GTP Cool Wall: 1984-1990 Škoda 136 Rapid

[Jahgee]

1984-1990 Škoda 136 Rapid nominated by @Turtle

Engines: 1.3L I4
Power: 61 hp
Torque: 63 lb-ft.
Weight: 900 kg
Transmission: 5-speed manual
Drivetrain: Rear engine, rear wheel drive
Body Styles: 2-door coupe​

Spoiler: Additional Pics

 

[Roger the Horse]

Skoda.

 

[Dagger311]

Meh.

 

[Wiegert]

I respect pre-VAG Skodas like the Rapid and Garde. Distinctive rear engined models unlike the rather insipid Favorit* (even though it did mark the beginning of an era that would eventually greatly improve the marque's image), and better looking than the Estelle sedan.

Cool, though? Not a chance.


*Admittedly, my friend's mum's estate model was a guilty pleasure of mine when I was a kid.

 

[Doog]

Generic old European car.

 

[rallydakar]

Kind of normal looking skoda ... Meh

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just wonderful, and it even has its rapid name on the front plate, cause it's true this car is "rapid". SZ



My vote should be taken with smallest grain of salt...

 

[Tyger]

I have a sort of soft spot for these as my dad had the "saloon" version for a while, but in all honesty, it was a terrible car. The engine was a total relic, you had to pump the gas pedal before you even turned the key, just for it to start. Still a meh though because nostalgia.

 

[Slash]

Ew. Uncool.

 

[Dennisch]

These things are so cool. They drive just like an old school 911. As in it tries to kill you with its rear flying everywhere! Perfect on a wet road with loads of roundabouts.

 

[synchromesh]

SZ, it's awesome!

 

[JMoney]

Cool because it's a rear engined non-VW non-Porsche.
Cool because it's well-styled (except for the grille)
Cool because mud flaps.

Uncool because of 15.25 hp/cylinder, which is terrible even in the 80's.
Uncool because of asymmetric grille.
Uncool because anybody who doesn't know what it is won't know it's rear-engined (lack of intakes).

Meh.

 

[Turtle]

I keep having delusional fantasies of putting a more powerful engine in one of these. Cool.

 

[mustafur]

If you put a better engine in it, cool otherwise meh.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Cool. Especially on track made on frozen lake.. Been there, done that

 

[XS]

Absolutely nothing cool about this car. It isn't fast, sporty, good looking (imo), or appealing in any way. I can think of quite a lot of vehicles I'd rather spend the money on.

 

[Nessy]

Love these things, though the earlier 111R coupe would have been even cooler.

[EDIT]

Here's my crappy take on a modern/retro version of it

 

[Cano]

Never even knew about these things.

:0 rear/rear? Cool.

EDIT: That thing posted by @Nessy up here is all kinds of awesome.

 

[mustafur]

It looks like a Skoda Version of the Alfa GTV just with much less power.

 

[Sage Ages]

It kinda looks like an old VW but it kinda doesn't look like an old VW. Meh.

 

[homeforsummer]

It may have a bit of a retro vibe, it may have the same layout as an old 911, it may be nowhere near as bad a car as people assume it to be, but it's still a Skoda Jokes-era Skoda and as such, it cannot be cool.

Edit: I'd totally drive that render @Nessy put up though, that looks awesome.

 

[Ken]

Ew. Uncool.

Exactly. The Skoda name doesn't save it from looking like a Chevy Citation. (Ok, that may be a slight reach.) The power is a joke. Never liked inline 4's. The tyres show how great the handling was, wafer thing. Uncool. But it was trying to be anything but a cheap car. That saves it from seriously uncool.

 

[Stotty]

Back in the 80's, a mate of mine worked for a double glazing company for a while and they gave him one of these as a 'company car'... it was absolutely rubbish... slow and with truly frightening handling

Even now it's hard to forget the 80's Skoda jokes, despite them producing some great cars under VW.

So despite the nostalgia, it just can't be cool.

That 111r is lovely though 👍

 

[SVX]

Uncool because of 15.25 hp/cylinder, which is terrible even in the 80's.

Somehow, just somehow, I don't think high power per a cylinder is what they were aiming for here...

Anyway, I voted seriously uncool because if you showed people you owned this they would laugh at you. And that's not very cool at all. And not to mention the name, first response to 'Skoda Rapid' would be 'that doesn't look very rapid at all'.

Or maybe that's just my dry humor...

 

[AlvaroF]

I never heard of these things. Apparently dangerous and rubbish. It might have been cool, because it's rear engined, but then it's a Skoda and when you think of Skodas the cool word usually doesn't pop into our minds.

 

[Legro]

It was made before VAG took over Skoda, so it isn't seriously uncool. That doesn't make it cool, though. Uncool.

 

[Adamgp]

Nothing special, nor cool, with this one.

SU.

 

[Niku Driver HC]

Now there's a car I've never seen before. I do know the name though, but that brings up a much more modern Skoda with 4-doors and pictures of people jumping in slow motion.

As for this, I had a flash of Alfa Romeo GTV from looking at the rear, in the last picture within the spoiler section. On one hand, it doesn't look half bad and it is an interesting sort of RR, not to mention I have a soft spot for these quirky 1980's cars. On the other hand, it is dangerous, if not moreso than a 911 because it is a 1980's old Skoda. Those don't have sporty, well-honed handling and drivetrain, if you know what I mean... And that segues into the other point, which brings up the situation of you showing it to your mates and then use the words "1980" and "Skoda" in the same sentence, which is then followed up by one of your mates bringing up a picture of a Lancia Beta and the rest laughs in unison (rust and poor quality jokes, in case you don't get it). That and rubber bumpers are uncool.

All in all, it balances out to a meh. Not a bad car, but the reputation of Skoda in its era is hard to shake off. Also, the chromed bumper one looks much nicer.

 

[homeforsummer]

The tyres so how great the handling was, wafer thing

Tyre width has zero positive correlation with how well a car "handles".

Not that the Rapid was a great handler, but you can't just look at the tyres and determine how it handles based on that alone. Not unless an old Lotus Elan on 155s is also rubbish. Or a 1960s Mini on 145 section tyres...

I'd also be tempted to point out that you personally not liking inline fours, nor the fact that 61bhp isn't a lot of power (though it's pretty much par for the course from a 1980s 1.3) have much to do with whether the car is cool or not. But similar things have been said in similar threads for years now and few have grasped it to this point, so it's probably not worth mentioning.

 

[TheCracker]

The 130 series Skodas, and it's predecessor, fully deserve their baby/cheapo 911 tag. They also have a successful competition pedigree. Enough to rate them cool in my book.

Sure, they were basic and cheaply made, but so were most non-premium cars in that era, and this never pretended to be anything but cheap and basic.