Seats: not as supportive as the golf. The Gti has much deeper side bolsters so you feel more "held" in place than you do with the vrs seats. They're still good, but not quite as sporty as the golf - i feel a little like i'm sitting ON them rather then IN them if you see what i mean.

This is why I am fitting mk5 GTI seats in my fabia - Never sat in anything nicer yet (Dad's just sold his mk5 GTI of 3 years - loved driving it!)

This is why I am fitting mk5 GTI seats in my fabia - Never sat in anything nicer yet (Dad's just sold his mk5 GTI of 3 years - loved driving it!)

The optional recaros on the golf are even better. No idea why skoda don't offer a recaro option.. :(

I actually researched the cost of some black leather Recaro Sportster CS (same as fitted to the evora, focus rs & all the fast renaults). Awesome seats, but the cost is eye watering - it was working out about 2k if you had them with heaters - plus you'd need to re-trim the rear seat to match.. maybe if my numbers come up tonight

Not a fan of the wheels, white estate looks good though!

Me too. Black/anthracite just doesn't do it for me. Too chavvy.

Great review, Very nice car, think lowering it will make the anthracite wheels look better

Shark fin aerial now fitted to the Superb.........

Having also just bought a VRS (hatch though) after Mk5 Golf GTI ownership you echo a lot of my thoughts...I think the seats don't go as low as the Golf which gives you that slightly 'on' rather than 'in' feeling.

I also over my previous car, but the sides, dashboard and bonnet are higher too, so I sometimes need to raise the seat height, from my preferred lowest position, at some junctions and hill brows to get good visibility.

Thread revival time:-

Ref the Conti tyres guys; tread depth only makes a difference to wet grip, and even then only when there's actually a measurable film of water on the surface, rather than it just being wet

Thread revival time:-

Ref the Conti tyres guys; tread depth only makes a difference to wet grip, and even then only when there's actually a measurable film of water on the surface, rather than it just being wet

Are you stating this theoretically Ken because my own experience with Conti tyres was very much like awesome,awesome ,awesome,awesome,awesome ,awesome,awesome,awesome ,awesome,awesome,awesome ,awesome, rubbish, rubbish, dangerous . . . as they became progressively more worn but before reaching the legal limit. I don't remember that being only in aquaplaning, the feeling was that the compound had changed abruptly for all road conditions.

Are you stating this theoretically Ken because my own experience with Conti tyres was very much like awesome,awesome ,awesome,awesome,awesome ,awesome,awesome,awesome ,awesome,awesome,awesome ,awesome, rubbish, rubbish, dangerous . . . as they became progressively more worn but before reaching the legal limit. I don't remember that being only in aquaplaning, the feeling was that the compound had changed abruptly for all road conditions.

A bit of both. I've never run Contis, but I know both in theory and practice that a constant compound tyre relies on the rubber to provide grip up until there is an actual film of standing water on the road surface, when it relies on the tread pattern and depth to clear that water and get the rubber into contact.

With a dual compound like a Conti, the theory says that the harder substrate compound behaves like you describe "...awesome, rubbish..." even when the road is wet but there is no standing water film.

Certainly no fun when they go all wibbly wobbly on you when you have just committed yourself. My own fault for not checking frequently to be honest. Contis are good while the tread is there though and at the time I could get them at a reasonable price.

Ironically my new car arrived with Contis on it . . .