Hi All,

Been away from Skoda for a while, been bored stupid by my Accord 2.2d for the last 18 months, large daily commute demanded that I have a large comfy (boring) tank like car ,, leaving that job soon so have decided to come back to Skoda.

I have had a few Skoda's in the past , 2 Fabia Mk1 Vrs and an Octavia PD Vrs , the first Fabia Vrs being the fabled "I should never if got rid of that car". The second Fab was a dog, a deep money pit that had to go, and the Octavia just didnt make monetary sense at the time. All good cars.

Now , I'll have around 10k to spend, Id like your opinions on which to get, having always had diesel cars Im swaying towards the monte 105cr , maybe because of the snags with the vrs engine, but im open to persuasion....

so please, air your opinions !!!

Si

fabia II vRS best car I've ever owned, easily got for £10k second hand

I see youve put monte 105 i wouldnt ignore the 86 either as i cant imagine the power difference is that noticable ,

I would of gone for 105 if hadnt come across this nicely spec'd 86 i have now.

My vote went with the Monte TSI and as another poster suggested, also consider/try the 86. Have driven the Fabia II vRS and yes its a very quick car but not for me and although the DSG is very good, I'm old fashioned and prefer manual clutch and stick.

If your not doing great miles I'd avoid the diesel; form experience with a Octavia 1.6TDI CR 105, I wouldn't say it's the quietest or smoothest of VAG oil motors. Plus my Yeti's DPF, although not throwing up warning lights or generating fault codes, is forever regenerating in cold weather. Can be an Achilles heel for the modern diesel power plant, particularly if your planning on longer term ownership.

Oh one final thought, the 1.2TSI is a Skoda engine the 1.4TSI VW.

TP

My vote went with the Monte TSI and as another poster suggested, also consider/try the 86. Have driven the Fabia II vRS and yes its a very quick car but not for me and although the DSG is very good, I'm old fashioned and prefer manual clutch and stick.

If your not doing great miles I'd avoid the diesel; form experience with a Octavia 1.6TDI CR 105, I wouldn't say it's the quietest or smoothest of VAG oil motors. Plus my Yeti's DPF, although not throwing up warning lights or generating fault codes, is forever regenerating in cold weather. Can be an Achilles heel for the modern diesel power plant, particularly if your planning on longer term ownership.

Oh one final thought, the 1.2TSI is a Skoda engine the 1.4TSI VW.

TP

Cracking advice , just what Im after, thankyou

Oh one final thought, the 1.2TSI is a Skoda engine the 1.4TSI VW.

TP

Not quite true - the 1.2TSI is used right across the VW group same as the 1.4

Not quite true - the 1.2TSI is used right across the VW group same as the 1.4

True but i think the plumber meant it is actually assembled by Skoda. However, not that that should make any difference.

Unless your usage demands it stay away from the diesel, it is the fuel of satan (says he who may be about to buy one).

So if it is going to be petrol then the vRS is the one to have. The Monte is good but i know where i have most fun :)

the only snag with the VRs (its not a large amount of owners anyways) is the oil usage, other than that its a great car and puts a smile on my face every time i drive and ive owned it now for 16 months

im not sure if the 105 petrol or diesel will give you the same surge the 2.2 gives you either, i guess it depends on how you drive but for me the vrs + dsg would win every time

agree with the mad monk. and mine doesn't use oil vRS all the way... 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, 50 + mpg if you try hard, £130 ish a year to tax......

vRS, £135 & possibly reasonable on insurance.

Probably possible to be as economical as the diesels or petrol Monte in real conditions,

george

Monte Carlo 1.2 TSI 105 is a cracking little car, i have had mine only for about 8 days now and I am loving it. I got it brand new for a few pennies more than 10K, in its favour its cheap to insure, cheap to tax, looks good and I'm returning up to 47mpg which is not far off its claimed 55mpg and the engine has still to set in a bit.

Monte Carlo 1.2 TSI 105 is a cracking little car, i have had mine only for about 8 days now and I am loving it. I got it brand new for a few pennies more than 10K, in its favour its cheap to insure, cheap to tax, looks good and I'm returning up to 47mpg which is not far off its claimed 55mpg and the engine has still to set in a bit.

I always worry about the lack of torque on petrol cars, have you had many passengers in your monte Louis ? Do you find yourself changing gear a lot ,,, its difficult to say ,,, but does the car feel like it has 'balls' ??

I am swaying towards the 105 petrol monte , but have never had such a small engined car ,, anyone else had these worries ??

I have had 4 adults in it, and yeah it didn't feel as 'nippy'. However it does not in any way feel like a 1.2 engine in it you could be forgiven for thinking it had something bigger beneath its bonnet.

vRS never feels wanting when it's four up... If you can stretch to one, do it!

Monte Carlo 1.2 TSI 105 is a cracking little car, i have had mine only for about 8 days now and I am loving it. I got it brand new for a few pennies more than 10K, in its favour its cheap to insure, cheap to tax, looks good and I'm returning up to 47mpg which is not far off its claimed 55mpg and the engine has still to set in a bit.

the 105 tsi is a cracking engine, punches well above its weight

I always worry about the lack of torque on petrol cars, have you had many passengers in your monte Louis ? Do you find yourself changing gear a lot ,,, its difficult to say ,,, but does the car feel like it has 'balls' ??

I am swaying towards the 105 petrol monte , but have never had such a small engined car ,, anyone else had these worries ??

trust me, its a strong engine, you'd be suprised...

vRS never feels wanting when it's four up... If you can stretch to one, do it!

to step it up some, on the way to the czech republic on the recent briskoda holiday, (in Germany on clear dry inlimited autobahns) I did do this with 4 up and luggage.... (thats correct GPS speed )

the only snag with the VRs (its not a large amount of owners anyways) is the oil usage, other than that its a great car and puts a smile on my face every time i drive and ive owned it now for 16 months

im not sure if the 105 petrol or diesel will give you the same surge the 2.2 gives you either, i guess it depends on how you drive but for me the vrs + dsg would win every time

It is a potential bind (the oil usage), and I should know having had a new engine but it does not effect every one, as Sharkrider can testify to (dam how I hate his non oil drinking engine ). However, if the economics do not stack up for a diesel, then it will need to be a petrol.

When buying the Monte I test drove both the 86 and 105, over the same route on the same day. Little difference between the two (in my opinion) over the route driven and it was not just up and down the local A-road either. Went for the 86 simply because my teenage son drives the car when home from university so needed to be sensible on insurance (for him). But, if you really want to have fun then it will need to be the vRS. Quick, responsive and the DSG is great, especially when used as a manual. I have found the fuel consumption for either car is not that great as I struggle to get 35 mpg out of the vRS and the Monte returns a little over 40. Recent round trip to Birmingham and a few local trips resulted in 350 miles for 40 litres from the Monte.

Loved my 1.2 TSI (86) had from new 11 plate 14000 miles only had turbo shim fitted no faults. Should have stayed with the monty 1.2 TSI (86) i ordered and not gone for the VRs that was new in the showroom cannot do any thing now for 57 months so i am stuck. Dont get me wrong nice car but with oil and mpg lets it down

It is a potential bind (the oil usage), and I should know having had a new engine but it does not effect every one, as Sharkrider can testify to (dam how I hate his non oil drinking engine ). However, if the economics do not stack up for a diesel, then it will need to be a petrol.

When buying the Monte I test drove both the 86 and 105, over the same route on the same day. Little difference between the two (in my opinion) over the route driven and it was not just up and down the local A-road either. Went for the 86 simply because my teenage son drives the car when home from university so needed to be sensible on insurance (for him). But, if you really want to have fun then it will need to be the vRS. Quick, responsive and the DSG is great, especially when used as a manual. I have found the fuel consumption for either car is not that great as I struggle to get 35 mpg out of the vRS and the Monte returns a little over 40. Recent round trip to Birmingham and a few local trips resulted in 350 miles for 40 litres from the Monte.

Would agree from my own experience of driving the Fabia with the 86 and 105TSI, there's little in it, although fuel consumption of the 105 I used for a few days appeared factionally better going by the computer average :wonder:

Our Monte is not run in enough to gauge it's potential fuel consumption but the previous Elegance with the original TSI 85 worked out just over 40mpg in our 22,000 miles of ownership.

Also driven a Yeti 105TSI with the 7 speed DSG and performance appeared slightly better than the Fabia. Have a feeling the 5 speed box does not compliment that level of output as well as say the lesser 86.

TP

Agree on the 5 speed box in this day and age. Would have expected a 6 speeder just to give an overdrive option at the top end. and of course the gearing throughout could have then been revamped to make it a little more economical. But the Monte is still good fun, just not as much as the vRS

If you like power and ain't fussed about fuel costs go for the VRS , I just got rid of my Auris SR180 2.2D for a Monte TDI 105, and really do miss the power, but in my case it will save me a bundle in fuel costs.

Cheers

JJ

Well, Poll results are no surprise really, massively in favour of Vrs. I think Im just going to have to try and drive them all over the next few months. I'm swerving towards the 105 petrol ,,, maybe its my age telling me that you dont actually 'need' the vrs. You see the attraction of the running costs of the 105cr cannot be ignored, it must cost pennies to run,,, can anyone here comment on the power of the engine ? Does it have the typical mid range diesel shove , is the in gear acceleration still diesel like ? Can it be remapped to almost mk1 vrs power ??

Still lots and lots of Q's , Im grateful for all your comments, keep em coming,,, cheers :beer: !!

Have a vRS estate and think its a v good car for the money.

It does really rather depend on what you preference though; sounds to me so long as its half quick and economical it'll be the one, given that i'd probably chose one of the 105ps cars, probably the TSi to be fair.

My single biggest personal criticism of the vRS has to be the fuel economy, it'll push 40ish mpg if driven with kid gloves but mine has only managed an average of approx 31 mpg over 11k miles which is quite poor given the 45mpg manufacturers claim.

Also whilst the drivechain and gearbox are probably the best to be seen in any current hot hatch as yet the driving dynamics of the car dont meet the same grade. Its floaty, rolls too much, struggles for traction when its damp (it'll try to light up in 4th if provoked enough in the wet) and the steering weight and braking feel for me dont inspire alot of confidence.

The 105ps Monte has more or less the same chassis configuration so will test it half as much as the 180ps car, the dynamic shortfalls can sometimes be entertaining but for me they frustrate more so.

You can improve then considerably by lowering them, installing a rear anti roll bar and fitting bigger MK4 Golf GTi front brakes but thats not my bag, should drive better out of the box.

You see now Im firmly in the 105cr monte ,,,,,, anyone who has one,, can you comment on the engine and running costs please, I could be doing a fair few miles,, can it be a motorway (500 mile) cruiser and also have the ability to put a smile on your face on some a roads ????

If you like power and ain't fussed about fuel costs go for the VRS , I just got rid of my Auris SR180 2.2D for a Monte TDI 105, and really do miss the power, but in my case it will save me a bundle in fuel costs.

Cheers

JJ

Coming from the Auris, you will understand what I mean,, whats the difference in the smaller engine mate, is it massive ?

You really will only have an idea what suits your needs and likes once you drive a few.

I would never just go by how a Dealers demonstrator feels,

i would also try a year old one for an idea of it with some miles on the clock.

Different people drive cars that should be pretty alike and get totally different experiences.

http://www.briskoda....in-a-vrs-45-mpg

(this was not driving in a way to achieve economy.)

george