Fabia Mk III Facelift

[ForCar40]

Hi, I thought the Fabia just out was only a facelift too, until I compared the performance of it to the one I bought earlier this year. The latest version is worse in nearly all respects, considerably slower acceleration, less m.p.g. and higher co2 emissions, see my crude cut and paste chart attached. It has put my friend off upgrading his 3 year old Fabia, seems like a retrograde step!

 

[RickW]

I test drove one and performance felt ok for me,not any noticeable difference.

 

I guess I'll soon find out if Its significantly worse than my 1.2 dsg in varying driving conditions. 

[Tim1631]

11 hours ago, ForCar40 said:

Hi, I thought the Fabia just out was only a facelift too, until I compared the performance of it to the one I bought earlier this year. The latest version is worse in nearly all respects, considerably slower acceleration, less m.p.g. and higher co2 emissions, see my crude cut and paste chart attached. It has put my friend off upgrading his 3 year old Fabia, seems like a retrograde step!

 

 

There is a huge difference 

[Ootohere]

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx

What is important is how accurate was the old figures which really were not accurate and not real world, 

and how accurate will the WLTP / RDE be now with the GPF's.

 

Only those driving the cars will get to know if enough go go for them and how much go go juice it consumes.

There is no Real World Figures that matter other than in your real world!

[ForCar40]

Yes, figures for consumption and emissions do only allow for comparisons between vehicles and not what you might get in the real world, but acceleration figures shouldn't be affected by the new regulations you quote. I'm not sure if earlier figures for my car were subject to the regulations you quote or not, can't find it in the paperwork I have.

Guess this is the price we pay for cleaner air, which we all want 

[Ootohere]

?

Where do 0-62 mph times show the weight of the driver, how high above sea level and the ambient temperature, 

how long the car was warmed up for or the road surface or road surface temperature or the tyres fitted and the pressures?

Take figures with a pinch of salt!

 

Were they given by some 'Computer' given the results the Accountants want, more expensive cars quicker than sister cars that cost less?

 

 

So as to Acceleration figures done by Manufacturers,  0-100 km / 0-62 mph, 

 if you look over the years of cars with the same engines and gearboxes & BHP / Nm Torque how do VW or Audi manage to have a Polo or A1 that is heavier than a Fabia or Ibiza have quicker times?

 

A VW Polo GTI 2015 1.8 TSI 192PS 320Nm Manual having the same time as the 1.8TSI 192ps 250 Nm DSG that is supposedly heavier 

has the same 0-62 times.  & really they are slower than the 1.4 TSI 180ps 250Nm DSG that they replaced.

 

All Kidology.   Time cars yourself.  Does a second really make a difference to you?

No 0-62's are shown with each seat occupied and luggage in the boot and the road a bit greasy.

 

Some are faster than published times and some slower.

 

 

 

 

Edited 5 October, 2018 by Offski