A post (Honest John real MPG) in "General Car Chat" drew me to the alleged "Honest John" site analysis of the MPG figures for the Skoda Fabia vRS (LINK) where I noticed the following comments:

 

Not available with a manual gearbox. Interior nothing special. Dropped from range late 2013 due to severe oil consumption problems. Many engines have had to be replaced.

 

Now there are couple of very obvious instances of inaccurate reporting here:

• The vRS was not exactly "dropped from [the] range in late 2013 due to severe oil consumption problems", it continued with the new CTHE engine until last year when Skoda replaced the Mk. II range with a Mk. III and have decided not to offer a Mk. III vRS.
• The phrase "Many engines" is quite meaninglessly vague - but I think we can all guess where he gets his infromation from

If this is an example of the website's accuracy I think we can treat it as fairly typical Daily Mail analysis and reporting.

Look at the other pages from Honest John, and then maybe look at some of the posts from yourself and see how much mis-information

you have had from day 1 of posting on these cars.

http://honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/skoda/fabia-vrs-2010

Like Honest John your information on the vRS Twincharger seems to come from others, and after 1 road test.

?

Or have you now driven more vRS or bought one and have more experience of them over the past year & a bit?

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/307997-ok-i-have-now-driven-a-fabia-vrs-and-i-liked-it

PS

Did you look at the Fuelly post you made the other day with Average MPG,

but you posted the US Gallon & not the UK / Imperial Gallon conversions. ?