Hello,

surfing on the Internet I found this Roomster review made recently by a reporter in Canada (Skoda sponsored a World Hockey Championship and took some cars there).

http://www.auto123.com/en/car-reviews/new/2008-skoda-roomster-scout-review?model=ROOMSTER&artid=97615&pg=1

The conclusion of the review is:

===

"The 2008 Skoda Roomster Scout offers little value to Canadians. Sure, the lines are attractive, but that's about it. The sheer lack of power is a huge handicap, while the suspension is utterly disappointing. Moreover, reliability is an issue."

===

In my opinion this is not fair, this the only bad review on the Roomster that I have find... probably he tested a faulty car? Any thoughts?

Jeff

Well clearly the reviewer , but not necessarily all Canadians, does not appreciate a fine little European car!

"Ride quality is good on immaculate roads, but as soon as you hit the slightest bump or pothole, you end up paying for it. Equipped with low-profile tires, this car really feels like it has no suspension travel at all. This harshness makes the driving experience unpleasant, unless you like getting tossed around. The Roomster fails to meet even the lowest expectations on the road, expect for handling (good) and the turning radius (very short)."

He obviously doesn't appreciate a sporty handling setup and probably prefers a N. American slushmatic barge! Sounds like I'm going to enjoy mine in a couple of weeks.

One point though; the review refers to having to use 'premium gasoline' - does this just mean that the 1.6 engine needs 95 octane (Canadian Premium as opposed to their Regular 91 Octane) or does it, like other 1.6 16v VAG group engines, need our Premium i.e. 98 octane?

Well clearly the reviewer , but not necessarily all Canadians, does not appreciate a fine little European car!

"Ride quality is good on immaculate roads, but as soon as you hit the slightest bump or pothole, you end up paying for it. Equipped with low-profile tires, this car really feels like it has no suspension travel at all. This harshness makes the driving experience unpleasant, unless you like getting tossed around. The Roomster fails to meet even the lowest expectations on the road, expect for handling (good) and the turning radius (very short)."

He obviously doesn't appreciate a sporty handling setup and probably prefers a N. American slushmatic barge! Sounds like I'm going to enjoy mine in a couple of weeks.

One point though; the review refers to having to use 'premium gasoline' - does this just mean that the 1.6 engine needs 95 octane (Canadian Premium as opposed to their Regular 91 Octane) or does it, like other 1.6 16v VAG group engines, need our Premium i.e. 98 octane?

The 1.6 16v in the Fabia and Roomster uses 95 Octane Fuel, it's the 1.6FSI VAG Cars that use the good stuff

I put some Tesco 99RON in mine and it made no difference

The 1.6 16v in the Fabia and Roomster uses 95 Octane Fuel, it's the 1.6FSI VAG Cars that use the good stuff

I put some Tesco 99RON in mine and it made no difference

Good to know.

However; I used to run my 1.4mpi Fabia on Shell Optimax/VPower or Tesco 99 and it always felt perkier than when I used Sainsburys 95; particularly when run over a four or five of tankfulls.

I agree, the reviewer was proberbly used to driving a car with blancmange for suspension that originated in North America.

They obviously don't deserve it.

It just somebodies opinion. If we all worried about them then I doubt we would be here.

It is however a strange review, almost as if he was expecting something totally different, I mean we are talking about a country that uses denim for everything including their tuxedos.

Tossed around in a Roomster.......it wasn,t an all bad experience then.