PaulJS

I can't comment on the 1.2 as I've not been in one, but I can say I've been very impressed with the 1.0TSi (110 bhp) in my 67-plate Fabia. I have found it to be quiet, to offer strong and flexible performance, and to be very economical. I reckon a realistic 40+mpg in modestly busy town driving and high-50s to low-60s on a longer run, depending on how heavy one's right shoe is. The six speed gearbox available with the 110 bhp makes excellent cruising for a car in this segment. I've personally covered approx 18,000 miles since buying the car in April 2019, taking the odometer reading to 26,000.

You're very welcome. I should also mention that for me, the cost of insuring the Fabia is half that of the Superb, (£300 compared with £600), so that's a handy saving.

Having covered 8,000 miles since picking up my 67 plate 1.0 TSi 110 Monte Carlo in April, I can't comment on consumables yet, but I have found this model to be extremely good on fuel. I can manage well over 500 miles on a full tank doing motorway & A-road driving, which works out in the region of 60 mpg average. I've also found the car comfortable and quite relaxing on a run - it is quiet for a smaller car, and the sixth gear makes it a good motorway cruiser. As others have pointed out the ride is very firm due to the suspension setup - probably much firmer than the Mondeo. I've downsized from a 2.0 TDi Superb and have not been disappointed.

Hi GeneralPurpose, thank you very much .

Hi GeneralPurpose, As a slight tangent and out of my curiosity, may I ask what sort of figures, typically speaking, you see for the 1.0 TSi 110 engine? Having downsized from a 2.0 TDi Superb (totally different beast of course), I've been pleasantly surprised by how my Fabia performs - it "feels" swifter and more torquey than the 1.6 four-pot cars I drive at work, which have similar official output. Cheers!

Brought in April as a downsize from a Superb. A Monte Carlo finished in Rallye Green Metallic, 1.0 TSi 110 bhp engine and six-speed manual gearbox. I've been busy, already covering 5,000 miles, and so far I'm very pleased with it.

Just to add my two-penneth, a few months ago I downsized from a Superb 2.0 TDi to a Fabia Monte Carlo with the 1.0 TSi 110 engine and 6-speed manual gearbox. Having covered 5,000 miles already, mostly motorways and A-roads, I've found the car to be an excellent and comfortable cruiser, with excellent performance considering the small three-cylinder engine. I've covered 500 miles this week and averaged a (measured) 58 mpg, driving at "realistic" motorway speeds.

Sorry, predictive text !

This is more or less what I'd expect. Most of my mileage is motorway and A-road, with a small amount of town use. Exactly the same as in my previous Superb II, which seemed to be more hardy.

Thanks Alan, I'll put some pics up when it's lighter. The rears do look a lot thinner than the fronts - though I havent got a guage to measure accurately. My beef isn't whether they need doing, more why they need doing so early.

Hi all, I've taken my 66 plate Superb with (just under 28k on the clock) in for its service at a dealer today, and been told that the rear brake pads and discs are worn and need replacing imminently. They do look a little rough and corroded. I appreciate that war and tear happens but reckon it would take some fairly "special" driving to wear out a rear set so early - especially considering that when I traded my 2012 Superb in with 100k on the clock, it was still on orginal pads and dics all around. My driving style hasn't changed appreciably. What makes it more surprising is that the fronts are fine. Am I alone in thinking that 28k sensibly driven just isnt good enough for rear brakes, not least on a car costing nearly 30k new?

I'm a bit late to this party, but just to add that we picked up a 14 plate Citigo SE this summer for my nicer half, and we've found it to be an excellent little car. It's extremely good on fuel and road tax, and considering its size, is remarkably spacious and comfortable. The 3 cylinder engine is very quiet, and as has been pointed out above, the car holds its own surprisingly well on the motorway. I'd go for it!

That is lovely! I've had my SEL-exec 4x4 6 months and driven it 9,000 miles now and it is a fabulous motor car

Best thing to do - if possible (which I appreciate may be easier said than done given your experience of local garages!) - would be to try both and see what you think. It looks like I'm the lone TDi owner on this thread. In the manual TDi (150) the drive is very torquey, and the gear-ratio is well judged to allow for effortless progress - a little shorter than in the mk2 2.0 diesel. I do much more mileage so the diesel still makes sense for me, though I have to say the engine's tone is unmistakable - you can tell it's an oil burner! I'd expected a slightly more refined sound from Skoda's flagship car.

With 12,000 now on the clock, I can confirm that that my 2.0 TDi 150 (6 speed manual) deals comfortably with steep hills. Interestingly the 1.6 S3 performance on paper is almost identical to the mk2 2.0 TDi 140 - that was a car I ran for well over 4 years and never found it wanting.