A change then from August 2013 & the Skoda CEO being quoted by Top Gear and other publications,

& now it is 'not at launch'  and  'no official' type guff, 

 

But some did think last year they were at the same tactics Subaru did,  

'No more',  'no nae never', 'last ever', 'well maybe', 'we will see', 

'demand is such', & on and on.

 

'Simply Clever',

or simply pretty hopeless as Launching models and trying to manipulate the Internet.

Edited 18 December, 201411 yr by goneoffSKi

Now then, unless I have misinterpreted it, the FIA regulation 02-2 of the article 261 of the sporting regulations, specific regulations for cars in group R5 state, and I quote:-

"At least 2500 identical examples of these cars must have been manufactured in 12 consecutive months and homologated by the FIA in Touring Cars (Group A)"

Now to me that means if Skoda want to compete with the Fabia in world rallying then they must produce a relevant car, i.e. a vRS version with all the necessary body kit etc on it.

 

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/9974A7AA054F1E88C1257A400055BFA5/$FILE/PROVISIONAL-261%20(2013)-(15.06.2012).pdf

Ian

 

It just means that 2500 of the standard Fabia road car must have been produced I'm afraid.

In the Touring Car example they had to be 2,500 identical cars manufactured in 12 consecutive months.

 

So not sold over 12 consecutive months,

but the building of them would have to have started 1 year at least previously.

Edited 19 December, 201411 yr by goneoffSKi

Heres the pics i tok of the rally car at Essen.

 

 

 

 

 

some free Skoda goodies and a pleasant skoda green slush

 

 

Also spotted this cabriolet citigo

 

My local skoda dealer reckons they will cgange their mind about vrs, there will be a monte carlo for sure. And then a couple of years into production they will bring out a vrs.

I think they are hoping that it will drive up interest this way, if not then cant see the new fabia being much of a hit. Its been so long coming and its most of the bits are borrowed off of older models not new ones and the price tag wont be as low as they used to be as skoda has made more of a name for itself since the mk1's came out.

I think they are hoping that it will drive up interest this way, if not then cant see the new fabia being much of a hit. Its been so long coming and its most of the bits are borrowed off of older models not new ones

What bits? The engines and all the infotainment stuff is bang up to date.

Bang up to date as fitted already on the VW Polo Facelifts.  

Car not requiring any new Type Approval as no major component changes happening.

What bits? The engines and all the infotainment stuff is bang up to date.

I read somewhere that it wasnt a new chasis as expected it was a modified version of the mk2. And rest of the stuff is from the last polo, not from the new one thats coming out?

I could be mistaken.

It shares the engines and infotainment with the facelift Polo which has only been out a few months.. it's the newest stuff currently available, so I wouldn't say it's 'old'

The Fabia III has an updated floor pan based on the current car going by the part numbers, whereas the rear torsion beam has the latest Polo 6C part number as does the front carrier.

 

There seems overall to be quite a mix of old Polo/Fabia 6Q, previous Polo 6R, new Polo 6C and Fabia III 6V throughout the design.

 

 

TP

The Fabia III has an updated floor pan based on the current car going by the part numbers, whereas the rear torsion beam has the latest Polo 6C part number as does the front carrier.

 

There seems overall to be quite a mix of old Polo/Fabia 6Q, previous Polo 6R, new Polo 6C and Fabia III 6V throughout the design.

 

 

TP

 

I'm sure a few here will have a good old whinge about that but I quite like the fact it isn't just a different body plonked on top of a like-for-like Polo platform. It shows Skoda are allowed to do their own thing a bit. Like the Roomster having a unique platform e.t.c.

I quite like the new Polo GTI but if Skoda released a less expensive Fabia version, badged, vRS, I would be down and trading in my Citigo in a flash.

All it needs is a 150bhp TDi motor and a 6-sp manual box, priced right and it'll sell like hot cakes.

VAG have accepted that the world isn't ready for DSG-only models so the A1 and Polo GTi will now have manual options and they'll sell better as a result.

SEAT is VAG's sporty-yet-affordable brand so that model gets the best performance bits.

Skoda is the value brand, so it gets left out of fast bits.

Whether by luck or judgement, Skoda got it right with the Mk I vRS. They've been shooting themselves in the foot ever since.

Not a diesel, the DPF filters needed would make it a pain. I'm hoping the use the 1.8. I'd have another one then.

All it needs is a 150bhp TDi motor and a 6-sp manual box, priced right and it'll sell like hot cakes.

VAG have accepted that the world isn't ready for DSG-only models so the A1 and Polo GTi will now have manual options and they'll sell better as a result.

SEAT is VAG's sporty-yet-affordable brand so that model gets the best performance bits.

Skoda is the value brand, so it gets left out of fast bits.

Whether by luck or judgement, Skoda got it right with the Mk I vRS. They've been shooting themselves in the foot ever since.

 

I had one of the last SE versions of the Fabia 1 VRS and now have a Fabia 2 VRS.  Liked both of them, Fabia 1 was a 9 second to 60 mph car, Fabia 2 is a 7 second to 60 mph car.  0-60 in 9 seconds is very ordinary. 

 

1.9D, 130 hp diesel is my favourite VW diesel, had it in the Fabia 1 and a A3 and A4, nippy and does 55-60 mpg in any of these bodies. Twincharge is incredible flexible engine with the supercharger and turbocharger giving fantasitic power through the revs.  Bit of a pain needing 98 Octane but get lots of points with Tescos but Shell is expensive.  7 speed dry clutch works great 99% of the time, lightening changes, quiet in seventh gear, great with paddles and tiptonic. Occasionally get confused but then it also does not need 40K oil changes. Done 90K miles in this car, burns little oil as most don't, had 55 mpg on a tootle ie over 600 miles from a vented fill tankful.

 

Loved the 1.8TSI in my Octy 2 L&K and reckon it would be a great engine in the Fabia 3 with the 192 hp version though 265 would be nice also but not going to happen of course as would take sales from other brand models.  With fuel now much cheaper perhaps they might think again.

But that was the GENIUS of the Mk I vRS. Even though it really wasn't a quick car, it FELT like a quick car. And it was cheap to insure and run and it was built like a tank and wouldn't go wrong. It did EVERYTHING for everyone. You could use it as a grand-tourer. You could use it as a runabout.

The Mk II vRS might indeed be a quick car, but every one of it's sales had to be a conversion or conquest because the existing user-base was Diesel.

If you want the proof that the MK I hit the target bang-on consider that a good, low mileage SE goes for more than an early Mk II. People still want the MK I. Very few people want a Mk II in the UK.

All Skoda had to do was shove even a semi-peppy diesel into the MK II and it would have sold. The problem, apparently, was that the 2.0 CR140 engine didn't fit. It's a shame, but I doubt anyone at VAG is shedding any tears over it.

It just means that 2500 of the standard Fabia road car must have been produced I'm afraid.

So the rules must have changed then as that is the reason why Skoda produced the Mk1 vRS so it had the bigger bumpers needed to bring it over the minimum 4,000mm car length to compete in FIA approved rallying.

Ian

It was not about only Skoda though.

 

The VWG had for sale Diesel Seat,

 and then they brought in the Twncharger with DSG, then the Mk2 vRS, Polo GTI, Audi A1 185ps.

 

They made a corporate decision and got it badly wrong.

In the UK the lowest priced of the 4 Hatches & 1 estate outsold the others, even though that was not huge in numbers being 

around 3,000 in 4 years.

Still more than double the VW Polo GTI they sold.

 

You need to think that you can buy a Registered with a few hundred miles on it 64 Plate vRS for less than a 2007 vRS SE cost.

 

What ever happened with Euro 4 Diesel manuals & Euro 5 Twincharger Autos has nothing to do with the ready to go Euro 6 Emission

cars they are getting in the showrooms now before September 2015.

 

Maybe any Euro 4, Euro 5 car will be better to own than a All New Euro 6 Type Approved in 2016.

But that was the GENIUS of the Mk I vRS. Even though it really wasn't a quick car, it FELT like a quick car. And it was cheap to insure and run and it was built like a tank and wouldn't go wrong. It did EVERYTHING for everyone. You could use it as a grand-tourer. You could use it as a runabout.  The Mk II vRS might indeed be a quick car, but every one of it's sales had to be a conversion or conquest because the existing user-base was Diesel.   If you want the proof that the MK I hit the target bang-on consider that a good, low mileage SE goes for more than an early Mk II. People still want the MK I. Very few people want a Mk II in the UK.  All Skoda had to do was shove even a semi-peppy diesel into the MK II and it would have sold. The problem, apparently, was that the 2.0 CR140 engine didn't fit. It's a shame, but I doubt anyone at VAG is shedding any tears over it.

 

It may be nice that it feels like a quick car but it gets found out when  you are at the lightzs against a very average BMW 1.6i or the like and you realise what a below average car accelerating car the mk 1 is and if you have a mark 2 Fabia VRS you have something well above average acceleration which, apparently is about 8 seconds to 60 mph.

 

Now the Ibiza Cupra was a quick car with the 1.9D ie 160 hp, 0-100 kph in 7.6 seconds.

 

Buying a Fabia 2 VRS for just over £14K is a bargain which ever way you cut it. At some £83 per hp it is about the best bang per buck car out there.  It is tempted to buy another one after mine has done 90K miles and is needing replacing and there is not a lot out there that offers the level of overall perfornance ie acclearation, mpg etc for that little money. 

But that was the GENIUS of the Mk I vRS. Even though it really wasn't a quick car, it FELT like a quick car. And it was cheap to insure and run and it was built like a tank and wouldn't go wrong. It did EVERYTHING for everyone. You could use it as a grand-tourer. You could use it as a runabout.

The Mk II vRS might indeed be a quick car, but every one of it's sales had to be a conversion or conquest because the existing user-base was Diesel.

If you want the proof that the MK I hit the target bang-on consider that a good, low mileage SE goes for more than an early Mk II. People still want the MK I. Very few people want a Mk II in the UK.

All Skoda had to do was shove even a semi-peppy diesel into the MK II and it would have sold. The problem, apparently, was that the 2.0 CR140 engine didn't fit. It's a shame, but I doubt anyone at VAG is shedding any tears over it.

Not just felt , it was a quick car . For rapid bursts of acceleration I felt it was hard to beat. In real world driving ie not standing starts or top speed it was pretty intouchable , it could mix with the big boys on the road and not feel out of its depth. I remember that it famously  had in gear acceleration times that beat the lotus elise, porsche boxster and bmw 330i to name a few.I have owned 15 cars in 23 years and I can honestly say that its the only one I miss .      

Like the post ,I have a Blackline 62 plate and now I am doing less long distance trips require a smaller car. Looked at the new fabia, I had a 1.2 dsg elegance 61 plate cost about £12 .500 new one same spec £16 750 there having a laugh,so I was looking at the Polo GTI 1800 £18.500 from Orange wheels, but never thought about the last few mk 2 Fabia VRS models left there are a few with delivery miles from £13 500 to £14.500 seems like a bargain especially if you take extended warranty 5yrs.

It was not about only Skoda though.

 

The VWG had for sale Diesel Seat,

 and then they brought in the Twncharger with DSG, then the Mk2 vRS, Polo GTI, Audi A1 185ps.

They also kept a 140CR engined SEAT, VW Polo and, at one point, they announced but never released a CR170 version of the A1.

What the other brands did is a bit irrelevant. What everyone actually wanted was a CR140 or better still, a CR170, Fabia vRS and they just didn't make it. I do agree they got that decision wrong.

And now they're not going to make a vRS Fabia at all. Which makes total sense inside VAG because the last one didn't sell. And no-one really want to open up the can of worms that might point the finger at anyone making the wrong decision in Wolfsburg...

It may be nice that it feels like a quick car but it gets found out when  you are at the lightzs against a very average BMW 1.6i or the like and you realise what a below average car accelerating car the mk 1 is and if you have a mark 2 Fabia VRS you have something well above average acceleration which, apparently is about 8 seconds to 60 mph.

 

Now the Ibiza Cupra was a quick car with the 1.9D ie 160 hp, 0-100 kph in 7.6 seconds.

 

Buying a Fabia 2 VRS for just over £14K is a bargain which ever way you cut it. At some £83 per hp it is about the best bang per buck car out there.  It is tempted to buy another one after mine has done 90K miles and is needing replacing and there is not a lot out there that offers the level of overall perfornance ie acclearation, mpg etc for that little money.

Apart from the fact that traffic-light Grand-pricks is just daft, 0-60mph was always going to work out badly for a short-revving diesel because you need a extra gear-shift to get there. When you overtake someone you usually don't start from a side-by-side standstill. You're rolling and that's where the high-geared diesel does win out. The in-gear acceleration times are phenomenal for the Mk I vRS. And the torque just shoves you along and makes you FEEL fabulous.

Personally, I wouldn't spend my money on something with such a high chance of high oil usage issues. The engine is clearly weak in that area and your high-mileage is probably your saving grace in that respect. It's an OLD car now. It's the same as the Mk I underneath basically, it has shocking headlamps that make driving in the dark downright dangerous and everything else about it (infotainment, brakes, suspension) is VERY 20th century. Sorry, but it's a poor choice these days, no matter how cheap.

Not just felt , it was a quick car . For rapid bursts of acceleration I felt it was hard to beat. In real world driving ie not standing starts or top speed it was pretty intouchable , it could mix with the big boys on the road and not feel out of its depth. I remember that it famously  had in gear acceleration times that beat the lotus elise, porsche boxster and bmw 330i to name a few.I have owned 15 cars in 23 years and I can honestly say that its the only one I miss

I agree that it had it's moments. If you read all the posts about changing up when the car hit x thousand revs it does show that people were deluded by their butt-dyno's to stop accelerating and change gear too early because they wanted the torque thrust more than actual, real acceleration.

And I agree that it's still the car I get out of with the biggest grin on my face of all the cars I've had. It's a great car.