The end is near

[MartynVRS]

So this is looking like it really will be my last Skoda. Octavia vRS is too big for what I need, don't need a Yeti yet but parents may get one, there's no Citigo vRS and I don't like the Rapid.

[vRS19TD]

I'll keep hold of my Mk1, wait for it to become very rare and then for BossFox to buy it off me as a collectors item.

[sharkrider]

So this is looking like it really will be my last Skoda. Octavia vRS is too big for what I need, don't need a Yeti yet but parents may get one, there's no Citigo vRS and I don't like the Rapid.

Indeed octy is too expensive, so is the rapid (and no vRS anyway) and no citygo vRS.... They will loose me buying a new car in 3 years time! But the alot can change In three years ...

[LexVRS]

fully loaded skoda ....rare beast as it is i will keep it whan i get it me thinks still 3 yers down the line there may be a new one lol

[RapidRonnie]

Interesting read. I would be disappointed if there is really no Fabia Mk3 vRS. I have high hopes the Mk3 will be a better looking car.

 

I imagine the "two concepts he has in mind" are some kind of Coupe and some kind of SUV smaller than the Yeti.

[sharkrider]

Mini have dropped the coupe because no one bought it, they would be daft to do that ....

[Dark_Hero]

I don't think a coupe skoda would work. As much as they have come along they still have the skoda stigma. So people wouldn't want to be seen in one without a roof.

If it is true about the Vrs it may well mean I too have my last skoda.

It was the diesel Fabia that really launched the Vrs name.

[zoomer271]

I'm sure there will be a 'hot' TDi - whether it's badged as a VRS is a different matter

My personal opinion is that it won't be there at launch but will come 6-12 months later.....

[Ally_bassman]

Maybe Skoda themselves have been on this section of the Briskoda forum and read all the negatives vibes about my beloved VRS?? :-(

I can't believe a brand new car when remapped, that is nearly as quick as a car that was released 10 years ago such as the Monty has killed off the VRS.

Shame on you people driving your Halfords special!!!! ;-)

I'll be disappointed if this is my last Skoda.

But I kinda already have my heart set on that new Kia hot hatch!!!!

[Ootohere]

Skoda stopping Fabia Production in Mumbai because of poor sales.

Recalls in China etc, all costing them lots.

 

Audi A1 Contrast Edition 185 ps S-A,

Audi A1 S Line SE 185 ps S-A

VW Polo GTI S-A

A few hundred Registered of the Audi and under 1000 Polo GTI's

& Less than 1500 Seat Ibiza 178 bhp S-A Registered in the UK, & that is a car released over 4 years ago.

 

So how much have these cost them to produce then not sell many in the UK,

Must have been too expensive maybe.  VAG seem to fail to mention that.

 

EDIT,

It would be interesting to me to know,

the percentage of the few hundred Audi that were First Registered as Dealership Demonstrators.

Quite possibly the greater majority.

Same with the Polos.

 

EDIT,

With the Seat & Skoda Twinchargers possibly 1/3rd or more of all on the road where first Registered as 

Dealership Demonstrators than sold Used after 3 Months/3000 iles.

 

george

[shrops_paul]

I’m sorry, but unless you are having problems with oil, then the statements about the Petrol Fabia vrs being an expensive car to run is just bobbins.

 

Ours replaced a 2004 MINI cooper (not an S) and the Fabia is cheaper to insure, returns a better average MPG (MINI average was 36), and its cheaper to Tax too. Oh, and its faster/more refined / better / cheaper too. Bargain. I rarely see less than 38 MPG average on a drive. But then most of the time its in auto and I don’t rag it that much.

 

For a 180bph petrol engine returning a decent MPG on a long trip is a real bonus. I took a steady trip from Shrewsbury to Falkirk and back in an Impreza and the average was 23MPG.

 

I think things would have been fine if it had been offered with a choice of Diesel or petrol like the Octavia.  I like the styling of the MC and enjoyed the courtesy car I drove but would never buy a sheep in wolfs clothing car on principle. I think the over use of the SLine trim on Audi cars has cheapened the S and RS models and this is a similar thing. If this really is the end of a Fabia VRS then it’s a real shame.

 

All just my opinion tho so keep smiling

[grr666]

This is why market research is such a vital business tool.  

Skoda are a bit dumb, they had a winning recipe, then they had to add

a silly gearbox and a twitchy petrol engine to it. 

 

They should have done the same sort of market research Citroen did

when bringing out the C1 and having discussions with the Saxo boyz.

The C1 is doing well. And so is the Arbarth 500 for that matter.

Maybe not as fast as the vRS, but involving and FUN which is the  

problem with the Mark 2.

Classic case of not listening to ones customers.

They tried to make vRS a premium product so they could charge

more for it, and wondered why they didn't sell so many?

 

Time to find a pristine mark 1 and 2 and lock them away in

a vault somewhere.

And all you cheapskate monte owners should hang your head

in shame :p  Murderers!

[Ootohere]

Have you actually driven a mk2 vRS to see how involved the driving is?

Or taking the view of those that do not like them.

 

They never tried to make the vRS a premium product, they built amazing technology but had to build to a price.

They have not dealt with some Snagging problems unfortunatley.

(the Seat 150 PS Twinchargers with DSG are all doing fine.)

 

There was cost saving everyplace to get the Twincharger & DSG into the car.

 

The Last Mk1 Fabia vRS were £13,000 in 2007.

I think they sold in the UK about 13,000 in 4 years.

 

A new Pre -Registered Monte Carlo 1.6tdi Re-mapped & lowered can be had for that price 6 years later.

I think they are talking more Monte Carlos sold in 2 years than mk1 vRS in 4.

** To quote from the OP Article, "we expected we would sell around 3000, we ended up 'Producing 20,000'."

Something that Manufacturers say, Are all Produced cars not going to sell, do they have huge stocks sitting someplace.?**

 

A new 180 PS Twincharger Hatch with DSG & Lowering Springs can be had for £14,500.

2000 odd of them sold in 3 years.

 

Nothing else came near it for the price new in 2010, for performance. (Except, Seat Ibiza Cupra, but cost more)

Only now does a few 1.6 & 1.8 Turbos match its real performance and economy figures.

& they cost thousands more.

The new Audi A3 Saloon publishes the same figures, lower emissions with stop start & its 1.8 TFSI DSG

Premium Car are Premium Price.

from £26.000,

or from £23,500 for a A3 Hatch 1.8 TFSI DSG Sport.

 

The C2 VTR/VTS was to replace the Saxo not the 'C1/Aygo/107'.

Quite a few thousand sold, even if you do not see many around.

(I still own my X Reg, 1.4 16v Saxo automatic,'Daisy Desire',

i never kept for long my C2 1.6 VTR Servodrive, with paddles & faults)

 

Abarth 500's registered 3,500 ,

Abarth 500 C, about 500,

Abarth 500 S-A '15 of them'.

[RapidRonnie]

I was thinking about this some more and came to the following conclusions:

 

- Of course the Monte is gonna sell more - it's available with the whole engine range and is cheaper

 

- The Monte looks better than the vRS (IMHO, sorry vRS owners)

 

- I personally would be happy with TSI and DSG but going this route only was bound the restrict sales

 

- The next Skoda rally car will be an R5 car based on the Fabia 3, it would seem crazy not to have a performance version in the range to mirror this

 

- I hope that if there really is no vRS there will still be some reasonably powerful engine options available (140 TSI cylinder shutdown), preferably available with DSG and flappy paddles?

[grr666]

Not directly George, Coming from a Mark 1,

I couldn't see the point of test driving car which I found so visually

unappealing. (Although they are acceptable in black if lowered a bit i suppose.)

That said, I nearly went with one out of sheer brand loyalty.

Which in itself is a marvellous testament to the Mark 1 and how good a package

that was.  However, I realised that was a stupid reason to buy a car I didn't really

like the look of.  A fair few of the Mark 2 owners bought one because they liked

their Mark one so much, and a fair few of those have already sold up as the warranty

is finished. Who can blame them?  

 

I have driven a DSG Golf a couple of S-tronic Audis and enough automatic

vehicles to know that as a concept, I don't like automatic boxes.

They suit some but not me.I did 4500miles in 3 weeks in the USA last year in

automatic cars and for the first time in my life I nearly fell asleep at the wheel twice.

(Although that was partially down to heat and boring roads too)

 

You hit the nail on the head, they cut corners to allow the inclusion of twincharger

and DSG. My point is, who asked them to? It's like having Beats by Dr Dre speakers

in your phone, a stupid licensing brand placement gimmick.

It also makes them a risky 2nd hand buy, ok from new with warranty but after that

they are expensive things to fix if they go wrong. So that alone drops residuals

and reduces appeal to the used purchaser.

 

What they should have done is fitted a punchy simple warm engine, manual box and spent

more on the look of the thing and the interior instead of throwing that percentage

of the price at engine and gearbox tech. Some flash seats, kicking stereo, big wheels and that  

sort of thing. The young lads that would have bought these love all that stuff, and it's the sports

'Look' rather than actual performance which to a 22 year old living in Liverpool might have made

it so he can actually get insured on the thing. I promise you, they would have sold many more than

they did.

 

Who in their right mind would buy a used one of these from anywhere other than a

main dealer?

Their target market for these should have been the '20 something too much hair gel brigade'

but adding the funky gearbox and highly strung engine instantly puts it out of a lot of their reach

due to the massive insurance premiums often levied at this sector. That and that it's  

hard for young lads to be able to afford a brand new car with all the other expenses.

Young fellas want to go as fast as possible as cheaply as possible,

in a car that looks like it can do 500mph. That includes fuel, servicing repairs tax and

insurance. The mark one offered that, went well, cheap tax, cheapish to fix, reliable,

good on fuel, sports styling, etc etc. That's why 2007 cars are still changing hands for 7k 

 

Correction accepted on the Citroen thing, I'm not really a fan but was aware

of the customer research they did developing the car. In any case it seems to

have stood Citroen in good stead.

Whilst the Abarths don't seem to have great numbers, I see them all the time,

but I hardly ever see a Mark 2 Fab vRS. Just being honest, I don't.  

perhaps I notice them more as we already have a 500?

[BossFox]

It's horses for courses.

I did buy one, but sold it 4 days later as to me it was boring to drive with it's smooth linear performance delivery.

But I do accept that some people like that.  Speed rather than fun unless going like a loon on a track day.

400 miles was enough for me.

 

What they should have done is fitted a punchy simple warm engine, manual box and spent

more on the look of the thing and the interior instead of throwing that percentage

of the price at engine and gearbox tech. Some flash seats, kicking stereo, big wheels and that  

sort of thing. The young lads that would have bought these love all that stuff, and it's the sports

'Look' rather than actual performance which to a 22 year old living in Liverpool might have made

it so he can actually get insured on the thing. I promise you, they would have sold many more than

they did.

 

Hence the Monte Carlo being much more of a success than the mk2 VRS.

It's what more customers actually wanted.

[Sparkly]

Sorry Grrr but i disagree with a lot of what was said above, not from the point of view of the VRS longevity in the marketplace, as I suppose the writing is on the wall there and that will be down to lack of commercial success and aforementioned issues with some engines.

 

However, as a purely personal statement, there is nothing turns me off less about a car than styling over substance and I aim this reasonably broadly (personal opinion, I repeat just my view) encompassing luke warm hatches with all the spoilers and trim, BMW 116i's with M Sport Trim and the like.

 

I had no brand loyalty when I bought my MK2 VRS having not owned a Skoda previously, some would say I didn't even have a clue as I bought it without knowing anything about oil usage issues etc and the car was 2.5 years old with 30k+ miles and only 6 months warranty remaining.

 

.......and i love it, the Twincharger and DSG make this car, I forgive it almost all it's other faults for those two things alone.

[Ootohere]

grrr666,

The thing is those that bought and liked and kept mk2 vRS & bought another must have liked what they liked.

Some of those were Mk1 vRS owners and enthusiasts.

 

They must have had the fun level, or speed or enjoyment they wanted.

So the experiment worked for some,

some care not one bit about an ugly car.

Some do not pay premiums to drive a Brand or give a monkeys on trinkets or Prestige,

 

Its all about choices really,

the choice was there for anyone wanting a Twincharger 178 bhp DSG and not caring if who the manufacturer was.,

 

Buying the cheapest version available of the Twincharger 178 BHP DSG's is not the same as going for some 105 ps, 122/140-335 bhp Turbo & with DSG or S-line box car,

they could buy these if they wanted or if that was what suited. 

Still can actually.

 

george

 

PS

grr666,

how out of touch are you with the Insurance cost of a mk2 vRS and many members here around 20 years old paying less for insurance than some little City Car.

Even Cars with Mods Declared.

[grr666]

Sorry Grrr but i disagree with a lot of what was said above, not from the point of view of the VRS longevity in the marketplace, as I suppose the writing is on the wall there and that will be down to lack of commercial success and aforementioned issues with some engines.

 

However, as a purely personal statement, there is nothing turns me off less about a car than styling over substance and I aim this reasonably broadly (personal opinion, I repeat just my view) encompassing luke warm hatches with all the spoilers and trim, BMW 116i's with M Sport Trim and the like.

 

I had no brand loyalty when I bought my MK2 VRS having not owned a Skoda previously, some would say I didn't even have a clue as I bought it without knowing anything about oil usage issues etc and the car was 2.5 years old with 30k+ miles and only 6 months warranty remaining.

 

.......and i love it, the Twincharger and DSG make this car, I forgive it almost all it's other faults for those two things alone.

 

I'm used to people not agreeing with me, I'm married

But, I didn't say warm cars with big spoilers were tasteful or good. I just said they sell.

It's about numbers at the end of the day, and the 'Fabia vRS' product would not be being canned if the

mark 2 had sold more. It wouldn't even have to have been that good a car, just appealed to 

and been affordable to the right market.

[Ootohere]

I am not disagreeing,

probably just like your wife, just  thinking, why does he not get facts or even understand the subject him self rather than 

listening to the opinions of a man down the pub.

 

eg 'Why have the argument or express opinions on the merits of Liverpool FC that he got from an Everton Supporter,

& all this when he is a Chelsea fan'.

 

george

[Chorlton]

I'm not surprised it's being killed off.  In my opinion the MkII just doesn't look right.  I'm not one for style over substance (I've got a MkI) but I feel they could have made more effort with the looks for a range topping model.

[sharkrider]

I disagree with the people who go against the DSG , I will never buy a manual again, the important thing is to LIVE with the DSG , not just test it .... I doubt most of you would buy a Ferrari or Aston or merc ect with the manual option...

To address the argument of involvement, I've just driven ashs citygo 450 miles down to Cornwall, and although its great fun, handles really well, had great grip , and a lovely engine note, and the gear change is one of the best I've tried, it's a lively box, I got absolutely nothing out of changing gears manually to increase my enjoyment.... Not like blipping the box down 3 gears with the paddles approaching a sharp corner, blipping it back up on the exit, all keeping both hands on the wheel for steering control, then when stuck in the inevitable motorway q, putting in auto....

[sko-with-go]

The Monte is a success because it somehow manages to make a fairly ugly car into something more visually appealing (IMHO). If you could buy the Monte with the VRS engine they would have sold more cars with the twin charged engine without a doubt! 

 

My wife has a 5 Door Audi A1 with the 105bhp 1.6tdi engine in and, apart from being a bit gruff when pulling away from a standing start, it's a very good engine when on the move. I would imagine once remapped this would change the character of the car significantly and give you a later day derv Vrs 'equivalent' in Monte form.  

[newbie69]

Interesting read... What you describe though is the one thing I detest personally: Outside the look of a car that can do 0-60 in like 4 seconds and inside a slow taxi's motor. For me it was the exact opposite reason I bought mine. And I believe with the mk2 vRS Skoda made a proper hot-hatch for once. mkI may have been fun but it really doesn't compare to mk2's level of performance and how easily accessible that is. They may share the name but they are clearly at different levels. Whatismore, diesel and sport versions just don't go together no matter the brand.

 

The fact that the mk2 vRS didn't sell as much as the Monte is a littlle misleading though. Nobody could have believed that the strongest and most expensive version could have ever outsold the standard ones! He probably means they didnt sell as much as Seat or VW did with respect to their standard versions. But this apparently tells more about skoda's image in the "sporty" buyer's market than about the car itself. It's clear that it's not yet acknoweldged as a proper alternative to a quick Seat or VW and that's just about it. They can either try to change that perception or they can return to a nice (but boring really in full throttle) Diesel Sport fabia mk3. (From what I read the 2nd is more likely!)

 

PS. And talking about looks, I find White or Blue with black roof wheels is awesome really.

Edited 22 August, 2013 by newbie69

[Sparkly]

I'm not sold on the Monte argument.  Perhaps for some there is "style-appeal" it certainly seems to be selling.

 

taking a 105 diesel to 130 is not the same.

 

Out of the box both the MK1 and MK2 VRS offered something different - performance at a better price than many other marque's options, and that is why they wore the VRS badge.  The performance is different, for certain, albeit both earn their stripes admirably for in gear grunt and whilst we can criticise the MK2's looks, in spite of a now cult following can anyone hand on there heart really say that the stock MK1 was a looker? Did that stop it being a success.

 

And so it should continue with Monte's being Monte's and VRS' being VRS'.  I have no issue with VRS returning to Diesel roots, but to water down the essence of a VRS for sales, that would for me defeat the point

Edited 22 August, 2013 by Sparkly