keystonedriving

My Scala is on it's original Dunlop tyres, it has only done 23k, so shouldn't need replacements for a while yet. We also have had a 4wd Mk2 CRV which served as the dogs' trainsport (one is a large Greyhound), and we got about 40k out of a set of Hankook Icecepts which were on the car permanently. We were very happy with them, but it was time to replace the vehicle as it was coming up to 20 years old (and as it was a petrol engine it averaged about 30mpg - lots of steep hills in Cornwall). Last year we replaced it with a 4wd Mk4 CRV which had done about 40k on its original Goodyears, so got a set of Yokohama All Seasons put on. They set me back just a gnat's under £500 (17" wheels). They are definitely noisier but otherwise feel fine. It will be interesting to see how they fare. The new one is a diesel - 45mpg is much better and it's Euro 6 to boot. I still have the 15 inch wheels with Kumho winter tyres which served on the Roomster and the Toledo (effectively a Rapid with Alcantara seats) though the Scala needs wider tyres according to the TuV information. If it's that bad I'll just use the CRV!

I've had my 1.0TSi Manual Scala for 4 years and having put 4k miles on it in the first 3 months Covid and retirement happened, it's just over 20k now. Mainly rural B road round trips of about 15 miles, to and from the shops, with the odd 200 mile trip thrown in for good measure. Filled up yesterday and since new the fuel consumption is 52.68 mpg, according to the spreadsheet. Caveats - on a run I tend to cruise at 60-65 mph and on the shorter trips I don't exactly hammer it. The trips are quite hilly (Southeast Cornwall) but I can normally have the trip computer reading between 50 and 55 mpg, though if I've been in a hurry I've seen it around 44 mpg. On a trip to/from London (A30/A303/M3/M25) it's normally saying between 60 and 65 mpg. Don't forget to turn off the lane keeping system every time, it's lethal! It always wants to steer me into a head-on collision with the truck or tractor I'm trying to avoid by getting close to the hedge. Other than that no real complaints, except, please can I have my Roomster back as we now have a Greyhound who needs the headroom! Actually we have a CRV as the dogs' transport so they have plenty of room.

I have a 1.0TSi Scala and it is just as smooth as the 1.2TSi Seat Toledo (Skoda Rapid in disguise) which preceded it. It doesn't have the torque the 1.2 had, that would happily bimble along at 30mph in 6th, but the 1.0 is a little more economical. I certainly don't get vibrations at any speed, so I suspect that it's something other than the engine that is at the root of your issue.

I have a '69 plate 1.0 SE and regularly go through the tunnel on the A38 at Saltash with the cruise control set to 30 with no problems. I have also gone through the M25 tunnel at Waltham Cross with the cruise engaged without issues. As yours is an SEL I suppose the underlying electronics could be different and my experiences are not relevant.

Scala drivers are a lonely breed! I got mine at Christmas 2019. It was a dealer pre-reg which had 15 miles on the clock when I picked it up, and 13 miles of that had been my test drive. I'd been driving a SEAT Toledo (in other words a re-badged Rapid) for about 3 years so it all felt pretty familiar. I had a Roomster before that, I go for the rare breeds! It's a 1 litre 115hp which is more economical than the 1.2 in the Toledo was, but lacks the low range torque of the older engine - you get nowt for nowt! I like it a lot, it's big enough for my needs most of the time, though I've not even tried to get our Greyhound on board. We have a CRV for that. I'm not aware of another one which lives close, I might see one or two a month. Many times when I do spot one on the road it turns out to be a Kamiq! One interesting thought is that as I was getting acclimatised I felt it was a bit gutless, but it turns out that the throttle spring is stronger than on the previous couple of vehicles and I just needed to prod it harder. Whether it's intentional to encourage more economical driving I can't say. It's hilly around home but even on shopping trips (about 7 miles each way) I can get 50-55 mpg. On longer runs using dual carriageways / Motorways I normally manage 65 mpg ish, sometimes a bit more (cruise set at about 65 mph). It suits me, I don't feel the need to be in a 'stylish' SUV to be happy. I still miss the Roomster, mind.

It was certainly a problem I had on my Roomster. My local garage patched in a new bit of wire and it was sorted.

I have a 1.0 SE, 69 plate. My previous car was a Seat Toledo (1.2 Petrol I-tech), in other words a Rapid. The Scala in some respects has less kit than the Toledo (no sat nav) but on the other hand has some more modern equipment. It's quieter and a little more economical than the Toledo (52mpg v 49mpg) but where the 1.2 had good torque (it was very rare to need 5th) the 1.0 is somewhat lacking in that department. The stop-start rarely works, I think that the supplied battery is too small. It will work toward the end of a long journey (200 miles plus) but otherwise it doesn't. The 'lane assist' feature is downright dangerous. It keeps trying to steer me into the path of the 44 ton truck coming toward me when I am getting in toward the edge of the road. It also takes more notice of the dabs of glue left on the road surface when temporary road studs for roadworks have been removed, despite the presence of nice new white lines 2 feet away. If you wish to get up close and personal with whirling truck wheel nuts, it's the system for you! First job before pulling away is ALWAYS to disable it. Overall I am happy with the car, the problems I have mentioned are not the end of the world and can be overcome. Good leg room front and back, a reasonable ride and 115 hp will do me. There may be better cars out there, but there are far worse ones!

There would be one major problem as far as I'm concerned. We have known the 'pleasures' of Renault ownership, 7 breakdown call outs in 18 months including 4 tow-ins. Never again! You need lots of parts and they are extremely expensive. The final straw was when the auxiliary drive belt failed (for the third time) and took out the cam belt - which had no guard! By a slightly convoluted route (a Discovery - we had a need to tow a horse trailer for a spell) it has been replaced by a Honda CRV (2 litre petrol) which has recently celebrated its 18th birthday. It only does about 5000 miles a year, so we can live with the 30mpg thirst. We've been running it for 6 years and it has been totally bomb proof. I do not imtend to replace it any time soon. The Dacia looks practical, but I would take a lot of persuasion to go down that route. I still miss my Roomster, the only thing I really think would have been an improvement would have been a 6 speed gearbox, it might have helped the fuel consumption a bit. It wasn't bad, given the aerodynamics of a concrete block, but could have been a bit better.

Lane 'assist' may work on motorways but on country roads it is the most dangerous bit of kit I have ever come across. When you are getting near the hedge it is trying very hard to steer you into a head on collision with the tractor you would rather avoid. It also seems to be very good at reading the blobs of glue left over from temporary road studs, rather that the nice new while line about eighteen inches further over. It will quite happily try to steer you into the side of the Artic. It's a good idea in theory but is somewhat lacking in reality. There really needs to be a way of turning it off permanently (an axe perhaps?).

Lane assist is probably the most dangerous feature I have ever come across. On narrow country lanes it tries to steer me into a head on collision with the oncoming truck I am keeping left to avoid. It also doesn't like the idea of positioning for better vision. It is designed for people who fall asleep on motorways, on normal roads it is useless. My suspicion is that it was developed by people who drive on better continental roads. Other than this, the car is fine.

Mike, I am well aware of the inaccuracies built into most vehicle speedos which is why I calibrate mine both against a stand-alone GPS and, using a stop watch, against the mile posts on a handy bit of railway line (which I have been using for this purpose for over 40 years). I therefore tend to know what my actual speed is. My Toledo reads around 7% fast as did my Roomster, but as they are built on the same platform that probably should be no surprise. As my usual cruising speed is in the region of 62 to 65 mph (I like to save money on fuel) I am quite sensitive to the speeds which larger vehicles are traveling at. The Highway Code is not 'full of errors' with regard to speed limits, in the interests of brevity it only has a selection of the limits which can apply to various vehicles. For the full story you have to go to Annex 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (as you are probably well aware). I am well aware that it is illegal to set limiters higher than the law permits and that there are potential penalties for those who do, but that doesn't stop people doing it. There are people within the industry who work on the basis that the law only applies when you get caught, as has long been the case. I can assure you that I encounter vehicles of all kinds exceeding national speed limits on a daily basis. My perception is that limiters are being set higher since the limits for LGVs were increased two years ago. As for coaches, it is less common than for trucks, but it is not unknown to find certain operators somewhat over. Maybe because we are 'at the end of the line' they may be getting a bit tight for hours by the time they get here? Just because things shouldn't happen does not mean that they don't happen. I'm a professional driver trainer but for the past 7 years I have only worked in the fleet end of the business, up to 7.5 tonnes. I am therefore probably more aware of the regulations than most people. Rob.

Probably working on the basis that his speedo was saying 70 and therefore nobody can legally overtake him. So far as trucks on the limiter are concerned, a lot of trucks seem to have their limiters set to a speed nearer 100 kph than 90 kph. It seems to have got a lot more common since the NSL limits were increased in England and Wales. From observation I would include one of the well known supermarkets in this camp, they used to be limited to about 82 kph but when they changed their vehicle supplier they got seriously fast. They've calmed them down a bit over the last year but they are still over the limit, never mind the limiter. There are also coaches which have limiters set rather higher than 100 kph. I know that older coaches do not have to be limited (pre 2006), but I'm talking about shiny new coaches over the limit. No Names, no packdrill, but there are a couple of largish companies this apples to.

The 1.2 tsi has bags of torque, it will quite happily trundle around between 1000 and 1500 revs. I can't comment about the 1.0 tsi.

By the way, a couple of years ago there was a guy in Finland who was caught at 74 kph in a 50 kph limit. That cost him 86,000 Euros. In Finland it is directly related to your income and there is no cap. They do the same thing in Sweden, though they do have a cap at 3,000 Euros.

Given Linconshire's high casualty rates, it would make sense.