Report Abuse

Report this review to the Review Centre Team

Here at Review Centre we work hard to make sure we are the best place on the internet for honest, unbiased consumer reviews - we are grateful for your help in keeping us that way!

2291812

Why are you reporting this review?

If you represent this business why not claim your page by creating a Free Business Account where you will receive improved review monitoring functionality.


★★★★★

“Peugeot Tweet RS 125 ”

written by on 17/10/2013

I wrote the previous review of the Tweet, so having had it for just over a year now, I wanted to add a few updates.

I have really enjoyed this scooter! It starts first time, everytime. Not had a single problem with it. Disc brakes at front and back have served me well in London traffic. It continues to be nippy and nimble in London traffic, and ecomonical, matching the mgp as stated by Peugeot, which is around 85mpg. I have since test ridden a Vespa LX 15, and there is just no way I would go back to one of them. The upright riding position suits me well, as do the large wheels.

Two points that irritate me slightly about the scooter. Firstly, the fuel tank isnt massive, so I am having to refuel every 4 days, whereas with my previous scooters which had larger fuel tanks, it was once a week max. This is a slight bug-bear. The second thing is kind of related - the Piaggio range have the 3v engine which boasts up to 140+mpg. This is significantly higher than 85mg I get from the Tweet. Although I worked out this would save me only like £150-£200 a yr in fuel costs, it does bug me. If the engine was already 3v, then I wouldnt care about the small fuel tank as it would last me more than a week.

That aside, I have no plans to change scooters yet. If Peugeot were to bring out a Tweet with a 3v equivalent engine, then I would upgrade to that, I maight also look at the new Piaggio Liberty 3v when it hits the UK next yr. But I wont be disappointed if I stay with the Tweet for another yr, as the quality of the ride really is excellent.

Was this review helpful? 1 0