As per the title.

EVO test

not a bad review... I thought it had the vRS sprrings and shocks though... not the SE's.

Well at least we have more evidence that the Monte's "sports suspension" isn't the same as the vRS.

I'm surprised there wasn't more made of the superior interior.

The monte carlo is an se wrapped up nicely... thats why I bought one. Looks the biz without being stung on Insurance

The monte carlo is an se wrapped up nicely... thats why I bought one. Looks the biz without being stung on Insurance

indeed, they moan about it being "a body kit" but I think its a really nice special edition, very well done! he seems to jest about skodas rally history too, for a car hack is he a bit ignorant? don't skoda still hold the record for the most rallys won by any manufacturer ever? (I really could be wrong about that, so any knowledgable people, please correct me....)

edit: I would certainly look it up before writing an artical!

Edited 8 July, 201114 yr by sharkrider

With me, I like the car to look nice, don't really care if it shifts... As long as it can do 70mph i'm happy and the 1.2 105 is pokey enough so meh!

not a bad review... I thought it had the vRS sprrings and shocks though... not the SE's.

It does. I've driven both and I can't tell the difference in the suspension. It doesn't have the XDS system though.

So they moan about the monte being just an expensive body kit... I wonder if EVO say the same about the citroen ds3 compared to the c3???

not a bad review... I thought it had the vRS sprrings and shocks though... not the SE's.

It didnt say it had Dave:

with slightly firmer dampers from those fitted to the ‘SE’ version its based on being the highlight

I've been buying EVo since the first ed....Don't know who the hell Mike Duff is....certainly not one of the main writers/drivers for EVO!!!

To be fair to the SE and Elegance, there's not a lot wrong with their suspension setup in terms of handling, they are just a bit softer. Drive it smoothly and on the right line and they handle very tidily indeed.

Dave will tell you that I've been keeping up with his vRS when the roads are twisty and the vRS can't use it's power advantage.

I even think that the 17" wheels are too big for the Monte and 16's would be better. That's what they sell them with in Europe...

Sounds pretty pump to me get the vRS over the monte any day unless your 17!

I'll let you into a secret here.

I discovered it when I bought a Suzuki Swift Sport. Power and fun don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Why do you think MX5's are so popular? It's not because they are rockets in a straight line (they aren't), it's because they will get down a twisty B road faster and more enjoyably than some very expensive machinery.

The Swift was fairly manic and needed a fair few gearchanges to keep it on the boil (gearbox was as fast as a rifle bolt!) but it could string corners together brilliantly. It was not a rocket in a straight line, only 125bhp.

Having driven the Montie, I would defintely have one Why? It does the same thing that the Swift did. I'd get the 105 TSI. Choose a twisty road. Let's say the road along Ullswater and up Kirkstone Pass. I could drive 90% of that road using only 3rd gear (all the way over the pass in 3rd, yes that's right). 3rd will go from 30mph to 80mph, so for the proper twisty bits, you can just leave it there and use that wide powerband to flit between the apexes

You'll have good fun doing it and you save 2 grand

The monte is a bit more 'look at me look at me!!!!!!!!!!' than the VRS I reckon and I like that in a car :p

That's true. I suspect that next year the Montie will become the Fabia Sport. Perhaps it will lose the side trims, but stay pretty much the same otherwise. Might even be a little cheaper.

It's that or a vRS for me next I think

I'll let you into a secret here.

I discovered it when I bought a Suzuki Swift Sport. Power and fun don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Why do you think MX5's are so popular? It's not because they are rockets in a straight line (they aren't), it's because they will get down a twisty B road faster and more enjoyably than some very expensive machinery.

The Swift was fairly manic and needed a fair few gearchanges to keep it on the boil (gearbox was as fast as a rifle bolt!) but it could string corners together brilliantly. It was not a rocket in a straight line, only 125bhp.

Having driven the Montie, I would defintely have one Why? It does the same thing that the Swift did. I'd get the 105 TSI. Choose a twisty road. Let's say the road along Ullswater and up Kirkstone Pass. I could drive 90% of that road using only 3rd gear (all the way over the pass in 3rd, yes that's right). 3rd will go from 30mph to 80mph, so for the proper twisty bits, you can just leave it there and use that wide powerband to flit between the apexes

You'll have good fun doing it and you save 2 grand

this is true... when I had the fiat, I mullered mikes swift UP hartside, just due to my 315lbs/ft torque... going down, I struggled just to keep up with him, because torque then didn't matter, and the handling of the swift was supirior to the fiat, I also drove an MX5 that meet, and enjoyed every second... didn't matter how fast i was going, one the best handling cars I've driven (and I overtook one [the MX5] up hartside, due to being bored with its pace!)

at the end of the day, just how fast can you drive on todays roads? one of the problems I had when i got the vRS was that I was struggling to get the best from it, as I was carring too much speed..... I can now, as I have adjusted, but I would have had more fun jumping into a panda 100HP (which I have driven down one of my fave roads, and absolutley LOVED it... fantastic car!) but not fast......

enjoyment has to be a factor, if you are not taking your car to a strip.... although my fiat was much quicker than the swift, I struggled down the hill... I bet I would have kept up better in an MX5 or a panda 100HP!

for the reviewer to say "its just a body kit" is *******s.

I'll let you into a secret here.

I discovered it when I bought a Suzuki Swift Sport. Power and fun don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Why do you think MX5's are so popular? It's not because they are rockets in a straight line (they aren't), it's because they will get down a twisty B road faster and more enjoyably than some very expensive machinery.

The Swift was fairly manic and needed a fair few gearchanges to keep it on the boil (gearbox was as fast as a rifle bolt!) but it could string corners together brilliantly. It was not a rocket in a straight line, only 125bhp.

Having driven the Montie, I would defintely have one Why? It does the same thing that the Swift did. I'd get the 105 TSI. Choose a twisty road. Let's say the road along Ullswater and up Kirkstone Pass. I could drive 90% of that road using only 3rd gear (all the way over the pass in 3rd, yes that's right). 3rd will go from 30mph to 80mph, so for the proper twisty bits, you can just leave it there and use that wide powerband to flit between the apexes

You'll have good fun doing it and you save 2 grand

The swift has the M16 engine, it doesnt make much power but it does have a keen top end and like to rev.

THIS is what makes the car enjoyable, ditch that engine and replace it with a low output turbo that runs out of steam by 5000rpm and you will quickly realise that this car is not as much fun!.

Trust me i know, i had a swift sport and now own a yeti 1.2tsi, sure the 1.2tsi is fun to drive, but nowhere near as much fun as the manic 'keep it spinning above 5000rpm' fun of the swift.

Save up for the VRS

For my driving style though the power is at the RPM I normally use which is 1500-3500.. No point be driving around all the time making the engine scream just to get any power... The 1.2 TSI has lots of low end slug for a little petrol and that suits me perfectly.

Can't miss it in the car park either & you'll find it difficult to keep it at 70 mph 80 mph seems to be its sweet spot

Edited 10 July, 201114 yr by skodakev

For my driving style though the power is at the RPM I normally use which is 1500-3500.. No point be driving around all the time making the engine scream just to get any power... The 1.2 TSI has lots of low end slug for a little petrol and that suits me perfectly.

Yes, it's a much more driveable engine. Moves the car along surprisingly quickly too

The Swift was enormous fun, and a very nice engine it has to be said. While the Montie won't be as much of a go-kart as the Swift, it will be good fun to drive.

i would always save for the vRS! not buy a car that looks like a vRS but goes like a Kia Picanto(referring to 68bhp guise)

reminds me of an incident between BMW/Ford groups in 1998yr.. when the Z3 was released, as with alot of new cars it was out of reach of some of the less wealthy. i believe that the 3.0 Z3 cost close to £30,000 new

to steal a few extra sales the BMW/Ford group allowed an independent firm to use the Z3 shell and a 1.4ltr 75bhp ford fiesta engine... it was mated together and formed the Z3 3.0ltr replica with chrome grilles etc etc cost was £13,995 FOR A BRAND NEW Z3, a total of 211 of them where sold!

they are pretty rare tbh as they where fundementally flawed and terribly unreliable.

a lesson in trying to trying to be something ur not learnt the hard way!

a Monte Carlo is the same as a blinged up bodykitted corsa 1.2 that is meant to look like a vxr

rant over

i would always save for the vRS! not buy a car that looks like a vRS but goes like a Kia Picanto(referring to 68bhp guise)

reminds me of an incident between BMW/Ford groups in 1998yr.. when the Z3 was released, as with alot of new cars it was out of reach of some of the less wealthy. i believe that the 3.0 Z3 cost close to £30,000 new

to steal a few extra sales the BMW/Ford group allowed an independent firm to use the Z3 shell and a 1.4ltr 75bhp ford fiesta engine... it was mated together and formed the Z3 3.0ltr replica with chrome grilles etc etc cost was £13,995 FOR A BRAND NEW Z3, a total of 211 of them where sold!

they are pretty rare tbh as they where fundementally flawed and terribly unreliable.

a lesson in trying to trying to be something ur not learnt the hard way!

a Monte Carlo is the same as a blinged up bodykitted corsa 1.2 that is meant to look like a vxr

rant over

Link to the Z3 with a fiesta engine please, i used to be a bmw nut during the early 2000's and have never heard of such a strange thing before.

it was front wheel drive too!

i am gonna bring up article when i find it... read it in a newspaper cutting from mar 2003 in the Times newpaper. i shall dig it up, photograph it and put it in on here

You absolutely sure????

Are you certain you are not referring to the quantum convertibles that were indeed fiesta based. I worked for BMW for 6 years (2000-2006) and I have never heard even a hint of what you suggest.

As for the monte, I really don't see what is wrong about wanting a sporty car with a diesel or lower capacity engine. I like a car that handles well, I want one that looks good and I must have sports seats. Doing 36,000 miles a year I also need a diesel. In fact, bearing the mind the restriction put on the motorist in this country in terms of actually being able to enjoy spirited driving, I can't see why I would WANT a VRs....

I went for the Monte Carlo as it looks smart and comes with a lot of the kit I would have had to select as an optional extra on a std Fab or Polo.

I plan on 'personalising' a few things with regards to looks and chassis, tho I'm under no disillusion of it being a 'proper' hot hatch. But then I didn't opt for one of these in the first place on cost grounds.

For a new car, I thought the Monte Carlo did looks, drive, equipment and practicality better than anything else in the same price bracket. That's why I bought one, not because I wanted a hot hatch

Smithy