I don't mean to stir up an argument but having had the luxury of having had the use of three passat sports since I passed my test (got to love company car insurance) with both the 130bhp 1.9TDI and the 170bhp 2.0TDI. While I realise the passat is a much heavier car the 170 engine is far from frugal when driven hard I managed to get an indicated average MPG of 23mph on one drive home from work a journey of around 15 miles. While it can reach an indicated 50-55mpg average while cruising on A roads. While the 130 didn’t seam to show anything like the same spread depending upon how it was used, it struggled to break an indicated 50mpg on a 50-60 mph round trip to London.

I’m sure much like the 170 unit the new VRS if driven in such a way could do some decent MPG however if you want to play your economy always goes down quickly

Also I’m really not sure how well such a light car would cope with the torque that the 170 engine produces as the passat can spin the wheels with the traction control on in second gear in the dry and third if its wet enough

I think that the facelift fabia actually runs on the same platform as new ibiza and polo. If you look at the dimensions and wheelbase it is actually different to the prefacelift. Also the 1.4 tsi wasn't supposed to fit the prefacelift and now does with the entire front end taking supension, front bumper and layout of the polo. I dont think that the new chassis is a huge step forward that most people think. Most manufactures just tweak chassis when launching new cars peugeot citroen seems to do it a lot.

I don't mean to stir up an argument but having had the luxury of having had the use of three passat sports since I passed my test (got to love company car insurance) with both the 130bhp 1.9TDI and the 170bhp 2.0TDI. While I realise the passat is a much heavier car the 170 engine is far from frugal when driven hard I managed to get an indicated average MPG of 23mph on one drive home from work a journey of around 15 miles. While it can reach an indicated 50-55mpg average while cruising on A roads. While the 130 didn’t seam to show anything like the same spread depending upon how it was used, it struggled to break an indicated 50mpg on a 50-60 mph round trip to London.

I’m sure much like the 170 unit the new VRS if driven in such a way could do some decent MPG however if you want to play your economy always goes down quickly

Also I’m really not sure how well such a light car would cope with the torque that the 170 engine produces as the passat can spin the wheels with the traction control on in second gear in the dry and third if its wet enough

I can vouch for the MPG based on our current Octavia vRS PD TDI (170) as we're very lucky if the MPG gets into the 40s on most trips. When driven hard, this can plummet to the low 30s and even dip into the 20s but even driven sedately it only achieves high 30s on average.

On long runs it can get into the high 40s but the trip has to be in the region of 200 miles and mostly motorways to achieve this sort of figure.

The TDI PD (130) engine that was in the original Mk I Fabia vRS was much more frugal as I could frequently achieve mid-40s MPG on an average run, even extending to the high 50s on long runs. When driven hard I don't recall it dipping any lower than mid-30s.

I can't comment on the efficiency of the CR TDI (170) engine that replaced the PD engine but if the trend is the same as our PD engine then I wouldn't expect miracles if it gets put into the Fabia at any stage. For this reason I'm not sure I'd go for the diesel version if one was produced.

I think that the facelift fabia actually runs on the same platform as new ibiza and polo. If you look at the dimensions and wheelbase it is actually different to the prefacelift. Also the 1.4 tsi wasn't supposed to fit the prefacelift and now does with the entire front end taking supension, front bumper and layout of the polo. I dont think that the new chassis is a huge step forward that most people think. Most manufactures just tweak chassis when launching new cars peugeot citroen seems to do it a lot.

it does as these also use the same rear beam as the mk4 ibiza/polo etc. As said earlier all the rear ARBs etc from the previous fabia/ibiza etc fit the new models. From what i gather its more of a hybrid of the old platform as apose to a new platform altogether.

Edited 12 January, 201115 yr by janner_Sy

Well effectively, the old vRS followed in the lines of the Citroen ZX TD Volcane, or if you prefer something more in the Mk 1s size, the 205 STDT.

It was obviously a unique car at the time and still is to an extent today as there are no top-of-the-range diesel hot hatches (the Ibiza is an FR so third in line after the Cupra R and Cupra in a full line-up). That would be why BMW are rumoured to be introducing the Maxi Cooper SD. Sorry but its so big and heavy i refuse to call it a Mini!

I personally would prefer a derv vRS as its a bit more unique than the petrol version as it wouldnt be the same as the as the Polo, Ibiza, A1 et al. That and would probably end up cheaper to run in the long run and if the DSG box wont take the torque then it would have to be a manual!

Polo and Ibiza use PQ25 platform Fabia 2 uses PQ24 or AO4.

well i stand corrected then. Although what im saying is correct about the rear beams being th same as guys in the ibiza's on seatcupra.net are all installing the older model uprated ARBs.

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.

I would agree with that completely! As I've said before in other posts, the new vRS is a really really good car and the 1.4 unit and dsg work well together. But I prefer in real world terms the drive of a diesel, dont get me wrong petrols are more fun and sound better but they dont do it for me like they did when I was younger.