Anybody from here......

 

Check out the comments...  Apparently I have not done very well in life choosing a Skoda...

 

 

 

Edited 4 March, 201511 yr by pkoconnor

Good spot.

Anyone else see the elephant in the car.................................it didn;t get mentioned....................NO F**KING VRS in the Mk3

You can always spot a VRS owner , their hands look like this

 

More of a joke really. I didn't buy a vRS for the comfortable ride, the economy or the practical gadgets. Sure there's plenty of all those if you compare it with other powerful hot-hatches but the main thing about it was the power, hello? In what way can any mk3 fabia considered a reasonable replacement for an mkII vRS? Unless you have changed your mind some point and thought I don't need all that power I'd rather go for economy, but that's a different story. And I personally find the looks of the mk3 so boring. Which is normal as there's not a vRS version yet to add or stress out any sporty features (special front/rear spoilers, different exhaust etc.)  And even if one such version comes out eventually, I can't imagine how it will be able to correct the awful rear...

Edited 4 March, 201511 yr by newbie69

I actually quite like the new shape , but would want a performance based model

The SE level 110 tsi dsg with electric windows would cost more than I paid for my VRS. I suppose that would price a new VRS into CLIO and Peugeot GTI territory.

I actually quite like the new shape , but would want a performance based model

the new shape is absolutely awful plus the new grill are they having a laugh? the old grill with the badge inside the grill looked so much more sporty and aggressive 

The grill is very much a brand identity and is across the range now

I would not get rid of my vrs for for that

I would have test the **** out of that price of crap! Giving it death everywhere

So was that meant to be a comparison between the new fabia and old one in vrs form? No mention of power or handling really it was just like they were showing what's new, not better. "here is one car and here is another car that is now old and therefore inferior".

And despite them saying "the new fabia is really sporty" the arch gap is still ridiculous and not very sport at all imho!

I will keep my vrs cthe and maybe in twenty years time buy this

Lets face it...in most peoples opinions the Mk2 Fabia isnt a good looking car. In vRS form slightly purposeful perhaps but that is about it. Its not ugly but its definitely not a looker.

Most of us who bought one did so because it was an oportunity to buy a car that was 85-90% Polo GTI for knacker-all new car cash....in fact Id wager it was the cheapest 140mph car available new at the time care of the VAT deal...that it wasnt quite so preimuim, look as good and arguably didnt quite drive so well didnt matter as a consequence.

You simply cant compare the Mk3 with the Mk2 vRS because in no way can it compete.

Given they are already releasing a Monte Carlo version.....give it a year or so I bet they'll bring out vRS with the 192ps 1.8 motor.....again it probably wont quite be the dynamic match of the Polo but it'll for sure look better than the current mk2...perhaps be slightly cheaper too.

Edited 4 March, 201511 yr by pipsyp

Also just in case I get flamed for speaking negatively about the Mk2 vRS....I owned a CAVE engined estate from new for 18 months.....two years on I do miss the little sod!

Also note how it is a sponsored video. Sponsored by Skoda so of course it isn't biased at all is it? Wait, maybe a little bit? Or maybe a lot? One thing is they didn't just sound camera shy they sounded scripted and didn't want to talk like they would accidentally slip bad words in. Hush hush now.

2:44.... oh look at what the MK3 has and the MK2 hasn't... 

 

I like ugly. What I can't stand is blandness, and the MKIII may as well be a Kia.

Lets face it...in most peoples opinions the Mk2 Fabia isnt a good looking car. In vRS form slightly purposeful perhaps but that is about it. Its not ugly but its definitely not a looker.

Most of us who bought one did so because it was an oportunity to buy a car that was 85-90% Polo GTI for knacker-all new car cash....in fact Id wager it was the cheapest 140mph car available new at the time care of the VAT deal...that it wasnt quite so preimuim, look as good and arguably didnt quite drive so well didnt matter as a consequence.

You simply cant compare the Mk3 with the Mk2 vRS because in no way can it compete.

Given they are already releasing a Monte Carlo version.....give it a year or so I bet they'll bring out vRS with the 192ps 1.8 motor.....again it probably wont quite be the dynamic match of the Polo but it'll for sure look better than the current mk2...perhaps be slightly cheaper too.

 

I think I have some objections to that. The mk2 vRS is a car that looks so much nicer in flesh than in photos and I have found that what is perceived "most people" in the internet does not always match the reality. In my almost 4 years of ownership I have been asked several times by strangers at fuel stations or at my work, which car is that and told that it looks really nice. Go figure...

 

For the record: I'm not UK based and I initially was going for the Polo GTI, less than a 1000 euros difference between the two when I was visiting dealers back in early 2011. But then Polo was always looking so much like a mini Golf, and had such a familiar design in general so when I found out Skoda offered the same combo, I really liked the unusual form and how much less publicity the vRS received for what it was so I went with it. It all had to do with specs and looks but not price. I find that some specific body-roof-wheels color combos look absolutely lovely and transform the looks of this specific car for the better. Then if you only address the stance issue (and I am not someone who generally lowers his cars, I'd never done that in the past) you have a very nice car not only to drive but to look at as well. I still stare at my car when it's parked somewhere nice like when it was brand new...

 

But back to the mk3, appart from the ugly standing out rear I don't think the new grille looks nice on such a small model. It is best on the Superb and ok on the Octavia maybe, but they should have altered it more for the Fabia. In any way it is not a model which would be of any interest to me even if it was offered with a stronger engine. I certainly agree with the interior's improvement but that's not an argument to compare two cars with 6+ years of age difference. Every newer model always looks more fresh on the inside and offers more toys & gadgets, no matter the brand. If that's your primary concern you literally have hundreds of choices.

Can't believe they'd be happy with that after a vRS if they enjoy driving.

Not mentioning the lack of a mk3 vRS is just pathetic.

thing is not everyone who buys a vrs does so for the 0-60 / power

 

we bought our MK1 vrs as it was better value for money than specing up an elegance

 

some who bought the mkII vrs may have done so for the looks / styling as well as the equipment

 

like us the engine was a bonus

 

I personally prefer the looks of the front of the MKIII to the MKII but to me the spec is a let down, mirror link etc won't work with my windows phone (not a fan of apple or android so will never work for me), most of the thing I want are option unless I go to the SE L but I don't want kessy as I personally view it as a downgrade to the security of the car this makes the car expensive

 

the option I had was an Octavia MK III S 1.2TSi had everything I wanted but I am not sure about the TSi family of engines

I think I have some objections to that. The mk2 vRS is a car that looks so much nicer in flesh than in photos and I have found that what is perceived "most people" in the internet does not always match the reality. In my almost 4 years of ownership I have been asked several times by strangers at fuel stations or at my work, which car is that and told that it looks really nice. Go figure...

For the record: I'm not UK based and I initially was going for the Polo GTI, less than a 1000 euros difference between the two when I was visiting dealers back in early 2011. But then Polo was always looking so much like a mini Golf, and had such a familiar design in general so when I found out Skoda offered the same combo, I really liked the unusual form and how much less publicity the vRS received for what it was so I went with it. It all had to do with specs and looks but not price. I find that some specific body-roof-wheels color combos look absolutely lovely and transform the looks of this specific car for the better. Then if you only address the stance issue (and I am not someone who generally lowers his cars, I'd never done that in the past) you have a very nice car not only to drive but to look at as well. I still stare at my car when it's parked somewhere nice like when it was brand new...

But back to the mk3, appart from the ugly standing out rear I don't think the new grille looks nice on such a small model. It is best on the Superb and ok on the Octavia maybe, but they should have altered it more for the Fabia. In any way it is not a model which would be of any interest to me even if it was offered with a stronger engine. I certainly agree with the interior's improvement but that's not an argument to compare two cars with 6+ years of age difference. Every newer model always looks more fresh on the inside and offers more toys & gadgets, no matter the brand. If that's your primary concern you literally have hundreds of choices.

Thats fair enough.

As Ive said I did own one for quite a while, but I certainly didnt buy it for its looks. It was just an awful lot of practical supermini and performance for not a a great deal of money. Most people told me they thought it looked quite funny but they mostly stopped laughing after a ride (a few got out a bit white around the gills).

In isolation id rather of had a Polo GTI, they look better (appreciate thats in the eye of the beholder though and pure opinion), drive better (thats less arguable as VAG threw quite a bit more hot hatch know-how into it as it was more important to them than the vRS was as a product)....but again as it was to be a family car for the wife (and needed to take a buggy and 4.5 stone dog) and bettered the Polo vastly on price and in some respects standard kit (came with curtain airbags, multi function wheel and maxidot for example) it was a no brainer. A Polo GTI was a good 5k more expensive here in the UK too....a 20k supermini just disnt compute.

The Mk2 vRS to standard Mk3 comparison is ridiculous. Like most things though the Mk3 is probably overall a better car, for me certainly in looks but also in terms of being much more up to date. You just cant compare a boggo 100ish HP car to a 180hp warm hatch; the two really dont go hand in hand do they?

Edited 5 March, 201511 yr by pipsyp

The Mk2 vRS to standard Mk3 comparison is ridiculous. Like most things though the Mk3 is probably overall a better car, for me certainly in looks but also in terms of being much more up to date. You just cant compare a boggo 100ish HP car to a 180hp warm hatch; the two really dont go hand in hand do they?

 

The mk3 is probably more up to date compared to tenths of cars that I'd still rather have over it, doesn't say anything to me really. And the point is precisely this: You don't show a 80 or 100 ps car as an alternative to an 180ps one. Maybe that woman in the video bought the vRS because it was very green as she says... I heard about it (mk2) being practicval, used for commute and travel but nothing about the performance. Funnily, I can't remember when people became so used to 180ps/250Nm in their everyday cars, I would bet it was not so long ago that 120ps was considered a "quick"-ish car. If I saw the video and didn't know better I would imagine both cars were similar in the power area. Personally, if some Skoda salesman called me and suggested I take a look at the new mk3 as a possible replacement to my current mk2, I would ask him if he's being even remotely serious... It's the comparison thing that I am talking about here, not whether the mk2 vRSis a good or bad car. It would make much more sense to show the mk3 to 1.2 TSI or TDI owners that's all I'm saying, nothing to see here vRS owners, move along, move along!

Edited 5 March, 201511 yr by newbie69

I dno. It confuses me a little.

Everyone bangs on about power power powerrr yet when you're actually driving around, i dont see that many people actually using it anyway.

And i live in the centre of some really good roads.

Most just tootle along.

Okay there are exceptions of course. But a vast majority

Errr... Maybe because the majority of the people wants to drive responsibly on public roads?? I mean come on you can't be saying this seriously. It's fortunate that you don't see everybody owning a somewhat powerful car exploiting the 100% of its potential during everyday driving. Hopefully, you make such a choice not because of the frequency of driving fast but because of the pleasure that you receive from doing it once a day/week/month/year whatever suits everyone. You also forget that it doesn't have to be all about powersliding or revving it to the limiter, precisely the opposite: Just the fact that a light feather of the gas pedal on 3rd gear pushes you forward much quicker than in an average car is often enough to make you feel nice. You don't have to set a lap record from home to work to enjoy your car.