Saw one of these for sale, 1 owner 26,000m 02 reg matalic blue

you can buy a similar priced audi a6 on a 00 reg (W) for that with 67k miles. I know this doesnt help much but your getting a lot of car for your money then.

Look on Skodas website for the MPG figures!

From memory though 25.9 round town, 47.1 highway, combined is 30something.

I believe the 2.0 8V engine is the same engine used in the Mk3/4 Golf GTI 2.0 so there will be lots of aftermarket parts available for it, I am sure.

That 2.0 8V engine is fitted to nearly every low-spec Mk4 Golf and Jetta model here in the US.

you can buy a similar priced audi a6 on a 00 reg (W) for that with 67k miles. I know this doesnt help much but your getting a lot of car for your money then.

I know I can get bigger cars, It is only going to be used for popping round town.

It will be swimbo's car so i need cheap insurance as she only has 2 year's ncd.

The Fabia will only be

Yep thats the same engine used in the MkIV Golf 2.0 GTI. I believe its badged as a 2.0MPI in the fabia. Puts out 115bhp which is the same as the newer 1.6FSI.

Not a bad engine and in the fabia it would shift.

Mil's car is a Fabia 2.0 with the GT bodykit.. Performance is very impressive.. the engine is economical and as mentioned above its exactly the same engine in the Golf MK4 and badged as 2.0 MPI in the fabia.. maintainence is alot cheaper than the 1.4 16V n u can find lots of parts for it easily...

I'm sure Ross said it wasn't the same engine used in the Golf (as that's what I'd always thought). A couple of people on here have them and have reviewed them, but I think the general consensus is it's a nice relaxed drive with a good amount of torque for a N/A four pot

Chris

its badged as the 2.0I :P and yes i got 45mpg today doing 60 on a local road with hills etc:) was quite impressed

I own a 2.0L and the Elegance trim is very good.

I'm very happy with the car, feels like a real quality item all arround.

The engine is very tokquey, but not as powerfull as the Vrs, of course, but it gives for a great drive, that doesn't require too many shifts.

Excellent car. Can consume a bit of fuel when you rev it but overall it's been relatively cheap to maintain and parts are available here. Performs very well in town, a good amount of torque to avoid down shifting everytime.

Quite a rare car in the UK and generally not very sought after proving quite hard to sell on. For the performance the fuel economy aint great and they do tend to wallow about somewhat. (foreign GT might well be different suspension though).

The engine is the same as the MK4 Golf iirc, few differences with the Mk3 engine, mainly emissions based which is the stumbling block of the 2.0, EML faults are pretty common, usually down to air mass meters, lambda probes and air leaks.

Personally if I had to have a petrol id go for the 1.4 16v, slightly less power but a bit more reliable and easier to sell on, but thats just me.

no engine warning lights on mine yet:) seems to do the job and have enough go for what i need i used to have the 1.416v 100bhp was really revvy and fun to drive, the 2.0 is lively tho in the right revs

Lummox has hit the nail on the head with the problems I have had in my 2.0 Oct. But for what is worth I believe the 2.0 will last a lot longer that the 1.4 16V, depending on how long you want to keep it for.

Roger.