Superb 1.8 TSI

To be frank I don't like the styling of either the new BMW 1-series or the 3-series. The 3-series is okay I guess, but the 1-series is nothing short of dreadful if you ask me. I don't think the problem is expensive or not. If you can afford a 3.6 4x4 Superb you can afford some kind of BMW 3-series. The question is more a problem of what you get for your money. The BMW HAS better handling than the Skoda, but you probably have to push both cars pretty hard to discover it. I didn't notice any earth shattering differences on my test drive anyway. And that is the point, if I can't notice that much of a difference in everyday traffic, why should I buy a BMW? Previously you could buy them for the lovely smooth straight sixes. Now you get a vibrating turbo four in the BMW, excatly like in a Passat or a Superb.

Before I bought my Superb I was, for a while, dreaming of buying the new BMW 3-series when it came on the market. So, now that it is on the market I thought it would be fun to test drive one and see if I missed out on much by buying a Superb. I tested a 328i with the new 4-cylinder turbo and the 8-speed automatic. I drove it both on the motorway and on some twisty roads. To be honest, I don't feel that this car is so much better than my Superb. Sure the tyre noise was better insulated and the car was quicker. But I didn't get any feeling of "Wow, this car is so much better than the Superb, it is worth the extra money". Ride comfort was a bit better and turn in on twisty roads a bit quicker. But not amazingly so. Of course if you press the car to its limit, there will be a difference, but in more normal driving the difference is not all that great.

I have read quite a number of tests of the Superb in different magazines and what strikes me is that there seem to be quite a difference in opinions about the Superbs ride comfort. Some say that it is very harsh, while others find that it soaks up all the bumps of the road. For instance one Swedish magazine when testing the Superb Combi against some competitors gave it highest marks for ride comfort in one test. And the tested car had 18 inch wheels! . Also the Superb faired very well in the "ride comfort" category in the Driver Power survey conducted by Auto Express. However in other tests I have read the Superb is critisized for its harsh ride. Why is this so? The car cannot be both hard and soft at the same time? For me I find the ride of the Superb to be pretty good. Especially over speed humps. But my previous car was a BMW 1-series with runflat tires.....

The heating in mine is actually better than the BMW. Comes on a lot quicker, but my Superb is a petrol which may explain things. I only had the standard stereo (BMW business) and the Skoda system is a lot better. Although I agree that you have to be careful with the bass.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the BMW 1-series (I am talking about the outgoing model here) is grossly overpriced. It is supposed to be a premium car. I really don't see what is so premium about it. In my opinion premium cars are supposed to be quiet, comfortable and sporty at the same time and have a smooth drive train. The 1-series fails in all of these categories. It is certainly not quiet when it comes to engine and wind noise. The ride is downright hard with the runflat tires. Sporty? Sure it has very quick steering and good steering response, but due to its narrow track it feels pretty wobbly sometimes and uneven roads can even trigger the ESP system if you are not careful on the throttle. The drive train in my car (118d with 2 liter diesel) wasn't excatly smooth. The gearstick vibrated severly if you left it in gear with the clutch down at a red light. And making smooth downshifts was almost impossible. The are only three things I miss from my BMW. The climate control system had a "rest" function, which maintained the temperature in the car for 15 minutes after you have turned the engine off. Good to have if you have to wait in the car during the winter. The car had an electronic dip-stick for the oil. No need to open the hood to check the oil level. The ESP system was honestly smoother in the BMW. The one in the Skoda is a bit harsher in the way it reduces the speed. In the BMW you barely noticed when the system was active. On the other hand the Skoda, being FWD, is much less tail happy than the BMW so ESP rarely comes on. Driving a 1-series in Sweden during the winter means frequent ESP-light blinking.

Yes, and in a good way in almost all respects. The only downside to the Superb is the higher fuel consumption compared to my BMW which was a diesel. I am also a member of a BMW forum, and the reactions from BMW-fans when you tell them that you have bought a Skoda are very interesting. Often something along the lines of "I guess it is an ok car if you are only interested in transport from A to B and don't like driving". Some people who have driven it complain about the tire noise which is sooooo much better insulated in a BMW or a Mercedes. I have driven the new E-class (my parents have one) and I honestly don't feel that there is that much of a difference in noise.

The thing that did it for me was that I discovered that a Superb 1.8 TSI Elegance DSG was about the same price as my BMW when I bought it. And I really couldn't see why the BMW was worth so much more money. Of course it is rear wheel drive and has more advanced suspension and better handling. But I am not a skilled enough driver to appreciate these things. The things I did notice was that the Superb was quiteter, more comfortable, infinitely more practical and came with a lot more equipment.

As a newcomer I thought I'd introduce myself a bit more and explain why I bought a Superb. My previous car was a BMW 1-series. In the beginning I loved it but as time went on I realized that while it was very nice to drive it was a deeply impractical car. The interior space and boot are a joke to be honest. Furthermore the ride was much to harsh for my liking. Also I found the steering unnecessarily heavy when parking for instance. So I started looking around for other cars. In the beginning I was convinced that I wanted a Mercedes or a BMW and for a long time I wanted to buy a Mercedes C-class estate. But I soon realized that the interior space of that car wasnt much better than that in the 1-series. So I started looking at alternatives in roughly the same price range and came across the Superb. Honestly, in the beginning, I thought that coming from a BMW, the Superb would be dead boring to drive. But from the first moment I drove it I loved it! Nice light steering, much softer ride than the BMW and loads of interior space. Many of my friends thought I was crazy going from a BMW to a Skoda but once they have seen the car or sat in it they realize that a Skoda is not so bad after all!

Here is a comparison: Skoda Superb: 2761 mm Peugeot 508: 2817 mm Audi A6: 2912 mm Volvo V70: 2816 mm Volvo V60: 2776 mm As you can see there are plenty of cars with a longer wheelbase than the Superb but none of the above cars come even close to its interior space.

Yes, that is probably it. Pretty clever people at Skoda I must say,

I am a newcomer to this forum and a happy owner of a Superb 1.8 TSI estate. One thing that baffles me about this car is how they have managed to create so much interior space in a car with a relatively short wheelbase. There are a number of cars with a longer wheelbase than the Superb (Peugeot 508, Citroen C5, Volvo V70, Ford Mondeo, Audi A6 for instance). But none of them come even close to it's rear leg room. Has anyone thought about why this is so? What "magic" tricks have Skoda pulled to make the interior space so huge?

Yes, I have RTFM, and have been driving with 2.4 front and 2.7 rear. My question was more a reflection over the great difference in tire pressures between the front and rear tires for this dimension. The pressures for 225/45/17 tires are the same for both front and rear.

This is my first post in this forum. I currently own a pre-owned Skoda Superb Combi 1.8 TSI DSG and have a question about the correct tyre pressure. I fitted the car with winter tyres (205/55/16) in November (I live in northern europe) and I noted that the tyre pressures for 205/55/16 tyres are a bit strange. On the fuel filler cap it says that for this dimension I should have 2.2 front and 2.5 rear. I have however seen other posts in this forum where it says that, at least for the TDI 170, the recommended pressures are 2.4 both front and rear. Are the pressures different for different engines or is there a misprint in my car? For 225/45/17 it says that I should have 2.2 both front and rear. Why would the recommend a higher pressure for the rear tires for 205/55/16? Note that I am talking about the pressures for an unloaded vehicle.