This is very unimportant in the present world scheme of things but may be interesting.  To me anyway.

What engineering/technical reason could there be for Fabias and Fabia Combis having front and rear track 6 mm narrower than normal when they have 1.2 litre 81 Kw TSi engines with DSG ?  What difference could 6 mm make?

Probably just one of those things but which one of those things? Never stop being curious.

Any ideas will be gratefully received. Thank you.

3 minutes ago, HopeImRight said:

This is very unimportant in the present world scheme of things but may be interesting.  To me anyway.

What engineering/technical reason could there be for Fabias and Fabia Combis having front and rear track 6 mm narrower than normal when they have 1.2 litre 81 Kw TSi engines with DSG ?  What difference could 6 mm make?

Probably just one of those things but which one of those things? Never stop being curious.

Any ideas will be gratefully received. Thank you.

I think it's an attempt to avoid the potholes on UK roads, and Lincolnshire roads in particular. However, it's not working as most people will drive with the centre white line as the centre of their trajectory....whenever possible...which can lead to interesting situations and making new friends. Thankfully the Yellowbellys are a civilised group of people, with some exceptions, and generally return to their correct track before becoming intimate.

 

Other than that...not an earthly, but fascinated.

Edited 23 May, 20179 yr by alltorque

What is the 'Track' that Skoda CZ are giving for a 1.2TSI 81Kw DSG ?

Shows with this and Skoda Figures as 1,463mm Front, 1,457mm Rear. Is that only on some models?

The ŠKODA Fabia Estate - Performance & Engines - ŠKODA.mhtml

Edited 23 May, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

You are correct.  Those measurements apply to all Fabias except the 1.2 TSi 81 Kw   AND (but I did not mention this to keep it shorter) the 1.4 77 Kw diesel.

 

Six millimetres is not worth bothering about but they obviously have.  For some reason.  Would 6 mm have any effect on road holding for example?  Perhaps they just thought they would do it on the expectation that some clown would pick up on it and worry it like a dog with a bone.

So are they are 1,457mm at the front, and where are you seeing this as the given Track by Skoda?

 

The Mk2's were narrower, had 205 tyres at the biggest as standard and handled OK, the Mk3 certainly is not that much different 

when not on 215 tyres IMO.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/332029-dimensions 

Edited 23 May, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

Yes 1457 at front instead of 1463 and rear 1451 instead of 1457.

 

Skoda owners manual  p177

Ummmm.... perhaps different size wheels and / or tyres?

 

Makes me remember my old Renault 16, which had a different wheelbase on the driver's side compared to the passenger side. Ahhh, those zany French and their madcap cars!

Edited 23 May, 20179 yr by Shenanigans000

As far as i know it is due to larger and thicker brake disks installed on the most powerful versions. So 3mm approxemately on both sides add up to those 6mm. 

I see it now in the online manual..On page 194.

Interesting.

Edited 23 May, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

Well well well --thicker discs.  Seems sound.  But would not thicker discs make the track wider not narrower?  I'm getting lost here I think.

HELP !

Ok maybe the lower a-arms are a bit shorter also... I am 100% certain that mentioned two have larger disk brakes to improve braking of more powerfull engines. 

Im quite sure the car will implode and go into orbit if at even tracks.

Its the mqb platform designed by evil German engineers only for the purpose of disconcert and upsetting owners.

Itsa conspiracy!

 

Choose one.

 

(my guess its a mbq thingee caused by available standard components. It also may have some influence to roadholding, minding the Citroen D-series)

 

 

 

The 'All New 3rd Generation Fabia' never got the MBQ platform, it got 'elements of the mbq'. 

The next VW Polo will have a new platform, maybe the Seat Arona will as well, but the Mk3 Fabia has not.

Why would they think that the two most powerful versions needed narrower tracks?  Very odd.

After three days ownership I can boldly assert that the Fabia is a far smoother more comfortable ride than my Rapid 1.6TDi.

But the Rapid leaned less on corners and bends, stuck to the road like a go-cart,  had explosive acceleration in comparison with the Fabia,(1) and pin sharp accurate steering and had a bigger boot.  I'm now an old f@rt so a Fabia is far more of a granddad car.  Might come to suit me one day.

(1) Not fair really --the Fabia is only three days old and being treated gently.

Thank you for your comments--even if we have not got to the bottom of the mystery.

Possibly arch clearance if they're lower?

 

Although that is a total guess 

On 23 May 2017 at 20:12, Shenanigans000 said:

Ummmm.... perhaps different size wheels and / or tyres?

 

Makes me remember my old Renault 16, which had a different wheelbase on the driver's side compared to the passenger side. Ahhh, those zany French and their madcap cars!

Very typically French political car. Designed to head to the Left at every opportunity.