What other Brands do is very relevant.

 

The Volkswagen Group tell them what they are doing, and what parts they are being allowed to use at their Factories,

& what the Designers can or can not include in the Vehicles.

 

Seat used to get to try out the Good stuff, and they have built and sold some crackers over the years.

 

When the ACT /COD really does not sell with VW /Audi,  

Skoda will get to use them just as Seat is now.

 

As for the 1.8TSI not selling in the Polo / A1, we will see, maybe then Seat will get to use it, 

not sure on Skoda, maybe a 1.6 Turbo Petrol will be coming to Skoda, 

or just the ACT (COD) engines.

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.

 

Performance comparison Mk1 to Mk 2 VRSs.......

 

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-3286.htm

 

All I can do is speak from my experience and I have done nearly 90K miles in Fabia 2 VRS, no big problems, oil usage no that realtively high to other of the 40 or so cars I have owned (I usually have a couple of the time as I spend half my time driving).  Whereas I had a turbo go on the 1.9D at just over 60k miles. Would not touch any car without a warranty either manufacturers or after market and CSMA do list for less than £200 for a car which is less than 5 years or 100K miles.

 

I am always on the look out for a car which can do 0-60 in 7 seconds or less, automatic, costs £15k or less and does 40 mpg ish.  Still looking at and am tempted to perhaps to get the estate version of the VRS instead of the hatch on the no VAR deal because I cannot find anything at the moment.

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 .      

 

Elise R

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-1245.htm

 

Boxster (one of the lower powered ones)

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-1109.htm

 

BMW330i

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-1302.htm

Performance comparison Mk1 to Mk 2 VRSs.......

 

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-3286.htm

 

Well, what do you expect when you give one car a 50bhp power increase and an automatic gearbox?

What did stand out for me in that massive list of claimed numbers was the real lap time of the short 'ring where the Mk I was only 2 seconds per lap adrift of the Mk II. 1 min 25 vs 1 min 23. In a car where one driver has a 50bhp deficit and has to change his own gears. Hell, if you think about it, the Mk II should have been 2 seconds ahead by the time it hit 60mph, so where did all those massive increases in acceleration go over the 1 min 23 of the lap?

And obviously, the Mk I wouldn't have had to refuel quite so early....

Elise R

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-1245.htm

That'd be the fact that the Mk I vRS is as fast from 80-120mph in 5th gear!

Boxster (one of the lower powered ones)

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-1109.htm

And 80-120 in 4th or 5th - clear win for the plucky little Czech challenger!

BMW330i

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel1152-1302.htm

Still fairly close between 80 and 120, but the vRS doesn't actually win any of these.

So, I stand by my original statement that it felt like a REALLY fast car, with t he reasonable amendment that under VERY specific circumstances, a 130bhp Luke-warm DIESEL hatchback could hold it's own with some properly quick cars - so long as you only wanted to drag race between 80 and 120 in a high gear

What other Brands do is very relevant.

 

The Volkswagen Group tell them what they are doing, and what parts they are being allowed to use at their Factories,

& what the Designers can or can not include in the Vehicles.

 

Seat used to get to try out the Good stuff, and they have built and sold some crackers over the years.

 

When the ACT /COD really does not sell with VW /Audi,  

Skoda will get to use them just as Seat is now.

 

As for the 1.8TSI not selling in the Polo / A1, we will see, maybe then Seat will get to use it, 

not sure on Skoda, maybe a 1.6 Turbo Petrol will be coming to Skoda, 

or just the ACT (COD) engines.

It's totally irrelevant if you want a Skoda. Because Skoda isn't getting any of these because Skoda management (the BIG bosses) have decided there will not be a Mk III vRS. Sorry, but you just have to live with the disappointment. Given your experience with your Mk II vRS I'm sure you're well used to disappointment by now.

I would not be buying a mk3 vRS if there was one.

I am a fanboy for Twinchargers & dsg's not Skodas or VW's.

 

No idea what experiences you are talking about with my car, please enlighten me what these were.

& why would i have experienced any disappointment with a MK2? 

I have never had any failures or let downs with one.

I knew what they were before ever buying 1, and then bought more.  

They do exactly what many want from them.  & they are pretty cheap. 

 

Are you maybe just on a wind up?

Edited 27 December, 201411 yr by goneoffSKi

I would not be buying a mk3 vRS if there was one.

I am a fanboy for Twinchargers & dsg's not Skodas or VW's.

 

No idea what experiences you are talking about with my car, please enlighten me what these were.

& why would i have experienced any disappointment with a MK2? 

I have never had any failures or let downs with one.

I knew what they were before ever buying 1, and then bought more.  

They do exactly what many want from them.  & they are pretty cheap. 

 

Are you maybe just on a wind up?

No, definitely not on a wind-up but (unless I have you confused with someone else) are you not THE major driver behind the campaign to get Skoda UK to admit the Mk II vRS is a steaming pile of oil drinking, DSG mechatronic lagging, candles for headlamps poo?

That is correct,

trying to help others with faulty engines get treated properly and fairly, and those engines were built by Volkswagen

& they have never acknowledged that Design. manufacturing and quality control issues are their fault,

 

But this is not only engines for the Skoda Mk2 Fabia vRS though, there are various Euro 5 Emission Twinchargers from 2009 on 

in Audi, VW, Skoda & Seat cars

also the DQ200 DSG that have only had a Service Campaign response in the UK, and many owners have never been informed.

 

But that are other peoples cars that are faulty, were as you wrote 'with your Mk II vRS',

I just wondered were you thought i had problems with my cars.

 

http://revotechnik.com/support/technical/14tsi-twincharger-engine-issues

 

Not only an issue in the Far East, Asia & Hot /Humid Climates, & as for a 'World Wide Recall',

that is except where is in not in all World Regions, or done as a Recall, or a proper Service Campaign like in some regions, just a ticking boxes cheap European / UK Secret Service Campaign.

http://skoda.co.nz/news/dsg-service-campaign

Edited 28 December, 201411 yr by goneoffSKi

mark I vs mark II ? speed and reliablility ? lol...

 

I have done over 80,000 miles in mark II's and never had ONE issue (and I track them) my mark I needed a new gearbox at 40k! then all the console bushes failed.....

 

this is me in a standard (my old one) mark II following a stage two mark I vrs ... I can easily walk all over the back of him, then he blows up and its niceyellowvrs by the way, he's a way faster driver than me, and more skilled, often beats me on the track in his rover! lol... althogh its probably only jasons mark I that ever comes past me and with 350bhp you'd hope so :p (many track days each year) bear in mind my mark II has a "standard" engine, and does a nice 51mpg on the way to work :p my current mark II is the best car I have ever owned, and I did 80k in my mark I .... they dont even compaire, not even close.

 

 

(sorry, havent read it all, just wanted way in and "troll" as it seems there is a bit of animosity going on )

this is me in my current car (still a standard , (****e obviously!) engine) chasing the famouse mongrel at the ring in sept :p I catch up with Jason at about 1:28 not too shabby for a standard mark II engine, and a 350bhp PD130

 

I don't think there is any animosity (after all, this is Briskoda!) it's just a few people disagreeing about very little in a fairly polite way.

The Mk II SHOULD be faster than the Mk I. It has 33% more power and a trick automated manual shift that is famous for getting you from one gear to the next as rapidly as possible. And yet it only sold a fraction of the number of a slower, near-agricultural diesel engined parts-bin special that was put together by some factory engineers for an after-hours project.

The disagreement seems to be between the people who wanted an updated Mk I and who would never have bought a Mk II petrol car, those who converted to the petrol car and a new group of fantasists who seem to think that Skoda will look at the numbers of Mk II vRS that sold vs. how many Monte Carlo's sold and make anything other than the decision to build a standard car with a sporty badge.

Whether a Mk I is better/worse/different to a Mk II is just one of those discussions that will rumble on pretty much forever and at the end of the day we'll all climb into what we paid for and be happy.

Whether a Mk I is better/worse/different to a Mk II is just one of those discussions that will rumble on pretty much forever and at the end of the day we'll all climb into what we paid for and be happy.

I don't think that referring to the Mk2 vRS as a "steaming pile of poo" in one of your earlier posts was very diplomatic tho was it?

Of course it's not everyone's cup of tea but there are plenty (I suspect the majority) of owners that have had zero problems and are very happy with it. :-)

Maybe look at the numbers that are actual and not on paper,

the Skoda does not come 4th behind the Heavier VW, Seat & Audi in performance,

only in the Official Figures.

VWG give the most expensive the best times / speeds.

 

As to the Monte Carlo,

in 3 Years instead of only 4 1/3 with the vRS,  they have sold less than 6,000 only manuals compared to 3,000 only DSG's

That was with 3 different petrol engines, 2 diesels, Hatch & Estate

and special Edition Monte Carlo Techs  to get sales moving, because they were too expensive.

 

So the Monte Carlo is no great Fabia sales success in the UK.

Fabias sales were 32,000 out of 66,000 Skodas First registered in the UK in 2013.

I don't think that referring to the Mk2 vRS as a "steaming pile of poo" in one of your earlier posts was very diplomatic tho was it?

Of course it's not everyone's cup of tea but there are plenty (I suspect the majority) of owners that have had zero problems and are very happy with it. :-)

I think those that have had problems might be more minded to agree with the steaming pile of poo line.

You really can't argue that a VERY large proportion (25%?) of Mk II vRS owners had oil consumption problems, or DSG issues, and I've yet to see ANY Mk II Fabia that has anything like decent headlamps out of the factory.

In comparison the Mk I was a paragon of virtue with it's major foibles being a bit of a stutter on later cars, a propensity to leak from the rear doors and a nasty habit of eating the rear wishbone bushes within the first 50,000 miles of the cars life.

I do understand that people prefer petrols to diesels. I completely understand that there are people who love the DSG gearbox and who think that the Mk II is a real bargain for the money.

But I disagree, and as long as I post that with some degree of civility, I don't really see the problem.

I think those that have had problems might be more minded to agree with the steaming pile of poo line.

You really can't argue that a VERY large proportion (25%?) of Mk II vRS owners had oil consumption problems, or DSG issues, and I've yet to see ANY Mk II Fabia that has anything like decent headlamps out of the factory.

In comparison the Mk I was a paragon of virtue with it's major foibles being a bit of a stutter on later cars, a propensity to leak from the rear doors and a nasty habit of eating the rear wishbone bushes within the first 50,000 miles of the cars life.

I do understand that people prefer petrols to diesels. I completely understand that there are people who love the DSG gearbox and who think that the Mk II is a real bargain for the money.

But I disagree, and as long as I post that with some degree of civility, I don't really see the problem.

Yep it's all down to personal experience and preference, would be a dull world if we all liked the same things! :-)

I've not come across any mass production car which is without it's faults/issues. There must be a forum for nearly every major make and model filled with people who have had bad experiences and others who love their car.

Having owned a MK1 Fabia vRS for 3 years and now two mk2 Fabia vRS i can honestly say it was the mk1 which (for me) was more unreliable. I got shot of it when it started developing frequent electrical gremlins and a power steering fault before the warranty expired. The blighter rattled like a beast too and I don't remember it having decent headlights either(with hindsight I should have specced Xenons but was too tight at the time, shame these aren't an option on the mk2). But this is all just my experience. Having said that I still have a major soft-.spot for the mk1, that torque-rush was very nice back in the day, and the car had a certain charm about it.

At the end of the day this is a forum for expressing opinions and having a discussion, like you say if it's all good natured then there really isn't any issue :-)

1.6 Million DSG Recalled world wide were the headlines over 1 year ago.

 

so given that very few of those are UK Fabia vRS with there being less than 3,000,

and there is no Recall is in the UK because VW say there are no failures, & they are doing a Service Campaign that must surely not be required,

the cars DSG issues will be the Mechatronic Control Unit & Clutch Units failing for some other reason.

Yep it's all down to personal experience and preference, would be a dull world if we all liked the same things! :-)

I've not come across any mass production car which is without it's faults/issues. There must be a forum for nearly every major make and model filled with people who have had bad experiences and others who love their car.

Having owned a MK1 Fabia vRS for 3 years and now two mk2 Fabia vRS i can honestly say it was the mk1 which (for me) was more unreliable. I got shot of it when it started developing frequent electrical gremlins and a power steering fault before the warranty expired. The blighter rattled like a beast too and I don't remember it having decent headlights either(with hindsight I should have specced Xenons but was too tight at the time, shame these aren't an option on the mk2). But this is all just my experience. Having said that I still have a major soft-.spot for the mk1, that torque-rush was very nice back in the day, and the car had a certain charm about it.

At the end of the day this is a forum for expressing opinions and having a discussion, like you say if it's all good natured then there really isn't any issue :-)

Absolutely nothing in that post I have any quibble with.

I would dearly love to give Skoda some more money, so please build something I want!

I think those that have had problems might be more minded to agree with the steaming pile of poo line.

You really can't argue that a VERY large proportion (25%?) of Mk II vRS owners had oil consumption problems, or DSG issues, and I've yet to see ANY Mk II Fabia that has anything like decent headlamps out of the factory.

In comparison the Mk I was a paragon of virtue with it's major foibles being a bit of a stutter on later cars, a propensity to leak from the rear doors and a nasty habit of eating the rear wishbone bushes within the first 50,000 miles of the cars life.

I do understand that people prefer petrols to diesels. I completely understand that there are people who love the DSG gearbox and who think that the Mk II is a real bargain for the money.

But I disagree, and as long as I post that with some degree of civility, I don't really see the problem.

 

 

Yep it's all down to personal experience and preference, would be a dull world if we all liked the same things! :-)

I've not come across any mass production car which is without it's faults/issues. There must be a forum for nearly every major make and model filled with people who have had bad experiences and others who love their car.

Having owned a MK1 Fabia vRS for 3 years and now two mk2 Fabia vRS i can honestly say it was the mk1 which (for me) was more unreliable. I got shot of it when it started developing frequent electrical gremlins and a power steering fault before the warranty expired. The blighter rattled like a beast too and I don't remember it having decent headlights either(with hindsight I should have specced Xenons but was too tight at the time, shame these aren't an option on the mk2). But this is all just my experience. Having said that I still have a major soft-.spot for the mk1, that torque-rush was very nice back in the day, and the car had a certain charm about it.

At the end of the day this is a forum for expressing opinions and having a discussion, like you say if it's all good natured then there really isn't any issue :-)

My headlights are very good. I have a 2013 vRS which has different headlights to the earlier models, dipped and main beam being in the same projector, main beam running and just electronically lifting the projector when you turn them up, Jason has driven my car in the dark (Jasons is the mongrel, mark I fabia with xenons) and agrees he cannot understand the comments, as "they are very good" ....

 

I also had a mark I vRS for 80,000 miles, and had a gearbox failure, console bushes failed, EGR failed, and it has left me stranded.... (in buxton of all places!) in fact the poor service from skoda dealing with my unreliable car, brought me to leave them for fiat , and my grande punto I had for 115k never broke down like my mark I did! I remapped it at 4,000 miles too! in fact the only issues the punto had were a few electrical niggles, still drove like a new car with no replacement parts (except brakes ect (which lasted 100k! ) most of that was abuse from learners too... original clutch , turbo, suspension ect, ONLY replaced brake pads and tyres in that 115k

 

I have now covered 85,000 miles in mark II's (2 cars) and never had one single issue. (and I boot them from cold without letting the oil warm up blarg blarg...lol..) ran a tuning box on the first one for 50k too! tuned, and still not breaking, what can I say ?

I have a 2010 vRS and there is nothing wrong with the headlights. Yes, it uses a bit of oil but nothing to get too excited about. And no problems with the DSG. Ok, the suspension is somewhat firm (running on Eibachs) but it corners really well (the RARB helps) and I always get out with a smile on my face. At the end of the day, you pay your money and make your choice; we are very happy with the Fabia and I would be very interested if they made a Mk3 vRS along the lines of the Polo Gti.

All I'm saying is take a look at the thread titles in the Mk II forum and I'm sorry but most of them are about high oil usage and bad headlights.

While I have to accept that people are posting stating that they have perfectly acceptable headlamps, I stand by my original assertion that I've not seen one with good lights and to the people who say they've had very few issues with their Mk IIs I'm delighted, but you simply didn't get the consistent flood of posts about issues that you see in the Mk II forums.

Sorry, but that's just how I see it.

All I'm saying is take a look at the thread titles in the Mk II forum and I'm sorry but most of them are about high oil usage and bad headlights.

While I have to accept that people are posting stating that they have perfectly acceptable headlamps, I stand by my original assertion that I've not seen one with good lights and to the people who say they've had very few issues with their Mk IIs I'm delighted, but you simply didn't get the consistent flood of posts about issues that you see in the Mk II forums.

Sorry, but that's just how I see it.

 

Pretty sure that all standard bulbs are 60w but they can vary as to what material or more importantly gas the tungsten element is surrounded by and this adds to the price.

 

Skoda, as we all know, is the "value" brand of VAG.  You may drive continually around in lit city streets so your light do little else than tell other drivers you are there.

 

If you do drive in non-lit areas then from all the thousands you have saved in buying a Skoda rather than an Audi or VW or whatever you can nip down to Halfords and spend £30 or so and get your bulbs changed to the higher spec ones that produce double the lumens and then go and check you bank account and look at the £4,970 pounds you still have in your account for buying the Skoda and not the Audi or VW.

 

Museum caretaker tell little visiting school boy that the dinosaur on display is 65,000,006 years old.  Teacher says how do you know so accurately, caretaker says "well it say 65,000,000 years old when I got here and I have been here 6 years."    

All I'm saying is take a look at the thread titles in the Mk II forum and I'm sorry but most of them are about high oil usage and bad headlights.

While I have to accept that people are posting stating that they have perfectly acceptable headlamps, I stand by my original assertion that I've not seen one with good lights and to the people who say they've had very few issues with their Mk IIs I'm delighted, but you simply didn't get the consistent flood of posts about issues that you see in the Mk II forums.

Sorry, but that's just how I see it.

 

Yawn!!!

wja96,

Did you ever drive a twincharger in day or night time, and have you any reached your opinions from driving one or more,

or is everything you are going on from reading the forums and others experiences & opinions.?

 

There seem to be quite a few members that seem to tell owners of the cars how bad they are,

which is quite odd, when they actually have them theirselves and know what they are like.

Pretty sure that all standard bulbs are 60w but they can vary as to what material or more importantly gas the tungsten element is surrounded by and this adds to the price.

 

Skoda, as we all know, is the "value" brand of VAG.  You may drive continually around in lit city streets so your light do little else than tell other drivers you are there.

 

If you do drive in non-lit areas then from all the thousands you have saved in buying a Skoda rather than an Audi or VW or whatever you can nip down to Halfords and spend £30 or so and get your bulbs changed to the higher spec ones that produce double the lumens and then go and check you bank account and look at the £4,970 pounds you still have in your account for buying the Skoda and not the Audi or VW.

 

Museum caretaker tell little visiting school boy that the dinosaur on display is 65,000,006 years old.  Teacher says how do you know so accurately, caretaker says "well it say 65,000,000 years old when I got here and I have been here 6 years."

I love it. Skoda has the cheapo light bulbs from the factory but it's OK because you saved thousands so you can buy better ones from the money saved. I'm surprised that on that basis you haven't realised that they have the bad engines too and the money saved on buying the car pays for the extra oil. I hadn't realised it was like an extra instalment plan you paid off over the life of the car.