mumpsim

“30% worn” is not a valid reason to replace brake discs. It also does not mean braking efficiency has fallen by 30%. Disc thickness has relatively little effect on the braking torque available in an ordinary stop. That is determined mainly by hydraulic pressure, caliper clamping force, pad friction, disc radius and tyre grip. A disc can therefore continue to produce normal braking force while substantially worn. Manufacturers specify an absolute minimum thickness. For example: new disc: 25.0 mm minimum thickness: 23.0 mm measured thickness: 24.4 mm Such a disc has lost only 0.6 mm, but it has used 30% of its permitted wear allowance. It still has 70% of its usable wear remaining. Replacing it solely on that basis would be premature. In such a case I would ask the garage to provide three figures: the original nominal thickness; the manufacturer’s minimum thickness; the actual measured thickness of each disc.

On Trustpilot EMaC has a 4-star rating from around 7,000 reviews — decent for the sector, though the negative reviews tend to cluster around cosmetic/warranty product claim disputes rather than the core service plans. Real-world user feedback on forums is broadly that the plans are a reasonable budgeting tool, sometimes with modest savings versus paying as you go and no interest charged, but that you're tied to the dealer network, there's a risk if your dealer loses its franchise, and cancellation fees can apply after 60 days.

Welcome to the club that we would all rather not be members of.

See this from May: https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/539119-demise-of-the-karoq/ A hybrid seems possible, but there may be more recent or more definite information,

The one we just bought (as per my post above) lost £13k in six months. Fortunately we bought it after that.

LED matrix headlights are very useful and impressive. Dynamic Chassis Control, when in Comfort mode, helps tame the UK's dreadful potholes. To me and my wife (on her second Karoq) these are the outstanding features. We do not miss the variable boot floor. We bought a Sportline last month, six months old with 2,500 miles, from a Skoda dealer. We paid £13,000 less than list price. If you can raise the money elsewhere, discounts like that make it hard to justify a brand-new car or a PCP deal on one. Conversations with dealers have confirmed that new and nearly-new cars sell on almost wholly separate sales streams. I'm told that 90% of new Skoda buyers take PCP, while 90% of nearly-new buyers pay cash and get a far lower price. One reason list prices are huge these days is that many PCP buyers are not much concerned with list price, only with deposit and monthly payment. Skoda will of course be delighted to sell a new car, but they can't sell enough of them and have to provide the alternative nearly-new stream to run alongside it.

Very interesting. Thanks.

There used to be several VIN decoders online that would list all the build codes free of charge. So far as I know, they all now cost a bit and require a 'membership'. If anyone finds a free one, please post it. A couple of weeks ago I asked a Skoda dealer to print me the build sheet of a car I was looking at. He didn't know what I was talking about. When I explained, he showed me his computer screen, with the car's spec listed in a folder-tree format so it was necessary to click and expand numerous categories to hunt for items. He thought there was no way of printing or exporting that in full. As with the lack of a downloadable manual for several years now, it isn't helpful.

I guess you are right. As you say, caster is non-adjustable on the MQB platform. The angle of the MacPherson struts is primarily determined by the fixed geometry of the subframe, lower control arms, and top strut mounts. So something is either bent or worn. But since you know it was in spec after the car was abused and repaired and now it isn't, that suggests wear now occurring rapidly as a result of the earlier damage. Someone who knows more than I do says it could be various things: lower control arm bushes, with the rear bush (the large one closer to the subframe) most susceptible to wear; the top mounts, which include a bearing that can start to disintegrate; and also ball joints, drop links, and subframe bushes. However, you already had the subframe dropped and re-fitted. I'm not sure which of the other items is most likely to mess up caster angle, but it does seem that a full suspension check is again needed. Many of these items, when worn, produce clunks, rattles, or creaks, which is a clear sign of a problem.

Well done for persisting with this and not being fobbed off as so many people have been (including me). It is a victory to have got Skoda to admit to the cause of the problem. Let's hope DVSA will recognise it is a real safety issue. Let us know if there is any benefit in getting several people to back up your story to DVSA.

A successor may be coming not very soon, or perhaps not at all: https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/karoq/368846/exclusive-new-generation-skoda-karoq-cards-hybrid-power And another report: AutocarA new Skoda Karoq may be on the way... | AutocarSUV was launched in 2017 and has racked up more than 100,000 UK sales since

Yes. Don't know. They don't. Skoda sells in over 100 countries but not in the USA since 1967.

Unless I am mistaken, pressing that on-screen button labelled 'Update software' will expect you to have the software ready on a USB device. It's just one of the many ways in which Skoda's update system is confusing.

Here is ours. 2023 1.5TSi Sportline, manual. It's the same hardware and system software as thamestrader's, so that appears to be normal for 2023 models. My nav data is from February 2026. All updates have been OTA.

Rim protection is now usual on quality tyres of 50 profile or lower. But one does still need to check. Thr budget generics often lack it, but there are also exceptions from the better brands, even among ultra-low profiles tyres. For example, the Uniroyal RainSport 3 275/40R20 and the Michelin Primacy 4ST variants in low profiles lack rim protection. Descriptors such as FP, RFP, FR, MFS, or FSL mean that rim protection is present.

We have the Turanza All Season 6 on our Karoq and they still have loads of life left after 20,000 miles. 25,000 should be easy. And the ride comfort, unexpectedly, seems better than it was when the tyres were new. On another car I have the Pirelli Cinturato All-Season SF3 which is a more recent design and usually now beats the Turanza in the objective tests, though not by very much. I'd probably choose that to replace the Turanzas, though road noise on the particular car I have them on is not good. Any casual readers should note that the Turanza All Season 6 is as unlike the Turanza T005 summer tyre as it possibly could be. The T005 is what many Karoqs get at the factory and it's one of the nastiest tyres around from the premium brands.

That is a cautionary tale indeed. Thanks for writing. It's a reminder that the Karoq is a highway car, not some robust off-roader. Just out of curiosity, who was the culprit? (Not expecting anyone to be named, but was it someone in the motor trade, or what?) And how did you get evidence of the speed over the humps? Dash cam?

Yes. Our 2023 Sportline (2WD) has a factory-supplied spare wheel and 215/60 R16 tyre.

Since you read it, you will already know that that decision has not yet been made - or at least not made public.

See this which I posted on Wednesday: https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/537518-karoq-hybrid-maybe

Coming not very soon, or perhaps not: https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/karoq/368846/exclusive-new-generation-skoda-karoq-cards-hybrid-power

I too would be walking away. Though my last word to the sales staff before leaving would be that if they put the car through the workshop, find the fault, and fix it, they'd be welcome to invite you back for another test drive. I certainly wouldn't be committing to buy the car on the understanding that any faults can be fixed after you take ownership.

If anyone can be bothered to check the accuracy of an odometer, one method would be to see how closely its readings correspond to the distance marker posts (the small posts at 100 m intervals) on the motorways. However, you'd need to check over several km, as individual distance marker posts are not guaranteed to be precisely placed. They are intended to allow people to refer to their location (after breaking down or coming upon an accident, for example) and are not to be taken as survey-grade positioning.

The fuel system is no doubt precisely accurate as you say. But the odometer is not. Cars still rely on wheel sensors to compute distance travelled, just as they do to show speed. And the rolling circumference of a worn tyre with tread depth at the UK legal limit can be around 2% less than the rolling circumference of a new tyre. The car has no way of compensating for that error when calculating mpg. So it's accurate enough, indeed more than enough, but not as precisely accurate as you suggest. At 45 mpg, a 2% error is nearly 1 mpg. (And the same odometer error will also affect the human doing brim-to-brim sums.)

As your car is the 4x4 I assume you are looking for 245/40 R19 98Y XL. These may be available in that size: Michelin CrossClimate 3 Sport – Available “with rim protection ridge (FSL)”. Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 - Available “with rim protection (MFS)” (also shown as “XL MFS …” on some listings). Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen-3 – Available “with rim protection (MFS)”. Continental AllSeasonContact 2 – Commonly listed with “FR” (yet another rim-protection / flange marking). Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3 – Available “with rim protection (MFS)” in 245/40 R19. But for all I know, any of these may also be available in versions that lack the rim protector. Don't take my word for any of this; check with the retailer.