I took my VRS1 diesel into Skoda for a service today. 102k. I explained to the service manager that I would prefer to change it for a new VRS2 Diesel but as that was not possible I'd hold on. The nearby salesman piped in with " the VRS 2 1.4T has been a much better seller than the VRS 1 diesel and that is what Skoda are interested in"

I see loads of VRS1s in my drives around Lancashire but I have never seen a VRS2 anywhere but close to the dealer.

What is the truth?

Myself, if I didn't have to be interested in fuel consumption I'd be looking at a Suzuki Swift GTI or a Clio Cup before a VRS2

I don't think you can really compare the sales until they stop making the current vRS to add all sales up. I have seen 4 new MK2 vRS around my way since release last Summer. See loads more MK1 vRS as they have been out for 8 years now.

A bit of a can of worms as it's a lot down to personal opinion and why you want the vehicle.

I have a Fabia mkII, but not the VRS. Looked at the VRS and it just didn't do it for me.

The mkII is clearly better in terms of performance. But I wanted something mechanical to drive, something to feel like I was driving. We have the DSG box on our Yeti and it's good. But for me it takes away from the driving experience.

In the end I went out and got a mkI VRS SE with 20k on the clock and then sent it off for a few modifications.

Ask on the mkII forum and they'll tell you the mkII is light years better.

It is in some ways. But to me it doesn't have the same "rawness" that the unrefined mkI does, which for me is where the fun lives.

Of course, if it comes down to fuel economy then it's mkI all the way. I'd expect 15mpg better out of the mkI.

The problem is though that it's getting more difficult to find a nice unabused mkI, where as that's easy if you go for the mkII.

Sales figures don't say it all. GT-R is awesome but they'll probably only sell 150 this year.

Very true CT17 - I can't really comment until i've driven my new vRS for a while. Having had a Seat Ibiza FR PD and MK1 Fabia vRS for a combination of almost 6 years (Same engine/platform etc)I should be able to give you a decent comparison

Only reason I opted for new one is because it comes in estate form

Many years ago I upset the Cliosport forum by mentioning that I had both a 172 Clio with roll cage, harnesses & Koni suspension etc which was good for an 8.50 lap of the Nurburgring and a mapped vRS Fabia which had never done better than 9.20. Obviously the Clio was a faster track car. Trouble was that I stated that the Fabia vRS was a much better road car. Easy accessible torquey power, forgiving handling, good fuel economy. More practcal all round.It went on for weeks.

So what is the vRS2. It won't get near a Clio Cup on a track. If the handling doesn't kill it the random change gearbox will. On the road it won't compete with the vRS1 for accessible power. My 180ps version will outdrag much more powerful cars in instant high gear acceleration. Fuel consumption. Forget it.

The give away for me was that a Skoda Yeti has a waiting list of at least 8 months and a nearly new one costs more than the official list price. I was offered a vRS2 for VAT off today. That doesn't sound like a sales success to me.

Sales people will say anything lol

It's possible the VRS MkII had better sales than the MKI in its first sales globally. I'm sure I heard somewhere that the Mk1 was an unexpected strong seller in the UK but didn't do much elsewhere in Europe. I went to Hungary a couple of weeks ago for example and only saw one Mk1 Fabia VRS in two weeks, but quite a lot of Octavia VRS' - no MkII Fabia VRS but that's not surprisng as the economy isn't great there.

I also think the transition from manual to semi-auto will take a while to get used to, like any new car really. I am looking forward to the fact it has better handling, faster, stops better, has better seats and playing with the paddles

They should do a Top Gear old vRS vs new vRS

I'm toying with the idea of getting a new car and have narrowed it down to either a MKII vRS or Abarth 500. However, not sure about the auto on the vRS and can't help but think the Abarth is a bit girlie - can see me sticking with the safe option and keeping the MKI vRS, which I very much like.

I also think the transition from manual to semi-auto will take a while to get used to, like any new car really. I am looking forward to the fact it has better handling, faster, stops better, has better seats and playing with the paddles

They should do a Top Gear old vRS vs new vRS

I can't see any point in doing that. The mkII is based on more modern tech and was designed something like 9 years after the mkI.

I can't see many people being surprised that the later one is quiet and faster. (even it's more boring :p )

So what is the vRS2. It won't get near a Clio Cup on a track. If the handling doesn't kill it the random change gearbox will. On the road it won't compete with the vRS1 for accessible power. My 180ps version will outdrag much more powerful cars in instant high gear acceleration. Fuel consumption. Forget it.

Have you actually driven one? Sounds like you haven't.

No, it won't compete with the Clio Cup on a track. It isn't meant to, Skoda designed a road car that you can live with every day, not a racer that shakes your teeth out. Much as they did with the vRS1 in fact, which was why I bought one on 2003.

The gearbox is far from "random change", it's really very impressive. I would prefer a manual option though. Don't believe the rubbish that "it produces too much torque for a manual". It produces less torque than the PD130 and the 6-speed in that does just fine. The real reason is that VAG didn't make a manual box for it and they don't want to.

As for accessible power, it has massive amounts of it, just put the foot right down it it's off like a rocket. A vRS1 won't see which way it went, unless it is remapped and has modded suspension.

It won't match the vRS1 on economy, but compared to other 180bhp petrol cars, its economy is very good.

They are completely different animals and really cannot be compared against each other.

Think the vrs2 lost its edge of what vrs1 had.

Vrs2 is faster, but in the catagory where it sits currently its not the pick of the bunch anymore. It's not a great alternative like the vrs1 was/is, its just a cheaper alternative to a vw. Only unique side I see to the vrs2 is the estate version.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

Have you actually driven one? Sounds like you haven't.

No, it won't compete with the Clio Cup on a track. It isn't meant to, Skoda designed a road car that you can live with every day, not a racer that shakes your teeth out. Much as they did with the vRS1 in fact, which was why I bought one on 2003.

The gearbox is far from "random change", it's really very impressive. I would prefer a manual option though. Don't believe the rubbish that "it produces too much torque for a manual". It produces less torque than the PD130 and the 6-speed in that does just fine. The real reason is that VAG didn't make a manual box for it and they don't want to.

As for accessible power, it has massive amounts of it, just put the foot right down it it's off like a rocket. A vRS1 won't see which way it went, unless it is remapped and has modded suspension.

It won't match the vRS1 on economy, but compared to other 180bhp petrol cars, its economy is very good.

They are completely different animals and really cannot be compared against each other.

Yes I have driven a vRS2. That is why I didn't buy one.

I still love my vRS mk1. I kept it when I sold my Boxster, MX5 and Clio Cup, all cars which will leave the vRs 2 for dead on a track. I thought my vRS1 a better road car because of its combination of torque, power (they are all remapped) economy and safe handling (ie understeers like hell on a track but won't have you going backwards through a hedge on a road)

The vRS1 had soul.

My point was, did Skoda make a mistake going from a radically different design to a differently radical design.

vrs 1 and vrs 2 are like polar opposites to be fair. Manual/auto and petrol/diesel. It's hard to find two cars which are so different!

Personally, I wouldn't buy a vrs 2, I'd go for the Seat Ibiza Cupra, even if it costs a bit more, it looks a hell of a lot better, in my opinion! Of course, none of this actually matters, as I can't afford to lose the fuel economy of the vrs 1!

You keep blabbing on about cars that will beat the vRS2 on track - have you thought that its not been made for track use and is aimed at road use? The Clio Cup is aimed at track day folk, otherwise they'd just buy a boring old Clio 197 not a 'Cup'

It all depends what the buyer is after, having had a vRS1 I can safely say i've made a good move. Its not everyone's cup of tea as my mates pointed out, they think I should have bought a used RS4 avant and spent the spare cash on fuel

You say you've bought a Suzuki Swift, which funny enough, looks like a vRS if you squint

Jeremy Clarkson reviews the MKII vRS in today's Sunday Times - he does not like it!

Driven both - like both - but for entirely different reasons!

Mk1:-

Diesel - Good handling, pleanty of torque when you need it - good motorway cruiser (I have the longer 'box)

Mk2:-

Petrol - loved how urgent the acceleration felt - Good handling (but could do with being a bit sharper) etc etc

but if you were to put 2 brand new VRS in front of me and told me that I can have either one free of charge (1 MK1 & 1 MK2)

Then i'm afraid I'd choose the MK1!

More sporty looks, not so curvy, more drive involvment, its manual, its diesel

Only thing that lets the MK1 down is its light coloured interior - you've got to ask your self "what were you thinking?"