Keep seeing people saying that they've not bought a vRS because its not a diesel like the last one.

Personally whilst I like diesels, it doesnt matter how much power they throw out they do not compare to a decent petrol engine in providing a sporting drive. I say this having had an Ibiza Sport 130 PD for a while which I liked very much indeed (only getting rid due to electrical gremlins) and as a result can see the appeal in the old vRS as its a very similar car.

In my opinion Skoda have really stepped up their game offering the vRS with the 180ps twincharger unit; not only is it throwing out very decent amounts of power and torque, it revs keenly with a nice sound up to 7K and driven sensibly will return very decent fuel economy. I for one think the vRS is all the better for being petrol powered and is a proper hot hatch whereas the old one is categorically just a warm one. Also as diesel engines are generally iron blocks and very heavy its less nose heavy than a diesel thumper which can only help the cars handling. Also fuel economy really isnt the primary concern with a hot hatch, those in the market for one generally accept it will not be all that great on fuel.

Lets face it if the vRS had been diesel powered it would have ended up with the 140 CR engine same as the Ibiza FR's, i've driven one of these and whist it was punchy it wasnt that quick; certainly no quicker than our old Ibiza. Even with the 170 lump (would never have happened) it still would be off the pace compared with the twincharger. Neither engine has nowhere near the same level of character or throttle response either. With a diesel engine it would never compare with an Ibiza Cupra or Polo GTi and would have simply been just another warm hatch.

Anyway thats my two pence worth, thought this might trigger a decent debate. Be interested to see everyones views.

I'm glad it's a petrol engine. My trip to work would not be enough to warrant having a diesel engine as either it wouldn't be able to regen the DFP or it wouldn't warm up enough to give a decent MPG.

I think Skoda needed to make the new Fabia vRS a truely hot hatch out of the box so they could compete with the likes of the Clio 200 and Corsa VXR. The MK1 diesel was always more of a warm hatch than a serious hot hatch (without some tinkering).

As said, I'm glad it is a petrol because I if it was a diesel I doubt I would ever have bought one

The mkI was never supposed to be a hot hatch and it's not.

The whole point of it is a fun to drive warm hatch with penny-pinching running costs. Fun with Skoda running costs.

That's why to me it made sense as a diesel.

The mkII is a good car. Better in most respects than the mkI, other than it's less raw.

Which for me makes it less fun, even if it is more practical, comfortable and faster etc...

If you want a smooth powerful petrol hot hatch there are loads of options out there. Although the mkII is cheap.

In it's day the mkI VRS was pretty unusual, which is why it had such a following and people still remember it fondly.

It wasn't just seen as a clone of another car made by Audi, VW and SEAT.

I also personally don't think that Skoda could repeat the success of the mkI in terms of doing something new. It's such a flooded marketplace that a diesel mkII (or mkIII) would still just be another one of the zillion fast diesel cars available. It wouldn't be as unusual as the mkI was. So you will always get people looking back at the mkI through rose tinted glasses.

not me

Me neither!

I am. As others have said the Mk1 will always be a warm hatch and not a hot hatch out of the box. I've gone for it because I do less miles now and really miss the revving and performance of a petrol. Plus I want something that handles better than the Mk1 although last night coming home from my cousins it felt spot on which for me hasn't felt like that for a while. Think the empty clear roads helped. Any one who brings mpg into the argument is missing the point. A hot hatch must be cheap, practical, fun, fast but still have decent mpg when you drive tidy which it does. Stugolf on another thread said he was doing 52mpg which is fantastic for a car with 180bhp and does 140mph. It's as fast if not faster than a Golf GTI and a good chunk of money less. For me the Mk2 vRS ticks all the boxes.

I think the option of petrol or diesel would have been good.

Would a 2.0 CR170 fit in that engine bay?

Phil

The mkII is a good car. Better in most respects than the mkI, other than it's less raw.

Which for me makes it less fun, even if it is more practical, comfortable and faster etc...

If you want a smooth powerful petrol hot hatch there are loads of options out there. Although the mkII is cheap.

In it's day the mkI VRS was pretty unusual, which is why it had such a following and people still remember it fondly.

It wasn't just seen as a clone of another car made by Audi, VW and SEAT.

I also personally don't think that Skoda could repeat the success of the mkI in terms of doing something new. It's such a flooded marketplace that a diesel mkII (or mkIII) would still just be another one of the zillion fast diesel cars available. It wouldn't be as unusual as the mkI was. So you will always get people looking back at the mkI through rose tinted glasses.

Sorry but I by and large disagree with this. The MKII vRS is raw; sure if you trundle along in drive its very well mannered (probably because overall its better engineered than the MK1 Fabia) but if you take it by the scruff of the neck and drive it like you stole it (not that I condone this of course!) it's actually quite scary. I reckon given the rather small power deficit and less weight it's probably reasonable to say its slightly quicker than the 2.0T Octy vRS in standard form; certainly feels quicker than the MK5 Golf GTi.

Sure it probably lacks the low down punch of a tuned PD engine and will never do 50+ mpg unless driven very carefully but the all then nothing short rev band power delivery of a diesel doesnt really compare with a broad power band available over several thousand RPM

Also the MK1 vRS really wasnt all that unusual; Seat produced the 130 PD Sport (later the FR) and Cupra with the 160PD engine; VW made a Polo GT with the 130 engine too; sure they are all slightly differently engineered but they are all pretty much carbon copies.

If Skoda had gone down the same line of making another warm diesel hatch it certainly wouldnt have been as exciting and I doubt if would have been as popular. The 140 would have provided very little (if any) performance advantage over the MK1, the 170 engine would have made the car prohibitively expensive.

Also the MK1 vRS really wasnt all that unusual; Seat produced the 130 PD Sport (later the FR) and Cupra with the 160PD engine; VW made a Polo GT with the 130 engine too; sure they are all slightly differently engineered but they are all pretty much carbon copies.

I remember feeling that the mk1 fab vRS was quite unusual for a 'hot' hatch when it first came out. The 130 polo GT seems as rare as hens teeth lol.

I owned a Mk1 vRS for several years but am very glad the new one I have now is petrol. Petrol power is generally abit more fun I think and its nice to have a half-decent engine note rather than drivin round in something which sounds like a tractor!

I had a testdrive in a new ibiza FR TDI 140 and whilst it was a nice car didn't have the same poke as furby vRS. I'm sure they probably remap up to 170-180ish tho, wouldn't mind a go in that...

I am very glad the vRS is a petrol. The buzz you get from revving a petrol engine is unparalleled by a diesel. The noise created by a diesel does not constitute a hot hatch experience. In a way it seems that the Monte Carlo Tdi has filled the gap that the original vRS left, I know it isn't as fast, but it is of a similar vein.

I don't think that the 2.0Tdi engine would have been a good move in the front of the Fabia. It is not a light engine by any means, and I think the handling would have suffered as a result. I also feel that having driven several of the CR engined Tdi Skodas, that they are very soft off the bottom end, and this is not suited to a performance car.

Sorry but I by and large disagree with this.

It's not a surprise, your first post was generally from a different viewpoint.

In a way it seems that the Monte Carlo Tdi has filled the gap that the original vRS left, I know it isn't as fast, but it is of a similar vein.

The mkII VRS is not the successor to the mkI VRS in my view. The 1.6 diesel Monte Carlo is far more like a successor.

The mkII is a whole new type of Fabia VRS, with petrol, flappy paddles, more performance and higher running costs. (if used as a hot hatch)

The mkII VRS is not the successor to the mkI VRS in my view. The 1.6 diesel Monte Carlo is far more like a successor.

I'm not sure the Monte TDI can be seen as much of a successor to the mk1 vRS, as it has the same weedy 105Bhp engine and 5 speed box as shopping-trolley spec SEs just with a dressed-up bodykit...

I'm glad for the monte Carlo - means I can buy a sporty car that won't cost a fortune on the commute.

Not everyone wants ultimate performance for their daly drive - I love fast cars, but have a dedicated, purpose built track car which will run rings round any production hatch. At the same time, just because I want to manage 5 days of driving without filling up, it doesn't mean I want a shopping car with steel wheels, non supportive sears and I look that says I borrowed it from my mum.

I am not glad or unglad, it just meant skoda weren't able to sell me a vrs, where as I wod have bought a direct replacement for the mark 1. However, the mc came out just in time...

My journeys aren't long enough to warrant a diesel, so if it didnt come with the 1.4 TSI I would probably have got a golf gti.

I'm not sure the Monte TDI can be seen as much of a successor to the mk1 vRS, as it has the same weedy 105Bhp engine and 5 speed box as shopping-trolley spec SEs just with a dressed-up bodykit...

Totally agree with this. After all the Monte is just an SE with some sporty additions and not particularly subtle bolt on body kit; thats not meant to sound derogatory but its a valid description of the car. Good for those who would have bought a Sport variant but not really even a warm hatch.

The performance of the CR 105 doesnt come close to the PD 130; in fact my wifes old Ibiza felt significantly punchier than the FR 2.0 CR I test drove. Is sad since the move to common rail these engines have lost the huge low end punch the PD's were renound for.

The mk2 vRS isn't a hot hatch either... i was very unimpressed with it on the testdrive, having driven it just after driving a Clio 200 it felt numb, high and boring with a mid range punch that died before the redline was hit.

Compared to even a Civic Type R or a Corsa VXR it's more a warm hatch despite it's 180bhp!

I think if a 1.6 CR could have 120-130bhp out of it from factory then that would have been ideal...

why does the newer model always have to have more power than the previous model???

if they could have made the 1.6 CR tdi with say 120bhp but 70kg's lighter than the mk1, the chassis and handling might have felt more lively and made up for the lack power!?!?

The new mk2 vRS i believe was aimed at the same demographic as the mk1... it met it's brief ifyou ask me.

But certainly not a Hot Hatch

Edited 7 September, 201114 yr by Sonner

Petrol or diesel I was a bit disappointed that it was only a 1.4 and only available in DSG !

They could have put a better engine in it IMO like a 1.6 turbo the corsa vxr has and have more tuning potential and have a manual box as standard and DSG as an option.

Petrol or diesel I was a bit disappointed that it was only a 1.4 and only available in DSG !

They could have put a better engine in it IMO like a 1.6 turbo the corsa vxr has and have more tuning potential and have a manual box as standard and DSG as an option.

+1, but for me they should have used the diesel 1.6 crtdi with a bigger turbo, non of this dsg flappy paddle has too many issues, loss of drive and down shifting when you dont want it to, the 1.4 is too small an engine hence the poor fuel economy,big jags gets better fuel economy

I think alot of the design and specification must have been cost based,

Not that I mind, I plan on driving it for 2 years and saving some money while still having an enjoyable car

I think alot of the design and specification must have been cost based,

Not that I mind, I plan on driving it for 2 years and saving some money while still having an enjoyable car

Marttyn dont worry there will be a better VRS out soon

Big Jag diesels maybe. God there are some dinosaurs on the forum. Next people will be saying they were disappointed it didn't come with a starting handle . I drove the Clio 200 after the vRS and it's great fun to drive but reliability is an issue, plenty of reports of trim falling off and other faults plus unlike the 172/182 they are terrible on fuel. Also more expensive too. The Corsa 1.6 turbo engine. The problem with Piston 4 put me off those.

I won't be going diesel again unless I'll be doing big mileage. Main thing that puts me off is DPF's and other filters they keep putting on them so they meet emissions.

Big Jag diesels maybe. God there are some dinosaurs on the forum. Next people will be saying they were disappointed it didn't come with a starting handle . I drove the Clio 200 after the vRS and it's great fun to drive but reliability is an issue, plenty of reports of trim falling off and other faults plus unlike the 172/182 they are terrible on fuel. Also more expensive too. The Corsa 1.6 turbo engine. The problem with Piston 4 put me off those.

I won't be going diesel again unless I'll be doing big mileage. Main thing that puts me off is DPF's and other filters they keep putting on them so they meet emissions.

no it was a petrol jag the big one got 47-49 mpg, and in comfort as well, dinosaur probably I would never buy french next car might just be the missionL or visionD but I agree the VRS is a fun car, although very flawed engine & gearbox i know the system has been used successfully in the other VAG group, in the skoda fabia VRS its not so confident neither is the 1.2 dsg, car is amazing when working as it supposed to do but some of the issues are down right dangerous

My girlfriend made a point that she never sees anyone under 50 in mk2 fabias,

come to think of it the majority are probably used as pensioners shopping chariots

My girlfriend made a point that she never sees anyone under 50 in mk2 fabias,

come to think of it the majority are probably used as pensioners shopping chariots

not as bad as it used to be i love the marque tried lots, seat, fiat ,audi and vauxhall test drove the bmw 1series didnt like it at all, and specced up to £30k ive just turned 50 so what the next car will be ? looking at the new diesel jag 2.0litre engine

The mk2 vRS isn't a hot hatch either... i was very unimpressed with it on the testdrive, having driven it just after driving a Clio 200 it felt numb, high and boring with a mid range punch that died before the redline was hit.

Compared to even a Civic Type R or a Corsa VXR it's more a warm hatch despite it's 180bhp!

I think if a 1.6 CR could have 120-130bhp out of it from factory then that would have been ideal...

why does the newer model always have to have more power than the previous model???

if they could have made the 1.6 CR tdi with say 120bhp but 70kg's lighter than the mk1, the chassis and handling might have felt more lively and made up for the lack power!?!?

The new mk2 vRS i believe was aimed at the same demographic as the mk1... it met it's brief ifyou ask me.

But certainly not a Hot Hatch

Thought I would add my two pennies worth re the above.

I've owned a Clio 200 Cup and a Civic Type-r and currently have a Mk11 VRS, all are great cars but I have to say I think I will keep the VRS longer than the other two as it is easier to live with every day.

The other two were great fun but tiring,

Oh and on the subject of the thread, I am one of the people who came back to Skoda BECAUSE of the petrol angine. There is no way I would have a rattly old diesel engine in a hot hatch, it just does not go.

End of.

I mean it..........