SEVrs

Low miles to my mind is way less important than how a car was used and serviced. Our vRS was bought on a 57 plate with 48K miles advertised (it has actually covered 50K). We bought it last year at 7 years old and initailly, I was dead chuffed. However it transpired it had belonged to the wife of a Skoda Mech, had covered mainly short town trips and never had a cam belt change despite 7 years ownership. The EGR was clogged so wouldn't shut off, so the car stuttered. The inlet manifold was 30% restricted with gunge as a result of the EGR issue and required removal and acid bath dipping to restore to parent metal. Injectors needed cleaning through/deglazing, intercooler was full of crap and suspension bushes shot. It looked immaculate from the outside and had a full service history which proved...errr...nothing! We ended up spending £800 on it, replacing cam belt, water pump, suspension bushes, blanking EGR, recoding ECU and remapping (Quantum economy map = 165BHP). We'd have been better off buying a well cared for 100K mile model. Short trips = engine killers.

That's an interesting observation but one thing you can be certain about is that all big manufacturers can directly influence quality but cost saving comes first. It's a well known in car journo circles for example that when Merc offered up the first of their "Blue Efficiency" C class for review, it was screwed together using more reliable parts than the production model ended up with, which may or may not be true of other manufacturers too, and first production runs were a backwards step in reliability compared with previous generation models. Similar story with BMW (which I wouldn't touch with a barge pole now...in fact I wouldn't have either). The aim of the modern European industry seems to be to make things reliable for the first 3 or 4 years to attract the fleet markets and then it's up for grabs. Warranties typically these days are also conditional upon having all servicing done by manufacturer franchised dealers or approved outlets so getting round the freedom of choice buyers have to have the cars serviced more cheaply. They rake in profit wherever they can. Even bodywork warranties are conditional upon no bodywork repairs (post accident or even for things like stone chip repairs) being undertaken by anyone other than main franchised dealers. I know, it happened to one of our cars much to my disgust. The other main issues include the relentless drive of Euro compliance becoming even more cloud cuckoo and unsustainable. All that EC has done is to increase the number of "disposable" small engines which is the reality (ask any mechanic) resulting in a whole life larger carbon footprint, not a smaller one. It's ludicrous. Whilst the aims of EC are laudable the reality is not so great. I had a brand new 3 cylinder whizzbang motor for a service car last week. Official figures gave it as 65 to 70mpg combined. Best I managed at a steady 60 to 65 on the motorway was 50mpg (readout said 49.4). That's pathetic for a modern engine of less than 1 litre. When I picked it up, the mechanic told me that they were indeed disposable, and that he hated working on them. A friend has a C1 with a similar small EC engine. At 60k miles everything started going wrong and he told me that he wished he'd bought a larger engined older car as the new batch are false economy to him. That about sums it up. We're lured by increasing gadgetry/eco credentials/low running costs as a portent of value for money, and it hides what are fast becoming overly complex and more and more unreliable vehicles which are developed at the forced behest of a bureaucratic unaccountable Euro organisation which far from driving genuine innovational improvements, are looking to eco-targets as the main driver. As long as the designs meet these targets for a few years, manufacturers have ticked the boxes. None of them give a fig for whole life costs, which directly affect environmental issues in terms of carbon footprint as well as the short term targets. It's all become a not so funny joke. We've had several Skodas, all early models, and whilst they've not been the last word in reliability, they have been relatively easy to fix, robust and have stood the test of time as far as getting us from A to B fairly cheaply. We wont ever sell our Mk1 Fabia vRS SE as it's too good and robust a litle vehicle (as well as being super economical...we regularly get over 70mpg which makes a joke out of modern eco machines). It's a king compared with any small new car although it lacks the fancy kit list. I predict that used values for really good Mk1 vRS Fabias will rocket as the years tick away and they become less obtainable. We looked to replace our main family workhorse this year, a Merc C220 cdi estate. It's been fantastic since the day it was bought and covered well over 120,000 trouble free miles. We wouldn't touch a new version as reliability simply isn't there any more and compared with competition, they're way over priced. Quality peaked mid noughties with these. We instead looked at Octavias up to 5 years old and under 50K miles. I was shocked at the asking price of say 4 year old vRS estates and after doing some in depth research, these have as many issues as the newer mercs it seems whilst used values are not that much less. Obtaining low mileage examples was also difficult. Looking at a few, I was unimpressed with bodywork quality but was impressed by the vastly improved interiors although passenger and driver space seems unremarkable. What swung it for us was basically they're no longer any more reliable or robust than any other Euro box and sell on gimmickry rather than practicality. If we bought a new Skoda, it would be a Yeti or Roomster as to my mind they give better VFM and practicality. However, the search bizarrely ended up knocking on the door of Lexus. We bought arguably one of the worlds most reliable luxury vehicles which sacrifices nothing in terms of performance or gadgetry. It has more boot space than you can shake a stick at, has more performance than an Octy vRS whilst being more economical than the petrol vRS. It is also better appointed, way more luxurious, better screwed together and, well...just better! The joke? It is 7 years old and cost not much more than a low mileage 7 year old Octavia vRS with similar mileage. What is it? A top of the range GS300 fastback with 60K miles, and a 3 litre V6 petrol engine that even round here with the hills to get anywhere returns over 30mpg combined and 40 on a run. It does the 60 sprint in 7 seconds dead and onto 150mph, handles well, is like a gentlemans club inside has massive passenger space, massive boot, sure footed handling and is whisper quiet. It also has sat at the very top of most reliability and owner satisfaction tables for years. I am now won over by Lexus and wonder why I haven't thought about them before (ignoring their nasty 220 diesel engine which is far from good or reliable). The VW group can keep their new cars and their over hyped marketing. I wont be won back unless something fundamental happens to improve the current situation.

I wouldn't buy a new VW group vehicle again for a few simple reasons: I know someone who worked for Audi/VW and just over a decade ago he told me that Audi produced less than 1/10th of current production figures (how true or accurate that is, I honestly don't know), and a similar story with VW. As production went up, there were improvements and new model development but quality of some components and the way the cars were screwed together suffered. This was evidenced by comparisons with a few Audi cars he mentioned. Late 90's models and early Naughties models were reputedly better in some respects than mid the late 2000 models as things like electrical connectors and wiring looms gave issues on the later ones (corrosion of rear light clusters and wiring being one commonly reported fault). My neighbour is having to replace lots of wiring on his 2006 A4 due to problems so I can believe this). VW cars suffered with increasing complexity and a surprising number of failures of things like the complex handbrake circuit of later model passats for example started dragging reliability ranking down due to the increasing number of warranty claims. Skoda didn't seem to suffer as much because a) they seemed on the whole to be less complex and ii) production was lower which seems to somethow correlate to some quality issues. This is all a little confusing when you compare with the Japanese car market where they have huge production figures but reliability has continued to go from strength to strength. The difference seems to be in the contracts for small components such as connectors, and in some areas of design. Performance specification is all very well but for contract purposes, you can have two similar performing items but one may outlast the other by decades, and there's a balance to be struck. It seems many car makers are getting it wrong here (Mercedes and BMW in particular). I prefer the basic reliability and solid build of earlier Fabias for example to newer models, but prefer the Mk3 Octy to the Mk1. I wouldn't buy a Mk3 simply because they no longer represent the bargains they once did, and you can do better for the money. It's a similar story with Volvo, Beemer, Merc, and many other car companies, so Skoda aren't alone here. I suspect that increasing commercial pressures, increased turnover and a more difficult world market do affect the finished products but by and large. Skoda are still reasonably good vehicles if you exclude the nightmare that is the 1.4 self destructing engine (as used in Mk2 vRS Fabias, in Audis and Polos etc).

Difficult one that as you didn't send it back when bought as new after finding signs of wear. I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on now unless you informed the company and sent photos, relying on good will. You could always quote your statutory consumer rights and say it wasn't of satisfactory quality as it's failed so quickly plus had marks on it. I think that the onus may have been on you to report it back to them within a reasonable time of purchase and before you fitted it. Did it carry a warranty?

I would have thought £5K all day long would have someone snap your arm off. Mechanicals aren't so hard to determine, service history or no, and a thorough check with something like "any inspection welcome" put in the advert should help allay fears. you could even offer to pay for a full RAC inspection if the price was right. Mine was bought last year with 49K on the clock and that cost me £6,900, the average being just over £6K dealer for a 60K example it seems, so £5K seems cheap.

I'll ask them about that, but they told me that the old keys are all the same; it's just the coding that's unique to the car, so anyone floating around with an old Lexus key, knowing what car it belonged to could gain entry, start it and drive off. Not saying that'll happen or is likely though but just uncomfortable with it. My master key plus the new master key spare are identical and both start the car. Apparently, there are car thieves about (mainly London) targeting prestige vehicles using their own pirated OBD devices to access the ECU and simply start the car and drive off.

Part of the issue with diesel development has been that most of the tech has had to be put into the emissions side of things and not into power or efficiency,despite the claims. Euro compliance in terms of noise and particulates has all but put the nail in the coffin for long term trouble free, economical diesel ownership. If you can forgive the clattery noise, the 1.9 pre-pdf PD engine was imho about as good as diesel engines got. Strong, economical, reliable, long lived. I wouldn't change our PD equipped Fabia for any new diesel as sooner or later, the complexities and issues with egr, pdf's etc etc coupled with the routine PDF cleaning cycle means that unless you do lots of motorway miles, modern diesels don't actually seem an attractive proposition. Even then, to ward off the DMF issues with higher mile cars, an auto option might be the lesser of two evils. When those issues are coupled to Skoda's contempt of its customers (bred by familiarity and having a strong market for a fair few years now) coupled to the reality of Skoda dealership ranking and the banality of newer models not knowing quite where to fit in, yet costing as much as anything else, and you have...well, an "oh dear...where now" scenario. Hardly good for Skoda or VAG.

My wife and I both love our Mk1 Fabia vRS. We consider it one of the best all round practical, fun, tough as old boots and economical cars we've owned, but we don't value or like the experiences with Skoda, preferring instead to do the work the car needs ourselves or to use a local garage. We have just parted company with a merc estate after 5 years of trouble free motoring in search for a replacement with lower miles. I started looking seriously at late model Octavia vRS estate models, but from what I've seen and read, they haven't come on in leaps and bounds quality wise over the years, are still plagued by niggles, and importantly, have got very expensive compared with...well just about anything! I wanted a low miles 2008 to 2011 vRS petrol estate but my experiences with Skoda dealers, and reliability/quality niggles (we've had a few Skodas now) meant that whilst we're delighted with the Fabia we wont be buying another skoda any time soon. We ended up with a low miles Lexus GS300 (245BHP V6 petrol), immaculate, full history, relatively quick, totally luxurious all for LESS than what it would have cost us for an equivalent used vRS estate (ie one in as good condition with the same low miles and the same year). That says it all...Skoda have over valued their brand without actually addressing some of the important issues they needed to. Part of that lies with VAG for the unreliability and plain crap-ness of a lot of their smaller engines (sorry, but I hate the damned revvy, wheezy over complex little things) and in part due to the failure to improve quality to be worthy of what they're asking price-wise. Throw in a relatively poor dealer experience and the picture isn't looking very rosy despite the media hype and "car of the year" awards (who awards these things anyway?). I dont like the new angular model shapes either. It looks cheap and nasty as a styling exercise, like a series of angular sardine tins but I appreciate that this is entirely subjective and others will love it. My experience to date with Lexus dealers is the exact opposite of Skoda. They couldn't have been more helpful when I had a few little niggles to sort, they even did some work I didn't ask for and didn't charge me for it! Wake up and smell the coffee Skoda. Ford does better small cars (the new Fiesta is a gem), and for those of us not buying new, give the choice of something like a Lexus (with as much go as a vRS Octavia), I'll take the Lexus every day of the week thanks and relax knowing that I wont have the gauntlet QA issues to come, and have something that delivers massively more car for the money.

Good point. I have some bug & tar remover which I used for my bike, so I'll use that after the wash before claying. Looks like this will be an all day job to do properly.

Thanks Chris I dont tend to like using the power jet washer these days, preferring a simple hose pipe set on "flat spray" when rinsing. I'll use a stronger mixture than normal then when doing the pre-and post clay clean and perhaps another wash and rinse after buffing and polishing before the final wax sealant coat goes on. Once I've depleted my Maguiars #26 liquid wax, I'll have a try with the collinite as you suggest. Funnily enough, that's the same website where I sourced and bought the DAS6 pro kit. Seems to have a good variety of car care products and the guy was very hepful when recommending which polishing pads to use (its all double dutch to me at the minute). I ended up with the sonus pads and bought a few extra.

I'm new to keyless systems as our Mk1 Fabia doesn't have it but we've just bought a Lexus GS300 which does, I don't know about the thieves but the dealers have just robbed us of the best part of £300 to have a spare key made. Apparently, they claim that the Lexus system is more fool proof than most keyless systems as it needs a combination of the master key containing the unique key code plus OBD accessed ECU coding. They claim that if I had lost the master key, the car would have been practically useless as they couldn't have done anything for us (hence getting a spare soprted as soon as we bought the car which is used). What bothers me is where the spare key has gone. Previous owners have so far not responded to a letter asking if we could have the spare as supplied from new sent to us.

Any car with a hard paint finish. in our case, our 55 plate Merc 220 estate whilst large, was the easiest. A quick wash brought it up like showroom most times and only rarely did it need polishing. I've found any car we've owned with softer paint finishes have needed more attention.

New to this detailing malarkey, I thought I'd have a bash only because I'm lucky enough to own what I'd describe as a mint Mk1 vRS SE Fabia and want to keep it that way. It has a few swirl marks and rear bumper scratches but is otherwise almost unmarked. I've usually just washed the car with a premium shampoo then topped up the polish finish using SRM or similar or (take it easy on me here!) used a quick shine type spray (I know). I have clayed cars before and thought to remove some slight roughness on the paintwork caused by overspray from when the garage I bought it off touched the front bumper up, I would clay the car and do a proper job on the paintwork. As we have another car, I got to thinking if a job's worth doing, I may as well go the whole hog, so have just bought a DAS6 Pro polishing kit along with a selection of Menzerna cutting and polishing compounds. Question is this, I normally use a Carplan "Trade Valet High Foam wash" hand-wash formula car shampoo. Is this suitable as an initial wash/degrease prior and post claying and post swirl removal prior to polishing and waxing? Also, is there a particularly recommended long lasting sealing wax (I normally use Maguiars #26) that you guys would recommend for hand or machine application?

I had the sub 2K stutter and removing the EGR was unsurprised as it was completely clogged and not closing properly on acceleration! Cleaned it out, removed intake manifold and had it dipped in an acid/caustic bath to bring the insides up like new (they were unbelievably clogged up). Didn't bother with the EGR delete kit...I just fitted a blanking plate to the turbo manifold where the EGR take-off is then coded out the EGR from the map. Happy days, better performance and no more stutter.

Most sensible post yet. If you want real performance relatively cheaply, buy something like a used SLK 350 (0-60 in 5.5 seconds, 155mph, great handling, under stressed engine). £8K buys one. That or any other true performance car (scooby, bimmer 335i etc etc etc) . The Fabia is a fun little car but without serious money and serious mods, will never be a sports car so don't kid yourselves. For the chassis and weight and FWD, the limit on usable power with the Fabia in the real world, not someone's imagination or on track, is probably around 200BHP. I had mine initially remapped to 185BHP and that was way too much for the suspension, brakes, clutch or chassis. Going above that is pointless unless you like burning money or simply want to invest another 4 to 5 K in mods that you'll never see back come resale plus you'll still be left with a relatively unstable little car at speed. There's better donor cars to make a true performce car from. I love the Fabia vRS for what it is. A fun runaround with spritely performance.

I'd say that depends on the prevalent driving conditions at the time. A relatively empty motorway with some others choosing to "do the ton" doesn't make it unsafe to drive to the posted speed limit, yet at other times I agree with you. With juggernauts bearing down a few feet from your rear bumper, mid lane hoggers refusing to pull over, or worse, travelling at stupidly high speed making it difficult (and dangerous) to estimate speed of approach in the rear view mirror if you're indicating to pull out are all examples of increased hazards. Hazard awareness and driving accordingly is the only way to stay safe but I must admit, if variable speed limits are being introduced, it seems sensible in some ways to raise the maximum speed limit to 80 or 85 if conditions and traffic allow. Absolutists don't show much in the way of brain power sometimes, as the reality is that whilst unlikey to land you a ticket, it is often safer for a brief squirt up to 80 to reduce the risk of say a fast approaching car if you're overtaking is safer than the blanket approach of "I'm not doing more than 70 and sod everyone else". Of course, not pulling out in the first place is equally valid an argument although sometimes, through no deliberation, you may not see these things until its too late, so some reaction other than "nope...they can brake as I refuse to do more than 70" would appear to be the more sensible course of action. Just examples. Its not a perfect world, and yes, if the limits were multilaterally adhered to, it would be a safer place to drive.

Who was suggesting otherwise? Not me. I am merely pointing out the facts. Travelling at 70mph is the legal maximum on UK motorways yet many exceed that by some margin.

PG for me. Took a few weeks for the damp to finally dry up but I applied it when the weather was crappy (no choice as so much was coming through) and it eventually sealed and set. Great job. I bought a cheap Ebay sourced pack of plastic putty knives for popping off the door cards and applying the PG. Used white as easy to see where it had been applied. Don't forget (as most do LoL) to wipe the area down first with Meths or similar to degrease otherwise it wont adhere properly and you'll have the task of stripping it all off and starting again (as I did )

My humble opinion FWIW is that initially, a remap, egr delete and rear ARB are all you really need to make a significant improvement. The standard brakes are perfectly adequate unless you intend on doing track days. Fit some Ferodo 2500 pads and drilled vented brembo discs if you must. Most people chasing brake upgrades generally ignore the most obvious (and cheapest) one which is to get the brakes bled. Chances are most wont have been done at say yearly intervals. This alone makes a huge difference to braking efficiency if you are running fluid that's years old. I reckon the only benefit to upgrating to bigger discs etc is if you're heavy on the brakes all the time (point and squirt driving as some call it). Be smooth and you wont need anything over standard. The whiteline RARB I've found to be excellent for the money. Transforms the handling (which I have to say in standard trim is borderline dangerous if pushed...all that weight at the front and not enough anti-roll and suspension control). After riding in versions with lowered and (even more) stiffened suspension, my view was that it wrecked the ride for most roads. Standard set up is pretty good to begin with tbh, but posher shocks may improve things further. I agree with the bushes being replaced or upgraded. They're a source of suspension play and noise, and affect handling quite a bit when worn. tyre choice is a personal thing but the vRS seems sensitive to tyre choice so don't skimp. I run Uniroyal Rainsport 3 tyres year round and find them excellent.

The REAL scam has conveniently been completely ignored by both politicians and the media. Back in 1996, two journalists, Christopher Booker & Richard North drew attention to the massive scam that was the start of both unleaded petrol (sham) and the great diesel con. Fuelled (pardon pun) by some green nut-job politician supported by an environmental pressure group in California, claims, which were NEVER evidenced or substantiated in any way, were made about lead in petrol killing children. It was pure sensationalism. However, that didn't stop the EU from jumping on board the green bandwagon without a shred of scientific evidence other than to follow suit with California, since they had for years had America's tightest legislation on vehicle emission and pollution controls. What the EU and the British politicians failed to do was ask for evidence or seek to provide that evidence themselves. It has in fact materialised in more recent years where scientific research shows the risks to children's development to be way less than for example lead pipes in buildings or the occasional handling of lead, including solders. Instead, draconian wholesale changes were brought into legislation which actually made things WORSE not better. How so? Well, only a tiny amount of lead is needed to refine petrol to 4 star standards for octane rating. The emissions are cleaner than unleaded from a Co2 perspective by an order of magnitude, simply because there's no catalyser converting CO to CO2. By contrast, a huge proportion of a litre of unleaded is made up of Benzine compounds, known to be highly carcinogenic (and evidenced as such). To make things worse, the unleaded gases have to pass through a catalytic converter, resulting in hugely more CO2 emissions than for leaded petrol as well as increased risk of cancer to those regularly in contact with unleaded. To makes matters even worse, the process of refining unleaded means that 20% more crude is used, so depleting a finite resource 20% quicker, and the cost to the industry was more, hence prices had to rise. Utterly, utterly disgraceful that any politician should have allowed this state of affairs to be. The green lobby cheered in some sort of hand waving glee when green pumps started appearing all over the country (world) when the real truth is that not only is it more polluting, not only is it a recognised cause of some cancers, but we're getting through more of the stuff for any given engine efficiency by dint of production complexity and resources used. the green lobby hadn't a clue then, and it still doesn't now. Heaven forbid that they ever get into government. Now, add to this completely unfathomable European Union diktat the selling of diesel as "cleaner energy" and the con is completed. It was pushed as an agenda under Labour during Bliar's term in office by dear old Gordon Brown, bless his cotton socks. The government of the day back in the 1990's had no motivation to do anything about the original con since it was being led by the pro European tory muppets under Major's government at the time and indeed, the slightly greater inefficiency of catalysed motors meant MORE revenue for the government, so the motivation was the opposite of a green agenda if anything. The whole thing is one complete travesty of incompetence built upon incompetence, a deliberate misleading of the UK public and a controlling EU who effectively forced many many millions of vehicle users to adopt more and more polluting fuels, all backed by our own government. I'd love some TV channel to have the guts to run with this complete story, but due to the (obvious) politics involved, I suspect that won't happen any time soon.

True

That doesn't make it so everywhere else. Locally, if you drive at 70 on the M5, you are made to feel like you're parked stationary, any time of the day or night. 80 is more the norm and plenty drive faster than that.

There's a few issues here, not just the blanket "yes it is/no it isn't "wrong" to exceed the speed limit" First off, you're correct. Exceeding the posted speed limit is not necessarily dangerous in itself. Many speed limits were brought into being taking account of traffic and road conditions and the car of the day's ability to stop (and handle). Whilst the latter's undeniably improved over the years, the former issues have regressed, making the driving environment more dangerous than ever before, partly due to the number of drivers on the road (and I would argue also, partly due to the number of incompetent, inconsiderate and downright dangerous drivers on our roads today). The issue of whether it's all a revenue generating scheme is one most, would I think, have some sympathy for. Generally, the purpose of M-way variable speed limits and speed cameras is to regulate the flow of traffic to avoid congestion or to safeguard highways workers. Whilst I have no sympathy whatsoever for any inconsiderate ape who speeds through roadworks putting the lives of workers at risk, I have every sympathy for those caught by stealthy means as an obvious revenue generating scheme. Motorways remain the safest places to drive, yet abound with speed cameras these days. People are effectively receiving points on licences and even prospective bans mainly because of environmental control measures, and NOT safety concerns. I have a problem with that, even though anyone caught really hasn't a leg to stand on. Most accidents occur in and around urban/built up areas within the 30 or 40mph zones where speeding contributes towards the deaths of pedestrians, so should be strictly enforced there. No-one, I suspect, has an argument or problem with that. Outside of those areas, whilst speed can be a contributing factor (and here I readily admit that I don't know the true figures) it is in my experience (of witnessing accidents rather than being directly involved) driving without due care and attention or poor car control which is the biggest single cause of accidents, something for which no camera can alter the stats. As a seasoned biker, I am only too well aware that people pulling out on other motorists, overtaking where it isn't safe, or cutting white lines on blind corners have accounted for more near misses where I have been the one "missed"! I don't buy the conspiracy theories about dropping fuel prices meaning that local highways agencies or councils need to see revenue by other means, ie cameras. It takes months if not years to plan, engineer and deliver camera sites, including the infrastructure needed and such investment is not done on the whim of a volatile fuel market, it's done as part of a highways control strategy. A fair question, I guess, is whether that strategy is revenue related or safety related. Speed is an easy target for safety campaigners because its a very easy aspect for driving control without the need for lots of manpower. That alone leaves it open for mis-use, or being kind, "alternative use" (read revenue generation and environmental control). The question is not whether it is considered "right or wrong" as the rights and wrongs don't come into play for the strategic planning that deliver them as far as I'm concerned, but whether it's a good use of public funds in today's cash strapped society. Personally, I'd rather see the money going to the police or to the NHS where its arguably needed more. It would, imho, be a better use of the cash, as would simply maintaining our blasted roads which where I live anyway, are becoming nothing more than pot-holed farm tracks.

Anyone see the Dispatches programme earlier this week talking about the "great government con" on diesels, and how the last Labour government misled the public into "buying green" when studies have shown diesels to be bigger polluters than petrols? They're talking about owners of older diesels likely being penalised in future by extra green taxes, and it certainly makes you think twice about egr mods when you see the stats on derv particulate pollution levels, especially Nitrogen Dioxide. What does this spell for the vRS I wonder? Personally, I think that the cars almost cult status will save it from the future scrap heap and it will remain popular, but guess it depends on where the government decide to take diesel taxation.

I noticed that too when I was looking around for an SE last year. Cheapest I could find a sub 50K SE in un-molested standard trim for last year was £6K private, or around £7K dealer. This looks suspicious at best.