economical (45 cf low 30s). And it’s got brakes now.
Skoda Fabia - Monte Carlo or ??
-
Wossname
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2020 7:14 pm
- Location: West of the Tamar
- Has thanked: 235 times
- Been thanked: 577 times
Re: Skoda Fabia - Monte Carlo or ??
Is it? I can’t argue as I’d just be guessing. Performance figures are much the same, but it’s now achieved by a 1 litre turbo instead of a 1.6/1.8 NA and is a lot more
economical (45 cf low 30s). And it’s got brakes now.
economical (45 cf low 30s). And it’s got brakes now.
-
Bigjawa
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:54 pm
- Location: Ballymena Co. Antrim
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 887 times
Re: Skoda Fabia - Monte Carlo or ??
Of the top of my head, the Citigo, Skoda's version of the Up, weighed around 980kg and the original Golf was around 850?
We had a Citigo Monte Carlo and it looked pretty enough, but a bog standard 1.1 Pug 106 would have left it for dead.
We had a Citigo Monte Carlo and it looked pretty enough, but a bog standard 1.1 Pug 106 would have left it for dead.