Rahab

I had an annoying whining from the fan - at first speed initially, then at higher speeds as well. Did a DIY replacement last year at 85 000 km. The new fan (OEM Hella) cost approximately 120 euros, i.e. no near 800 euros you have mentioned.

Hi Javerhammar, No official Skoda dealer will retrofit the PTC for ephemeral safety reasons, as it would require meddling with the electrical system and perhaps also re-programming climate control unit to enable it to turn the PTC on and off. However, you could try and get a PTC kit (as fitted, for instance, to Roomster Scout 1.2 TSI in Russian spec), and then have an independent garage install it for you. I don't think it is a perfect solution, though, as my diesel Roomster has PTC as standard and I can't say it solves heating problem even at -10. And when it is -15 or -20 outside, in urban traffic, it takes half an hour's driving for the cabin to become reasonably worm. So I would say that Webasto is a better solution, providing that you plan to keep the car for some time, as fitting Webasto at a certified garage costs 1 000 euros in Latvia, and in Sweden the price will probably be somewhat higher (but can you put a price on your health?). Costs apart, an important thing to consider before fitting Webasto is your daily mileage, as the heater uses power from the battery when warming the coolant. As a rule of thumb, the number of kilometres you will have to drive to recharge the battery equals the number of minutes Webasto was working prior to starting the engine. Hope this helps.

I've had a similar experience to yours with Turanza ER300 - noisy and hard ride, with grip in wet deteriorating greatly as the tyres wore. Replaced them with the same Barums that delta925 suggested above , and it made a world of difference: no road noise, the ride became much softer. The only downside I've noticed so far is that the car's steering became less responsive, lazier, so to say. But this is a decent price to pay, for a family car anyway.

Yes, that's a good point - the 80 bhp version has a DPF filter (as an option in certain markets), and this is certainly best shunned in a car that is mainly driven in town. This comes from a personal experience - in our family we have another VAG diesel car with the DPF (2.5 TDI R5), which is a great car all around, but a nightmare in town because the particle filter gets clogged in traffic jams, and it is a race against time to get to a motorway to clean the filter.

Great, enjoy your new car! The 70 bhp version uses a simple turbo with a by-pass. A strong point of this series of diesel engines is they have a cast-iron cylinder block (just as the 1,9 TDI on which it is based), so, unlike all-aluminium motors, these ones are much more likely to survive overheating.

Hi pondweed, Mechanically these engines are identical, save for the variable turbo charger, as you've already said. Initially there was only one - 75 bhp - version of this 3-cylinder engine, as in the A2. However, upon discontinuation of the naturally aspirated 1,9 SDI diesel (which also had 69 bhp/51 kWt), VW needed a substitute for this engine to take the place of an entry-level diesel. So they have introduced two versions of the 3-cylinder 1,4 TDI - 51kWt and 59kWt. The engine with the power limited specifically to 51 kWt addresses also the demands of certain markets where higher taxes apply to engines with power exceeding this threshold. Generally, the difference between the engines is in the software (this becomes particularly obvious if you compare the torque curves of the two engines - that of the less powerful engine is "cut" at 155 Nm, so you get an even line from 1600 to 2800 rpm). For this reason, remapping this engine to get 80-90 bhp will hardly do any harm.

Now, consider this: you have a flat tyre in the middle of nowhere (70 miles to the nearest city), and it is winter (-15 C). Something that really happened to me when I travelled in my former Golf to Russia. I had a spare wheel, thankfully. Run-flat tyres might be a solution, but they only last for 80 km or so when damaged. And just like tyres filled with jelly from the repair kit, Run-flat cannot be repaired - you just have to throw it away and buy a new one.

This is indeed weird cost-reduction policy of VAG - the buyer is supposed fo pay extra for something as obvious as a spare wheel. Tyre repair kit is OK on a small city car with little luggage space, but they don't put the spare wheel as standard even in the Touareg. Now, one can only wonder how much use will the repair kit be when you go off-road and have a flat tyre.

This obviously should be covered by the factory warranty as there are no signs of impact. I heard from our Latvian Citroen dealer of numerous cases when glass roofs crack on C4's (they are quite popular here and many have the glass roof), but these occured when the cars were driven on rough roads where the bodywork is twisted or when the driver tried drive over a kerb.

Thanks for a splendid idea! It makes the fire extinguisher so much easier to access (God forbid such a need should arise).

I have my doubts concerning the mirror arrangement for the high beam. For though the bulb is indeed H7, the dipped beam failing (due a blown filament evidently), the high beam still operates faultlessly.

And what about urban driving of the dpf-equipped car? Have had lots of trouble with my wife's Touareg 2,5 TDI. The filter has to be be cleaned every three days or so.

I have been driving the least powerful 1,4 TDI 69hp Roomster for a year now. My choice has been well considered. It seems to me that a Roomster, as a moderate-budget car, makes sense only when equipped with less powerful and therefore less costly engines, for otherwise it looses its advantage compared to, say, Octavia. For the same amount of money you get either a 1,4 TDI Roomster loaded with extras, or 1,6 petrol humbly equipped Octavia. Thus, a 1,4 diesel Roomster appears a well balanced choice if you seek more or less generous level of equipment, fuel economy, and moderate price. Otherwise, to keep within the budget limits, you would have to opt for a poorer equipped, yet more powerful 1,9 version, or go for a petrol model loaded with all imaginable extras. Obviously, all of my reasons in favour of 1,4 diesel are based on the single premise of keeping the price low. Other that that, though, I have to admit that the 3-cylinder engine is harsher than the 4-cylinder one and you can feel vibrations at idling speeds. It is quite noisy too, yet not unacceptably so. Considering the lag - well, it does start pulling enthusiastically only from 1800 upwards, yet it does not object to lower rpm, and if not in haste, you can accelerate from 50 km/h at the 5th gear. Although not a sports car, thanks to reasonable torque the engine is sufficient for urban driving and allows to cruise on the motorway in a relaxed manner. Just do not forget to change to a lower gear when overtaking - the engine is quite lively between 2000 and 3500 rpm, so keep within this interval. And finally, would I now prefer 1,9 to 1,4? Well, yes - if it were Octavia. As long as I drive the Roomster, I am quite happy with 1,4.

Well, just to compare - these are events of a year ago, and took place in Latvia. I placed an order on August 10, 2006 (and Roomster was not on actual sale on the Latvian market then) and they schedulled the delivery on November 1. So it was a pleasant surprise to pick up the car on October 19. And it was even more pleasant to find the car equipped with 4 electric windows while I had not specified that in my order, although the dealer offered rear door electric windows at an extra cost. Seems that basic specifications' equipment was not finally defined yet.

And they say the Skoda factory barely copes with the incoming orders. Where do all those Roomsters go after all?