Multimode

Wiganken1's list of negatives with low profile tyres is very well presented and factual. I would add that low profile tyres contain less air to cushion impacts, and they cost more to replace too. I've been driving for 58 years (passed my test and bought my first car in 1960) and have owned cars of all types, including home-built. One of the latter (known as 'specials' in the day) was based on a Ford chassis with 17" wheels, and my upgrade was to fit wheels of reduced diameter (15") having higher profile tyres as was the trend in the day (mine were Porsche wheels, which happened to have the same hole PCD as the Ford). Different makes/models of tyre of the same size do vary in their creation and transmission of noise, but low profiles are the major culprits in my experience. Skoda's practice of offering, with each update to the Fabia, larger wheel diameters with lower profile tyres must surely be to fool buyers into thinking they are upgrades. In my opinion they are downgrades.

Let's look at this from another angle... Hilka isn't known for the high quality of its products (to put it mildly!) and Halfords have been in the business long enough to know that. The Towing Pole failure and the resulting damage was proven to be the responsibility of Halfords as the retailer, but perhaps they have a case for reclaiming their losses from the manufacturer in turn. If this fails, and Halfords therefore refuse to sell any more Hilka products, it will be to the public's benefit in my view. We (me included) are too taken with buying on price rather than on quality!

Would it be best to try out the 16" wheels before buying 17"? You may decide that the harder ride with the 17" wheels wouldn't be tolerable. Am I right in thinking that the SEL already has firmer springing than the SE? We will be keeping to 15" wheels for the Fabia that we'll be ordering soon. The original Fabia had 14" as standard and its ride / handling compromise was fine. A move up to 15" is as far as we'd want to go for this size and type of car, which is why we'll be buying a well-specified SE rather than an equivalent-cost SEL.

My understanding is that the fuel efficiency of an engine is related directly to its torque production. If a graph is produced showing torque against engine speed, the curve for fuel consumption will generally be a mirror image of that for the torque. Here's a link that should help explain better: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/ctrp-1304-understanding-volumetric-efficiency-and-torque-relation/ Though it can be seen that the most fuel efficient speed for the engine itself is generally the speed at which maximum torque occurs, air resistance and rolling resistance plays a part in the fuel efficiency of the car as a whole of course. I don't have sufficient experience to comment on this aspect other than to suggest that keeping the engine speed reasonably close to its maximum torque band should give the best overall fuel efficiency.

Hello to all you lucky Skoda owners! My son bought a new Fabia diesel hatchback in 2003 and sold it in 2010 with 232,000 on the clock. He replaced it with a new Fabia diesel estate which now has around 140,000 miles on it. My daughter and her husband are now about to buy, with my help, a new Fabia hatchback 1.2 TSI 90 to replace her 2000 Peugeot 306 hatchback. I'm the odd one out as I still have the Rover 75 CDTi that I bought in 2003, this only just pipping my second choice of a Skoda Superb. If I were to buy new now, it would probably be an Octavia, but I think the Rover will see me out (I passed my driving test way back in June 1960!). I've joined the Briskoda forum after admiring it for several years. I hope I've earned my membership by always promoting Skoda cars, even though I don't own one! David.