Anyone seen the group test in Auto Express? Fabia against new Focus ST, Clio Cup, and Seat FR.

Despite critising the Focus interior, handling, power and price it still managed to come 1st in their opinion?????

VRS came 3rd despite praising the interior, the handling, the power and price????

Can't be right surely?

we're surrounded by fools and imbeciles I'm afraid. There remain elements in the motoring press who still can't bring themselves to admit the vRS is a great car.

I'm guessing the Clio came 2nd.

Are you sure it was the Focus and not the Fiesta ST as that makes more sense. but by going what you have posted......

Surely the article says why they gave the Focus top prize. As the Focus ST has 170bhp, the clio cup 182 and the vRS/Fr 130bhp (unless it was the petrol FR with 150bhp IIRC) they were more powerful for a start.

Perhaps if their group review were only of "hot" diesels then it might have some credence, but as they mixing the fuel types it has be to put down as entertainment only and pointless as a proper comparison.

we're surrounded by fools and imbeciles I'm afraid. There remain elements in the motoring press who still can't bring themselves to admit the vRS is a great car.

Read the article in question and think about the cars it was up against before you jump to conclusions. Did you read their long term reports on the Fabia they had? They raved about it. So what if they thought 2 of the cars tested were a better overall package than the Fabia. Having being stuck with a Fiesta for the last week, I can't wait to get back in to my car. The Fiesta is not rubbish, but it's the little things to me that make the Fabia a superior car, like the foot rest for your clutch foot.

Not only are they mixing fuel types but class of vehicle as well (3 are 'superminis' one is medium hatch) So what was the point of this supposed group test as it obviously wasnt to test vehicles of similar size/fuel/price ?

Perhaps Ford need a help with the sales of their cars

Not only are they mixing fuel types but class of vehicle as well (3 are 'superminis' one is medium hatch) So what was the point of this supposed group test as it obviously wasnt to test vehicles of similar size/fuel/price ?

Ooops just reread the thread. If it was a Fiesta ST I withdraw my comments

Not only are they mixing fuel types but class of vehicle as well (3 are 'superminis' one is medium hatch) So what was the point of this supposed group test as it obviously wasnt to test vehicles of similar size/fuel/price ?

Thats what makes me think he means the Fiesta ST over the Focus

if they got the handling on the fiesta st like/better than the focus then it should leave the fabia for dead round corners, match that to a 150bhp petrol lump and surely the fabia(standard) has absolutely no chance performance wise. if they were testing price->performance->size->practicality then i think the ST would start to dwindle but they are comparing 'performance' vehicles so value and sensibility shouldn't come into it. its like buying a tvr and moaning that you can't get the wife/7 kids in it with a months shopping. wrong environment

The Fiestas handling is nothing to write home about, but it seems sharper than the Fabias, The 150 bhp is impressive, but a run in Fabia produces around 145bhp, coupled with the torque, it is more than a match for the ST.

OOps, did mean Fiesta ST.

Have sent the editor an e-mail, lets see if it gets printed!

I have just read the same... I have been away and haven't driven the vrs for 18 days... put a smile on my face as soon as I got behind the wheel

we must all take reviews/comparisons as they are -views of their authors. if they dont agree with what you think then tough.

there is always gonna be a better car than ours out there , moreso as time passes -thats why we will all buy another car at some point :eek: .

we all lapped up the reviews that praised the fabia vrs to the hilt, but lets face it , it wont be top dog for long in the press , the novelty is beginning to wear off already in their eyes and they're(fabia vrs) starting to become more common on the roads.

don't get me wrong, i think my fabia vrs is one of the best purchases i have made (not the best car i've had) and i'm very happy with it BUT i'm not driving around expecting admiring glances from boxster owners or swooning lasses or kids to fall off their bikes cos theyre concentrating on looking at the fabia instead of the road tho.

lets keep it in perspective eh?

if i remember right round a track the ST (new fiesta) is nearly as quick as a focus RS, according to certain reports/tests. the thing about massive torque that always crops up with fabia vrs's, they do have more torque granted but do they rev to near on 7k? no, is that torque available for nearly all of the rev range? no. so although it gives you a good strong pull it soon runs out of breath. personally i'd rather have a 150bhp petrol engine, in comparison the st gives around 135 bhp per tonne and the fabia gives 98bhp p/t, and the st gives 126 lb/ft p/t and the fabia gives a good 172lb/ft p/t but the st will win because that power is available for a lot longer.

this is probably why the ST is around 2 seconds quicker to 62 than a STANDARD vRS, add to that the cornering ability and 200Kg weight advantage and it is clearly has much more potential as a 'hot hatch'

I dont reckon there'd be much difference actually. My Micra had a similar power to weight ratio as the Furby by your reckoning, and it could rev to nearly 7000 rpm as well, but it was nowhere near as quick, either in terms of how quick it felt or how quick it actually was.

The Fabia seems to produce way more pace than could be expected with a car with such a feeble power to weight ratio, so there is more to the argument than that IMHO. I think you are seriously underestimating the Furby, but hey, thats just my opinion...

this is probably why the ST is around 2 seconds quicker to 62 than a STANDARD vRS

Can it get to 62 in second gear, as that could also account for the difference in times......

Chris

Bit of an odd article this one. all cars had various merits attributed to them.the verdict seemed to me to say the fabia had all the best assets then came third .doesn't really matter though does it?it's had so many good reviews,even this one

Would anyone would be questioning the logic behind the test if the fabia had come out on top....?

Would anyone would be questioning the logic behind the test if the fabia had come out on top....?

:wave:

Rob.

but the st will win because that power is available for a lot longer.

Have to disagree with you Bengie. Take a look at the quoted figures in the Autoexpress review.

0-60 and 30- 70 almost exactly the same. ST marginally quicker.

however...

30 - 50 mph 40 - 60 50 - 70

ST 4.7 vrs 3.4 6.8 4.7 9.7 6.7

These times are significantly faster than the 182bhp Clio Cup as well.

All for a car that costs nearly

Have to disagree with you Bengie. Take a look at the quoted figures in the Autoexpress review.

0-60 and 30- 70 almost exactly the same. ST marginally quicker.

however...

30 - 50 mph 40 - 60 50 - 70

ST 4.7 vrs 3.4 6.8 4.7 9.7 6.7

These times are significantly faster than the 182bhp Clio Cup as well.

So you're saying that 30-70 the ST is marginally quicker, but in relatively narrow ranges, the vRS is quicker? Does it say how they acheived the in-gear times for the narrow ranges, did they use comparable gears, or did they use optimum gears for each car?

I've not seen the article, but from what you've quoted it sounds like the ST is a faster car overall, unless your measure of performance is 20mph increments Don't get me wrong, the Fabia is a great comfortable, economical car for the money, with very useable performance, but without some fettling, it's not really in the same class as these hot hatches.

Chris

it's not really in the same class as these hot hatches.

Out of interest, why?

OK its not going to be as fast as a Clio, and although I have not read this article I assume as FunkySI said that there is little in it really. OK, so the ST might be a few tenths of a second quicker or whatever.... but thats beside the point - the vRS is in their class because its a similar price, with similar performance and probably specification, so I fail to see why its not in the same class? Is it because its a diesel? I personally would choose the vRS over any of those cars, if I had regarded any of those as clearly better as you imply then I would have got something else - so am I wrong? I dont think so, this is all subjective - maybe you would rather have an ST but I'd rather have the vRS.

Out of interest' date=' why?

OK its not going to be as fast as a Clio, and although I have not read this article I assume as FunkySI said that there is little in it really. OK, so the ST might be a few tenths of a second quicker or whatever.... but thats beside the point - the vRS is in their class because its a similar price, with similar performance and probably specification, so I fail to see why its not in the same class? Is it because its a diesel? I personally would choose the vRS over any of those cars, if I had regarded any of those as clearly better as you imply then I would have got something else - so am I wrong? I dont think so, this is all subjective - maybe you would rather have an ST but I'd rather have the vRS.[/quote']

The point I was trying to make (obviously badly ) was that the Fabia is not marketted as a hot hatch, whereas the others are. The Fabia is not a raw, lightweight car like the Clio (and from the article, probably the ST) which drives like a go-kart, has razor-sharp steering, precision handling and more horses. The ST does 60 in 7.9 seconds, which is 1.5 seconds quicker than the vRS. However, the Clio and ST also pretty sparse and poorly put together interiors.

The Fabia is more refined and more relaxing to drive and pitched at people who want a sporty, economical, cheap to buy and run, well-built car but without the sacrifice of rock-hard suspension and no toys..... As a project car for modders, it represents a sound buy as the handling and power can easily be sorted out......

At the end of the day, the car you chose is immaterial to the article - the aim of my post was not to question why anyone wanted to buy a Fabia vRS....

Chris

So you're saying that 30-70 the ST is marginally quicker' date=' but in relatively narrow ranges, the vRS is quicker? Does it say how they acheived the in-gear times for the narrow ranges, did they use comparable gears, or did they use optimum gears for each car?

I've not seen the article, but from what you've quoted it sounds like the ST is a faster car overall, unless your measure of performance is 20mph increments Don't get me wrong, the Fabia is a great comfortable, economical car for the money, with very useable performance, but without some fettling, it's not really in the [b']same class [/b] as these hot hatches.

Chris

Hey, these are autoexpress' own figures; the VRS was SIGNIFICANTLY quicker between the ranges quoted, it was quicker than the 182 bhp clio and the 148 bhp fiesta and Ibiza. Autoexpress call this the 'real world pace'. Gears used were the same for each car.

same class

i couldn't disagree with you more, I think the Fabia is more than a match for its more expensive peers.