Fabia VRS Diesel with 10K a year?

Relentless81

Relentless81

Relentless81

Soldato
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
12,868
Is this justifiable?

I quite like them and a very nice example has popped up locally, I fancy a small car with cheap running costs for a bit as I'm getting married this year, is there DPF filters on these?

Thanks
 
I have the Fabia 1.6tdi on an 11 plate which has a dpf, I am pretty sure all diesels these days have dpf, I have had my car for 6 months a d dpf light has came on twice so I immediately took the car for a quick rag and within 15 minutes light comes off, you will find mpg's arent that great around town but on motorway journeys its pretty good.

Also the car is very pokey and feels very much lime driving a golf to me, I do like the vrs version myself, apparently though it is a very rough drive due to the lower profile tyres a d sportier suspension.
 
I don't think the VRS Diesel has a DPF. I'm 100% sure my 55 plate didnt.

I'd buy another in a heart beat. Our present pool car hat nearly 150K and has only needed servicing and an alternator belt
 
No dpf, good small cheap to run car which can be fun to drive. My wife has one however we re going to change it shortly for a golf GTD all going well.

Nothing gone wrong as such on ours. I replaced the wishbone bushes for the ibiza cupra solid ones and changed the front calipers to ones from an octavia vrs. Both common mods and the car benefits from them hugely.
 
If you're only doing 10k a year then what's the point of buying the diesel? It's not going to be cheaper to run that the petrol equivalent over that kind of mileage.

Buy it because you like the car and the way diesels drive..not because you think it'll save you money over a petrol, because it won't!
 
At 10k a year, difference between car that does 42 mpg and 30 mpg (Fabia vRS fuelly figures) is about £650 with todays fuel prices.
 
Used prices are not that different, so it's easier to recoup diesel with fuel economy. When buying new, diesel is almost always worse option unless both versions are priced the same. As an example in my scenario:

Seat Leon ST FR TDI is £26300, Seat Leon ST FR TSI is £23600. I know I get 47 mpg from TDI and 36 average from TSI, in my commuting conditions. 10p difference in fuel price. I do respectable 23000 miles a year minimum. And even in those optimal conditions buying TDI over TSI would take over 4 years to recoup in fuel. On the other hand, in Octavia vRS trim at some point last year there was only £500 difference in price, diesel would pay for itself in less than half a year.
 
I had a 05 Fabia vRS , not sure if I had a Lemon, but in my time it had a new intercooler and turbo, driver door lock stopped working, interior lights stopped working, brake lights stopped working (brakes did suck on this car!), various rattles.

Performance was ok, economy was good - could get upto 50mpg without being too careful.

Don't think I would go with another
 
Check the rear door seals, they love to go. Symptoms are damp rear carpets (if the passenger side has it then be aware the entire loom goes under that side and if it's been left for a while then it will rot it and a loom is a large job on the car). There is a fix involving removing the doorcard + sealant - ask if this has been done or crack out a bucket of water to check (inside will mist)

Other common things are the blade that controls recirc / temp, check it blows a varying amount of temperatures through the cabin. Brake light switch goes, there's a better replacement version, they cost bobbins if it happens.

I ran through 2 examples to 130k+ 4 years ago, i lost one turbo in one (£600), the other suffered a front engine wiring issue (£200) + brake switch, both suffered from the water issue. Used an indie to service both, fairly cheap costs and consumables (tyres are 16" so fairly cheap). They are getting on a bit now but if it's got the history then it will be fine. I sold both to uptrade, both were in excellent nick at 130. No DPF, you get to smoke everyone out if you hammer it to the tune of the tdi clatter
 
They command too much money for what is now an old, crappy little hatch ( they're alirght to be fair, but alright is about as kind as I would be). If you want one just buy the Ibiza version. Same engine, same handling, much the same interior wise but about half the price
 
No DPF, it would now be seen as an "old school" diesel. Turbo's can go at high mileage if they're not been looked after, or they've been serviced with incorrect oil. A friend of mine has a 56-reg with the later Euro 4 engine and the turbo kept going into limp mode and needed replacing at 90k.

I've owned my 2005 car from new, only done 30k in it. Other than a coolant temp sensor and a brake bleed nipple that sheared off (when the fluid was changed) it's been faultless. Does 45mpg in mixed use, 50-55mpg on a motorway run. It's cheap to run, comfortable enough and still makes me smile when I hoof it.

The Ibiza? Not for me. Drove both before buying. Ibiza has exeedingly stiff suspension, cost more new (no idea now) and 5 door versions are rare.
 
MagicBoy said:
I've owned my 2005 car from new, only done 30k in it.
Click to expand...

Surely a 1.8T of similar vintage would have been a more rewarding buy?

I've never really understood the point in the Fabia vRS. It's really not the sort of car you'd want to do big miles in, but unless you were doing big miles in it its rather difficult to understand why you'd pick one. The engine is noisy and clattery and the Fabia is a small car which lacks refinement. The two together strike me as an odd choice for anyone except those who need the economy for big miles, which then brings you back into the circular argument of why a Fabia for big miles.

It would seem Skoda didn't see the point either as the next vRS had a petrol engine, as it arguably should have done from the outset.
 
MagicBoy said:
The Ibiza? Not for me. Drove both before buying. Ibiza has exeedingly stiff suspension, cost more new (no idea now) and 5 door versions are rare.
Click to expand...

I find that a bit of an odd statement tbh, the seat (outside of the cupras) isn't stiff at all and they don't command anything like the odd scene tax that the little fabia vrs does now for a nice one, regardless of cost new.

I wouldn't thank you for one, but it opens up the op's choice if that's the kind of car he wants
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;25815881 said:
Surely a 1.8T of similar vintage would have been a more rewarding buy?

I've never really understood the point in the Fabia vRS. It's really not the sort of car you'd want to do big miles in, but unless you were doing big miles in it its rather difficult to understand why you'd pick one. The engine is noisy and clattery and the Fabia is a small car which lacks refinement. The two together strike me as an odd choice for anyone except those who need the economy for big miles, which then brings you back into the circular argument of why a Fabia for big miles.

It would seem Skoda didn't see the point either as the next vRS had a petrol engine, as it arguably should have done from the outset.
Click to expand...

We've had this discussion before. There wasn't a 1.8T Fabia. I was doing 25k a year when I bought the car, then changed jobs/moved. I'm perfectly happy with my choice. Anyway I'll stop before I drag it off topic.

rodenal said:
I find that a bit of an odd statement tbh, the seat (outside of the cupras) isn't stiff at all and they don't command anything like the odd scene tax that the little fabia vrs does now, regardless of cost new
Click to expand...

I completely disagree as regards the ride quality. As for "scene tax" I'm unaware of such things, having bought new 8 years ago.
 
I had a look around one and really didn't like it so I'm off the idea those grey seats are awful, I could get an RX8 for that money and have a grand spare in case anything went wrong with it, I sat in one today and loved it, didn't drive it though in case I got too tempted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom