Hi,

Was at the local asda and had a quick look at Auto Express and noticed a Fabia 2 Scout is to be launched in May of this year.

From what they say it will be availble with both 16 and 17 inch alloys and follows on from the sucess of the Roomster Scout.

I'm liking the look of this and would consider this to replace my trusty Fabia vRS.

So what do you guys reckon?

Cheers

Davy

Skoda Fabia Scout | Auto Express News | News | Auto Express

Get a Roomster. It handles better, it's far more practical and far better value.

Get a Roomster. It handles better, it's far more practical and far better value.

What he said

I wonder if the Roomster is actually taking away sales from the Fabia 2 Combi, even with it's challenging looks. Mind you, look at the new Polo, apart from the value card, the Fab 2 does not hold a candle to it. Whilst I love the Roomster, my only real criticism is the quality of the dash plastics, the Mk1 Fabia was much better..

Whilst I love the Roomster, my only real criticism is the quality of the dash plastics, the Mk1 Fabia was much better..

See, I must have had a duff one because my Fabia had more rattles than a nursery and my Roomy has been ubersolid

From what I gather the fabia scout will compete againest the A4 estate?? It must be a heck of a lot bigger than the normal fabia 2 estate.

Beat you to it! Fabia Scout

Get a Roomster. It handles better, it's far more practical and far better value.

And far worse fuel consumption.

eg 1.4TDi/80 -

Fabia 61.4 Combined

Roomster 55.4 Combined

Fabia is 11% better than the Roomster

And far worse fuel consumption.

eg 1.4TDi/80 -

Fabia 61.4 Combined

Roomster 55.4 Combined

Fabia is 11% better than the Roomster

You will never see either in either and I doubt the 1.4 is really what the OP will be after.

The 1.9 figures are a little different...

Fabia 56.8 Combined

Roomster 53.7 Combined

You wouldn't buy either car to have fun in but you wouldn't mind an extra 0.5p per mile with the Roomster as you could have fun if you wanted too. The tank is also bigger on the Roomy meaning you fill up less which would probably save you far more than 0.5p per mile in wasted fuel going back and forth to the garage.

If you were really worried about that 0.5p you could just remove the rear seats (Takes 30 seconds) and leave them at home. That would slim the weight down by at least 50kg probably saving you more than 0.5p per tank. You have the options.

Edited 4 March, 200917 yr by Decron

it would have to be the 1.9 for me I think

You will never see either in either and I doubt the 1.4 is really what the OP will be after.

The 1.9 figures are a little different...

Fabia 56.8 Combined

Roomster 53.7 Combined

You wouldn't buy either car to have fun in but you wouldn't mind an extra 0.5p per mile with the Roomster as you could have fun if you wanted too. The tank is also bigger on the Roomy meaning you fill up less which would probably save you far more than 0.5p per mile in wasted fuel going back and forth to the garage.

If you were really worried about that 0.5p you could just remove the rear seats (Takes 30 seconds) and leave them at home. That would slim the weight down by at least 50kg probably saving you more than 0.5p per tank. You have the options.

You may not see either in either (quite a few people would probably beg to differ) but the figures are comparable on a percentage basis for any particular journey, as I used them.

It still means that for any given journey you will be paying 11% more for your fuel with the 1.4TDi - I chose that one randomly. I don't know where you got your Fabia 1.9 figure from - it's not the one in the brochure. On the basis of the figure in the brochure (57.6 combined) it's still 7% more for the Roomster. And remember when fuel was much more expensive? People were doing all sorts of things to save fuel then - the clever ones us will be anticipating the future now in the decisions they take:

The above is quite optimistic, in fact - see the large area captioned as unsanctioned? Most of that may not happen ever or as soon as shown in the graph.

As far as removing the seats is concerned that will make a bit of a difference but is that really a serious suggestion? The bigger difference is actually probably because of the larger frontal area.

But at the end of the day fuel consumption for many people is part of the whole equation when buying a car. Maybe for you it's not significant, but for others it will be.

As far as removing the seats is concerned that will make a bit of a difference but is that really a serious suggestion? The bigger difference is actually probably because of the larger frontal area.

But at the end of the day fuel consumption for many people is part of the whole equation when buying a car. Maybe for you it's not significant, but for others it will be.

It's worth the 7% for the additional practicality imho, and anything over 45MPG is a bonus (I tend not to drive with economy in mind ) Taking the seats out makes a substantial difference, I have done a few track days in the vRoomster and it takes me less than 5 minutes to dump the seats in the garage before setting off to Oulton or wherever.

Getting back to somewhere close to the original point, will anybody want a 4x4 fabia scout? Price? extra weight? I managed to get around quite happily in the recent snow in a 2wd Roomster Scout without any issues, I have a set of steelies and winter tyres for the worst of the weather.

You may not see either in either (quite a few people would probably beg to differ) but the figures are comparable on a percentage basis for any particular journey, as I used them.

It still means that for any given journey you will be paying 11% more for your fuel with the 1.4TDi - I chose that one randomly. I don't know where you got your Fabia 1.9 figure from - it's not the one in the brochure. On the basis of the figure in the brochure (57.6 combined) it's still 7% more for the Roomster. And remember when fuel was much more expensive? People were doing all sorts of things to save fuel then - the clever ones us will be anticipating the future now in the decisions they take:

The above is quite optimistic, in fact - see the large area captioned as unsanctioned? Most of that may not happen ever or as soon as shown in the graph.

As far as removing the seats is concerned that will make a bit of a difference but is that really a serious suggestion? The bigger difference is actually probably because of the larger frontal area.

But at the end of the day fuel consumption for many people is part of the whole equation when buying a car. Maybe for you it's not significant, but for others it will be.

WOW, that was a fantastic post. A little over embelished but good all the same:D The figures came from Parkers (Admittedly they are for the 3 but the weight is the same)

It will not cost you 7% more to run a Roomster. You can work it out all you want and then chart it, support it with OPEC figures, knock yourself out. You can work out cd figures for both and even do tests. In the real world where people USE things, your 7% will be easily taken up by more frequent trips to the pumps. Also the visability isn't as good, meanig it would probably take your average Joe an extra go to reverse it in a space, this will all add up.

You see, I have used both. I have also used the engines in a few different cars and thats how I know that 7% on paper means very, very little. Especially when you go to put the kids buggy in the back and realise it's too narrow to fit in straight and ends up taking far more room than it should. Not what you want when your trying to go fit that and 2 weeks worth of shopping in....thats why it's better value.

BTW, I take the rear seats out of mine all the time and probably so do many other owners. It takes seconds.

Edited 4 March, 200917 yr by Decron

It's worth the 7% for the additional practicality imho, and anything over 45MPG is a bonus (I tend not to drive with economy in mind ) Taking the seats out makes a substantial difference, I have done a few track days in the vRoomster and it takes me less than 5 minutes to dump the seats in the garage before setting off to Oulton or wherever.

Getting back to somewhere close to the original point, will anybody want a 4x4 fabia scout? Price? extra weight? I managed to get around quite happily in the recent snow in a 2wd Roomster Scout without any issues, I have a set of steelies and winter tyres for the worst of the weather.

That Auto express article is well.... from Auto Express and probably utter Carp like the rest of what they publish, looking at it now it's been edited from it's original release a few weeks ago.... There was a slightly more convincing press release on here somewhere. There will be no 4x4.

I also found the Roomster frankly awesome in the recent snow too

Edited 4 March, 200917 yr by Decron

Have to say that the Fabia Scout looks ace in yellow with the contrasting black bits and the 17in wheels. Really transforms the car. Hope someone will be brave enough to order one in that colour!

Thanks for sharing these pics mate, that does look stunning and does give me a idea.

It's not a new concept though....

Edited 6 March, 200917 yr by Decron

It does look nice but i can't really see the benifit of the 4x4 and soft-roader looks in a car of this size and class.

It does look nice but i can't really see the benifit of the 4x4 and soft-roader looks in a car of this size and class.

I suppose its just something a little bit different. I do like that Yellow one!

mmmm I'd have a yellow one!! :P that looks pretty sweet! pointless yes, but its the same as a sport spec if you look at it like that?

false sportyness, or false 4x4ness?

someones gonna buy it for its looks rather than the performance?