousands for repair.

They would shift more if they bunged the oil burner in, and fitted all versions with a manual to make them cheaper.

I err on the side of caution when I say I doubt the failure rate will be so high. After all, the TSI engine has been around for a few years now and has an excellent reliability record from what I've heard.

Remember this same 1.4 TSI engine has been put in various VAG cars, the Fabia being the latest to have it. Although I don't read other VAG forums I've not heard anyone screaming and shouting about their engine having failed and there's enough of them out there by now to have racked up decent mileage.

Also the 1.4 TSI unit was designed from scratch to cope with the extra power from both supercharger and turbo. They didn't just take a stock 1.4 and bolt the turbos on!

The DSG gearbox has divided opinion but there technical reasons why VW didn't put a manual box in, at least that's what they say (something to do with it can't handle the torque from the engine.) They wouldn't put it in simply to con more money out of customers and again, I've yet to hear a single case of a DSG box going wrong. This gearbox, although not in 7 speed guise, has been around longer than the TSI engine if I'm not mistaken.

I'll sit back and wait now for all the horror stories to come flooding in on both counts!

If all petrol engines delivered the power as smoothly and across as broad a rev range as the 2.8l 328i BMW I have part ownership of, with >40mpg efficiency, I'd dismiss diesel right away. However, the reality is that it seems that the smaller 4 clyinder turbo/supercharged petrols have the peaky power delivery (maybe not quite as much as diesels, but still there) AND the lack of efficiency that all petrol engines have, ie nowhere near 40mpg if driven enthusiastically even just every so often...

I err on the side of caution when I say I doubt the failure rate will be so high. After all, the TSI engine has been around for a few years now and has an excellent reliability record from what I've heard.

Remember this same 1.4 TSI engine has been put in various VAG cars, the Fabia being the latest to have it. Although I don't read other VAG forums I've not heard anyone screaming and shouting about their engine having failed and there's enough of them out there by now to have racked up decent mileage.

I have heard this rumour: SCN Thread and I'm sure I've read in the past, at least one lad had is Cupra engine replaced by SEAT.

BTW. Does the current VW Polo have a sportier diesel in it's range, i.e. something with more power than the Ibiza FR TDI? I'm sure VW would not allow Skoda to have more power than them or SEAT.

I have heard this rumour: SCN Thread and I'm sure I've read in the past, at least one lad had is Cupra engine replaced by SEAT.

BTW. Does the current VW Polo have a sportier diesel in it's range, i.e. something with more power than the Ibiza FR TDI? I'm sure VW would not allow Skoda to have more power than them or SEAT.

Hello Jim, I too read some stuff about the TSI engines that didn't sound too good. Mostly the 1.4TSI but the 1.2 isn't immune either I understand. A tech I was talking to said there were some concerns about reliability. I didn't question him about what sort of reliability...mechanical or electrical...but this was last summer at a VW dealership. I don't generally think there are any problems that are intrinsic to either engine just probably some wonky one's may have been produced. I haven't really read anything else recently, except your post link that indicates anything too widespread so I don't think it's a worry. My only concerns with this type of engine are for longer term reliability, when it's 3-5 years old and been thrashed a bit.

Sorry Scott, going off topic a bit!

Sorry Scott, going off topic a bit!

Hey no worries. It still follows the thread topic, sort of!

To put us back on track though it seems that potential buyers have one or both reasons to stay away from petrol cars - either they're uneconomical compared to diesel power or they simply don't like the way it drives.

Put simply though, as others have said already, these 2 reasons are not in themselves simple enough reasons to choose one over the other.

For me personally, I just love the 'kick in the back' you get from torquey diesel engines, even if they are in fact slower than their petrol counterparts. It's this pseudo effect that makes the car feel faster than it really is that keeps me coming back to them time and again.

A test drive in the new vRS changed my perception of petrol power completely though - I almost wanted to hate the experience but I was totally surprised. The engine not only felt fast but WAS fast at the same time, something I hadn't experienced in a petrol car before. It was this experience alone that sold me the car and didn't give a second thought to the MPG. To me you buy a car like this to enjoy it for what it is, a hot hatch. If diesel is your preference then buy an SE or Elegance.

The original vRS appealed because there wasn't anything like it on the market at that time. To do the same now and make a diesel vRS just wouldn't have quite the same appeal as you can buy other similar superminis (Fabia included) with more power than the original vRS had and in a less than sporty guise.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that a diesel version of the Fabia vRS isn't the be all and end all. Put it this way - opinion would be divided just as deeply had Skoda made a diesel only version, as was the case with original Mk I.

The original question of this thread is Why is the demand so high for a Diesel version of the vRS ?

I believe that the answer is quite simple - The MK1 version was found in a vast majority of ownership cases, reliable, quick, very economical for its engine size , comfortable, safe ( as show by the 3 people who have walked away after over tuning their cars ), reasonably cheap to run again for a car of this type & stealthy.

It was never marketed as a GTI, & from feedback on here it actually did its job better than expected & seemed to enhance the Skoda reputation for value for money.

I expect quite a few ex MK1 Fabia vRS owners ( me included) will probably always hold a soft spot for that car even tho it is not a car that stands out from the crowd, & want another one that will do what the MK1 does, because of its change to petrol a lot of people wont switch.

I drove the new one before buying the Octy, in a lot of ways it is close to the MK1, but having heard from 2 dealers getting 25mpg round town will immediately put off those who are used to 40+mpg round town.

IMHO it really is that simple.

For me, the old VRS was unique. A diesel hot hatch that came along and took people by surprise. And nobody made anything similar. Great blend of performance and economy.

The new one is not unique. Same engine/gearbox combo as the VW and SEAT, only they get the later platform and the Skoda doesn't. Faster, but a heavy drinker if used as a hot hatch.

The original VRS was a ground breaking car. A new idea. Something unique to Skoda.

The new one is VW marketing. Same stuff as the VW and SEAT, different (older) body.

If they made a diesel VRS and VW/SEAT didn't, I'd probably buy one tomorrow.

I like the way a diesel puts it's power down. I'm a diesel fan and like something a bit different.

For me, the old VRS was unique. A diesel hot hatch that came along and took people by surprise. And nobody made anything similar. Great blend of performance and economy.

The new one is not unique. Same engine/gearbox combo as the VW and SEAT, only they get the later platform and the Skoda doesn't. Faster, but a heavy drinker if used as a hot hatch.

The original VRS was a ground breaking car. A new idea. Something unique to Skoda.

The new one is VW marketing. Same stuff as the VW and SEAT, different (older) body.

its not an older body at all. its exactly the same chassis and underpinnings as the polo and seat. the difference is in the spring and damper ratings. Skoda has done it unique. All three cars use the same rear beam as found on the previous generation seat ibiza(mk4) so all the mk4 uprated ARBs are a direct fit. (Thats from a skoda techie on here)

You cant get the cupra or GTI in estate form, you cant get the Cupra in a 5 door (the GTI is, but is £3500 more expensive) so in that respect i think they are bang on the money.

judging by the opinions on ive read the cr143 isnt as good as good on fuel as the old pd lump an its not as lively i think they would be more complaints that it tarnished the originals good name

now maybe skoda knew this an decided not make one for this reason

its never going to be as good as the orignal things move on

Edited 11 January, 201115 yr by daydotz

Original was not a unique concept, Citroen and VW were doing the Derv hot hatch thing long before it came along. As for reliability issues from friends in the trade I believe the basic PD is not averse to throwing it's hand in. I had a PD 115 go on me because the dealer put the wrong oil in!

To get back on topic I think the Original Evo review of the mk1 vrs somes up well why diesels are not really suited to hot hatches as true driving machines.

For those wanting to blend economy with the masculine compensation that a hot hatch offers it does make perfect sense.

its not an older body at all. its exactly the same chassis and underpinnings as the polo and seat.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that Fabia mk.2 uses the chassis of the previous Polo mk.4, unlike the Ibiza. The current Fabia came out in 2007, 2 years before the current Polo; VAG's new small car platform wasn't ready to utilise in the mk.2 Fabia. My understanding is that the mk.2 Fabia has the same platform (with refinements) as the mk.1. It's a capable chassis though and I have no complaints with the ride and handling of my Fab 2 estate.

Polo and Ibiza are on the new platform. Fabia 2 is not.

Polo and Ibiza are on the new platform. Fabia 2 is not.

That's what I thought. Hence Skoda can't get the 2.0 Diesel in, but the others can.