We've recently moved out into the sticks and have found this winter's driving to have been ''interesting''. (The council spends less per annum on gritting and fixing potholes than I do on chocolate, which doesn't help matters). We've therefore resolved to trade our 8 year old Passat estate for either an Octy Est. SE 1.9 TDI PD 105bhp 4x4 or a Scout 2.0 TDI PD 140bhp DPF 4x4. (I want to keep an estate as opposed to buying an SUV and we've been offered a small sail boat with trailer, so the 4x4 would be v.useful for wet slipways).

I'm stuck as to which option to go for: 4x4 Est or Scout.

What would you choose, and why?

Any help appreciated.

Rab-k

PS Is the Scout due to have a facelift anytime soon?

Edited 1 April, 200917 yr by Rab-k
kant spill

Well I have a Octy II 2.0TDI 140bhp DPF 4x4 (Not Scout) and I've been extremely please with it especially over the recent snowy weather here in South Yorkshire. It's got a few extras (bigger wheels, maxidot, towbar, heated seats, steering wheel controls, active headrests, rear armrest, parrott kit) so is a good high spec.

I've replaced the tyres with Vredestien Sportrac 3's and traction was good in the snow but if you are on slipways you might want something a bit mud and snow related (quatracs have been mentioned on here before now).

Spec wise I think the main differences of interest to you are the Scout cladding (knocks on slipways etc. but will they hold water?), the Scout towing stability electronics (that the standard 4x4 doesn't get), and the extra 17mm ride height I think - the 4x4 is already raised).

Personally I'm not keen on the Scout's black addenda so we got the 4x4 as it was a bit more "stealth" but still gave the added safety and security of the 4x4 etc.

The 4x4 might be a bit cheaper but Skoda were recently offering the Scout for the price of a 4x4...

So it's down to you really

Oh and in answer to your facelift question - the 4x4 has already been facelifted but the Scout and VRs are due for the end of this year I think...

which do you prefer the look of?

For the price difference new the extras and more powerful engine on the scout are good value, but you didn't say if buying new or 2nd hand. I'd guess the scout was more desirable, certainly the used prices are all above £12.5k. The 4x4 is more subtle.

I'd have a Scout as it looks like a mini Audi Allroad, but I only need 4x4 in the snow, and to be honest even in sheet ice this year didn't get caught out too badly in the fwd octy.

I'm not a fan of the DPF hence me having the 1.9tdi in normal estate form.

Hi We have a 1.9tdi 4x4 estate, did 40,000km plus first year, bad and snow covered roads, many pics on Briskoda of the car. Also lots of motorway driving over 80 % was on those, we also carry our dog , so plenty enough space for anybody.ESP and EDL all help on messy roads, but don't have a towbar fitted, so can not comment on that side of things, but seen a few towing trailers etc.

Octy 1.9pd tdi 4x4.

Hi Rab-k, welcome to Briskoda.

I've had a Scout TDi for a year now and can thoroughly recommend the car. However it is starting to look a little expensive - it is not face-lifted yet and has still increased in price by quite a bit over the last year. If I was replacing my Scout I would now go for the standard 4x4 estate as others have mentioned and add any extras I needed.

It is worth noting that the new common rail engines are gradually finding their way into the Octavia. It will be interesting to see which engine will replace the trusty old 103 bhp PD unit. It would be great if they used the new 1.6 unit which delivers 105 bhp and is reportedly very refined and economical. There again they may use the lower powered (110 bhp) version of the 2.0 litre CR.

So if you are considering buying new can you wait a bit?

The main thing about the 4x4 versions of the Octavia is the feeling of stability you get. They really are rock solid and ride very well. I tow a caravan (1250 kg) and it is the best towcar I've had.

I looked at both very carefully, and bought the 1.9 4x4, and added the extras that mattered to me. Why? Partly cost, I didn't need the extra ride height on the Scout over 4x4 and suspect that it would affect aerodynamics and therefore economy. Also as someone else has said, I prefer the stealth to the butch look of the Scout

I really love the all-road look of the Scout. Do I need the all road capacity? Maybe on vacation, but probably not. However I am absolutely happy with this car, I will use it until its end (I expect to drive at least another 10-12 years in it).

Externally The scout looks better IMHO but I opted for a 4x4 (2nd hand) due to what was available when part ex'ing the furby. I live on a farm on a very steep hill I had no problems with the snow a few months back & have even off roaded the car around the farm (Great Fun) There have been sheep in the back of it so there is loads of space & I regularly use a bike carrier attached to the tow bar (removable).

Its a fantastic car & id have no problem ordering another one when this one has been run into the ground.

mines a 1.9tdi 4x4 and i get roughly 45-50 mpg.

I wouldn't go for either........I need an auto, and as far as I understand, neither is available with DSG. If it were then it would be the scout.

I considered all three diesel options (2.0 Scout, 1.9 4x4, 2.0 4x4), in the end I got the 2.0 4x4, but there REALLY wasn't much in it and I am sure I'd have been happy with any of them.

Cost wasn't a major issue for me (obviously the cheaper the better, but I would have paid for the Scout if I thought the extras were worth the extra cash to me personally), it basically came down to which I prefered.

From some angles I think the Scout looks very nice, but I think the 4x4 edges it from the front in particular. Ultimately I think I prefered the subtlety of the 4x4.

The Scout has slightly better ground clearance, which means it is slightly better off-road, but also ever so slightly worse on fuel, although this will probably be most significant at motorway speeds. It really is a tiny difference though! For me it was an issue though, I'm a slight tree-hugger at heart and even though I wanted a 4x4, I also wanted to get the most fuel-efficient model I could get, as long as it fitted my criteria. So I felt personally happier going for the more efficient version.

You may be wondering therefore, why didn't I get the 1.9 4x4? Basically I thought the 2.0 version would be more desirable if I ever needed to sell it. Also, I was looking for an almost-new model, but 1.9 versions less than a year old are non-existent. It seems the vast majority of 4x4s sold now are the 2.0 version (or the Scout).

I also thought the 15" wheels on the 4x4 looked better than the 17" wheels on the Scout, but this is very subjective. I think both look fine, but I think the 15" edge it... just.

Ultimately I thought the 15" would give a slightly smoother ride.

In summary, I think all three models are fine cars. It really comes down to tiny little differences really, and it's down to what you want the car for

Ta much for all your posts.

Two good cars, too difficult to choose - I pity the poor sod at Ingrams who'll have to endure hours of 'this one or that one' come the day I sign on the dotted line.

Thanks again.

RK

Ta much for all your posts.

Two good cars, too difficult to choose - I pity the poor sod at Ingrams who'll have to endure hours of 'this one or that one' come the day I sign on the dotted line.

Thanks again.

RK

Don't you mean three good cars? Don't forget the 2.0 4x4

I'm sure you'll be chuffed whichever one you pick. I love my 2.0 4x4, every time I get in it, I can't help feeling smug at what an amazing car it is for the money.

A mate of mine who I lift-share with has an Audi A3 Sportline, with the same engine as me (incase you don't know, the Octavia shares the same vehicle platform as the Audi A3/TT, among others), he paid approx £6k more for his car than I did (admittedly, I think he bought his before times were so tough, so you could reduce the gap a bit if you take that into account), they were both around the 8 months old mark when purchased.

When I'm sitting in the A3, apart from the fact that many of the Octavia's optional extras are standard on the Audi (e.g. maxidot, curtain airbags), and the interior is using more chrome and shiny bits (not better quality, particularly, IMO, just shinier and "chromier"), there really isn't much difference. You notice the similarities very easily. Once you look past the "tarting up" of the interior, you can see that most of the car is actually exactly the same.

(I think Audis are great, don't misunderstand me, but 50% of the extra money you pay is for the badge)

It's like humans and chimps. They look quite different at first glance, but in terms of DNA, 99.8% identical