Very much enjoyed reading that review. Cheers!

Correct me if l'm wrong but l believe that now the majority of Renaultsport cars are built at a sperate facility to the stock Renault range of cars.

Yup. They're assembled in the old Alpine factory in Dieppe, although the non-RenaultSport-specific parts still come from wherever they come from of course...

Of course, l was implying that they're built by master craftsmen! I'd never pretend they weren't made from bolsa wood and milk bottle tops

Incidentally, l'd probably go for a Focus RS from the rest of the crop. I've been massively underwhelmed by the ST and the VXR is a nice car however not really my style. I'd love a 147GTA but l haven't worked out how to remove my brain yet!

After reading your review I fully appreciate your point. The standard 225 being a wallowy mess makes perfect sense although fitting a front LSD I thought made a car a bit twitchy when not driving on the limit?

In the end I guess it boils down to personal opinion. I'm not a fan of French cars in terms of reliability anyway (after owning 4 from PSA) but normally they're brilliant handlers even in bog standard guise. I was bitterly dissapointed to find that the standard Megane wasn't....I was expecting far better from a country that normally produces brilliant handlers. Both my 405's were great to drive, my 306 was a hoot and the Xantia soaked up bumps like you wouldn't believe, but the Megane felt vague and akin to a hot water bottle to drive.

My 'naiive' comments are merely from driving a standard car and not being impressed. It's more that I'm uneducated to be honest.

If Renault managed to make the R26 etc such a good car to drive then why are the standard ones so bad? Why the huge difference?

If say I'd bought a dCI and was running about in it I wouldn't want to upgrade to a sporty one as the standard one would have put me off as it was that bad to drive. It would've been better jumping straight into the sporty one and not knowing that the standard one existed.

To cut a long story short it's the huge gap that I find odd. The standard car is poor....there's no doubt about that, so Renault have proven they can make a car drive really well. Why not try and breathe a little of that magic onto the lesser models like the French have proven is possible?

I think thats possibly the reasons behind them releasing the 175 dci renaultsport megane. To try and bring some of the renaultsport qualitys to the more economical end of the range.

To be honest l'm lost as to why the standard Megane handles in this way but l totally agree. I've driven a 1.5dci as a hire car and if l'd driven that first l'd have been massively put off buying mine. Also the build quality on the hire car was very poor in comparison to mine. Possibly as it was an 04 early version or are they nailing the renaultsport versions together a little better these days? Looking at it from another perspective, the standard 1.0 VW Lupo handles amazingly badly but they seem to manage to make the Gti version handle very well.

Looking at it from another perspective, the standard 1.0 VW Lupo handles amazingly badly but they seem to manage to make the Gti version handle very well.

Excellent point.

In terms of driving it 'balls out' then, as a car like this is meant to be driven, which would be the weapon of choice?

The Focus is surely the best handler out of the lot with it's control blade rear suspension. It may feel a little dull but for throwing about it must be the best surely? Failing that, if the Megane is as good as people say it is then that must be up there too.

Vauxhall have never been reneowned for making good handling cars. They're understeerers by default, even though GM owns Lotus! Madness. The VXR is probably good fun because of that mental engine and stylish body but it's probably not quite as secure round the twisties as it's counterparts?

VAG are good at making cruisers rather than bruisers and so these may also not be the ideal choice in the handling department?

The Focus perhaps to be just driven really really hard to make it feel any fun? Can anyone comment?

Well, I have a Focus ST and it's a great car; certainly not what I call a hot hatch, but neither is the Fabia VRS.

Neither handle brilliantly in standard trim, but the Focus is way better than the VRS and the brakes work too. Grip is great, but start trying to link corners together on a b road and the Focus fails - as does the VRS in a bigger way.

Engine note is addictive, interior great and boot makes it very practical, plus I love the heated screen, awesome seats and fully integrated bluetooth. Economy not great, but I usually average 25-26mpg and have done 35 on a run several times. Looks so so, if you ask me.

Performance wise, it's not mega fast, and sometime I wonder if the ecu gets in the way of the performance as boost seems to vary. Spritlier with tsc switched off, as per Cupra R. Much better top end than even a re-mapped Fabia, less mid range. TBH, neither Fabia or Focus is that fast if you are used to 260bhp in an Elise.

Interestingly, Eibachs are now a Ford option on the Focus and I'd certainly have had them on mine. In conjunction with a GGR300 or Wolf 300 upgrade, I think it would make a convincing package.

I've had two, just because I get staff discount and it makes sense for me to buy this model and change every 9 months.

My choice would still be a Focus RS or a 182 Trophy......................failing that and if l wanted to buy new l'd be tempted by the Mk5 Gti Anniversary l think due to its obvious perfomance increases over the standard Mk5 and its high residuals. New Civic Type R doesn't seem like a progression from the last one so l'd struggle to justify it. In the case of an R26 l wouldn't sell mine, add

My choice would still be a Focus RS or a 182 Trophy......................failing that and if l wanted to buy new l'd be tempted by the Mk5 Gti Anniversary l think due to its obvious perfomance increases over the standard Mk5 and its high residuals. New Civic Type R doesn't seem like a progression from the last one so l'd struggle to justify it. In the case of an R26 l wouldn't sell mine, add

I've also test driven the RS and to be honest l only found it a handfull if you were particularly heavy handed in your throttle response. If you dump the throttle on a car with big power and LSD then you're bound to get it fidgeting about. Under smooth but quick throttle response it was relatively well planted......and on goes the RS Good car/Bad car debate

I think the question was for "balls out" motoring which would you have. For everyday, in every weather l think the ST is a worthy companion. However for a back road blaster, l think l would prefer the rawness of something like an RS, Trophy or ITR. Don't get me wrong, for cross country pace in any weather the ST is most likely a good option. Originally l was sorely tempted by a CTR but l just couldn't cope with the number l see on the roads.

Have you ever driven an RS? I have.

That's the problem with threads like this - people decide from Autocar what the 'best' car is rather than driving for themselves. I'm sure if 90% of people on here had driven the cars they love or hate their opinions would be different.

Not driven half of them......I work at a firm full of petrolheads so all my colleagues buy them and I just ask them or become a passenger.

It's not the same though.

For balls out motoring, urm let me think - the Elise!!!

I think the setup of the RS's varied, hence varying opinions. Always loved them, never driven one, but I'm sure ST makes the better cruiser and that's basically what I've got mine for. I think I was fonder of my ST220 in many respects, though.

Agreed, apparently some of the early cars were running diffrerent ECU maps and hence were a bit peaky and more of a hand full. The one l drove was a later model after the interior facelift.

I put the ST in the same bracket as the Leon Cupra R. Its a car you can make quite serious pace in without realising quite how fast your travelling An RS, Trophy etc are more likely to tell you just how fast you're travelling!

Yep, I think you're right there, mate. ST's are great, but certainly not a hot hatch (despite 225bhp) as to me, that means agility, poise and feedback and those abilities lie with other cars.

It's the price that some people can't afford!

Thank god for that eh! Phew...

Not at all.

I looked at them after driving the type r, but realised I would always be wishing I had purchased the type r. All in all, I'd have to make some serious lifestyle changes to be able to keep the r on the road. With the s gt only saving one thousand pounds, I don't think it is keenly priced at all compared to the rest of the civic range.

The fact is that Honda are struggling to shift the type s as they would have liked, hence the finance 'offers' which are as laughable as most honda finance offers tbh!

Compared to the vrs se I ordered instead I wouldn't have been getting a lot more. I've driven a honda alongside my skoda for several years so I'm well aware of the quality / dealer service, but it's not worth the price premium imo. Each to their own and all, but getting into a "it's more expensive and therefore better" or "you're just jealous because you can't afford it" is all a bit too 'playground' for my liking.

Not at all.

I looked at them after driving the type r, but realised I would always be wishing I had purchased the type r. All in all, I'd have to make some serious lifestyle changes to be able to keep the r on the road. With the s gt only saving one thousand pounds, I don't think it is keenly priced at all compared to the rest of the civic range.

The fact is that Honda are struggling to shift the type s as they would have liked, hence the finance 'offers' which are as laughable as most honda finance offers tbh!

Compared to the vrs se I ordered instead I wouldn't have been getting a lot more. I've driven a honda alongside my skoda for several years so I'm well aware of the quality / dealer service, but it's not worth the price premium imo. Each to their own and all, but getting into a "it's more expensive and therefore better" or "you're just jealous because you can't afford it" is all a bit too 'playground' for my liking.

Oh right. Is that why Skoda offered 0% Finance on all Brand new Fabia vRS's which are top of the Fabia range. And again with the Octavia vRS?

Every car dealer offers Finance, and the top of the range car would always sell better.

A BMW M3, is top of the series range, I'd happily settle with the 330, because it's more in my price range.

Same in regards to the Civic Type-S.... So, Who told you Honda are struggling to sell the Type-S, Or are you just making it up as you go along? Because Honda certainly wouldn't publish it.

Oh right. Is that why Skoda offered 0% Finance on all Brand new Fabia vRS's which are top of the Fabia range. And again with the Octavia vRS?

Every car dealer offers Finance, and the top of the range car would always sell better.

A BMW M3, is top of the series range, I'd happily settle with the 330, because it's more in my price range.

Same in regards to the Civic Type-S.... So, Who told you Honda are struggling to sell the Type-S, Or are you just making it up as you go along? Because Honda certainly wouldn't publish it.

Don't start getting arsey, it's only a discussion.

I'll deal with those in order....

Skoda offered those finance deals at times when they had cars they needed to shift. In the case of the Fabia it was presumably a case of shifting the old mk1 stock at the end of the production run. Also, don't forget they had the se about to be released and it wouldn't have looked particularly limited all the time you could go and pick up a normal one that was still sitting around!

With regards to the octavia vrs, I thought it was fairly well chronicled (including on here) that sales of the petrol vrs are not as high as skoda would like (I think the release of the diesel model has had a part to play in that). This was confirmed to me by my local dealer.

With regards to the type s, my local dealer was quite open about the fact that they don't sell a great deal of type s models and I do recall having read articles on the fact that it was fairly common knowledge that civic 5 door sales outstrip those of the 3 door models for both the current and previous generation civic. You might say that the way they represented the type s to me was swayed by the fact that they wanted me to go through with the purchase of a type r, but I've got reasonable faith in my ability to judge to what extent i'm being lied to. Plus, if you consider who the target demographic(s)s have been with the civic throughout the generations you see two distinct camps ... the oldies and their five door work horses vs the boy racers and their hot hatches. I'm not so sure the middle of the road warm civic has been that successful as yet, the previous gen type s certainly doesn't seem overly popular.

My particular point about honda's finance deals was that despite being a 'good deal' in honda's book, they compared very poorly by other marque's 'good deals'. This is in line with my historical experience of honda's finance which is generally not competitive with other manufacturers.

The main point I was trying to get across is that promotional finance rates are dictated by simple laws of supply and demand. If a car is selling well, why on earth would a manufacturer make it cheaper for a customer to buy one? Conversely, when enough cars aren't being shifted, you drop prices to get the transactions rolling through again. I would have thought that this was a fairly simple case of economics.

Whether your happy with your car has nothing at all to do with that and I fully respect your choice. I'm sorry if I ****ed you off with my whimsical reference to the price of the type s.

Deleted

Deleted*

Deleted - Issue resolved

Deleted*

You have pm

deleted so at snoopie's request

hey mate. As I said, I'm not interested in the arsey stuff. I come on here to make contact with fellow skoda / car enthusiasts, I'm not interested in having rows with people over the internet. It's all a laugh and I'm not bothered about the inevitable differences of opinion.

However, I'm a little intrigued by the slight slating the new ctr is getting compared to the previous model. I suspect that, as with a lot of these things, the opinion of a select few who have experienced both cars first hand has now been seized upon by others who repeat it ad nauseum despite not having driven both cars themselves. Not having driven the earlier one, I can't make the comparison. However, seeing how little you can pick up an earlier model for now makes me think that it would make a better used buy than ever now. Certainly better than the mkiv golf gti anyway.

Ignore page 5 everyone! Nothing to see here!