...than a similarly engined petrol vehicle???

It's not that I'm worried about being able to fund it etc (hell it certainly can't be THAT expensive), but I'm concnered about this subject in relation to some recent comments I have read that suggest purchasing a diesel only makes sense if you're are driving over a certain amount of miles in a year.

I'm presuming that the situation is a little uniqie with the fabia vrs, because what would you compare it to? Compare it to a normal fabi and yes it would probably be more to run but then it is a totally different vehicle (you'd have a fairly strong idea of which was more suitable for your needs). Compare it to a similar sized "warm" hatch and things get complicated.

Anyway, any thoughts???

Well, annual road tax is cheaper by a few quid.

Economy will be around 40-50% better I should think.

But they cost more to buy initially. Depending on what its going to be used like, will determine if you get back that extra outlay over the next __ months.

Oh and a 130bhp (assume non turbo) petrol can't be chipped to 180bhp just by plugging it into a computer.

Incidentally ... if I were to get it chipped would I need to make any other mods???

What performance increas would 180bhp equate to roughly? Any ideas?

Depends on what car you are compairing it against.

Weigh up the extra cost of the car against the petrol counter part.

How long are the trips you are doing, if they are short and around town a petrol could be cheaper to run.

yes, that's what I'm getting at. However, whilst a 1.2 petrol may "be cheaper to run" it won't be half as much fun right?!?!?

Compared to a 130bhp petrol, it might end up being more fun with a little money spent. No other mods are necessary when remapping, but some nice cheap modifications can yield better results down the line, come remap day.

A 130bhp petrol might end up handling better though. I suspect a 1.8 engine weighs quite a bit less than a 1.9 TDI, so a lighter front end should make for some good fun (e.g. Fiesta ST I suppose?)

Whatever you throw at it though in terms of tuning the TDI will always still throw back mid 40s mpg at worst.

the fiesta st is quite pricey tho (for a 'fiesta' - I can't get that thought out of my head). It may be worth having a drive of the 1.6i zetec z though i guess. That's available at the price of the model below in the series at the mo, plu and additional

My last 5 cars have all been 2.0 litre petrol and I have to visit the pumps half as much since buying the Fabia, I didn

Sometimes, I feel really mean, I drive very carefully and get 60+ mpg.

Other times I feel less mean, let it off its lead, and enjoy the thoroughly rapid progress available.

The vRS does it all for me, whatever my mood. 'nuff said?

A lot depends on mileage and length of trips you make IMHO

If you do short trips generally, a petrol is better suited as although on a petrol you suffer the same 'bad MPG until warm' it tends to warm up on it's own LOL.

Was quite pleased with a petrol car for < 20 miles to work trips, now doing 50 miles to work so the vRS is excellent for that.

You can have a fair bit of fun with the vRS even as standard, but if you're after a true hot hatch I'd look for a petrol. MPG-wise the diesel generally beats petrol hands-down assuming warmed up etc, so it all kinda depends on the use of the car you're after.

Also the 'taka-taka-taka' sound when very cold may put you off a little, sound proofing helps a tad with that though

this was one of my main factors when buying my Fabia (still not arrived). I believe if you are buying a car like the VRS you would be driving it briskly and return say 40mpg?

If I had bought a C2 VTS and drove briskly I would return half the amount 20+ say 25mpg on a good day. Thats 35%-40% more economical for the Fabia VRS which the diesel for the VRS is only 5-6% more expensive.

Yes diesel engines are more expensive to buy but the residuals for diesels are far better than petrol so it does outway some the difference. Alos the Fabia VRS is similar price to the VTS if you consider the option you would need to bring it upto spec.

Residuals when selling are far better too for the Fabia VRS.

The servicing costs are very similar with Citroens as they sell cars with small margins on them, they would have to rake profits in else where....ie servicing and parts.

Maybe im tring to drill it into my own mind that I bought the correct car but speaking to others on the subject and they agree everytime.

this is my case anyway with all My own opinions. not sure what you think?

Compared to a 130bhp petrol, it might end up being more fun with a little money spent. No other mods are necessary when remapping, but some nice cheap modifications can yield better results down the line, come remap day.

Thought the Fiesta ST could easily be chipped to 200bhp :confused: Basically, if you do 15k+ miles a year, a diesel will start to pay off, but in my experience Skoda servicing ain't cheap and nor are replacement parts, especially compared to more mainstream brands.

I'm also not convinced by the "strong residuals", especially as people on here are having trouble giving their cars away! I guess we'll see when more of them hit 3 years old.......

Chris

Thought the ST was normally aspirated? Assumed that meant it would need more mechanical mods and more dosh spent to achieve 180bhp, compared to a couple of hours spent at a tuner? I might be wrong though.

The takatakatakataka noise is definitely not pleasant, but its a small negative thing for me. The ch-ch-ch-ch-ch exhaust note for me is also a little negative but no other vRS exhaust is going to sound like that.

Thought the ST was normally aspirated? Assumed that meant it would need more mechanical mods and more dosh spent to achieve 180bhp' date=' compared to a couple of hours spent at a tuner? I might be wrong though.

[/quote']

You are correct.

Thought the ST was normally aspirated? Assumed that meant it would need more mechanical mods and more dosh spent to achieve 180bhp, compared to a couple of hours spent at a tuner? I might be wrong though.

It is N/A, but I'm sure on one of the ST threads, someone mentioned how good the 2.0l lump was and how easy it was to remap it to big numbers ..... nothing on google though so it may have been a dream

Chris

ch4vs, Chris. Full of bull usually.

I've no idea how quick the ST lump is though? I just picked that particular example out the air, as a Fabia vRS competitor. I suspect as standard though, the ST pips it. Someone told me they had one and it was a 7 seconds to 60 car. :eek: I think it might have a few more horses and maybe 200kg weight saving?

Hmmm 150bhp and 1137kg. Not bad.

ch4vs, Chris. Full of bull usually.

It was someone on here :P:rofl:

Chris

It is N/A' date=' but I'm sure on one of the ST threads, someone mentioned how good the 2.0l lump was and how easy it was to remap it to big numbers ..... nothing on google though so it may have been a dream

Chris[/quote']

A 2L NA engine would have to be pretty special to produce 200bhp without major mechanical mods when it 150bhp (iirc) out the box. I just can't see it.... there arn't many NA engine that produce 100bhp/litre for a reason.

Saw a couple of STs at the pod pull out consistent low/mid 16s - pretty impressive for what looked like standard cars.

It is N/A' date=' but I'm sure on one of the ST threads, someone mentioned how good the 2.0l lump was and how easy it was to remap it to big numbers ..... nothing on google though so it may have been a dream

Chris[/quote']

it would be unreliable. you can easily mod 1.9 PD engine to 200bhp but not very reliable without money poured into it.

any way back to the thread.......

If the ST was remapped it would drink loads and therefore would costs lots to run unlike the VRS when modded.

Plus group insurance 13 for ST which increases costs.

Id say the VRS is cheap to buy and run for what you get.

Id say the VRS is cheap to buy and run for what you get.

Lower insurance and better fuel economy, but more expensive servicing, slower out of the box and worse handling. I guess it depends what you want from the car

Chris

exactly depends what you want really if you want mature fun the Fab is for you. You want Ch4v fun ST for you

But if you read the question correctly at the beginning of the thread it was all about "Re: is the vrs cheaper to run..."

and the answer is yes compared to other warm/hot hatches.. Not just marginally either.

Here's my 2p;

If you are buying the car outright (i.e no finance), then this deabte is valid as a diesel will cost you more to buy.

(as a side point it maybe isn't as valid with the Fabia because anything else with similar performance and equipment is much more expensive anyway, but we'll ignore that for now!)

If you are buying the car on finance then I find this debate kind of pointless. The reason I say that is that if you are buying on finance then you tend to have a monthly budget. For me anyway, this includes finance payments and fuel.

Now a more expensive diesel car will obviously cost more per month on finance but less on fuel.

Whether the saving on fuel cancels out the extra cost in finance depends on how many miles you do and the difference in cost over a cheaper petrol car. You need to work it out for your circumstances and decide which is the best way to go.

The Fabia is also cheaper to tax and insure than similar performance petrol cars, but may be slightly more expensive to service.

Now here is the sad part! I have a spreadsheet which will work out these running costs for you.

You need to enter the amount of miles you do, the cost of fuel in your area, your deposit or tade-in value, the length of finance deal you want to take, and then the cost and mpg figure of the car you want to buy.

Pop these in and out pops a number which is the amount the car will ocst to run per month (for fuel and finance). This means you can compare different cars in seconds.

I have also set it up so that you can put in a monthly budget and it will tell you how much you can spend on a certain car to achieve this budget.

If you (or anyone else) wants a copy to play with just let me know and I'll e-mail it over.

Out of curiousity, I just ran a quote through for an ST and a vRS for me on confused.com. Swiftcover come out cheapest for both but the ST is 50 quid cheaper :confused: Servicing on the ST is cheaper, so I guess it comes down to how many miles you do. Not as big a margin as I would have expected!

Chris

i am with swift cover. yeh nice to know I have cheap insurance. I didi shop around for 3 mnths.

as for the quotes. I doubt it, as the ST it group 13 and the Fabia is 9. There not just random numbers you know, they are there for a reason!!

I will double check this later.

how much is servicing on the ST?