Looks like Skoda are going down the same route as the Civic and Astra with the suspension. A backward step unless they have a VRS with a limited slip diff.

Interior design is less ambitious and largely reflects existing Skoda fayre, but the car’s long wheelbase allows exceptionally generous rear legroom, and torsion beam rear suspension helps create a cavernous boot space.

From here:

http://www.autocar.c...n-car-previewed

Hope this turns out to be wrong about the engine lineup:

It’s expected that engine choices will be limited to sub-two-litre VW Group options to avoid excessive overlap with Octavia powertrains.

Here's a spy video:

Edited 10 June, 201214 yr by Ultima

Err, the existing cars use a torsion beam already don't they? Hardly a step backwards for them, they've used them for ages.

The sub 2 litre engines will give you 1.2TSI and 1.4TSI as well as the 1.6TDI. It'll be a lighter car than the Octavia so using these engines will be no problem at all.

If it's a lighter car then the 1.4 should offer some quite sprightly performance figures.

Err, the existing cars use a torsion beam already don't they? Hardly a step backwards for them, they've used them for ages.

The sub 2 litre engines will give you 1.2TSI and 1.4TSI as well as the 1.6TDI. It'll be a lighter car than the Octavia so using these engines will be no problem at all.

The Octavia has multi-link independent rear suspension. Those engines are no good if u want something with a bit of grunt, loads of other manufacturers use the same engines in smaller models. The Golf, Focus, Astra all use higher powered diesel/petrol engines that are also used in their larger models, why do Skoda have to be different?

I hope they don't use the 1.4 twincharger as it has reliability issues and drinks oil; they should make a 1.6 turbo petrol to replace it, like so many other manufacturers use.

Edited 10 June, 201214 yr by Ultima

OK, but multi-link is expensive. Rapid is on the Polo/Roomster platform which uses torsion beam. Nothing wrong with the Fabias handling IMHO

Twincharger won't be going in it, it's being replaced with a new 1.6 TSI, which we might see in a Rapid vRS, who knows.

The engines I mentioned will not feel slow, I just hope they don't put an HTP in it. the 122bhp 1.4TSI will easily get a sub 10 second 0-60.

Especially if they get 180bhp from that 1.4 lump.

Will be the 1.6 for 180bhp. I can see the 1.4 being turned up a bit for the new Octy though.

I think the engine lineup will look like this:

1.2 TSI 85

1.2 TSI 105

1.4 TSI 122 (hopefully!)

1.6 TSI 180 (for a vRS.. eventually)

1.6TDI 90

1.6TDI 105

But thats just my own guess

According to information from a highly reliable Czech source, the 1.4TSI 122 will be in. Does 0-62 in 9.5s in the bigger Octavia so should be handy.

The base engine will probably be a 75BHP version of the 1.2HTP engine, although perhaps we won't get that in the UK.

Nothing wrong with the torsion beam suspension if the rest of the chassis is set up well. The Roomster is actually really good to drive following a similar philisophy to this car.

Any idea what the weights are of this thing?

Not seen anything official. Similar to the Roomster if I had to guess.

Any idea what the weights are of this thing?

No but would presume it would be lighter than the current Octavia as it is around 9cm shorter and a bit narrower too.

It's just if you can know the weight of it you can work out very roughly what it will go like.

So if you were to take 30-40kg off of the Octavia's weight, then you should be looking at a ballpark figure of 8½-9 secs.

Will be the 1.6 for 180bhp. I can see the 1.4 being turned up a bit for the new Octy though.

I think the engine lineup will look like this:

1.2 TSI 85

1.2 TSI 105

1.4 TSI 122 (hopefully!)

1.6 TSI 180 (for a vRS.. eventually)

1.6TDI 90

1.6TDI 105

But thats just my own guess

I've seen a 138hp version of the 1.4 TSI mentioned in an article about the new Audi A3. They would still need the 2.0 diesel with 140 and hopefully 170 versions. The Octavia 3 should get a more powerful diesel than the 170hp version.

Edited 11 June, 201214 yr by Ultima

Aren't beam rear ends on pretty much all fwd dedicated chassis these days? If there's an AWD/4WD version then you need to be tooled up for an independent rear end and may as well use it for all of them.

Aren't beam rear ends on pretty much all fwd dedicated chassis these days? If there's an AWD/4WD version then you need to be tooled up for an independent rear end and may as well use it for all of them.

Yes. Nothing wrong with a beam rear end on FWD.

Aren't beam rear ends on pretty much all fwd dedicated chassis these days? If there's an AWD/4WD version then you need to be tooled up for an independent rear end and may as well use it for all of them.

The Yeti rear suspension is different on the later 2WD versions from the 4x4's I think from somewhere in MY2011.

So no, I don't think they would as it is cheaper to keep the beam and keeps costs down. They can charge a premium for 4x4.

The Yeti rear suspension is different on the later 2WD versions from the 4x4's I think from somewhere in MY2011.

So no, I don't think they would as it is cheaper to keep the beam and keeps costs down. They can charge a premium for 4x4.

The rear suspension is still independent just the sub frame changed on the 2wd from complex Tiguan (and expensive) to more basic Golf V/VI form MY11 on.

TP