All round generally speaking is the new Fabia "better" than the Rapid (especially my early one).

 

I get the feeling the Fabia is new tech more solid and just nicer and more enjoyable than the Rapid.

 

I am seriously thinking about an estate TDI 105 in White.

 

Could anyone share their experience please.

The trouble is (I think) is that they all look the same now. It looks like a Spaceback. No real great interior changes from the Rapid ( quite bland).

Your choice of estate is good as this is really the only thing that differentiates them. Obviously the Fabia get the Euro 6 engines. I've yet to see the new MY16 Rapid yet. I doubt any have been sold. I think the Rapid is the Black sheep of the family.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to say our rapid was built with profit in mind and felt quite tinny but having been hit by a lorry and our whole family walking out (well the 3 week old didn't walk out, I carried him) I have changed my opinion on the rapid. The problem I now have is finding a like for like model... There are 3 in the country, 1 is the right colour but the drivers door is all scratched inside :(

so I have been asking myself the same question Fabia estate vs rapid... Came to the conclusion that the boot is still bigger in the rapid but like you say the tech is slightly dated. Also a new model is a little more than what the third party's insurance is likely to want to pay out. So I'm still with the rapid but I need to find one!

Jon, how about a Toledo SE from Oct 2013 on.

 

Same car, loads of standard kit, including stop start (Greentech) on the 105 (very cheap tax)

I have had a look at the Fabia and it looks to be a fine car and it has won the What Car  car of the year award as well as it's small car award hence it can't be that bad.The salesman told me that the boot space was about the same as a Rapid spaceback but I think that it is still a bit smaller as is the rest of the car.I had a mark1 Fabia and found it to be excellent.The latest Fabia is indisputably a fine car with some of the underpinnings being VAGs latest.The Rapid has underpinnings from the previous generation (mostly Polo) but this has produced excellent VAG cars which are still going strong.The engines in MY16 for both models are the same.I have already had a Toledo (with the rough suspension) and  currently have the Rapid SE Connect which has a much better ride. I think it probably boils down to space and value and suspect that, since the Rapid is less fashionable, it is likely to have the edge in these.However either model would be a very good buy in my opinion.

        As regard no MY16 Rapids being sold I have ordered a Toledo Style Advanced.This was ordered end of May but will not be built until week 35 (w/b 24/8) and therefore I probably won't get it until mid September which is great for me as my trade in is depreciating and I will get a "65" registration.This new car will be a new colour for Seat (Meditarranean Blue) which should make it uncommon.Unfortunately it is the same colour as Skoda's bulk standard Pacific Blue!!!

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by Robbydazzler

I think it probably boils down to space and value and suspect that, since the Rapid is less fashionable, it is likely to have the edge in these.However either model would be a very good buy in my opinion.

 

I think you're spot on there. As a newer model, the best discounts won't be available for the Fabia just yet. Skoda have just dropped the RRP on the MY16 Rapid, so maybe the Fabia will follow suite once initial sales have levelled off. The choice boils down to newer design and tech versus space and value. There are no right or wrong answers, it boils down to the requirements of the customer. I must say I think the new Fabia is a cracking looking car. Not sure I'd describe the Rapid as the black sheep, more like the ugly duckling!

Jon, how about a Toledo SE from Oct 2013 on.

 

Same car, loads of standard kit, including stop start (Greentech) on the 105 (very cheap tax)

I'd be going from the top of the rang rapid to a mid range seat, is that right? I know they're the same car in principal but I did like my rapid!

Toledos came as base, S, SE (later SE Nav), (and I-Tech limited edition)

 

A Toledo SE Nav (up to 2015 models) is top spec.  MY14 only lacks Auto headlights and wipers. It has Amundsen+, Climatronic, Park assist, Greentech, MFSW, Curry hooks etc.

 

Look for an I-Tech model and you'll get fancy Leather/alcantara seats and the auto lights/wipers too.

 

I would buy a pre-reg I-tech if I was in the market right now.

 

Pound for pound Toledos have more kit than Rapids.

 

However The 2016 Toledo has changed the range structure so the new SE is mid-range and the "Style" is at the top

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

Also Style Advanced at the very top - option it up like an I-tech and it goes over 19 or 20k!!

 

Autotrader has pre-reg SE Nav or I-tech under 13k now or a Black Rapid Sport under 12k

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

... more like the ugly duckling!

Other things aside, do you also think that the Rapid is unpleasant to look at? I find it a nice looking car, when I bought it I thought the looks were on its strong side!

Other things aside, do you also think that the Rapid is unpleasant to look at? I find it a nice looking car, when I bought it I thought the looks were on its strong side!

 

I think my Sport doesn't look too bad in white with the 17" alloys. If I wash it, looks even better! No offence to any forum members out there but the Rapid with 15's just looks awful!

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by Matt17121991

I'd go for the Rapid as the 3 cylinder diesel in the new Fabia is awful. I posted this previously.

 

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/362863-disappointed-with-new-fabia/

I think my Sport doesn't look too bad in white with the 17" alloys. If I wash it, looks even better! No offence to any forum members out there but the Rapid with 15's just looks awful!

 

Yes 16 minimum on the Rapedo twins, and the Spaceback actually needs bigger wheels to hide the stretched out wheelbase which looks even more wrong without a boot.

 

15's - No.

 

 

@eyegr - I don't find the Rapid unpleasant to look at, but for me it is a bit featureless - many others might call that look classic, timeless, simple, elegant, it's a matter of personal taste, no?

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

Toledo Style Advanced has KESSY,front parking sensors,17 inch alloys ,driver fatigue system,post collision braking as standard which I do not think were standard on the I-Tech?It also,obviously,has the latest EU6 engines.

Toledo Style Advanced has KESSY,front parking sensors,17 inch alloys ,driver fatigue system,post collision braking as standard which I do not think were standard on the I-Tech?It also,obviously,has the latest EU6 engines.

 

And a price tag of about 6k more if buying today

 

I hope the EU6 motors are better than FIAT's too (remember the "New 500 doesn't go up hills" scandal?)

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

Hopefully there will be no problem from the EU6 engines.They are already out there on various VAG models and I have heard of no complaints.I Have stolen the quote below from the Briskoda Fabia forum.

 

"I testdrove the 90 and ordered the 110! The 110 is a great little engine, I get great MPG already after only 1000 miles. The 90 felt suprisingly slow (compared to a 105 dsg roomster), so I went for the 110. I don't remember the consumption figures by heart, but there should not be a big difference, and I suspect that the 110 might even be more economical on longer runs thanks to more torque and better gearing."

Yes 16 minimum on the Rapedo twins, and the Spaceback actually needs bigger wheels to hide the stretched out wheelbase which looks even more wrong without a boot.

 

15's - No.

 

 

@eyegr - I don't find the Rapid unpleasant to look at, but for me it is a bit featureless - many others might call that look classic, timeless, simple, elegant, it's a matter of personal taste, no?

 

Of course it is subjective, I just wanted to check if I am the odd one out here

Hopefully there will be no problem from the EU6 engines.They are already out there on various VAG models and I have heard of no complaints.I Have stolen the quote below from the Briskoda Fabia forum.

 

"I testdrove the 90 and ordered the 110! The 110 is a great little engine, I get great MPG already after only 1000 miles. The 90 felt suprisingly slow (compared to a 105 dsg roomster), so I went for the 110. I don't remember the consumption figures by heart, but there should not be a big difference, and I suspect that the 110 might even be more economical on longer runs thanks to more torque and better gearing."

 

Sounds good.  However the Euro 5 experience here at Rapid Central seems to be that the 86 murders the 105 on mpg, so the jury's out on the updated 90 / 110 models.

 

 

As an aside, why 105 or 110 VW?  

 

Loads of dyno reports on Fabia /Polo /Ibiza forums suggest it (105) actually puts out 114 to 120 in standard trim

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by camelspyyder

Owners are already getting poor mpg on the new 1.2 in the Fabia. It's obviously too early to tell yet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Other things aside, do you also think that the Rapid is unpleasant to look at? I find it a nice looking car, when I bought it I thought the looks were on its strong side!

 

Before I answer that question, I will lay my cards on the table and declare myself to be a very contented Spaceback owner. The car does everything I wanted at a fantastic price (for me) and unless anything horrible happens over the next few years, I will probably replace it with another one. 

 

Whilst my comment was a flippant one, in my opinion the Skoda lineup now includes a number of very nice looking cars, (Fabia, Ovtavia and Superb) all of which share the same design language. Whilst the Rapid isn't a bad looking car, I don't think it's as nice as the others. However, I think there are a couple of things that Skoda could do to improve the looks of the Rapid/Rapid Spaceback.

 

It does suffer from 'small wheel syndrome', particularly with the 15 inch wheels. That should be an easy fix and in fairness to Skoda, 16s are now standard on all but the basic S model. Tweaks to the suspension could reduce the large wheel arch gaps. Skoda isn't the only manufacturer to get this wrong though. If you look at a Hyundai i30 from the side, it looks even worse.

 

Some of the details are a bit ragged compared to the Fabia and Octavia too. Not so much on the regular Rapid, but on the Spaceback the area around the C pillar lacks a bit of finesse. The equivalent area on the Fabia is much better, and even the estate looks more cohesive. The last pillar should either be made into a feature or disguised more effectively. Instead, it's a bit... meh. Modern Skodas also make use of quite dramatic folds in the metal for their design flair, and I think this makes them quite colour-sensitive as they rely on reflecting the light to look their best. 

 

The overall proportions could be more pleasing too. As a result of its Polo heritage, it also looks rather narrow. It doesn't feel it inside and you don't immediately notice it, but park it next to a Focus, Astra etc. and it doesn't look great from front or rear. I parked next to a colleague's Alfa Giulietta today and it was not a flattering comparison. I wouldn't have thought that if it was proportioned a bit more like the Octavia.

 

So there you go. I don't think the Rapid is an ugly car and I have to say I'm not that bothered about its looks or I wouldn't have bought one. It does the job I bought it for (transporting my family and our luggage around efficiently and safely) perfectly. What I would say is that Skoda can do better.

Edited 11 August, 201510 yr by RapidPaul

I agree. Looking head on it does look very narrow. It hasn't got any stance to it. The rear I like much more than the Toledo. But the front is so boring with its huge grille and tacky Chrome surround. The Toledo has a great front with a touch of aggression which I like as it keeps it modern.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the subject of the Rapid being colour sensitive, I have seen a Race Blue Rapid Spaceback with the style pack around Northampton a few times recently. It looks absolutely badass! Definitely want Race Blue next time

Well I just went from a standard rapid se to a spaceback se tech in race blue with all the sports seats etc..... what a difference! Its like the two cars are miles apart. The new one feels so much more grown up and refined. I think the spaceback is a better car, don't know why, it just feels better with all the kit on.

 

When I looked at the Fabia I thought it was too much like the rapid with less room for not much difference in price so I stuck with the rapid.

Yes the SE tech has all the kit, just like my Toledo - yours looks a nice car to sit in and the sports seats look great. 

 

I think the early SE is a bit poverty spec to be honest - at first it didn't even have fogs.

 

Are you the first Rapid owner to buy another one?

 

I think there's another on here who went from SE to Sport.

 

Anybody else bought more than one?

@RapidPaul, thanks for your extensive treatise on the looks of the Rapid. Everything you pointed out is true and I have noticed myself but just could not be specific on what's wrong!

Now, a narrower car also has its positive side: when parked at small streets it protrudes less (=less likely to be damaged).