Zdenek Fibich

There's a very nice denim blue (actually lighter than denim) which I would have gone for, but for reasons known only to some idiot in a suit at Skoda, you can't have it on the vRS. After Race blue and Candy white, this my third vRS is in Corrida red. I prefer the red you get with an Audi A3, but this one looks good when it's clean, which it isn't often as I now live in a Dorset village surrounded by farms.

You need to look carefully at the brochure, as some things are standard on the Elegance but not on the vRS. For me the essentials were: Amundsen sound system (with satnav) Variable boot floor Rear parking sensors Cruise control Space-saver spare wheel Not essential but not expensive either so I ticked them: Chrome roof rails Red seat piping Colour Maxidot Things that were standard which I could have done without: Lane change indicator (intrusive as someone says above) Modes (they don't make much difference, and the Sport one I call the Alfa Romeo mode - lots of noise but no performance) Otherwise everything I needed was standard. No complaints then, and after 14 months and 23,000 miles still very happy (mine's a petrol manual).

There's another thread on here where a vRS has notchy steering and Bridgestone tyres: so assuming that you haven't got lane assist on by accident, a change of tyres may sort the problem out for you - if expensively.

I think the modes on the vRS are a bit of a gimmick: I wouldn't have bothered with them if they hadn't been standard. The Sport mode just makes a lot of noise with no perceptible increase in performance: I call it the Alfa Romeo mode. Sorry to hear of your problems with notchy steering: mine came with Continentals and haven't had that problem. Mind you, I wouldn't ever buy a Continental since they were unable to supply a replacement winter tyre in my car's size after a puncture last month.

That stuff is the invention of the devil and I would never have a car without a spare wheel (for Skoda to offer it as an option is fair enough if it keeps the cars in lower emissions categories). But I believe the foam is meant to inflate the tyre enough to get you home - or to a tyre dealer were they will sell you a new tyre as thy will say that the foam renders the tyre unserviceable.

Don't think of it as a nightmare, JSC: buying a new car should be fun, especially if it's a vRS! Go for the estate: better visibility, easier to load (if you specify the variable boot floor) and the overall length is the same as the hatch. This is my third vRS estate (petrol manual this time) and I agree with everything Oldfella says above. I was tempted by a mark 7 Golf GTI this time, but I'm glad I went for another Octavia. We're about to retire from Berks. to Dorset and it's swallowed all sorts of stuff going down to the new house. And it costs less to buy and insure yet has the same 217 bhp engine. It gives 32 mpg or so in town but 40+ on a long run, so unless you do a high mileage go for petrol power.

Mine is a mark 3 petrol manual vRS estate: 32 mpg is about right in town, but I can get 38-40 on a long run. Driving through France to Switzerland last month (less traffic, steadier cruising) it was up to 42 mpg. This is my third vRS estate: the first was a diesel manual (170 bhp: 45-55 mpg), the second a petrol DSG (197 bhp: 30-38 mpg). I could have got 60+ mpg if I'd cruised at 60 mph.

I had that mirror feature on a Renault years ago and I didn't like it. I think you're better off without it, as with it the view is very restricted.

There's an interesting 'Our Cars' first report on a Volvo V60 in this week's Autocar, where Hilton Holloway implies, reasonably enough, that it costs a lot less than a BMW 525d Touring. He could also usefully have compared the £36,000 V60 with the £24,000 Octavia vRS estate like mine. The V60 looks like a good car but I'm struggling to see how it's worth £12,000 more than the Octavia. And I don't think that the V60 could have done what my Octavia managed on two days this week: taken an old 6ft bed and mattress to the tip, and then swallowed a wheelbarrow, a lawnmower and seven crates of pictures to go to Dorset.

I'm on my third vRS estate: first a diesel manual, then (with annual mileage going down from 20,000 to about 12,000) a petrol DSG, and now a petrol manual. The current one is easily the best: quieter than the diesel and livelier than the petrol DSG, which (although official performance figures are similar in both) seemed to hold the car back under acceleration, a feeling that I don't get at all with the manual. The VAG TSI engine is really terrific. What finally swung it for me was the low-down torque which diesels have but by no means all petrols. This one does in spades, and given that a lot of everyone's motoring consists of pootling, it comes very close to my favourite engine of all, the BMW petrol straight-six. If I only drove in town, consumption would be in the low 30s, but on regular trips from Berkshire to north Dorset, where we've bought a house for retirement, It's giving me 38 mpg, and on a recent trip across France to Switzerland it was a very creditable 41 mpg. And I don't hang about - or I wouldn't have bought a vRS in the first place.

What Oldnewbie says is very illuminating. I'm on my third vRS estate - the first a diesel manual (fine, but I do 12,000 a year now rather than 20,000, so changed to the much more refined petrol). My second was a petrol DSG, my current one a Mark 3 petrol manual. Although DSG in theory gives similar performance figures to a manual, I definitely felt that the DSG was holding the car back just a little, a feeling that definitely isn't there with the manual, which really does have as much zing as the Golf GTI that I also test drove. I'm 65, just a few years younger than you, Sussexvet, and the VRS badges are discreet enough for it not to look like mutton dressed as lamb! You'll only get consumption of 30 mpg if you just do short journeys. I regularly get 38-40 on long runs, and driving through France to Switzerland a couple of weeks ago I got 41 mpg - excellent as I don't hang about. The ride is a little on the firm side but not so much as to be a problem, and the vRS sports seats are supremely comfortable. I think you'll be very happy with a petrol vRS: go for the estate if you can, as it's no longer than the hatch, and visibility is better.

I'd know that noise anywhere. That sounds just like a 1930's Morris 8. I'm glad my 2.0 TSI doesn't sound like that......

I'm delighted with my mark 3 vRS estate (217 bhp petrol), and the improvements over the mark 2 are worth having: but I'm not sure that the diesel vRS (184 bhp) is worth the extra over the Elegance 2.0 TDI (150 bhp). Have a look at the specifications and if possible test drive both.

The Wanderer can be forgiven for any extreme views - through having to drive in Guildford. There really is nowhere in the country quite like Guildford to drive in, with its combination of steep streets, one-way systems that don't work, and a way-above-average proportion of men with hats driving Vauxhalls and ladies of 80-in-the-shade driving small Japanese cars trying to do hill starts.

Going back to Falkster's original post - is the (cheaper) petrol vRS still on your list? It's not as economical as the diesel, for sure, but the 40 mpg on a long run that I get with mine (mark 3 estate) is pretty respectable. Some non-VAG diesels struggle to do as well as that. If you do need the diesel, you won't find the 150 bhp Elegance much slower in normal driving than the 184 bhp vRS. And some equipment is standard on the Elegance which costs extra on the vRS.