Hope not but I suspect many car salesman think that women place much higher priority on style features than on specification, dimensions and performance figures. Seems to me that the salesman is the airhead in thinking that an SC would fit the bill when you were clearly interested in the estate version.
Ibiza FR Technology 1.4 Ecotsi Sports Tourer
- Thread starter Jupiter 8
- Start date
Hope not but I suspect many car salesman think that women place much higher priority on style features than on specification, dimensions and performance figures. Seems to me that the salesman is the airhead in thinking that an SC would fit the bill when you were clearly interested in the estate version.
Found some interesting UK sales figures for the three different Ibiza body styles - see page 9 of the SEAT Ibiza UK press release from late 2015 (unfortunately I can't post the URL yet as I haven't posted enough).
2015 YTD – 18,207.
Split: SC: 8,129
5 door: 9,474
ST: 604
2014 overall sales – 22,426.
Split: SC: 11,120
5 door: 10,208
ST: 1,098
ST sales in 2014 and 2015 were shockingly low versus the 5-door hatch and SC - it's clear to see why SEAT axed the ST; only 604 units sold in 2015 up to the date of the press release!! The SC matches the 5-door though and it makes me wonder whether SEAT might consider releasing a 2-door coupe version of the Mk 6 Ibiza further down the line. I guess SEAT regard the new Arona as their offer that ticks the box for those who might have previously considered the ST, but this new model has a smaller boot capacity than the ST! I know what I'd rather have but then I'm not a big fan of the compact SUV anyway; reckon I'm in the minority in this country.
2015 YTD – 18,207.
Split: SC: 8,129
5 door: 9,474
ST: 604
2014 overall sales – 22,426.
Split: SC: 11,120
5 door: 10,208
ST: 1,098
ST sales in 2014 and 2015 were shockingly low versus the 5-door hatch and SC - it's clear to see why SEAT axed the ST; only 604 units sold in 2015 up to the date of the press release!! The SC matches the 5-door though and it makes me wonder whether SEAT might consider releasing a 2-door coupe version of the Mk 6 Ibiza further down the line. I guess SEAT regard the new Arona as their offer that ticks the box for those who might have previously considered the ST, but this new model has a smaller boot capacity than the ST! I know what I'd rather have but then I'm not a big fan of the compact SUV anyway; reckon I'm in the minority in this country.
Last edited:
The ST for us was the perfect choice,two adults with two dogs so not needing a big estate but more usable space than a hatchback,but Seat like a lot of manufacturers wanted to go down the mini suv route so the proper estate got forgotten and not advertised,when did you see an advert on TV for the ST ?
I agree - but it would be interesting to see what the sales figures for the Fabia Estate are. There is certainly a valid argument that the ST isn't true estate (no flat floor loading) and the Fabia is nearer the mark and a fair bit more spacious (though still no flat floor). As it happens the ST is a better compromise of space and pace for me - but I can see others preferring the extra capacity of the Skoda.
I guess the increased width and extra rear legroom in the new Ibiza really make a difference to load space vs the current model, especially with rear seats down. With rear seats up though, the ST has 80 more litres in the back than the new Ibiza
.Funnily enough there's a '66-plate FR Alor Blue SC in my work car park most days (not owned by one of my colleagues, someone from another company's office downstairs). It has the black pack and bi-xenon headlights and looks the absolute mutt's nuts. Alor Blue is probably my favourite colour in the current Ibiza.
Last edited:
Like so? (mine) ahaha...
Before I got the car was tempted to put Alloygators (in the same blue as the car), but saw that there's already quite a thick chunk of rim protection from the Bridgestone Tyres, decided to save myself £100 ish. Even though I think it would look really cool!
Before I got the car was tempted to put Alloygators (in the same blue as the car), but saw that there's already quite a thick chunk of rim protection from the Bridgestone Tyres, decided to save myself £100 ish. Even though I think it would look really cool!
Last edited:
I've had my ST FR Tech 150 Ecotsi for nearly a year and 9k miles.
I still think it's a good value all round package with no significant faults,and agree with most of what's been said above.
Good handling ,steering,gearchange,seat comfort without being outstanding in any one area.
Excellent engine with the speed of a hot hatch of ten years ago.
With lower gearing it would feel nippier still,it does get bogged down slightly when asked to accelerate from a crawl in second gear,but not really a criticism since you can avoid this by dropping to first.
Fuel consumption has been OK,but nowhere near the official figures (no surprise there!).
As a day to day workhorse with plenty of short trips it shows 40 to 45mpg,longer motorway runs it gets just over 50.
Lack of a rear interior light is penny pinching,and didn't think I'd miss rear elec windows but sometimes do.
I have a set of 16" winter wheels with 45 profile tyres and these give a better ride than the 17s which are on now,so the 17s are just for looks IMO.
The car was bought as a dog wagon ,general runaround and an ocassional four seater,and it performs well in these jobs,being nice and compact for parking.
I had the options of xenon lights,climate and the sports button...first two OK but the sports setting makes the ride harsh and doesn't add a lot to the handling so I wouldn't have again.
My criticisms are purely personal:-
When four good sized adults are in the car it feels cramped,and with the dog using the load space we have to cram the back seat with our stuff when on hols.
I will probably keep it for three years but then look for a bit larger estate where you can divide the load space for dog and luggage and which will have more rear seat room.
...perhaps a Leon,Octavia vRS or 3 Series,who knows?
Anyway,all in all very satisfactory for now and,most important,no visits to the dealer because NO FAULTS
I still think it's a good value all round package with no significant faults,and agree with most of what's been said above.
Good handling ,steering,gearchange,seat comfort without being outstanding in any one area.
Excellent engine with the speed of a hot hatch of ten years ago.
With lower gearing it would feel nippier still,it does get bogged down slightly when asked to accelerate from a crawl in second gear,but not really a criticism since you can avoid this by dropping to first.
Fuel consumption has been OK,but nowhere near the official figures (no surprise there!).
As a day to day workhorse with plenty of short trips it shows 40 to 45mpg,longer motorway runs it gets just over 50.
Lack of a rear interior light is penny pinching,and didn't think I'd miss rear elec windows but sometimes do.
I have a set of 16" winter wheels with 45 profile tyres and these give a better ride than the 17s which are on now,so the 17s are just for looks IMO.
The car was bought as a dog wagon ,general runaround and an ocassional four seater,and it performs well in these jobs,being nice and compact for parking.
I had the options of xenon lights,climate and the sports button...first two OK but the sports setting makes the ride harsh and doesn't add a lot to the handling so I wouldn't have again.
My criticisms are purely personal:-
When four good sized adults are in the car it feels cramped,and with the dog using the load space we have to cram the back seat with our stuff when on hols.
I will probably keep it for three years but then look for a bit larger estate where you can divide the load space for dog and luggage and which will have more rear seat room.
...perhaps a Leon,Octavia vRS or 3 Series,who knows?
Anyway,all in all very satisfactory for now and,most important,no visits to the dealer because NO FAULTS
Last edited:
I find your comment on the Sport button interesting. Mine would be that there is too little difference between normal and sport, and certainly don't find the ride harsh in sport. Could that be because I generally run "comfort" tyre pressures - or do you have different tyres - mine has Bridgestone Potenza RE050s? I use Sport quite a lot on motorways or when well laden.
Certainly wouldn't regard the feature as one of my best choices though.
I have Dunlop tyres and use the lower pressures .
On bumpy roads you do feel the bumps more in the sport setting,but this is rather stating the obvious...stiffer dampers equals harder ride!
I do agree there isn't a lot of difference, and on smooth roads and motorways you can use the setting with no detriment,in fact I rarely use it but on sweeping fast bends I find the extra damping does give a more stable feel.
These differences can be difficult to evaluate,it's not like you are a professional test driver and you drive flat out down a stretch of road,change the setting and then immediately repeat the drive on the same road at the same speeds...well,I don't anyway.
Yep, that's pretty much the same car as the one I see in the work car park! And yep, it looks the dog's do dahs! think an ST in that colour with the black or titanium pack would also be a corker. Wonder if there's one out there?Like so? (mine) ahaha...
Before I got the car was tempted to put Alloygators (in the same blue as the car), but saw that there's already quite a thick chunk of rim protection from the Bridgestone Tyres, decided to save myself £100 ish. Even though I think it would look really cool!
Really interesting overview, thanks for posting.I've had my ST FR Tech 150 Ecotsi for nearly a year and 9k miles.
I still think it's a good value all round package with no significant faults,and agree with most of what's been said above.
Good handling ,steering,gearchange,seat comfort without being outstanding in any one area.
Excellent engine with the speed of a hot hatch of ten years ago.
With lower gearing it would feel nippier still,it does get bogged down slightly when asked to accelerate from a crawl in second gear,but not really a criticism since you can avoid this by dropping to first.
Fuel consumption has been OK,but nowhere near the official figures (no surprise there!).
As a day to day workhorse with plenty of short trips it shows 40 to 45mpg,longer motorway runs it gets just over 50.
Lack of a rear interior light is penny pinching,and didn't think I'd miss rear elec windows but sometimes do.
I have a set of 16" winter wheels with 45 profile tyres and these give a better ride than the 17s which are on now,so the 17s are just for looks IMO.
The car was bought as a dog wagon ,general runaround and an ocassional four seater,and it performs well in these jobs,being nice and compact for parking.
I had the options of xenon lights,climate and the sports button...first two OK but the sports setting makes the ride harsh and doesn't add a lot to the handling so I wouldn't have again.
My criticisms are purely personal:-
When four good sized adults are in the car it feels cramped,and with the dog using the load space we have to cram the back seat with our stuff when on hols.
I will probably keep it for three years but then look for a bit larger estate where you can divide the load space for dog and luggage and which will have more rear seat room.
...perhaps a Leon,Octavia vRS or 3 Series,who knows?
Anyway,all in all very satisfactory for now and,most important,no visits to the dealer because NO FAULTS
Apart from the odd solo 'spirited' drive when I like to explore higher revs, I'm getting late 40s mpg most journeys. I averaged 54 mpg on a recent run on the A420, which is 50 mph speed limit most of the way so a lot of 2-cylinder work in 5th and 6th gear. That's nearly as good as my previous Fabia 1.9 TDi would manage on the same route. I really rate the 1.4 EcoTsi with it's well-judged blend of performance and economy and it's one of the best features of my new car. Having that engine in a small, nimble car that can lug several suitcases yet fit comfortably on my stupidly narrow drive and allow me to easily get into 1970s car park spaces makes it a winning package for my needs.
Great to hear you've had no faults so far, very encouraging
An issue alluded to in Oldbutswifts post which I thought worth exploring was the issue of low rev response in 2nd gear.
The gearing of the car is high, certainly, and is clearly a potential issue in a turbo car. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't find it so. Off boost at (say) 11-1200 revs it clearly doesn't have the go it does at 2000 revs + - but the engine is perfectly happy and responds well to the throttle - and in the 1500-2000 rev range, even though lag can be felt, it is not so intrusive as to be a big deal (for me).
In short, for me, it's probably the least conspicuously turbo petrol engine I've driven and the one which feels most like a much larger naturally aspirated engine.
Agree on wheels - I'd have stuck with 16s had they been an option - just don't get this fashion for the largest wheels with the lowest profile tyres.
The gearing of the car is high, certainly, and is clearly a potential issue in a turbo car. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't find it so. Off boost at (say) 11-1200 revs it clearly doesn't have the go it does at 2000 revs + - but the engine is perfectly happy and responds well to the throttle - and in the 1500-2000 rev range, even though lag can be felt, it is not so intrusive as to be a big deal (for me).
In short, for me, it's probably the least conspicuously turbo petrol engine I've driven and the one which feels most like a much larger naturally aspirated engine.
Agree on wheels - I'd have stuck with 16s had they been an option - just don't get this fashion for the largest wheels with the lowest profile tyres.
Last edited:
Electric folding mirrors a god send for your narrow drive? Or you still have some space on either side to not require this?
The boot maybe big, but the back seat space is no bigger than the standard Ibiza hatch.
If you want to get a rear facing childseat in the back, the front seat passengers have to sit with their faces on the windscreen!
Its a practical small estate, just not very good for kids, a Rapid or Octavia gives a lot more back seat space.
If you want to get a rear facing childseat in the back, the front seat passengers have to sit with their faces on the windscreen!
Its a practical small estate, just not very good for kids, a Rapid or Octavia gives a lot more back seat space.
Accepting that it may not be ideal if you have rearward facing childseats in the back, but that isn't the norm. And it's absolutely fine with our grandson in a forward facing seat - no space issue at all.
Sometimes I remember to fold the mirrors before leaving the car but I can just about squeeze past with them out. The problem with my drive is that although it's long (enough for at least 4 cars I reckon), the majority of its length runs alongside my house and there is only about 2 metres width between the wall and next door's fence. Cars need to park in tandem on our drive, side by side parking isn't an option.
It's possible to park one short car and most of a second car at the far end of the drive where there's no width problem but that still leaves the front end of the front-parked car within the area between house wall and neighbour's fence. Squeezing past this narrow gap is the only way I can get from back garden/garage to front of house/front garden, so unless I move both cars each time I need to carry large items from the back to the front, I end up lifting lawnmowers, wheelie bins, tools etc. above my head to get past the front-parked car! Anything wider than a normal-sized supermini would make it even more difficult to negotiate this tight gap. This is why I prize the ST - it gives me the load-lugging capability of a car from the size class above but is significantly narrower than all other models with decent-sized boots (including its nearest rival the Mk 3 Fabia estate).
No doubt that 16s would improve ride quality but I think that the 17s do enhance the appearance of the ST - it's noticeably longer than the hatch and SC and unlike them, looks a tad 'undernourished' with 16s, IMO.
But by your own admission you are choosing form over function.
Given that the overall size of 16" wheels (and the corresponding tyres) are exactly the same size as 17s, and 16s have more "meat" on them - I'd be inclined to regard the 17s as rather scrawny. Even bigger wheels would look positively anorexic to me.
Last edited:
Similar threads
