I remember your previous thread posts on your gearbox experiences and the A4.

You have not driven a iQ Multidrive have you?

 

Stuff is progressing then,  we used to have push bikes that were single speed and fixed gear.

Then 3 speeds,, 6 speed, 10 speed, 18 speed, 21, speed 24 speed.

Thinner rings, thinner chains, 9 speed rear cassettes then chain links that you buy from Shimano, or Sachs.

We still do.

Chain rusted and jumped off the rear co,gs, spray it with WD 40 and it rusts.

Never sure, do you turn the B screw or the A screw, the cable adjuster or a new cable.

(At least use the correct Lube.)

Then we have Electronic shifting,

 

Then back to Single Speed BMX, and on and on.

You want to ride down the road, jump on the BMX it usually always works.

 

You are driving down the shops in your car, driving to work or on holiday.

Not racing or driving Dakar, 

So sometimes KISS will do fine.

The car is only as good as the Mechanic that has to fix it.  

Not so many Great Gearbox/Transmission Garages or Technicians around.

 

Luckily one of the best is 1 mile away from me.

Come time they all end up there to be sorted, from all manufacturers and Main Dealerships.

Once the Black Box being replaced is not the answer, someone needs to go into those Sealed for Life Boxes.

Sending a CD Rom and some information & Codes from the Manufacturer is not always enough.

 

george

I must admit I don't understand the whole diesel thing in a hot hatch. Sure it gives a bit more torque and fuel economy, but it isn't as fast, and it creates a nose-heavy car. Would make a great cruiser, though.

Don't sweat it. Actually, this is a widespread perception in the whole world, with the exception of MKI vRS owners who think Diesel and sport hot hatches go together. Pfff....

No, that's absolutely not it. A Mk I vRS was never a hot hatch. They're actually pretty slow, but they FEEL very quick indeed while you're doing 45-55mpg.

Like it or not, the Mk I was what people wanted. It was a sensible, sporty, car. It's not a fast car in ultimate terms, it handles poorly in standard form and the BLT engine has a flat spot you can land helicopters on. But it was cheap to buy new, felt like it was hewn from granite in build terms and it was exceptionally well reviewed in all the press. Overall, it was a good all round package.

It's not criticism of Skoda or Mk II vRS owners to state the bleedin' obvious - the Mk II hasn't sold in anything like the same numbers as the Mk I and even in the OP it was recognised as not being a success. VAG as a whole took a view on the petrol/diesel warm hatch and the head of sales at Skoda UK was reported to be apoplectic that they weren't giving him a diesel vRS Mk II. That's how it is and now they're saying there won't be a Mk IiI. So be it. Mrs WJA96 will ultimately need a new car eventually and it will probably be an A1 or VW Polo because she likes the manual diesel option but she still wants a bit of go with her fuel economy. I honestly would rather give my money to Skoda, but they just don't make a car for us at the moment.

The "That's what people wanted" argument tells me nothing really. The mkII vRS was also what some people wanted. If we start looking at numbers then sure it didn't sell anywhere near the rest of the fabias or even the MKI but neither do Clio RS's sell like the standard ones. Should Renault stop producing them?

 

I do agree in almost everything you say about the MKI, and that was clearly for me the reason it succeeded. Not that powerful, not that expensive, not a pure hot-hatch and all in all not that much apart really from the rest of the range. Now the fact that it had a "vRS" badge on it well... it may have fooled some people thinking it's going faster than it looks but it certainly didn't draw my attention at the time. Apparently, what it ended up doing was to create a misconception that all a vRS Fabia is about is economy and a mediocre horsepower, and of course... Diesel!

 

So when the MKII vRS showed up, it was quite a shock for a lot of people. 180 ps from a 1.4 lt engine, top performance, equipped with all the latest stuff like twincharger and DSG and of course, petrol. That wasn't really expected I think, it actually surpassed what people would ask but in a way that it made them almost uncomfortable. As it came out, Skoda clients weren't ready for so much. If you ask me, Skoda would have been better off sticking the vRS badge on a 1.6 CR Monte just to please those MKI lovers, and actually send the vRS out as "S2000 edition" or whatever, and have some proper sell expectations, rather than expecting it to be a successor to the (poor in terms of hot-hatch score) MKI vRS when in fact it was so much more than that.

Edited 26 August, 201312 yr by newbie69

This thread is just a dog's breakfast of opinions....so you might as well have mine...

As for the mk1 vRs it had appeal to some because it was cheap,economical and had a lot of torque.

However it was the last thing I would have.bought because I'm no fan of diesel cars especially ones with that rough and noisy old PD engine.

I'd previously had a petrol Octy vRS and moving to to the Fabia vRS was right for me because I wanted a smaller car but still four doors,lively acceleration,good mpg and low cost newAnd,jjust as important ,with a gearbox that I can drive in heavy traffic in relaxed fashion and then when the road clears have total manual control with lightening fast changes.No problems at all so far,but if they happen I'm not too concerned as I have 5 years warranty.

So it was right FOR ME at the time which is all that matters to anyone,high sales or low is not directly relevant to the depreciation factor,which no one can predict accurately anyway.

My opinion as to the low sales of the mk 2 vRS is that it moved upmarket slightly into a sector where looks matter more and it's too high too narrow and verging on ugly,enough to put off many but I bought it on practicalities that I wanted.

Should there be a run out edition? Only idiots are taken in by a special colour,a different badge and leather seats.Look at all the MX5 special editions over the year and they are all forgotten and worth no more.

Am I bothered what a mk 3 will be like or whether there will be one at all?...no,the are plenty of other cars out there,I've never found a manufacturer that was very loyal to its customers,so I have no loyalty either,next time I'll probably go upmarket and buy something 3 years old for about £20k, but at this stage not a clue what.

I personally will never buy another car unless it has a petrol engine and DSG. The Fabia II vRS is a fabulous car, albeit with relatively high oil consumption.

Tony

 

The only thing they are bringing out for the MKII vRS before they drop it is different side trims, new vRS badges and decals (how exciting!). Something was mentioned about a center tailpipe but I hardy believe they will bother changing their bumper and diffuser production for something that will look most definitely wrong on the car.

 

Also to add my two cents to the whole MKII vRS, low sales, debate, the sales are low on all hot hatches across many automotive groups and I blame the economic crisis. Even if these cars have reasonable consumption for what they produce, still drivers and especially young ones who are really the target group will still go for the cheapest one to run and the most ''fashionable'' looking one, and that is the 1.2 engine from our group surrounded by a bodykit, hence the success of the Monte.

Interesting picture - at a guess would that be the 2014 spec VRs?

Looks like Monte side skirts, decals and VRs badges but also body coloured trim on the front grill rather than black, and no Monte wheel arch trim which IMO transforms the looks of the Monte

If it is the 2014 model, I guess that doesn't rule out a special at some point with a bit more Monte plastic added?

The only wothwhile runout would have the S2000 rally bodykit on it, fully decalled up, no halfway house making it a glorified Monte

 

This.

Edited 27 August, 201312 yr by Gumby

I'd suggest that still looks like silver grill trim so no styling revolution.

In a complicated plot twist though, rather than worrying about where the last days of the MK2 VRS are headed I have decided to revel in the ucpoming rarity/collectability of my 2010 preface-lift, Rallye Green like the advert, proper skoda badged, possible time bomb CAVE engined, chrome grill no black packed rip snorting little pocket rocket.

Currently loving this car

.....and in a similar positive vain, I am going to go all in early and call Skoda a bunch of fibbers, if anyone has the inclination please feel free to PM me in six years(ish) time to instruct me to eat my hat however I fervently believe that Skoda WILL at some point give us a MK3 Fabia VRS............

Sometime i Just Sit, & sometimes i Sit and Think.

So from my thoughts.

Point 1.

If anyone with a vRS wants it to look like a Monte Carlo, why do they not just add the extra Plastic them self, ?

They do nothing other than being some cosmetic adornment, so do the modifying yours self, you do not need Skoda to.

(when sitting in your car, you can not actually see the shiny plastic bits on the outside and they will not aid handling or aerodynamics,

so if they fall off, you are hardly going to notice.)

 

Point 2.

Re Fabia Mk1 vRS owners that did not buy MK 2 vRS.

(from the other debate about not enough mk2 vRS being bought in the UK)

 

If they bought their mk1 new and still have it, did they buy anything else new as a second  car in the same time that is a similar car to a mk2 vRS.

Or do they just still have just a MK1 vRS and not need anything else?

 

If anyone that had bought a new or used MK1 vRS but chopped it in, then what was the new or used car they bought to replace it?

Did they stay with the same type of car or buy something totally different.

 

**How many that owned MK1 Fabia vRS have now bought a Monte Carlo?**

 

george

Point 1. - because Skoda rip you off!!! Had to have one new wheel arch trim fitted on the wife's Monte after an ambulance came very close t killing us and just for a small bit of plastic on one wheel arch it was - i think I remember correctly - 80 pounds plus vat

If the side skirts are more than wheel arch trim it could be an expensive job just for a bit of plastic

And the OP was just a light hearted attempt to guess at what Skoda might do for a special run-out

Perhaps time to draw it to a close

I doubt there are 1.4 twincharge engines "sitting on shelves"!!

 

When I ordered my Superb 1.4 TSI, I got told there was a huge backlog on all engines, less for the diesels.  I needed the car, so got a like for like swap and ended up with a Greenline.

 

Skoda will get the allocation of twincharge engines last, so there won't be hundreds of vRSs sat at the docs waiting for special bits to be added, just to shift them.  If there are, Skoda are nuts - producing cars they don't need.

 

Reading all the posts that were on here a few months back, everyone baulked at the waiting list for Skodas - if there were that many sitting around, they would be flying out the door.  Either there were base model, no extras sitting in showrooms, or there weren't many about and you waited for the bukld date - I'll back the build date theory, having ordered two Skodas from new and having got my Monte as a customer cancellation, while I was shopping for a Mk1 vRS SE - why? Because I wanted something reaosnably quick that gave more than reasonable economy.  I looked at older golf GTIs, but they didn't tick, the box.  The Fabia looked ideal.  

 

The Monte is closer to the ethos of that - let's not forget, the Mk1 vRS was almost a bit of fun from Skoda - SURPRISE!! A diesel hot hatch, as quick as anything in the comparable bracket (Golf GTi may have hit 60 quicker, but in gear I'd wager not).  130bhp and 250lb ft or whatever it sticks out, may not hit the current hot hatch benchmark of over 200bhp  (and probably just 200 lb ft) from a petrol, probably turbocharged, but it's pretty good for what it is and when it was about.

 

Another thing to think about is that Skodas deliberately don't quite fit into a comparable size with the competition - Octavia is a bit bigger than a Golf and Focus, Fabia smaller.  so do you go for a bit bigger, or a bit smaller?  Can you get the same spec/engine etc in the smaller or larger model depending on what you're looking at?  Do you look at Skoda to provide more for your money, while not being the same size?  We were chuffed with our Octavia for being bigger than the equivalent competition, for less money.  The move to a Superb had no direct comparison, because only an E-Class Merc was as big and nothing that size was as cheap.

 

As George said earlier - each to their own, but to answer the OP - will they make a Monte vRS hybrid to shift final stock, or keep sales moving until the Mk3 hits? Maybe.  Maybe they'll have a sense of humour and be allowed to by VAG management.  Do I care?  Not really - I still grinned when a guy at my kids' nursery arrived to drop off his kids in a Green vRS, white roof.  I spoke to one of the Mums that afternoon, as she parked next to me - she didn't have her usual Audi S4 Avant.  She commented that her husband had just bought a Fabia for work - it was Green vRS man! So in a prestige/performance household, they had bought a Fabia vRS for business use.  I assumed it was value/performance that led them there...