....They actually made a engine choice for the car so it did what is says on the tin....

Wonder how many potential current Fabia vRS owners like me (and other model owners) would happily switch to Rapid if his was the case.

 

The Rapid would be a more intuitive choice as jumping to Octy size car would be a little large for me. But currently sporting the very capable 150HP BLT I'm not going to "downgrade" on performance just to go newer...and to then have a car badged up as "Rapid" would just add insult to injury on ones wallet and ego.

 

However I suspect there is probably at least a years wait IF they even decide to add such an option....

such a shame it takes so long for these things to develop - I suspect there are potential sales there if only they would get around to sorting it out.....does Skoda really have to be the poor mans choice to VW and Seat as they really want it to be ?

 

How many others like me ?

  The current Rapid is a good, mainstream family car, but I always thought that the name Rapid should have been used for something a bit special, preferably a coupe and fast. The RWD Rapid was a long way from being fast, but it looked a bit sporty and was a little quicker than the Estelle. In my opinion the current Rapid should have been named Felicia.

Rapid needs the 2LTR 170BHP CR or 2LTR tsi then it might sell.

Rapid needs the 2LTR 170BHP CR or 2LTR tsi then it might sell.

It would sell yes but it would cannibalise Octavia sales, which is presumably why they don't offer anything bigger than the 1.4 TSI 122 DSG

With the environment in mind, I would guess the 2.0 and 1.8 engines will all disappear soon in favour of smaller capacity turbo engines with low CO2 figures.

 

 Just look at motorsport, WRC running 1.6 engines, F1 will be 1.6 next year also, so if you choose to stay on fossil fuel the engine will get smaller and if you don't you will have to charge your car up at night and not go very far! 

personally I'd put the latest 2.0 tsi engime in the rapid as that would be closer to a hot hatch to rival the others in the section.

I'd then discontinue the tsi in the octy, raid the audi parts bin and produce a vRS4

If they sell a Scout version of the Spaceback with raised ride height/better ground clearance and a more absorbent ride that also costs less than an entry level Yeti. No chance :think:

If they sell a Scout version of the Spaceback with raised ride height/better ground clearance and a more absorbent ride that also costs less than an entry level Yeti. No chance :think:

 

Spaceback Scout.. there's an idea

Has anyone driven the 1.4TSI DSG version? I imagine that's a pretty rapid Rapid. 

Okay but hardly blistering though old sport....rapid ?

I think not. Given the Octy and Fabia vRS (II) 0-60 are about 7secs

Spritely/nippy, perhaps.

 

http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/skoda/rapid-hatchback/1-4-tsi-122-5dr/summary/65469

 

148lb ft of torque also...versus the 229 I have now ? (mk1 to 60 in the 8 secs range). Should I switch ? Guess thats a no brainer.

 

Like I said originally, it would be a climbdown in performance from my 1.9 vRS even to get that - which many on here seem to have grasped which was in fact my point that it was an opportunity missed by Skoda to do something really special

You can't compare the old tech diesel vrs to a new tech petrol rapid - doesn't quite work does it??

Be sensible and compare it to its replacement - mk2 fabia vrs which blows it out of the water on all cases except for mpg.

Just buy a 1.2 and stick in whatever engine you like.

You can't compare the old tech diesel vrs to a new tech petrol rapid - doesn't quite work does it??

Be sensible and compare it to its replacement - mk2 fabia vrs which blows it out of the water on all cases except for mpg.

 

Argh ! But that just doesn't work.

To begin with I didn't say I was after a MK2 fabia

 

I was actually stating that I'd be VERY interested in buying a Rapid provided they made a worthwhile option for me, which they currently don't quite do.

 

One reason I never rushed out for the newer MKII vRS, I'm a power diesel convert

(other reasons include that I find the newer ferby just a bit too tall and narrow to the MKI?)

I know they don't offer a decent enough engine, so why compare the stats?

Used to have an ibiza fr tdi, a mk1 vrs and mk2 vrs so know the cars and engines very well and the new 1.2 tsi punches well above its weight - suggest you go try one.

The 1.2 tsi 105 (6speed) offers fairly good power, some been proven to kick out 120bhp stock just like your blt kicks out more stock.

Has a good power to weight ratio - mk1 is a porker!

Provides good mpg, can almost match a 1.9 tdi.

If you're a diesel convert because of the 1.9tdi punch you won't find much to replace it with, could try a 1.6tdi and map it? But then you could just get a 1.2 and map it.

Why? Because performance is one of the metrics I want to be sure of when buying my next car, the figures aren't everything but they give you some feel for the kind of car you are getting.

 

I wasn't initially prepared to rush out for the MKII Fab, basically being unsure about the fuel format, but other concerns at first with (firstly the initial cost, it was quite high when they first released, or not a bargain VFM purchase but did eventually become so with the vat free), but others that stuck with me like finding it too tall and skinny a car for me to be happy with (IMO)

 

As mentioned I do think the looks of the Rapid (IMO way better than the Fabia)

and would warrant buying more of a petrol vRS version if they didn't make diesel.

 

(I did say wrt to the Fab vRS II that "one" of the reasons....it wasn't the only one....with avoiding buying a "small" car being one of the things I do personally in my next car purchase. People have different buying drivers...and for me that is ONE of them)

 

Plus, in response to your reply, there is no way in hell I'm going to be impressed by a car with 65% of the torque of my current car, and that is just the 1.4. So the 1.2 isn't even an option, forget it. If I had a second car, maybe for the wife and something I'd be more than happy driving about in as a second car. But for something that gave me feelgood factor every time I drive myself? We could go further here and delve into figures like 50-70 but it really isn't worth it, as I already have a good idea of the answer.

I'm now approaching the age and insurability that stuff like Jaguar XKRs and the like aren't unrealistic, is it such a bad thing to want to aspire to something with a bit of performance now I can afford to insure it?

 

However the Rapid is a very capable format for me, and attractive car - like I said its just a pity they don't actually build one to do what it says on the back yet. Like others have said I'd happily see a PD170 format ! But I'd be just as happy to see the (vRS) 1.4TSI in the Rapid, I think that would be worth having personally.

Mine is only 105bhp, alledgedly.

But I have to say that because it only weighs 1100kg you can hussle it along quite well in the higher rev range.

Remapped to 130bhp with that nice low kerbweight and decent front/back balance it'd be fine if you wanted to play with it a bit.

Rapid enough for a family car anyway while keeping a low price tag and cheap running costs.

I don't need a family car but thanks for the info anyway. I'd really rather wait around for the "real deal" but its true you can certainly go that way, but I don't want to / or feel I have to jump through hoops to get the car that skoda SHOULD be making.

 

Not really into the remap - I believe they should make it good as possible as standard, meeting a specific expectations of a specific group (looking for the top of the range performance) - it also makes some areas like insurance a hell of a lot simpler and cheaper.

 

There are those who will want to heavily modify and that is fine if they want to do that - I'm just talking about the modern day expectation of a "rapid" top of the line model like those of us fortunate enough to buy into the fabia and octy vrs models.

(I'm really hoping we haven't seen the top of the line of the rapid with the basic 1.4Tsi yet)

would you have a Rapid if it were a fast back? I might, not sure about the hard angular lines on the boot by the number plate, but as Skoda has adopted this for the Octavia, Yeti, Rapid and I assume the new Fabia 3 it might grow on me.

 

 

 

 

Hard to tell on the basis of just one (not particularly flattering) photo....

In those clothes....I think I'd say no, but its hard to tell what they might make of  a "vRS" version of it.

 

Bleh, they tempt with the concept of "sport" with the Rapid but then go spouting on about "value" (presumably whats been force fed by VW)

I can see myself going off the VW chain at this rate. However there is still Seat who don't have to play the hard line of VW of course, I see that coming up quite a lot on the Mk1 forum for suggestions for replacements.

 

http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/290323/skoda_rapid_vrs_ruled_out.html

Personally I am looking at the new Golf MK VII GTD although it has a very steep price tag!

A 1.4 122bhp non dsg, & I would consider

Golf 4 GTD how much? I imagine at least twice over what I originally paid on my vRS !

 

At which rate you are looking at a few year old Vauxhall Monaro VXR money (and the like)! 

I don't do the miles now so thats the sort of thing that isn't a million miles out for me.

 

Okay the MPG is disgusting (<20mpg lol)

New Golf GTD is circa £27K   well specced and great 184 bhp diesel with 109 emissions, but I really can't justify that money for a Golf. There is an alternative Leon with the same engine and is £4K cheaper.

 

 If you aren't doing many miles go for an R32 or like you state the Manaro.

 However there is still Seat who don't have to play the hard line of VW of course, I see that coming up quite a lot on the Mk1 forum for suggestions for replacements.

 

 

 

..SEAT who have not turned a profit in years. Snot fair!

What's with the "torque" all the time? A car that weighs 200kg less with better power delivery can be just as quick.

I still don't understand the comparing with the Rapid models when you say you don't want one because its not a vrs? Yet you won't test drive one and still say its not good enough?

The 1.9 is great but its power is delivered in such a lump that makes it "feel" fast but in reality it's not a fast car - swift at best.