I've noticed it and got used to it but my dad noticed how sensitive the throttle was and how quickly it got up to speed. He said he was only using his toe to just touch the throttle. It was the first auto he'd driven and it's so good at going through the box it's not surprising. The car surprises me all the time

I am now on my 2nd DSG (former Fab VRS2 DSG owner). I really dont want to go back to a manual (and it is most definitely back) but they have their own charm (like manual chokes had).

We have a Fiat GP Tjet and its occasionally fun to stir the cogs in this, but in todays traffic I dont want to have to do this all the time, any more than I want to use a choke.

I have owned several autos from 3litre twin-turboed torque-converted to 1.4litre CVTs.

I have to say that the DSG's are less forgiving of clumsy throttle inputs. In that sense they are closer to manuals. If you floor the throttle from rest in a manual it wont surprise you to smoke the tyres, or to be reigned in by traction control.

But some folk expect autos to require no skill in throttle control, and previous autos were like this, and some still are. DSG still requires skill, and has its own learning curve for box and driver.

I am never surprised when people (even journalists) test drive a DSG and rubbish it.

To the OP, if you have reservations about DSG you have your answer.

But you will miss out on gargantuan horizon-grabbing performance in a FabVRS2, and some lovely supercharger noise.

Its really hard ti get used to a DSg box when you have been driving manuals your whole life. Its natural to want to dip the clutch for gear change etc.

IMO this is the reason it gets bad publicity. If they lived with the car for a week, they would completely be different with their views of the DSG

Personally ( I am biased) I don't see why anyone would by the 1.2T, for the sake of 200cc and the difference in economy, I would go VRS all day long. If you want good mpg and decent performance then go for the 1.6cr Monte as it looks the part, has 250nm torque with a manual box and returns 60mpg.

1.2T is a waste of time IMO

The 1.2TSi 105 in the Monte is nearly £1k cheaper than the 105 Tdi and two groups insurance lower, it also feels quicker and more responsive than the diesel, it's definately the better drivers car. For someone who wants a cheap sporty car without the cost of buying and running a VRS and without the need for the economy of the diesel then the 1.2TSi would be the ideal car.

The VRS is nearly £3k more and 14 insurance groups higher than the 1.2Tsi Monte

It's just a shame the Monte 1.2TSi can't be specced with a DSG box like it can in the normal Fabia's.

Cheers

Lee

Edited 5 April, 201214 yr by logiclee

The 1.2 tsi is a cracking engine though. Just feels nice so I can understand why it's popular.

What i would really like is a vRS with a manual box, still not quite convinced by the DSG and as such i really like my Monte. Having said that though, i also very much like the perfomance of the vRS. Fantastic motor, love it to bits.

Two cracking cars, and it is a matter of what you want. If performance is your thing then vRS, if you want something that looks the part, drives well, but can forgoe the out an out performance of the TFSI, then a Monte it is.

I'm lucky, i have one of each.

To me, the Monte will always be the 'wannabe' VRS. I'm not knocking the Monte, but it hasn't got a patch on the VRS.

I drove one and was not impressed at all. Saying that, I wasn't over impressed by the VRS until it was lowered and mapped.

To me, the Monte will always be the 'wannabe' VRS. I'm not knocking the Monte, but it hasn't got a patch on the VRS.

I drove one and was not impressed at all. Saying that, I wasn't over impressed by the VRS until it was lowered and mapped.

Well that's the whole point of the Monte. It looks like a faster car than it actually is but doesn't have the higher running costs of the VRS. Not everyone wants or needs 0-60 in 6 secs not to mention the bone crashing ride on our crap roads. Don't forget 90% of the population wouldn't have a care if they saw a Fabia VRS or an SE.

Well that's the whole point of the Monte. It looks like a faster car than it actually is but doesn't have the higher running costs of the VRS. Not everyone wants or needs 0-60 in 6 secs not to mention the bone crashing ride on our crap roads. Don't forget 90% of the population wouldn't have a care if they saw a Fabia VRS or an SE.

Probably 99.99%. However, what other people think isn't important (to me anyway!).

I like the Monte, but it's nice to have that extra bit of oomph there if it takes your fancy. I'd rather have lamb dressed as mutton than mutton dressed as lamb.

Unless you're doing high mileages there isn't going to be much difference in running costs.

Unless you're doing high mileages there isn't going to be much difference in running costs.

The Monte 105 TSi is 14 insurance groups lower than the vRS, for younger drivers the diffence may be into four figures every year.

Cheers

Lee

Probably 99.99%. However, what other people think isn't important (to me anyway!).

I like the Monte, but it's nice to have that extra bit of oomph there if it takes your fancy. I'd rather have lamb dressed as mutton than mutton dressed as lamb.

Unless you're doing high mileages there isn't going to be much difference in running costs.

You and other VRS owners seem to continually miss the point. Nobody is disputing the VRS is at the top of the Fabia performance tree. Anybody buying a Monte and expecting it to compete in the same league is deluding themselves. Monte is bought primarily on looks. After all, you can get an SE+ with a better spec and cheaper price if you wish. Some people like the hot hatch look but simply don't want or need the VRS's performance with its compromises. Don't get me wrong, I like the VRS but wish you owners would cease regarding the Monte as some kind of threat and harping on about your superior performance. Lamb dressed as Mutton the Monte may be but that's the way we want it.

As for running costs? we'll just agree to differ on that one.

Some people like the hot hatch look but simply don't want or need the VRS's performance with its compromises.

The Montes core buyer will be the younger driver who simply can't afford the insurance of the VRS.

If you're trying to have me believe that most Monte owners don't want the extra performance, then you're deluded.

The Montes core buyer will be the younger driver who simply can't afford the insurance of the VRS.

If you're trying to have me believe that most Monte owners don't want the extra performance, then you're deluded.

Wrong again. I'm a 40 something male who test drove an SE+, a Monte and a VRS. The VRS was enormous fun and I was very tempted but at the end of the day I could not stand the crashy ride and sub 35mpg . The Monte was bought primarily for my wife but I get to enjoy it on frequent occasions. The 105 TSI has never been found wanting. I do not want the extra performance and therefore am not deluded. You are correct in pointing out the fact that many younger drivers cannot afford VRS insurance and would therefore represent a target Monte buyer but they are not alone.

I do not wish to hijack this guys thread any further. Suffice to say if he wants performance, buy a VRS. The Monte will ultimately leave you dissapointed.

The Monte does have a valid spot in the range. It's a sporty drive (which is fun), has sporty looks and is cheaper to buy, run and insure.

I would compare it to the Suzuki Swift Sport. Not the fastest thing in a straight line, but its cheap and handles well, which makes it fun. That's why MX5's sell so well, their handling, not straight line performance.

I'd love a vRS, but on list price it is THREE THOUSAND POUNDS more expensive than a TSI Monte, and I would only buy a new one since I don't trust DSG outside of warranty.

For £3k I can put a lot of fuel into a Monte I've driven both cars, the Monte handles and rides just the same as the vRS (but without XDS) and its tyres are actually cheaper to replace than my current 16's ! I also know that my TSI engine produces more than enough punch to make it a lot of fun down a twisty road where you can work 2nd and 3rd gears. Ask Sharkrider how well I could keep up down some roads

So, I'd love a vRS, but do I really NEED 180bhp to have fun? No, I don't, so I am very interested in a Monte when it's time for me to change. If a vRS is viable for me, then I will have one (only £50 more to insure for me), but otherwise the Monte ticks my boxes beautifully.

What i would really like is a vRS with a manual box,

^^ THIS

lol @ crashy ride in the vRS - the Monte has the same size wheels and tyres and felt no different to me. Maybe its because you're old

I'd love a vRS, but on list price it is THREE THOUSAND POUNDS more expensive than a TSI Monte

Money well spent in my eyes.

Money well spent in my eyes.

Or money well spent on my eyes if you had the Monte and laser eye surgery for the same price. lol

Cheers

Lee

Money well spent in my eyes.

I'm not saying the vRS isn't worth its price, but for me and what I earn, its a very considerable amount to get an extra 75bhp and a funky gearbox.... Drinks more fuel, costs more tax, costs more insurance. I'd end up having the car and never driving it cos I'd used up all my money.

At the rate it's going, I could end up in a Citigo next year.

I'm not saying the vRS isn't worth its price, but for me and what I earn, its a very considerable amount to get an extra 75bhp and a funky gearbox.... Drinks more fuel, costs more tax, costs more insurance. I'd end up having the car and never driving it cos I'd used up all my money.

At the rate it's going, I could end up in a Citigo next year.

a citigo sounds recipe for fun to me just needs a tiny turbo

Edited 10 April, 201214 yr by daydotz

At the rate it's going, I could end up in a Citigo next year.

Stick a vRS lump in it

LOL, with 2 feet you can do 2 pedal automatic driving. [You cant. The throttle is disconnected electronically when ever you press the brake. so you might as well use one foot].

With only one foot you just drive autos 1 footed. That is Foot on brake and then onto throttle. [This is exactly how i do it and have no issues at all. All you have to do is release the foot brake to the point where the clutch is starting to engage(you can feel it when it happens and the revs will drop slightly as the engine begins to take on load) and then when you release the brake the car moves forward on its own steam almost instantly giving you time to move your foot across to the loud pedal with out the car having any hesitation.]

I am never really a hand brake on person while stopped at junctions. [ive not used my handbrake since buying the car, unles im parked on a hill]

Some amputees that race or do sprints and other motorsports have a Hand Throttle or hand brake, or manuals with an air shifter, or even 'servo clutch')

I used to have an 'Airshifter' on my bikes.

Really if it was a major problem i would deal with it, its just being mentioned because others have also experienced it

george

As ive said above i only use the one leg. The only time i hold the brake on the left foot is if im at the 1/4 mile strip but tbh i think its harder to get right than it is to just use one foot