Test Drive Korsa, Clio and Fabius: City Heroes
Opel Corsa, Renault Clio i Skoda Fabia builds on the classic advantages of today's small cars - agility, compact exterior dimensions and practical interior space at a reasonable price. Which of the three cars would be the best choice?
All three cars, among which the Skoda model is the newest and freshest addition to the small class, have almost reached the limit of four meters in body length. This is a value that fifteen years ago was typical of the upper class. And yet - according to modern ideas, these cars belong to a small class, and their use as full-fledged family cars is more achievable than, for example, their predecessors, but still not the best idea. Their main idea is to offer maximum practicality and functionality in everyday life. Suffice to say, all three models have standard folding rear seats to increase cargo capacity.
Clio focuses on comfort
In Bulgaria, the ESP system must be paid separately for each of the tested models - an understandable policy in terms of cost reduction, but also a disadvantage in terms of safety. The third generation Clio handles surprisingly well on the road. Overcoming high-speed corners is without problems even without ESP, and the settings of the system itself are well thought out, and its operation is efficient and unobtrusive. In marginal mode, the car remains easy to drive, showing only a slight tendency to understeer. Good road holding performance did not affect driving comfort in any way – in this discipline the Clio performed even better than the three models in the test.
The engineers who worked on the Corsa and Fabia obviously approached this issue more sportily. While the relatively soft dampers of the Corsa are relatively friendly to the passengers' vertebrae, the Fabia rarely questions the condition of the road surface. Luckily, cornering stability is excellent, and the steering is almost as precise as a sports model. Clearly, Skoda has done a great job with the brakes too - in the brake tests, the Czech car performed better than its two rivals, especially Renault.
Skoda scores points with its well-coordinated drive
Unsurprisingly, Skoda makes good use of the engine displacement. His reaction to the throttle is quite spontaneous, but when he gets close to top speed, he completely loses his good manners. In addition, in practice, its 11 horsepower advantage over Renault's 75 horsepower is less pronounced than one might expect. The Frenchman has the lowest fuel consumption in the test, shows surprisingly good temperament, disappointment is only caused by not very precise gear shifting.
80 hp engine Under the hood, Opel shows no significant flaws, but neither does it generate strong approval from anyone.
In the end, the final victory goes to the Fabia, which, with its reasonable balance of excellent road handling and functional use of interior volume, has almost no major drawbacks. However, with a perfectly balanced character as well, Clio breathes on the neck of the Czech model and takes place immediately after it. The Corsa seems to be missing something in most disciplines, at least that's how it looks compared to the two rivals. An honorary bronze medal remains for her this time.
Text: Klaus-Ulrich Blumenstock, Boyan Boshnakov
Photo: Hans-Dieter Zeifert
Evaluation
1. Skoda Fabia 1.4 16V Sport
Fabia is no longer cheap, but still profitable. Harmonious drive, almost sporty road behavior, solid workmanship, impeccable functionality and a practical and spacious interior bring the model a well-deserved victory.
2.Renault Clio 1.2 16V Dynamic
Excellent comfort, safe handling, low fuel consumption and an attractive price point are the Clio's strong points. Automotive lost the victory to Fabia by a very small margin.
3. Opel Corsa 1.2 Sport
The Opel Corsa boasts safe and harmonious handling on the road, but the engine is too slow and the ergonomics in a quality interior could be better.
technical details
| 1. Skoda Fabia 1.4 16V Sport | 2.Renault Clio 1.2 16V Dynamic | 3. Opel Corsa 1.2 Sport | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Working volume | - | - | - |
| Power | 63 kW (86 hp) | 55 kW (75 hp) | 59 kW (80 hp) |
| Maximum torque | - | - | - |
| Acceleration 0-100 km / h | 13,4 with | 15,9 with | 15,9 with |
| Braking distances at a speed of 100 km / h | 38 m | 40 m | 40 m |
| full speed | 174 km / h | 167 km / h | 168 km / h |
| Average consumption fuel in the test | 7,4 l / 100 km | 6,8 l / 100 km | 7,1 l / 100 km |
| Base Price | 26 586 levov | 23 490 levov | 25 426 levov |
