That's because you've spent thousands on it in the effort to turn a diesel into a performance petrol turbo

A stage 1 mapped VRS Mk2 will do them 0-60 times for about £400

Nobody can tell me what the standard Mk1 VRS does my friend. I had one for 3 years and spent a fair bit on that one as well.

If I flogged it, it did 30mpg. Like they ALL will. You say it averages 50mpg ! You're completely missing the point. If you trundle about all day the petrol car 'can' do 40mpg.

In an effort for the diesel to try and be 'performance', it runs completely out of puff and needs all of the extra performance modifications to pretend to be a 'quick car'. The petrol one already is.

You can't get away from the fact that the diesel car is there for a thump of torque and economy. It all ends there. That's when the twincharged car comes into it's own.

Let's move away from bragging about how much MPG guys 'think' they achieve. If the computer never had that facility to view the mpg, the diesel guys would be lost

Hi Jonny, as you said in an earlier post, "you've been there and done that", but clearly not lately as you are so so out of touch with diesel performance and economy. And, from the sound of it you don't know how a diesel should be driven which may be why you didn't get good economy when you drove it fast. But worst of all you are guilty of the same misinformed properganda you accuse diesel owners of in your earlier post. You're comments are getting plain silly now and just don't make sense to anyone who knows about diesels. You just keep missing the point. No one is bragging about diesel economy but just trying to put right the misinformed propaganda you are laying down. The question was, 'will there be a diesel Vrs'? There almost certainly will. Will it be faster than the petrol version? Probably not, but it will be close and the economy will be awesome. Sorry to be a bit more blunt. No offence meant.

I've had my say guys. Go and make your own choices. Good luck

And it's been good! Happy New Year Jonny....:yes:

Hi Jonny, as you said in an earlier post, "you've been there and done that", but clearly not lately as you are so so out of touch with diesel performance and economy. And, from the sound of it you don't know how a diesel should be driven which may be why you didn't get good economy when you drove it fast. But worst of all you are guilty of the same misinformed properganda you accuse diesel owners of in your earlier post. You're comments are getting plain silly now and just don't make sense to anyone who knows about diesels. You just keep missing the point. No one is bragging about diesel economy but just trying to put right the misinformed propaganda you are laying down. The question was, 'will there be a diesel Vrs'? There almost certainly will. Will it be faster than the petrol version? Probably not, but it will be close and the economy will be awesome. Sorry to be a bit more blunt. No offence meant.

I'd give up Estate Man.

Jonny has got a pretty well set opinion. Everyone is entitled to theirs. Even if it's wrong. (IMO)

Should have had that mkI VRS looked at though. I can see why he prefered petrol if it was so bad.

I'd like to see a diesel VRS again, because while it would be slower it brings back fun for sensible running costs to a lot of people.

People seem to forget the mkI VRS was a warm hatch with cheap running costs, the mkII is a hot hatch. There is no direct comparison. Each has it's fans, I just happen to prefer the former.

Yeah...I know. But Jonny's ok, I know where he is coming from. He loves the addictive revs of a petrol and isn't too worried about the cost, which is fine. Me, as you know Boss, I'm a diesel head but actually not just because of the mpg. I love the torque and in gear acceleration that I find lacking in most petrol cars. But I did enjoy driving the petrol Vrs it was great. Happy New Year Boss! :yes:

You too.

Petrols have come a long way recently with good performance from small engines, but some new diesels coming onto the market are looking equally impressive in terms of small trade offs in performance for great economy.

Let's hope VAG keep up.

I love you all really

I've always been a little competitive. That's why I sometimes stand for 5 hours playing Pac Man ......

That's what makes this forum spot on. There's loads of knowledge but at the same time everyone has their fair say

I'd like to see a diesel VRS again, because while it would be slower it brings back fun for sensible running costs to a lot of people.

ppm for the VRS is certainly quite daunting, especially when compared to the old model.

i would have loved the choice of either but alas, Slowda didnt play fair and only built a petrol :'(

IF they'd given me a choice of say a 170 diesel and the petrol vrs im sure, costs aside, it would have been a difficult choice but i might just have been swayed to the diesel

as we never had this choice and considering just how cheap the vrs is against similar models it was a no brainer

13k for a nippy car won me over

i cant wait for the mk3 and what it will bring

i cant wait for the mk3 and what it will bring

Hopefully it wont be too soon. I've only just got this one !

I have an Audi TT 170Tdi quattro, it's quick but not amazing. Having said that I regularly get 52+ mpg on a long run and easily 37mpg round town. My Monte Carlo is currently pushing out around 45mpg in town and about 60mpg on a run. It's only got 500 miles on it so I am hoping for way more to come considering it's not 4wd and is lacking 400cc & 65bhp! I chose the diesel Monte as it was only £600 more than the 105Tsi. I don't do that many miles (had the car since September and 500 miles covered) but wanted diesel as I like the torque. It's nippy but nothing amazing, insurance and road tax are cheaper and with the extra economy I should have easily covered the extra £600 purchase price from when it was originally purchased.

I love high powered petrol cars. I've had a 300bhp MR2 which was pretty insane, unfortunately though 16-20mpg wasn't for me. I'd have another MK1 Octavia VRS again tomorrow if I had to. 38-40mpg on a run, plenty quick enough and very big inside.

Hi Matt, that's an interesting combination you have there...well done! As you say, you should get quite some improvement on mpg in the next few thousand miles, and a boost in power too. Enjoy! & Happy New Year...

I think the upshot of it all is - petrol needs to be cheaper

I would love to see a 170bhp diesel vRS in the Fabia 3 along with the 210bhp 1.6T

I think the upshot of it all is - petrol needs to be cheaper

I would love to see a 170bhp diesel vRS in the Fabia 3 along with the 210bhp 1.6T

Where I am (middle of nowhere) petrol is 50p a gallon cheaper.

I think the upshot of it all is - petrol needs to be cheaper

I would love to see a 170bhp diesel vRS in the Fabia 3 along with the 210bhp 1.6T

Agreed - but then I wouldnt know which one to pick unless Skoda did the hatch as petrol and the estate as the diesel.

I don't have a problem with the new fab vrs but I fail to see what the hype is about especially people saying how quick it is lol I test drove one and was very very disapointed. I thought it would have went like a scalded cat lol but was merely average in every area. IMO if course. And those saying its faster than a mapped mk1 not that you should be comparing them but i completely disagree, there would be no more than a car length max for either car dependant upon driver

I've been on a few brisk runs with Sharkrider and his standard mk2.

His car quite easily pulls away from my mapped mk1, it's not massively quicker, but it does pull away.

I've also been behind another mapped mk1 on the same run and I was slightly gaining on him, Dave was still pulling away from both of us.

No question a mk2 is faster. DSG definitely helps, and the XDS means you can apply power through a corner without cocking everything up.

No question a mk2 is faster. DSG definitely helps, and the XDS means you can apply power through a corner without cocking everything up.

Yep, it's a hot hatch, not a warm one like the mkI.

Different cars and markets.

I love you all really

I've always been a little competitive. That's why I sometimes stand for 5 hours playing Pac Man ......

That's what makes this forum spot on. There's loads of knowledge but at the same time everyone has their fair say

Jonny...I bet I'm more competitive!!! :p:D:giggle:

I still stand by my statement in previous discussions about a new Dev Fabia VRS is the CR170 isn't an option as its used in the Golf GTD and Octi VRS.

Untill some one at VAG comes up with either a more powerful 2.0CR TDI engine or fits something bigger into the Golf, Octi etc The 170CR is not going to be released to the Polo, Ibiza Fabia platform as its a massive own goal.

In my own humble but correct option theres already a diesel vRS(well almost) option on the market.

It probably outperforms the old mk1 as well

For all you Mk1, want a diesel with average performance type guys I give you the Monte Carlo 1.6TSI 105PS

Giving it its dues though, thats a smart colour.

In my own humble but correct option theres already a diesel vRS(well almost) option on the market.

It probably outperforms the old mk1 as well

For all you Mk1, want a diesel with average performance type guys I give you the Monte Carlo 1.6TSI 105PS

Skoda's figures show it as being slower.

It's also a bit boring without that nice thump of torque that makes the mkI feel faster than it really is.

Good engine though and the closest to a mkI VRS you can get currently, even if it's not got the same speed or character.

Does over 10 seconds to 60mph count as a warm hatch?

Remap one and its a serious contender to the old vRS throne

Remap one and its a serious contender to the old vRS throne

True.

But comparing stock to modified like that opens a can of worms.

Car A modifed will keep up with stock car B. Ah, I hear you say, but remap car B and it'll be faster for the same money. Yes, yes, but then you can do X to car A and it'll be faster again! True, but then car B will be faster still if you do the same... and so on and so on...

The 1.6CR is a good engine, but it's a regular small car. The mkI VRS is a warm hatch and the mkII is a hot hatch.

They stay in that order of speed if you modify or not. (IMO)

I have a rather rapid mkI VRS, but a mkII will still give the same performance much cheaper. And a 1.6 CR Monte will never match it. It's the natural order.

Great answer bossfox.

+1 Bossfox that answer is spot on