We are looking at getting a new Fabia, and as we don't really need the vRS we have been looking at the new 1.2 sport. Now both the missus and I went out for a good 15 minute drive and I found the engine suprisingly good. It sounds a bit gruff but I assume thats down to the 3cylinder 12v design ??

The sport is well equipped, lovely cloth seats, rear spoiler, rear privacy glass, 15inch alloys (Which will change to vRS ones!!), aircon, remote locking, single play CD and 6 disc, front fogs etc....

Now, how many of you own the 1.2 and is it a good engine ? We are looking at putting the car on a Personal Contract Plan (PCP) and it works out really cheap with a nice low MGV of around

A cracking buy in my book, the 1.2 12v is a great little engine.

Good spec aswell, a much better option than the original 1.4 Sport which was a balls up.

The wife runs around in a 1.2 Silverline Estate...As "The Master Tech "say's Cracking little Engine.

If its good enough for Ross, it must be good enough for my missus !!!

Had a Fabia 1.2 out on loan when mine went in for service............Cracking little engine, hard to believe it's only a 1.2 when your on the motorway.

I had a 1.4 sport as a courtesy car and everything trim wise I didn't like has now been fixed for the new ones so no problems there.

As for the engine , I quite liked a 1.2 12v I'd had in the past so if you can get a decent price on one then go for it.

I had a 1.4 sport today for my curtesy car. The engine had no pull whatsoever. Almost made me want to cry. Cant comment on the 1.2 though.

The 1.4 went ok as long as you revved the nuts off it and kept the throttle buried. Not a way I like to drive all the time.

iv got the 1.2 12v got me to scotland and back (from london) with out missing a beat.. cracking little motor.

Had the same 1.2 in my VW Polo and agree with everyone else a great engine, test drove a 1.4 which felt sluggish in comparison.

Fuel consumption more like a diesel too.Well in the 50's

1.2 gets the thumbs up here too - pulls remarkably well for such a small engine, and as it's only a 1.2 it's got good fuel economy (the car is a lot lighter too, which helps)

we have been looking at the new 1.2 sport.

1.2 SPORT? What sport is that then? Racing pedestrians?

I had one as a courtesy car. 3 cylinders are a really bad idea: I just found it unpleasantly 'thrummy'. It was able to move under its own power, which is good, but it wasn't exactly exciting.

It's more a sporty-looking car, rather than a hot-hatch by any stretch of the imagination. I found it remarkably easy to drive though, and for the intended purchase purpose it's not a bad choice

OT but... One thing alot of people dont realise is there are 2 1.2 engine available... many cars lent out by dealers are classic spec 1.2. Where as engine mentioned for the sport is 1.2 12v.

Although only 10 more BHP it makes quite a difference i noticed this when mine went bak in and i was given the 54bhp classic.

1.2 classic only uses 54bhp engine which is very hard work and is too underpowered...

the 1.2 64bhp.. Makes all the difference while no street burner it will sit at legal Motoway speeds without many problems, and is nippy enough in the towns... Feels more nippy than the 1.9SDI slug...

I only thought the sport version of the fabia came with the 1.4 16v lump....

cheers

Dazz

I only thought the sport version of the fabia came with the 1.4 16v lump....

I did.. but Skoda have recently changed it to have the 1.2 12v

Fuel consumption more like a diesel too.Well in the 50's

What have Skoda done to the engine that SEAT haven't??

Had a few 1.2 12v Ibiza's as courtesy cars, and boy do they struggle!! Great on the flat, but the routed I drive include some pretty hefty hills, and the 12v is the only car I've driven where I've had to knock it down a gear to maintain 60mph - even with a decent run-up!!

It's under-powered for high speed use, or if you live in a hilly area, and the fuel economy drops to the mid - high 30's as a result!!

If your budget can stretch to speccing up a derv model, then I would recommend that!! Ignore the fuel economy figures and whether you'll make back th purchase cost (don't forget residuals), but think more in terms of driveability...

For instance, I've owned in the past a 1999 Clio Grande 1.2 8v 60bhp, and a 2001 Clio Dynamique dCI 65 - my sister owned a Clio Dynamique 1.2 16v 75bhp.

The 8v engine was a good all-rounder generally getting mid-high 40's mpg except for the hilly runs where it would be high 30's - low 40's depending on load and route, and had an "ok" pace. The 16v was the same on fuel, but had no guts unless you revved the engine! This meant the car struggled more on some hills. The 8v was quicker at the low speeds because of having the torque peak at 2500rpm instead of 4000rpm on the 16v. It was also easier to drive around town because of this.

The diesel was found to be the best of the lot tho - highest torque of the bunch so was a decent enough car around town, and was the most comfortable on the hills also, actually being able to accelerate up some of them where the petrols struggled to maintain speed. Fuel economy was high 50's on hilly routes, and upto about 70mpg+ on a run (cardiff - Telford and back, 4 up, average 69.8mpg, and we weren't taking it easy!!

OK those are Renault engines and not VAG, but I think you can see what I'm trying to say...

I did.. but Skoda have recently changed it to have the 1.2 12v

Why? Was the 1.4 16v too powerfull to be compared to the vRS????

1.2 64bhp is not exactly sporty......

Dazz

The 1.4 16v was the 75bhp version rather than the 100bhp version that is used in all the other fabia models. It was a poor choice of engine to put into a "sport" fabia. It was done to try and keep the insurance grouping down as it was aimed at young drivers wanting a sporty car without having huge insurance premiums.

The performance of the 1.2 64bhp they now use is IMHO better than the 1.4 75bhp and makes the car even cheaper.

To me the reason for having the 1.2 Sport is to make something that looks a little sporty but is mainly intended for short journeys with occasional motorway trips. I'm surprised it can't hold it's speed as the non-sport version with the exact same engine could comfortably run at 80ish mph, where my Rover 100 (1.1 petrol, not exactly a powerhouse admittedly :P ) would struggle and would require dropping it into 4th to keep at 70.

TD engines (or even n/a D) don't appear to notice hills much, which in the UK is a real advantage

It is pretty obvious it isn't a fast car, but I really doubt that's what was Skoda's intention with that product

TD engines (or even n/a D) don't appear to notice hills much' date=' which in the UK is a real advantage

[/quote']

You obviously haven't driven a 55 bhp Escort diesel van then

The 1.4 16v was the 75bhp version rather than the 100bhp version that is used in all the other fabia models.

You can get a regular 75bhp Fabia. Also autos are 75 bhp.

AUA and BBY = 75bhp

AUB and BBZ = 100bhp

We are thinking of buying the car as the vRS wouldn't be used enough. Also we like the look of the sport with nice seats, a little spoiler etc. As I said, we took 3 of us out in the car for the test drive (So somewhere near 40 stone as a total weight) and I thought it drove quite nicely. Obviously not anything like out 140bhp Focus or my Octy.

We've looked at a lot of other cars and are happy to go with the Fabia 1.2 Sport 64bhp as it appears to fit the bill nicely.

We are not going to do huge miles so there is no point in the diesels at the extra costing (And especially as we are planning on keeping it for 5 years at least).

So any more comments are welcome !!!

Andy

I really enjoyed the 1.2 12v when I had one as a courtesy car. Really does excel for a 1.2 and sounds great.