Its not the first time

I see where your're coming from but personally at least, after years of being on car forums, Ive seen a lot of 'the car has no faults, its perfect' or 'I get 100mpg at 120mph' etc so you research it further or even go and put an order in and the reality isnt the same. Although I admit people have differing requirements from a vehicle also. :yes:

I love the VRS, Im seriously thinking about putting in an order for a fully loaded Candy White one but I did find a few niggling faults. Overall though for what it costs I have to put these niggles into perspective - the car is a bargain for the money they want for it currently. :yes:

I see where your're coming from but personally at least, after years of being on car forums, Ive seen a lot of 'the car has no faults, its perfect' or 'I get 100mpg at 120mph' etc so you research it further or even go and put an order in and the reality isnt the same. Although I admit people have differing requirements from a vehicle also. :yes:

I love the VRS, Im seriously thinking about putting in an order for a fully loaded Candy White one but I did find a few niggling faults. Overall though for what it costs I have to put these niggles into perspective - the car is a bargain for the money they want for it currently. :yes:

vRS isnt perfect but with the VAT deal its alot of car for the money. I do think however that the only reason Skoda keep the VAT deal going is because its the only way they are able to keep selling lots of cars. They represent great value for money with the VAT reduction but I for one wouldnt pay RRP or anything near it for one.

It would appear to me that whilst most people will now forgive Skoda for their rather patchy 70's and 80's car production history, and are of the mind that their cars are "bargain VW's" they wont forgive them enough to pay nearly VW money for their cars.

I think if Skoda limited the VAT deal and found some middle ground by reducing their RRP pricing on all models they'd probably sell more consistently but would allow them to keep up with demand, something they clearly cant do at the moment. Our vRS estate would have been nearly £18k RRP, I still think thats alot of money for what is supposed to be a cheap VAG based supermini.

vRS isnt perfect but with the VAT deal its alot of car for the money. I do think however that the only reason Skoda keep the VAT deal going is because its the only way they are able to keep selling lots of cars. They represent great value for money with the VAT reduction but I for one wouldnt pay RRP or anything near it for one.

It would appear to me that whilst most people will now forgive Skoda for their rather patchy 70's and 80's car production history, and are of the mind that their cars are "bargain VW's" they wont forgive them enough to pay nearly VW money for their cars.

I think if Skoda limited the VAT deal and found some middle ground by reducing their RRP pricing on all models they'd probably sell more consistently but would allow them to keep up with demand, something they clearly cant do at the moment. Our vRS estate would have been nearly £18k RRP, I still think thats alot of money for what is supposed to be a cheap VAG based supermini.

The same specced Polo GTi is over £20K!!

bloody scary what you lot pay for insurance, im 40 and had the mk1 for 7 years and never paid over £200 protected ncb, you guys did something bad in a previous life or what???

im looking forward to my mk2 but only because this mk1 is getting on abit now, but i WILL miss it theres no doubt about that, i just want something newer and more modern and the mk2 fits that bill but going by the test drive i didnt find it worlds apart in performance although i love the dsg as its just so simple to drive

i will miss my little furby and i just hope the new one lives up to my high expectations

where do you live? I'm in leicester, not that dodgy an area am always shocked at my insurance prices!

I will probably do what I always do and wait till a few mark 2s have hit the second hand market, while running the mark 1 for a few years yet! what do you think i will get for a mark one with 140000 miles on the clock in 3 years time lol!

Janner...Ive never know anyone critisise their own car like you do!!

When are you selling it?

I'll sell it in 2 years then ill get something thats circa 300hp again and a bit bigger. This is merely an interim car.

I think FocusZtec has hit the nail on the head. So many people are blown away by its performance that they don't see the faults and thats purely as a result of their previous cars or not having a better benchmark to compare them against. My car history is pretty high performance orientated with the fabia being nearly one of the slowest. But as focusztec says the vRS is probably the best value for money hot hatch money can by, and is a fantastic little package. But it is no focus'd hot hatch, plain and simple. Could quite easily be made much more performance orientated though

Its not the first time

Some sort of problem is there? whats not the first time?

Lets face it most people who are after a hot hatch nowadays want something that offers lots of performance and can offer some thrills but by and large is very easy to live with day to day.

I think the Fabia is just as good at tooling around town at 20mph all day long as it is being driven at 100mph everywhere (not that i'd do this of course!) same simply cannot be said for the likes of the Clio 200. I am sure it is a riot being driven at 10/10ths everywhere but with more mundane driving I expect its high strung (which incidentally lacks a lot of low end torque) engine is a bit of a pig to live with. Its also built like crap and wont stand the test of time, particularly if its driven like a lunatic for a couple of years. Of everything out there at the moment I think the vRS hits the nail on the head, it's 9/10ths a Polo GTi, costs alot less and in most ways outperforms its competition - mainly on the basis of bang per buck (namely the DS3, Mini, Clio, Polo etc).

Also this car just cant be compared to 300+ hp metal, it is plain and simply a very quick cheap supermini. I dont think Janner regrets his purchase as he knew it was never going to be anything more than that, obviously a time the sensible head has had to go on and fair shout its the perfect little interim motor. May not light fires after driving 300+hp cars for years but then i'm sure he didnt expect it to.

where do you live? I'm in leicester, not that dodgy an area am always shocked at my insurance prices!

Cumbria matey, when i see adverts saying average insurance £800 i think fook that. I always go with a big name too, currently LV so cant even say its a dodgy company. the wife gets even cheaper insurance, her last one on a 1.6 megane was £160 fully comp protected. im just hoping the new vrs wont be too much either

Currently have a MK1 vRS and have ordered a MK2 vRS (Estate) I can safely say it is a good move, only thing I will really miss is the huge shove in the back every time you change gear and the fuel economy.

New one seems to grip better (ESP maybe helping) and less body roll. My current vRS has coilovers so this sorted the ride and handling out, will see how I get on with factory suspension this time

Had a MK4 Ibiza FR TDI previously and it was great, the MK1 vRS is better than the Ibiza by miles, alot more comfy and nicer interior/seats etc.

Insurance is also cheap, its around £470 Fully Comp with 8 years Protected NCB.

I also had a Mk1 fab vRS (from new in 2006) and it was a brilliant car. Ride was comfy, well built and brilliant mid-range punch with excellent fuel economy. Back then it was fairly unique in the hot-hatch market being diesel powered and I really used to enjoy the surprised look on peoples faces as you left 'em for dead (in a legal manner of course )....

It was more than capable of out-dragging many a mini cooper-S and clio 172 in alot of real-world road situations :yes: .

For sure these cars would win hands-down around the track but that wasn't the point of the vRS at all. Its handling wasn't very 'sporty' but thats one of the reasons I bought the car as the trade-off was great ride. I certainly wouldn't call it a 'crap' car in my opinion but then again we all like different things and at the end of the day the only persons opinion that counts is the car's owner, if they like it who cares?!

Now taken delivery of the MkII and agree with others its a big leap forward in terms of quality, refinement and outright speed. Technology on the car engine/gearbox etc is amazing and I'm loving it at the moment but I guess time will tell if I become as fond of this one as my old furby.....

I really used to enjoy the surprised look on peoples faces as you left 'em for dead (in a legal manner of course )....

It was more than capable of out-dragging many a mini cooper-S in alot of real-world road situations

not having that. i had a mini cooper S clubman and it was neigh on identical in performance to the new Fabia vRS TSI which in turn is a lot faster than the old furby in both real world and track. The mk1 furby could only just out drag the std cooper and so it should given that it had an extra 15hp and loads more torque. The cooper S had a supercharger (turbo in the later models) so didnt lack torque and had pretty much instant throttle response. If it was a stage 1 mapped furby id probably agree with you then,

Id imagine that you could out drag the 172 inthe real world, they were gutless in the midrange.

Lets face it most people who are after a hot hatch nowadays want something that offers lots of performance and can offer some thrills but by and large is very easy to live with day to day.

I think the Fabia is just as good at tooling around town at 20mph all day long as it is being driven at 100mph everywhere (not that i'd do this of course!) same simply cannot be said for the likes of the Clio 200. I am sure it is a riot being driven at 10/10ths everywhere but with more mundane driving I expect its high strung (which incidentally lacks a lot of low end torque) engine is a bit of a pig to live with. Its also built like crap and wont stand the test of time, particularly if its driven like a lunatic for a couple of years. Of everything out there at the moment I think the vRS hits the nail on the head, it's 9/10ths a Polo GTi, costs alot less and in most ways outperforms its competition - mainly on the basis of bang per buck (namely the DS3, Mini, Clio, Polo etc).

Also this car just cant be compared to 300+ hp metal, it is plain and simply a very quick cheap supermini. I dont think Janner regrets his purchase as he knew it was never going to be anything more than that, obviously a time the sensible head has had to go on and fair shout its the perfect little interim motor. May not light fires after driving 300+hp cars for years but then i'm sure he didnt expect it to.

i think that sums the car up perfectly

Obviously this is posted in the mkII section but I happen to have a Greenline II as well.

Test drove a Fabia mkII VRS and can honestly say it wasn't my thing. DSG didn't help (yes, we have the same in our Yeti so I know how to drive it!) as it does remove part of the experience for me. I know GTR and such have a similar box but I just love stirring those cogs myself.

No car is going to appeal to everyone though. No doubt the mkII handles better.

I also find the shape of the mkII a bit top heavy looking. It's very practical and has a lot of headroom, but I don't associate a thin and tall body with a performance vehicle.

I also dislike the way the alloy wheels stick out noticably further than the tyres, leaving them prone to all kinds of damage and also showing a silver lip when you spec the dark wheels. This looks wrong like you fitted alloys that are too wide for the tyres.

Overall I prefered the mkI with it's diesel punch. It may be slower but I like the experience more and I personally think it looks better.

Hence earlier this year I went and bought as late model mkI as I could.

Found a Special Edition one with only 20k on the clock. It's a great toy for playing and tweaking.

It's unrefined enough to be fun. Too many cars now are very capable and very good, but ultimately less fun because they do everything so well.

That's my 2p anyway.

Oh and I don't get why the VRS can't have DRL and fogs in the front bumper.

The Greenline II has a nice looking aerodynamic bumper with a mini splitter and has both. Odd.

Xenons should also be an option.

Obviously this is posted in the mkII section but I happen to have a Greenline II as well.

Test drove a Fabia mkII VRS and can honestly say it wasn't my thing. DSG didn't help (yes, we have the same in our Yeti so I know how to drive it!) as it does remove part of the experience for me. I know GTR and such have a similar box but I just love stirring those cogs myself.

I have found im alot faster and more comfortable using the gearlever in tiptronic mode. The paddles are to small, and out of force of habit, i feel the need to go for the gear lever when driving fast

No car is going to appeal to everyone though. No doubt the mkII handles better.

I also find the shape of the mkII a bit top heavy looking. It's very practical and has a lot of headroom, but I don't associate a thin and tall body with a performance vehicle.

it is very high, ive christened mine the golf cart

I also dislike the way the alloy wheels stick out noticably further than the tyres, leaving them prone to all kinds of damage and also showing a silver lip when you spec the dark wheels. This looks wrong like you fitted alloys that are too wide for the tyres.

Agree ith that as well. I think its the type and size of tyre that is the cause of this. Plenty of alternate tyres have rim protection. also 215/40R17 tyres are a direct fit, as are 225/35R17 without changing the rolling radius so they are still legal.

Overall I prefered the mkI with it's diesel punch. It may be slower but I like the experience more and I personally think it looks better.

The diesel 'punch' is a placebo effect. the big shove makes it feel faster than it is. You get the same effect on a poorly written remap, with a boost spike, but a smoother more progressive ramp and plateau of torque delivery makes for a more predictable, tractable car

Hence earlier this year I went and bought as late model mkI as I could.

Found a Special Edition one with only 20k on the clock. It's a great toy for playing and tweaking.

It's unrefined enough to be fun. Too many cars now are very capable and very good, but ultimately less fun because they do everything so well.

Oh and I don't get why the VRS can't have DRL and fogs in the front bumper.

The Greenline II has a nice looking aerodynamic bumper with a mini splitter and has both. Odd.

Xenons should also be an option.

Cost saving measures id imagine. All theyhave done is mounted the DRLs where the Fog lights would have been. However how often do you require fog lights? twice, maybe three times a year. If youonly use them for looks, because you think it looks tasty, then you hgave DRLs anyway, so its the same effect

isn't 225 35 17 too wide for the standard rim?

How long do you want the reply?.....

We have a Fabia II vRS..I previously owned a Mk I Fabia vRS

Suspension is better, more grip and less body roll..It doesnt need a rear ARB

The engine is light years different as is the Gearbox

Interior wise its better ..more modern and better equipped, let down slightly by the fittings

Overall...A VAST improvement

Oh....Forgot...Performance is in a different league!!!

Premier instead of League 2

Economy is not brilliant and insurance costs are greater but not that bad when you reach our age!!

My wife pays about £330 a year fully comp and protected NCB

interior is more modern as that is what generally happens when a newer car comes out lol as for performance, driven one and wasnt impressed at all, not much faster, all the noise makes you feel like your going faster, like when i drive my mates mountuned 185 fiesta st it feels and sounds like a rocket ship yet mine is marginally faster

I dont blow the trumpet new vRS as much as many on here despite owning one, i think it lacks in quite a lot of areas. But the mk1 was crap. christ it only just managed to beat a N?A 1.6 115hp mini cooper. you dont get any more luke warm than that.

I had a spin in a mk1 furby vRS with a stage 1 map(cant remember which)expecting wanders from all the posts i had read. It was pants. Fuel economy is all it brought to the party, and had more body roll in the bends than a yacht in mid-tack in a force 7 gale

a good remapped fabia vrs (THEE fabia vrs and always will be) would be at least on par with the new one

isn't 225 35 17 too wide for the standard rim?

Made a boo boo there. But i did start a thread a while back stating what tyres were a direct fit as 205/40R17 isnt the cheapest option. 215s are often cheaper

Heres the thread

No they arnt!

Try My Tyres

Cumbria matey, when i see adverts saying average insurance £800 i think fook that. I always go with a big name too, currently LV so cant even say its a dodgy company. the wife gets even cheaper insurance, her last one on a 1.6 megane was £160 fully comp protected. im just hoping the new vrs wont be too much either

If you see a corrida red fabia vrs (freshly washed and waxed) driving round the windermere area give me a wave! im visiting the hometown! By the sound of it I should move home!!

If you see a corrida red fabia vrs (freshly washed and waxed) driving round the windermere area give me a wave! im visiting the hometown! By the sound of it I should move home!!

only tourists go there matey so prolly wont bump into you unless im on the bike and then ill be too busy flying past to wave

nah you never know who you might see eh :yes: be nice to see it in red, that was my other choice but i eventually decided on white for some strange reason

a good remapped fabia vrs (THEE fabia vrs and always will be) would be at least on par with the new one

You'd have to spend a hell of a lot of money on a MK1 (not just a remap) to make it drive anything like as well as a standard MK2.

I'm sorry I like diesels and drive one myself but they do not (certainly a four cylinder run of the mill one) make for a great performance car. Regardless of the amount of power you extract from one, they still run out of revs and the resulting huge increase in torque output increases torque steer and massively affects drivability. Might be pretty damn quick in a straight line changing gear at the right time but try putting power down in the bends and its impossible. Tends to highlight the poor chassis in alot of the earlier VAG cars like the previous gen Polo and Ibiza.

There are some incredibly impressive diesel performance cars around now. My Dad had a 335d M Sport coupe for a while and with its 286hp and 427lb/ft torque it was insanely quick for something that could easily average 40mpg, but he then bought a 135i M Sport and it just highlighted how much better the petrol equivalent of that engine was.

I think the 1st gen vRS made for a good compromise car for someone wanting decent performance and very cheap running costs but it was a compromise and only a warm hatch as a result. The move to the twincharger engine in the MK2 was the right thing for Skoda to do without doubt, if it had ended up being a 140 or 170ps diesel just wouldnt have been the same. Have driven a 2.0 CR Ibiza FR and was very underwhelmed.

In my mind there is no substitute for a turbocharged petrol or huge capacity petrol engine

not having that. i had a mini cooper S clubman and it was neigh on identical in performance to the new Fabia vRS TSI which in turn is a lot faster than the old furby in both real world and track. The mk1 furby could only just out drag the std cooper and so it should given that it had an extra 15hp and loads more torque. The cooper S had a supercharger (turbo in the later models) so didnt lack torque and had pretty much instant throttle response. If it was a stage 1 mapped furby id probably agree with you then,

Id imagine that you could out drag the 172 inthe real world, they were gutless in the midrange.

Sorry Janner but I was referring to 5 years ago and the supercharged 163bhp (later ?170) cooper-S - never had any problems seeing them off (in a straight line ) when they were giving it full beans from say 30-70 mph....

My Mk1 was standard. Although the mini had a supercharger it was way down on torque compared to the vRS, something like 165lbft compared to 229lbft.

I agree the Mk1 could only just beat a std cooper around a track but in a straightline, in the real world, the mk1 furby absolutely mullers it. :yes: Don't know what others think?

I have driven a mates supercharged coop-s and wasn't that impressed.

Agree with you tho about the later turbo'd S/clubman -would beat the old furb vRS I'm sure no problemo

... in the real world, the mk1 furby absolutely mullers it. :yes: Don't know what others think?

"Mullers" it? I think you are talking about a rice, not a race.

"Mullers" it? I think you are talking about a rice, not a race.

another think I noticed after we did a test between mine (markII) and tiggers (markI) at weston, was, despite apperances, and people thinking the mark II sits so high ect, the mark II is actually lower than the mark I!

(done scientifically by sticking our fingers between the tops of the tyres and the wheelarches on both cars the mark II has less space between the tyre and the arch )

a good remapped fabia vrs (THEE fabia vrs and always will be) would be at least on par with the new one

I have an 07 revo mapped mk1 and the mk2 is in a diffent league