croquemonsieur

The comparative tyre reviews this year indicate different effects on economy. I suggest you assume the Hancocks might cost 1-2mpg in worse petrol consumption, compared to the most economical AW tyres tested.

Calais 62. It could be worth you trying out the 1.0 Karoq, you may or may not be pleasantly surprised. My 1.0 dsg that I've had 3+years does feel quite nippy to me, when I push the gear selector into sport for overtaking (note I am mid 70s though and no tyro!!). I was sceptical about the performance before buying, but a couple of test runs, began to put me at ease, before signing the deal. I soon found that at motorway speeds (70mph) it has plenty of umph to accelerate comfortably to 80-90mph to pass slower moving traffic, without needing to change down from 7th. It's really rather quiet, smooth and responsive. Clearly no racing car, but it's pokier than I recall my Peugeot 504Ti of years and years ago and that was thought to be a reasonably fast car in it's day. It's also quite possibly better than the 1.6 diesel Karoq in many ways, except maybe for low down torque, so that may put you off. The only diesel I've ever test driven was a 2.0, a year or 2 previous to me aquiring my 1.0. It was a dsg 4wd, which was OK, engine surprisingly quiet compared to any diesel I'd been in previously, but I do prefer my 1.0 petrol - for one thing it has smaller 17" wheels with higher profile tyres that make the ride noticeably better & quieter. I do suspect the 1.0 is the most reliable of all the petrol & diesel Karoqs, though I've no statistics to back up that statement. I've had no trouble of any consequence, up to now at 20,000miles. Long distances that I do monthly, I find more relaxing than any previous car I've owned (includes a BMW523, admittedly the engine in that was super smooth, that's when the head gasket wasn't blowing). I usually travel with the car at least half loaded on runs - just 1 passenger, full boot with cases etc. + rear seats & floor at least half full of stuff, just occasionally right up to the roof, but I've never had 5 people in it, for anything other than a short distance, then only once when the car was 2 weeks old. It does around 50mpg on a 150 mile motorway run in summer and say 45mpg in winter.

Similarly, I never use the paddles, nor change gear manually with the gear selector. With my 'lowly' 1.0 DSG, I do also use Sport Mode via the selector quite a lot for climbing hills to avoid a slight drone from the engine trying hard at 1500-2000rpm (just sounds nicer) and for occasional overtaking, but I'm no speed merchant. Actually, Sport mode really is a boon for the 1.0 DSG, as otherwise it wants to stay in a tall gear as much as possible. Even going downhill, unlike the way the DSG works in the 1.5, I rarely find it dropping into a lower gear to slow the car down - strange. In spite of the small engine, on motorways there's still plenty of umphh available at 70mph in 7th, for lively acceleration to 80 or 90 in order to get past a collection of slow moving vehicles.

Resurrecting an old thread, I drove mine yesterday, for the first time in almost 3 months..... Early August, a young woman scraped the front while undergoing a driving test, causing a bit of damage to the lower front LHS and pushing the headlamp back. My car was parked outside my house. The was in tears at the time.... and so was I. Persuaded by my brother-in-law in January, I made the mistake of going the Martin Lewis route for getting the car cheapest insurance (Post Office who let Enterprise handle the claims/repair side - all middle men) and it was alot cheaper, but they messed me about over this accident. I had to do a lot of chasing to get the repair underway, which was eventually done by Custom Coachworks in Burgess Hill near Brighton (85 miles away by car & not my idea). Work was completed last Thursday and Enterprise said the car would be returned to me, but I was misled - nothing was happening so I decided to pick it up myself yesterday. Although living on the edge, I hadn't been to London since 2015 for various reasons, including the pandemic and actually enjoyed the journey. Victoria Station is much improved place from what I remember years ago and the train journey South was an eye opener, comfortable, fuss free, quiet and fast, but I admit I've always been a train fan. Crossing the Thames too was a revelation coming across an extensive group of high rise, but to me attractive looking, balconied flats on the edge of Battersea Park, all new to me. Once I got to the repairers, I must say Custom had done a very good job on my 3 year old car and also gave it an immaculate clean-up inside and out. I'm not especially fussy about looking after it myself, but it looked brand new yesterday. The chap I'd been dealing with there had previously commented on the phone what a nice car it was, or was he just buttering me up. They also said that they were having a lot of trouble with Enterprise getting cars back to owners and were beginning to run out of garage space. Anyhow I set off from Burgess Hill and was immediately struck by how much more upmarket the Karoq felt over the much newer Juke I'd been provided with for the duration. Ostensibly similar cars with 1 litre 3 cyl engines and DSG transmission, the Skoda engine & gearbox are so much smoother and quieter + if you think the Karoq is difficult to start from standstill smoothly, just try the Nissan. My car is just easier & nicer to drive & park + there's no comparison when it comes to internal ambience. I had been with Liverpool Victoria previously but had never had been inviolved in any accident with them. I see 'Which' recommend them and so does a friend who said he was treated well after a bigger crunch than mine and he renewed with them, so looks like I'll be talking to them next time.

Hot on the heals of the Tyre Reviews & Auto-Biold tests, the Auro Express tests have been published a bit sooner than I expected. Last year they looked at 205/55R16 tyres, not far off the 215/60R16s I intend to buy. this year it's a lower profile 225/45R17 size, tested on Golfs again, as do Tyre Reviews. No matter the change in size, the Hancock Kinergy 4S2 came top overall again & this year they managed to include the XClimate 2s which came 2nd. The 4S2 came in the top 3 ratings in all snow/wet/dry ratings & they particularly liked the handling, feeling sharper to drive than most on test. Predictably the Michelin beat it on snow, but latter not so good in the wet. Although one of the noisiest externally (72dB) the Hancock was the quietest inside, so if I buy these tyres I'll keep the windows shut, which I mostly do anyway. Some other tyres inside that are quiet inside were also quiet outside (70dB) so the official external noise figures are meaningless for internal noise comparisons, but if you're more concerned about annoying pedestrians etc...... but then not many motorists are!!!! This time the noise test included driving on rough and concrete surfaces (presumably with expansion joints that typically create a mild thump) as well as smooth that they only tried last year, which is encouraging. As expected, rolling resistance was the Hancock low point, which according to there guidlines would mean a 3/4mpg for me going for the Michelin that came out top here. Not worth worrying about.

Schtum said -- A tyre which grips like the proverbial and then lets go all of a sudden is more likely to induce uncontrolled sliding behaviour. Yes, to put it another way, the issue is ultimate roadholding v handling at those limits. The video in Tyre Reviews is well worth watching as it does talk a lot about such handling aspects as well as lap times. It did note in some tests that the easiest & nicest to drive with tyres (e.g. Continental & Goodyear in the wet), weren't always quite the fastest around the circuit (but certainly not the slowest). However, in the snow test, the clearly fastest round the track was also probably the best handling. (Yet, this Michelin tyre clearly wasn't the best at roadholding in the wet and also didn't handle that nicely in such weather). No reviews I've seen talk about handling over poor road surfaces. I've had experience of 2 cars with low profile tyres that felt dreadful in the stearing on broken road surfaces. One I owned, a Saab 9-5 and fine on smooth roads, but I soon fitted higher profile & I think slightly narrower tyres on smaller wheels and the steering then felt a lot better, more like my previous BMW 523. But of course a car's suspension has an influence here and whether it can cope with low profile tyres on such roads. One thing I do notice when walking along the pavement, is that big heavy cars with wide tyres sound particularly noisy on coarser road surfaces. The external road noise seems to stand out. Must be maddening if you live on a main road.

I noted in an earlier message today that I'm in SE UK and to your 2nd question of course not. For me a theoretical 1.2 mpg better going for Michelins rather than Hankooks = £35-£50 saving a year in petrol - not a lot in the grand scheme of things & car ownership costs, but Hankooks anyway rather cheaper to buy. In the weather conditions down here, Hancocks arguably offer the best grip and safety performance of any tyre overall, even if they do pollute more than the Michelins. I'll probably change tyres early next year and from what you say about AW availability, looks like that may be a good time.

Another correction in 4th paragraph. My maths was wrong, serves me right for trying to be clever. Calculated extra mpg over the best in Tyre Reviews - He said the 20% difference in rolling resistance between best & worst equates to 7% economy difference. So...... Assuming best tyre (Bridgestone Weather Control) gives 40mpg overall, the Michelin would do 39.5mpg, Goodyear, 38.8mpg, Hankook 38.3mpg & Vredstein 37.2mpg So Hankook's drop in economy now looks a bit more than the Michelin 2's (1.2mpg), compared to what I said previously (0.6mpg). Re the xClimates roottoot. Presumably your's are more like the former xClimates or the +s. Tyre Reviews did say that these older versions, were more like dry weather tyres (they came out best here in older AW reviews) that could cope with snow but not as well as winter tyres, nor some other emerging all weather tyres. The xClimate 2s are rather different, now more like full blooded winter tyres (as good as many of them in the snow) but not as good as some of the current AW competion in the dry. However,they're good at braking in all situations.

5th paragraph correction - the summer tyres were poor in snow but very good in wet Yes roottoot, that's probably the best way to look at it. I might even go for a much narrower full size spare that would give me maybe an extra 1" boot depth. Anyway, it looks like Michelins 2s could be the tyre for you.

Links if wanted https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2022-Tyre-Reviews-All-Season-Tyre-Test.htm https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2022-Auto-Bild-All-Season-Tyre-Test.htm I thought the tyre abrasion assessment in Auto-Bild interesting. I've read that now as car engines are much cleaner as regards particulates, those from tyres are far greater in comparison these days and of course they contain plastics that don't do the environment much long term good. Michelin XClimates clearly best here and Hankook clearly worst shedding 50% more material when on the move, but taking into account all performance factors, I'm still doggedly hanging on to Hankooks on 16" wheels as my top choice next tyres for the Karoq 1.0 DSG in SE UK. Auto-Bild were actually at a loss as to why the expected life of the Michelins was a bit less than the Hankooks - 27,500miles v 28,500miles (Goodyears 38,500miles). (I reckon my 17" Turanzas with 5mm left at 19,000miles will become illegal at about 28,000miles, but I want to change them before then). The 2 tests agreed in various aspects, but there were notable exceptions, particularly for best tyre overall. Taking on board a Tyre Review's statement in the video, assuming my car does 40mpg & doing the maths, hopefully correctly, overall the Michelins would do 1.4mpg less than the best there on test, Goodyears 1.6mpg less, Hankooks 2mpg less & Vredstein Pros 3.5mpg less. So not a lot in it for the first 3. I wonder what those summers were that did the so well in the snow and wet in the Auto-Bild report. Perhaps there's a mistake. It's a pity that Tyre reviews couldn't do the rough rough noise testing, nor ride comparisons for yet a second year - I find road noise over noisy road surfaces and broken road surfaces, along with the accompanying ride deterioration in the latter, the most tiring and unpleasant aspect of driving. Looking at the tread patterns on the Tyre Reviews video, it seems to me that all these tyres are directional. Thus I think two spares would be needed, or am I wrong? So, if not wanting a space saver, I'd have to go for a fittable anywhere, appropriate, summer tyre. No mention of this in the reviews nor whether the tyres are XL or not (I think most are), nor if they have rim protection. Also no statement if assymetric (however, those that look as though they are from their tread patterns, seem to have circumferential lines printed on the tread).

The 2022 All weather tyre reviews are emerging, awaiting the AutuExpress review in November. Meantime : 4 ALL SEASON TYRE COMPARISONS Hankook Kinergy 4S2, Michelin CClimate 2, Goodyear Vector G3, Vredstein Quatrac (Pro in Tyre Rev) TYRE REVIEWS AUTO-BILD 225/45 R17 195/55 R16 OVERALL 1 mild climates - HK 1 - GV 1 snowy climates - MCC 2 - VQ 2 snowy climates - HK 3 - HK g comfort 3 mild climates - MCC 8 - MCC vg comfort 3 mild & snow - GV 7 mild & snow - VQP FUEL CONSUMPTION VQ best of these, rest similar, none brilliant ROLLING RESISTANCE 3 - MCC, 6 - GV 2 - MCC vg, 8 - VQ av 8 - HK, 10 - VQP 11 - HK poorish, 14 - GV poor ABRASION weight loss 1 - MCC 6 - GV10% more particulates 7 - VQ 14% more particulates 14 - HK 50% more particulates DRY handling 1 - GV, 4 - HK, All good handling, summer better 5 - MCC, 7 - VQP braking 1 - MCC, 2 - HK, All good braking, best MCC vg 5 - VQP, 7 - GV but summer way better WET handling 1 - VQP, 2 - HK handling 1 - summer, 2 - VQ, 3 - GV, 7 - MCC 3 - GV, 5 - HK, 12 - MCC braking 1- VQP, 2 - HK braking 1 - summer, 4 - GV, 3 - GV, 5 - Mxc 5 - VQ, 6 - HK, 10 - MCC aquaplane 1 - HK, 2 - GV aquaplane 1 - GV, 6 - summer, 4 - MCC, 9 - VQP 7 - VQ, 8 - MCC, 13 - HK SNOW traction 1- MCC, 4 - HK traction (summer brilliant!!) 8 - GV, 9 - VQP 2 - MCC g, rest close handling 1 - MCC, 3 - HK handling all good (no sum tested) 3 - GV, 9 - VQP 3 - HK best of these braking 1 - MCC, 2 - GV braking all good 4 - HK, 8 - VQP NOISE internally 2 - VQP, 5 - HK, externally 2 - HK & MCC, 5 - VQ, all close 6 - GV, 8 - MCC 8 - GV, summer dreadfull

OldBluebird, were those consumption figures as shown on the car display or were they measured from refuelling stops. The mileometer readings in my 1.0 SE Tech DSG (MY2019) seem accurate, judged against motorway 'furlong' posts, but the consumption figures shown are about 4% optimistic compared to tank refills. This 4% optimistic figure seems typical for the Karoq, judging by what others say on Briskoda. Either way, your consumption figures are very impressive. I've noted several times that the best I've got so far on my DSG is 53mpg (The Karoq didplay showing 55+mpg).

J.R., interesting what you say in the 3rd paragraph, particularly as I'll be getting new tyres soon. Could you say more about driving for the 1st 1000 miles in order to maximize tyre life, (gently maybe and not cornering or braking too fiercly + avoiding spinning the wheels - easily done with a DSG starting from standstill, even with a 1.0 engine). I'm certainly not into that performance stuff, scrubbed tyres etc. I'm coming up to 19,000miles after just over 3 years on the original Turanzas on 17" wheels and they've 5mm tread left, having swapped front with rear tyres over a year ago, so I suppose they could last quite a few thousand miles yet, but nevertheless I shall be fitting all weather tyres, hopefully before Xmas.

I've had my SE tech Karoq 1.0 DSG 3 years without a scratch, but 2 weeks ago a learner driver whilst taking a driving test, scraped the front passenger side. My car was parked. It dented the front panel below the bonnet and knocked the headlamp & fog lamps there out of aliqnment. (I'm not overly fussy about the car's cleanliness, more a workhorse for me, but admit I do take a pride when on the few occasions down the lovely red metallic bodywork, and I was annoyed at the damage). The insurance company's usual repairer turned out to be too busy (after I enquired a few days later) and they've been having difficulty getting cars repaired in the last few months anyway (Brexit + Furlough presumably). So they asked me if I knew any local places and after a suggestion, I contacted the local trusted Skoda dealer in Walthamstow, where I get the car serviced. They do indeed have a man who does such work and he seems keen to repair it. He's just had a few days off, but negotiations with the insurance company are underway. Anyhow I've been given a Mk2 Nissan DSG Juke in the meantime. Not sure I like to be seen in it, if not quite as ugly as the Mk1, but here's some comments. It's an easy to drive, competent car & goes well, if not as nice as the Karoq - somewhat noisier (but hardly noisy) & the 1 litre 3cyl engine not as smooth. Ride is slightly firmer (but no more road noise to speak of) & actually ride a little less rubbery + there's a bit less annoying anti-roll bar induced roll rock on pot holes. It has Turanzas like mine, 215 x 60 on 17" 7J wheels - mine same except 55 profile. Smaller & lower, front seats good, economy slightly better if the onboard figures are to be trusted and decent amount of tech, keyless, rear camera with adaptive markings for when you turn the steering + speed limit warnings & stop/start, but no hill hold. Front parking sensor, sat nav with traffic, lane keeping, but cruise control not adaptive (available on better versions as is 360* vision, blind spot assistance & adaptive dampers). I don't look forward to driving it as I do the Karoq and also much prefer the latter's cabin ambience (nice airy feeling of space in the front). Air con doesn't seem as good. Bonnet seems longer, as trying to turn right on roads where vision restricted vision is more fraught. The driver's manual is probably even worse than the Karoq, I still don't know how many gears it has, nor power output.

Ken, I thought the officially correct width for 16" wheels on the Karoq was 6J, at least that's what I recall has been frequently said in this forum. For example, see message by smipx, half way down 1st page of this thread (https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/498958-tyre-replacement-for-karoq-15tsi-2wd-21550-r18-92w-limited-choices/#comments)

Thanks for that Carlston, some very useful information and opened up my range of options. I didn't realise all space savers were so heavy. I'm changing my 2WD Karoq from 17" to 16" wheels with AW tyres, now the Turanzas are down to 5mm after 18,000+ miles after 3 years (primarily interested in improving ride & road noise). One option would be to use one of the existing 17" Turanza fitted alloys as a spare. Better though would be to buy that 5th 16" Alcar wheel with matching AW tyre, directionality etc. permitting. I would then somehow include the spare as part of the annual tyre swap-around ritual. Full size wheel / tyre combos will be 30mm taller in the boot than a space saver - but maybe I can live with that. I'm still thinking of going for Hancock AW tyres as in reviews, they do well in the wet & seem to be one of the best for interior road noise, but if directional, could always order a non directional other make AW tyre for the 5th wheel, so that it can fit on any axle. (Still better than a space saver I reckon) I wonder if the 16" wheel + tyre would work with the official Skoda spare wheel kit that you show a pic of in the 2nd entry of this thread (maybe even a bit shaved off to accommodate the slightly bigger diameter tyre. I didn't know that this kit was readily available and now want to get one, as my current ex old Golf space saver fixing is a bodge - doesn't hold the wheel down properly for starters. Have you or anyone else actually ordered stuff form MyTyres recently, i.e. since Brexit - wondering if there are delivery problems. Also wondering if the Alcar 6665 wheel is a true ET43 or does it come with plastic spacers, like the 16" alloy wheels I got for the previous Yeti some years ago (different supplier).

Has anyone been able to get a lightweight (cheaper) spacesaver steel wheel + tyre? Aquired for my previous Yeti, I've got a really heavy ex golf space saver wheel at the moment with an unused tyre that is now far too old to be safe. I tried emailing MyTyres about getting a space saver, but couldn't get through to them. Is there a way of making contact with them? I was hoping to order soon a set of 4 x 16" wheels fitted with all weather tyres via there website and add a spacesaver to that order.

Hmmm. Thanks for those replies & diverse views, particularly JollyGardener for reading the warranty terms carefully. With £100 excess & doing under 10,000 miles, the extended warranty cover would cost me £167.37 annually, which doesn't seem bad. So far, I don't suppose many Karoq owners have much to report on how well Skoda respond to claims on such extended warranties. Has anyone made any successful or otherwise claims? Regarding the All-in-One (2 year) package, this is offered for cars aged 3-6years and includes an extended warranty. Presumably if I take this package out in almost 1 year's time (say having bought a 1 year extended warranty in the mean time just for this year) and then renew the All-in-One when the car is almost 6years old, I could then have an extended warranty for the car up to almost 8 years old.

Going to Bristol Thurs & returning yesterday mainly on Motorways, M25 & M4, 150 mile journey each way, fairly busy roads, I got 48mpg going & 52mpg on return, so average 50mpg. ACC typically set to 73mph where speed limits allow. 3yr old 1.0 SE Tech DSG that's done 18,500miles. My best on that trip was 53mpg a year or so ago. I don't dordle, but nor am I a speed merchant (but can get up to around 85mph passing a knot of bunched up vehicles in the slower lanes) yet mostly try to drive fairly economically. 95RON petrol. Temps in low to mid 20s. The mpg figures are from the vehicle's 4% optimistic display, adjusted down accordingly. The range shown on the display was indicating aroundt 600miles for this long distance run.

Regarding the DSG coverage, I take your point SurreyJohn about the 1.0 not stressing the box much, as noted in several posts over the years, but it was the risk of the mechatronic unit packing up & causing extensive damage that I had in the back of my mind - as described in the following posts.... "For me (with DSG DQ200) I would be wanting a warranty that covers the gearbox most comprehensively. To me that is the biggest ticket item as risk. Not sure if any do. Also. If the mechatronic packs in and destroys the Gears then most warraties don't cover the damage to the gears, only the mechatronic that failed in the first place (according to my new mate "Honest John"). That's how I am reading it at any rate. What a minefield! smipx" "A new DSG mechatronic will be in the £1000's. If it packs in and takes the gears with it then even more £1000's I expect. The DQ200 does have a little bit of a reputation of doing just that (maybe I'm being too cynical though). I will, for one, be getting an extra warranty when my time comes (or selling the car at 3 years before all the problems start). If there is a policy that coverys assocated damage (consequential loss) then I would be happy to pay double for it. smipx" These are from the following link that seems to have got itself hidden from the Karoq menu and only recoverable by me as I'd by luck printed off the whole thread. I do suspect that hte 1.0 / DSG not stressing the gearbox much is irrelevant when it comes to whether a Mechatronic unit fails or not (but don't know that for sure). I then wonder then if the Skoda warranty covers consequential gearbox damage due to such a Mechatronic failure.

I didn't take out an extended warranty when I bought my 1.0 DSG Karoq, possibly a bad decision then, but just maybe I don't need to worry any more. The car will be 3 years old at end of July and I've just had an email from Skoda offering purchase an extended warranty now. From what I've read in the download so far, it seems that DSG box repairs are covered these days for this policy taken out at the end of the 3 years. This seems a big, welcome change from what has been discussed here in the past. I'm looking at the doenload for policies with a start date from 1st Jan 2022. (There other 2 other downloads for policies taken out earlier, but I haven't bothered to look at those as not relevant to me). Am I missing something or are there any comments please. I'm also mindfull of the recent All-in-One discussion which I want to return to in a while, but I assume that warranty wiil offer the same cover. skoda_extended_warranty_cover_booklet_nav_0122.pdf

FWIW, In 8th June Auto Express 3 car road test, a new model 1.5TSI SEL Karoq came out tops versus a revised & improved 1.2 GrandLand & 1.3 Quashquai - for driving enjoyment & comfort (18" wheels), space & quietness + predictably the fastest. More relevant to this thread, with a bigger engine, the official 42.8mpg wasn't as good as the 44.8 & 44.1mpg of the others, but they said that in the testing the Skoda readily bettered the official figure, but the Vauxhall regularly did worse. The Karoq at 58.2% seems to hold it's value better after 3 years, Nissan 50% & Vauxhall 42% and surprisingly they found it was also the cheapest to insure. Compared to the others the Karoq is only superficially updated, but maybe the early 1.5 problems are overcome.

Interesting MJ1. How many miles had you done by the end of 2021, or if not recorded, how many by today? Is your's a MY219 model and so with a particle 'filter' in the exhaust, like mine? 47.5mpg overall for Sep 2021 is amazingly good, particularly as it's a DSG - was that all longish journeys. I must try harder with my 1.0 DSG. I haven't done much checking of overall figures, but in the earlyish days was getting 43mpg spread over 2-3 months. I doubt it's been doing any better this year so far, with fewer longish journeys and the change to 10 RON petrol.

My 1.0 DSG SE is also very steady at 70mph & even at 90mph

Yes, ACC & even simple CC keeps the car going at the set speed on uphills. I have in the past compensated for dips & uphills gradually using the 1mph increment lever switching facility to speed up a bit on the downhill bit & then gradually easing off 1mph at a time is the car climbs up again - didn't do that this time. I wouldn't be without ACC though despite its foibles. I tend to get cramp otherwise in my right leg trying to keep the foot steady on the throttle all the time. I only use the throttle pedal very occasionally on the M4 part of the journey now, using ACC, unless there's really lots of traffic - terrific. It must be even better in LH drive cars, as there's a proper foot rest on the RHS then.