What's the big deal anyway?

Anyone who buys or equally discounts a car on the strength of a magazine review is a muppet of the worst kind.

Did they accept them as just observations' date=' or as corrections?

- IOW, are they going to do anything about it?[/quote']

Email response from the tester himself, "Thanks for your email regarding the Skoda Fabia vRS.

To answer your questions

1) the 0-60 time was 8.5secs as we recorded this with our own test

equipment.

2) Our service prices we gain from phoning random dealers around the

country and you do get regional differences.

3) The co2 emissions are 146g/km

4)

But with the availability of the four options you listed you are right, we

did list them as unavailable in error. We try very hard to get

our spec panels correct and each one is emailed to the respective

manufacturer for checking before it goes into the magazine. Skoda did see

this panel and did not pick up on the options you mentioned, nevertheless

we should have noticed the wrong information, so apologies for getting it

wrong.

Our test car was not fitted with any of these options and the fact that we

thought they were not available did not alter our opinion that the Fabia

vRS is a fantastic real world performance car. The comment regarding the

lack of a three-door body shell is relevant as the fact is a percentage of

hot hatch buyers prefer a three-door shell and while the Fabia's styling

is very good its a point that deserves mention.

Thanks for your email, and hope you continue to enjoy your vRS, we

certainly think its one of the most underrated cars available in the

market."

Still think the co2 is wrong and don't think that they are going to do any correction though.

Chill out Greza Rooboy loves his Fabia and will defend it against unwarranted attack - he is just trying to point out that the article may be inaccurate in certain forms, but it wouldn't have altered the result of the test given what they were obviously testing for.

On your points:

1) Would say you have been considerably more aggressive (and rude) on this thread that he has;

2) Skoda's figures on acceleration have consistently been proven to be "conservative" by magazines testing them - most people on here are aware of this and several have done their own GPS based tests. You are fully entitled to believe what you want but we are entitled to our views as well.

3) Basically you are accusing Rooboy of lying - nice!

4) Not all of them do - certainly not the two big estates that my family have had or any of my dad's company Mercs;

5) Fair and accurate hearing is fair enough - Auto Express were focusing on one "thing" which is probably not the "thing" that makes people buy the Fabia RS. Never mind, its only a magazine and there are plenty of positive write ups about the Fabia RS (and even the AE one isn't bad!). Re: the features, as explained earlier Skoda haven't helped themselves on this as they have consistently given muddled advice in their advertising material (and on the phone) as to what is, and what isn't, available.

Don't worry too much about it, you and Rooboy both like your cars and most people (even Octy owners like myself ) recognise them as good cars ... and don't get too upset about people with differing opinions

What's the big deal anyway?

Anyone who buys or equally discounts a car on the strength of a magazine review is a muppet of the worst kind.

On one review especially! Fair enough - if there had been 20 reviews all slating the vRS' date=' it might be cause for concern...

@GREZA - good you got a reply. From your original post it wasn't clear if they had just labelled you as an angry skoda owner, or actually bothered to write a thought-out message. Bet they don't print a correction though!

From the look of the mail, it does seem they were reviewing with hot hatch buyers in mind... the fab vRS [u']comes across[/u] as simmering rather than boiling...

On one review especially! Fair enough - if there had been 20 reviews all slating the vRS' date=' it might be cause for concern...

[/quote']

Have AutoExpress actually slated it though?

Fair enough it didn't win, and like it or not it IS aimed at the same buyer as the other cars in that review, as the age of the majority of Fabia vRS owners on this site proves...but second place isn't that bad is it?

Even Tiff, Clarkson & Co were impressed....

Chill out Greza Rooboy loves his Fabia and will defend it against unwarranted attack - he is just trying to point out that the article may be inaccurate in certain forms' date=' but it wouldn't have altered the result of the test given what they were obviously testing for.

On your points:

1) Would say you have been considerably more aggressive (and rude) on this thread that he has;[/quote']

Not so, I'm all in favour of reasoned and calm debate but when others start using words like 'git' and 'whinging' then they must expect a response.

2) Skoda's figures on acceleration have consistently been proven to be "conservative" by magazines testing them - most people on here are aware of this and several have done their own GPS based tests. You are fully entitled to believe what you want but we are entitled to our views as well.

Sure' date=' everyone is entitled to their views as I am to mine also.

3) Basically you are accusing Rooboy of lying - nice!

Not so, I simply think he is misinformed, in error or plain ignorant of the facts. Lying would suggest he knows better then seeks to peddle an untuth, I don't think he is doing this.

4) Not all of them do - certainly not the two big estates that my family have had or any of my dad's company Mercs;

A Merc without a sunroof and aircon is a rare beast these days.

Don't worry too much about it' date=' you and Rooboy both like your cars and most people (even Octy owners like myself ) recognise them as good cars ... and don't get too upset about people with differing opinions [/quote']

Hay if we all thought the same it would be dull place and forum, I love my vRS. I' m trying to help my gal choose her next car and still can't find anything else that comes close, yes rooboy et al, for the money !

I' m trying to help my gal choose her next car and still can't find anything else that comes close, yes rooboy et al, for the money !

Have you considered the Fiesta ST or the Clio Cup?

Chris

Have you considered the Fiesta ST or the Clio Cup?

Chris

Listen, I've got to sit in this thing, please !

I did read your comment but I'm beginning to take everything you say with a large pinch of salt. Manufacturers strive long and hard to get the best 0-60 figure because they know it translates into hard sales. I'm frankly amazed that Skoda themselves would be so far off the mark.

Ah well, I guess all the magazine roadtests must be lying then.

Just like your theory is purely speculative, so is mine, but do you not acknowledge the possibility they may play their figures down to get the car a cheaper insurance group?

Well your general attitude makes me think the rudeboy is just about your message to this forum.

I did read your comment but I'm beginning to take everything you say with a large pinch of salt. Manufacturers strive long and hard to get the best 0-60 figure because they know it translates into hard sales. I'm frankly amazed that Skoda themselves would be so far off the mark.

Why to Mercs all come with aircon and a sunroof ? Because people want them that way' date=' its about having the choice of fresh air through the locks or refrigerated air.

Its not about whinging at all, its about giving the car a fair and accurate hearing. Anyone coming to article and reading it cold might well discount the Fabia simply because the article says that certain features are not available. This would obviously be wrong. My observations have already been accepted by AutoExpress so I think it is you that should calm down ('its only a forum dear') or you'll be the one wearing the tar ! [/quote']

I get a bit agitated when people, look at the facts and ignore them, as you seem to have done, more than once over the past few days in my view.

So I (and Auto express for that matter) am lying when I say you can easily beat Skoda's claimed 0-62mph time of 9.6 seconds. Try it yourself, you will find I am right.

Yes Mercs (and some of the Clios for that matter) COME with a sunroof & Air con. But who would be willing to pay the extra for the other if it only comes with one of them.

The Fabia did get a fair and accurate hearing, although I see your point about the extras in that respect, but apart from the Xenons and Stability control (which it does not really need) it is not really going to change anyones mind. People will not go and buy a car on the basis of a review which is open to intepretation and error. Only a complete prat will look at just one review of a bunch of cars in a test and make their mind up about what car they want. They would make their choice by looking at it in the metal, speccing it up from the actual brochures (so they would have a plesant suprise when they find Xenons) and god forbid, driving it for themselves.

They praised the Fabia, but it's ride compared to the other 2 let it down. The Fabia is a good handler in my view, but they thought the Fiesta and the Clio handled better and again having driven both I agree with them, but compared to the Fabia their overall packages and build are poor IMO, so I agree that the Fabia is superior in what I want from a car.

Almost a second diffeence is an long, long time. Its logical to question whats doing on here, Skoda's own times are a maater of the greatest commercial importance and I'm sure that they will have done what they could to achieve a great time so its perfectly reasonable to question how a journo manages to trounce their obviously greater resources.

I know, in the past, some manufacturers have resorted to hand built cars( picking the very best components off the line) to achieve good times and been prepared to blow up engines in their pursuit, crash changing the 'box to make micro second differences.

I get a bit agitated when people' date=' look at the facts and ignore them, as you seem to have done, more than once over the past few days in my view.

[/quote']

Strange, I have the same feeling about your observations

So I (and Auto express for that matter) am lying when I say you can easily beat Skoda's claimed 0-62mph time of 9.6 seconds. Try it yourself' date=' you will find I am right.

[/quote']

I'm not in the habit of attempting 0-60 times personally, I leave that up to the experts and the twits of this world who attempt it on the highway.

Yes Mercs (and some of the Clios for that matter) COME with a sunroof & Air con. But who would be willing to pay the extra for the other if it only comes with one of them.

My gal for one' date=' she did on her last car.

People will not go and buy a car on the basis of a review which is open to intepretation and error. Only a complete prat will look at just one review of a bunch of cars in a test and make their mind up about what car they want. They would make their choice by looking at it in the metal, speccing it up from the actual brochures (so they would have a plesant suprise when they find Xenons) and god forbid, driving it for themselves

If having read the writeup they don't immediately discard it because the article says they can't have their 'favourite' item on the car. They've to to make it to the showroom in the first place to discover the inaccuracies of the article.

I agree that the Fabia is superior in what I want from a car.

At least we are in agreement on the bottom line.

Not so' date=' I'm all in favour of reasoned and calm debate but when others start using words like 'git' and 'whinging' then they must expect a response.

Not so, I simply think he is misinformed, in error or plain ignorant of the facts. Lying would suggest he knows better then seeks to peddle an untuth, I don't think he is doing this.

Hay if we all thought the same it would be dull place and forum, I love my vRS. I' m trying to help my gal choose her next car and still can't find anything else that comes close, yes rooboy et al, for the money ![/quote']

I have given a reasoned and calm debate, yet you have in thefew threads I have seen you post, ignore evidence to the contrary and still gone on thae same thing. I.e 0-62 of the Fabia vRS, Oil for the PD engines.

and being obstanate to the point of repeatadly stating thing that are known to be different is being ignorant, almost to the point of behaving like a git.

I am not lying thank you very much, and there is proof on this very website to prove as much, let alone what the magazines have found out USING CALIBRATED TESTING GEAR.

I have been involved with Skodas and other cars at a grease monkey level for 10 years so my facts are normally substantiated. If they are ever wrong, I amit the fact.

Please what am I being ignorant of??????? I know Skoda 'claim' 9.6 seconds and 130bhp/229lb/ft , and I know this to be slower/less than the truth as there are more than one Fabia vRS with more than this as standard on this forum. I think YOU should research a bit more before you come on to a forum of any kind and straight away preach things that were known to be wrong over a year ago.

I've got no problem with people thinking that the Fabia is excellent value for money, that is why I brought one in the first place and I'm glad you like yours, and the more the merrier. It is just it is not the best thing since good created jaffa cakes and like any car it has it's flaws which you seem unwilling to accept.

love you long time

Jeff.

I'm not in the habit of attempting 0-60 times personally' date=' I leave that up to the experts and the twits of this world who attempt it on the highway.

My gal for one, she did on her last car.

If having read the writeup they don't immediately discard it because the article says they can't have their 'favourite' item on the car. They've to to make it to the showroom in the first place to discover the inaccuracies of the article.

[/quote']

Me neither, lovely thing trackdays with timing equipment.

Did she, well she is in a minority as most people prefer air con and do not miss a sunroof.

Again, they would not just look at one article. Before deciding and especially not in Auto express which does not give the same amount of informtion as most of the other mags.

.... preach things that were known to be wrong over a year ago.

Really ? I don't mind being put right but if its a toss up between you Mr.Greasemonkey and the might of the Skoda corporation then in the absence of hard facts, I know who my money is on.

....it is not the best thing since good created jaffa cakes and like any car it has it's flaws which you seem unwilling to accept.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I never claimed it was the best thing ever, simply that it is a very strong package and there seems to me at least very little to touch it in the marketplace at present on a varety of fronts. I think that journalists fail to see the big picture with regard to the vRS.

Really ? I don't mind being put right but if its a toss up between you Mr.Greasemonkey and the might of the Skoda corporation then in the absence of hard facts' date=' I know who my money is on.

[/quote']

Unfortunately for you "Mr Greasemonkey" is correct.

The Power output of the FabiavRS PD130 engine is widely known to be under-rated by Skoda to the tune of up to 15 Bhp. This is a common feature of both the VAG PD130 and 150 engines.

I drive an Octy RS and the Fabia is of no interest to me (too small), however i am more than happy to admit both it's power output and performance stats are somewhat better than Skoda claim.

I think that journalists fail to see the big picture with regard to the vRS.

I think you fail to see that you are wrong about the smaller details too. The Fabia has been roadtested by several popular car magazines, available at any of your local newsagents, and ALL of them do better than the claimed 0-60 time of the car. The WORST I've seen is 8.8 seconds IIRC, and the best is 7.2 seconds. I admit that the 7.2 seconds run was way better than typical figures, but its easy enough to attain around 8.2-8.5 seconds in most conditions, and this is what the magazines are finding.

Also, some manufacturers give figures that are exagerrated in their own figures. The old Fiat Punto Sporting Mk2 had this problem. They gave it a quoted time of 10.9 seconds, and yet I saw many a roadtest that gave as long as 13.7 seconds. A drive in one (I was looking at getting one some years ago) confirmed that it was in fact, not much quicker than a 1.0 16v Micra, which had a claimed time of 16.4 seconds. So it works both ways...

You still never answered my question about whether in your opinion, that VAG simply understate their cars to get them a lower insurance group. Whats to stop them? Makes them look attractive to people who struggle to afford insurance, and they know that people who are generally interested in what they are buying will do their homework and find out the real facts, from real people, as well as car magazines.

TBH, I think your just spoiling for an argument

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/t11016-the-meet-supreme-synopsis.html has one or two 0-60 times taken on a private road.

You only need to a) take a look at some peoples signatures to see their power outputs or if you still refuse to believe me, try it yourself.

Just don't go preaching with your closed mind, when facts stating otherwise are ataring you in the face. That is why you are acting like a fool, ignoring facts that are staring at you in the face, because they go against something that you read in a brochure (quite similar to what you did with auto express really).

Now given that what little brochures were avaliable when I brought my Fabia I could have swarn 'till I was blue in the face that you could not get xenon headlamps as they were not even listed as an option, but when my car was ordered, Xenons were in the system as an option. Just because Skoda have the VAG group behind them, it does not mean they are infalliable.

Neither are you.

I am always willing to give people more than one chance to prove me wrong, you have had many in this thread alone and failed with not just me by the looks of the other posts.

I have not been abusive and you have been closer to causing offence to me than IU to you, although me stating you were acting like a git, for the want of a better word at the time was close and I appologise for the word used.

I dont know if his is different geared to mine but I'm asking myself this: What does the Octavia vRS do in 2nd... about 70mph? What does my Furby do in 3rd... about 70 mph... so explain to me what the problem is with going around corners, because I dont have any... :P

Three Sisters is a go-kart track - 70mph is irrelevant because you can't go that fast round it. So coming out of a hairpin into a slalom at between 20-30mph, you'll have to change gear in the diesel because of the narrow power band. Which isn't a problem in itself, but having the clutch down and one hand off the wheel when trying to avoid piles of tyres isn't a good thing.

Admittedly it's an extreme example, but it does illustrate the weakness of having the six-speed gearbox on the diesel engine. The PD100 with a five speed gearbox was so much nicer because you could work the torque properly, rather than it coming on all of a sudden, thrusting you back in your seat and then bouncing off the limiter.

Yes, the six-speed box does make it faster - but not as nice to drive...

Rob.

Unfortunately for you "Mr Greasemonkey" is correct.

You may well be right and I am the first to be happy if this is so but its anecdotal evidence, here say. If you can point to printed fact of a rigorous independent assessment of what you say then fine.

TBH, I think your just spoiling for an argument

I've been thinking the same thing with more than one thread he has been involved in.

You may well be right and I am the first to be happy if this is so but its anecdotal evidence, here say. If you can point to printed fact of a rigorous independent assessment of what you say then fine.

Apart from magazines with calibrated testing gear and a picture of a before and after RR graph of a Fabia being chipped that is on the AmD webste, sorry you will have to find out youself that you are wrong.

http://www.auto-amd.com/fabiars.asp

click on the power graphs, the red is the lower figure, all higher than std, courtesy of Mr Ross Clarke.

You may well be right and I am the first to be happy if this is so but its anecdotal evidence, here say. If you can point to printed fact of a rigorous independent assessment of what you say then fine.

It is far from being hear say.

Several members of this forum have proven it beyond any doubt. The power figures have been checked on rolling roads belonging to various tuners and the dyno plots will be somewhere on Briskoda .

However as you are clearly unwilling to accept the facts which are contained on this site, then i don't see the point of this thread continuing on its current track, unless as has already been pointed out, you are arguing for the sake of it.

You may well be right and I am the first to be happy if this is so but its anecdotal evidence, here say. If you can point to printed fact of a rigorous independent assessment of what you say then fine.

If you're still harping on about 0-60 times, are you suggesting that people using a GPS timing system are lying? Or that the GPS system was incorrect?

I am always willing to give people more than one chance to prove me wrong' date=' you have had many in this thread alone and failed ....[/quote']

You threw down the challenge re my assertion that the AutoExpress article had factual errors in it. I proved that there were errors and you had to admit you had overlooked them. OK we can debate 0-60 times, power output etc. til the cows come home and I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right. After all every single car off the line will differ a little. Maybe Skoda have a good reason for understating their cars performance. If so then its a rare case of a company underselling their product.