Hi all,

I currently have an Audi A3 1.9TDI but this is a company car and im due to change job, so therefore I need a new car. I have managed to cut my list down to an Octavia 1.6D Elegance, or a KIA Cee'd 3 also a 1.6D.

Both cars are basically the same price, I personally prefer the Octavia, mainly because it drives, and feels just like my A3 (even looks better inside), but the Cee'd has a 7year warranty, and also comes with ESP, curtain air bags, bluetooth etc as standard.

So its a case of head vs heart, so im looking to you guys to help me choose, why should I choose the Octavia?

Also what are the servicing costs like, I notice it would need the cam belt doing after 4 years which looks expensive (and wouldnt be needed on the cee'd), what are the others like though?

Cheers

Edited 4 April, 201016 yr by chesterben

Because the Kia has no Seoul (sorry!!)

Seriously, the Kia may have a 7yr warranty but you'll have shot it well before it expires because it is abotu as boring as you can get. The 1.6 engine is not a peach, the interior is awful - think latest Ford Fiesta but without the panach and quality materials. Oh and you can get loads more Belgian beer in the boot of an Octy!

Seriously the Kia is a good little car but its dull as dishwater and like most of its bretheren, takes a nosedive in value secondhand, hence the need for a 7yr warranty to shore up this shotcoming.

Skoda is (just about) acceptable in most peoples eyes - I still face considerable badge snobbery even from close friends which I wouldn't get if I owned a Golf but its a damn sight better than owning a Kia Ceed!

Kia will have worse residual values. Kia has poor build quality. Buy the Skoda.

Cheers for the comments, also I know the cars are on offer at the moment (No VAT), but the dealer did let slip the other day that the GM is maintained for the dealer, so what sort of discount should I aim to haggle to?

Because the Kia has no Seoul (sorry!!)

Seriously, the Kia may have a 7yr warranty but you'll have shot it well before it expires because it is abotu as boring as you can get. The 1.6 engine is not a peach, the interior is awful - think latest Ford Fiesta but without the panach and quality materials. Oh and you can get loads more Belgian beer in the boot of an Octy!

Seriously the Kia is a good little car but its dull as dishwater and like most of its bretheren, takes a nosedive in value secondhand, hence the need for a 7yr warranty to shore up this shotcoming.

Skoda is (just about) acceptable in most peoples eyes - I still face considerable badge snobbery even from close friends which I wouldn't get if I owned a Golf but its a damn sight better than owning a Kia Ceed!

badge snobbery eh? who would have thought it from a bunch of SKODA owners :/

i have both an octavia (2006 pd105 classic saloon) and a ceed (2007 1.6 petrol SW GS (120bhp)) and you know what? ... the kia makes me smile, and the skoda makes me worry. below is a hopefully objective real world comparison between the two.

performance :

yes, the skoda feels quicker because of that big wedge of torque down low, but get the kia up to motorway speeds and it overtakes rapidly and with a lot less drama than the old tractor engine in the skoda. clutch is smoother, engine is quieter, and it likes to have the nuts revved off it. the brakes on the skoda are better, but only because the brakes on the ceed are a bit wooden.... although they do stop you rapidly if called for.

handling :

i travel along seriously nasty country roads daily, and i'm not afraid to chuck a car on a bit. the kia dances along these roads, always feeling safe, composed and like it's having fun - the skoda always feels heavy, numb and crashy over poor road surfaces. on the motorway, the skoda feels twitchy, the kia is relaxed and comfortable despite having harder suspension.

build :

my skoda thuds, bangs and rattles over poor road surfaces, my kia doesn't. sure the kia is price engineered, you can see that in some of the materials used, but it feels much better put together than the skoda which is coincidentally also price engineered so as not to directly compete with other VAG cars.

equipment :

no contest. the kia has more airbags, a much better stereo WITH steering wheel controls (blaupunkt apparently), remote central locking, trip computer, ipod connectivity as standard, more cup holders and storage bins (important when you have kids), under boot floor storage, 3 12v power points, alarm system, and seats that still look fresh and clean despite my 4yo sons best efforts.

reliability :

my skoda has been back to the dealer's at least a dozen times with various suspension issues which remain unresolved (clunk from front offside over poor road surfaces and my warranty ran out 3 months ago). it's had the gearbox out to replace a faulty synchro ring, had new gearbox oil, has had the wind noise fix done, has been in several times because of suspected dmf problems (apparently "not faulty enough" so skoda wouldn't replace), and had to have a full wheel re-alignment done last week because after all the bits of suspension that have been replaced the dealer didn't bother to check it. the kia has only had one problem in the time that i've owned it, and it's so minor i'll wait to have it fixed at the next service.

economy :

if i owned a diesel ceed, i'd be able to argue this one out, but i dont, so the skoda wins. my skoda does 48 to 50 mpg regularly, whereas the kia can only manage 43 mpg, but then that involves some country road thrashing, some motorway work, and a lot of daily traffic jams, so who knows what it could manage on a decent trip.

warranty :

3yrs vs 7yrs ... go figure a lot of the motoring press considers this an important factor in helping residuals. all i know is that for the length of time i'll be keeping the kia, it'll have a warranty, and when i bought it at 2 years old, it still had more warranty on it than a brand new car from any other manufacturer.

value for money :

my skoda cost me £1000 more to buy second hand than the kia did. it was one year old, versus 2 year old for the kia, but had nearly 3 times the mileage (14000 vs 5000). it's hard to accurately define VFM based on this, but the kia is so much better equipped, and with the huge warranty the kia certainly feels like a better buy. i looked at the mk1 octavia when it came out and back then it was certainly excellent VFM, but now, i think it's less so.

final thoughts :

i think a lot of my preference for the kia comes from my experiences so far with the skoda. as a VAG car i expected it to be perfectly built, utterly reliable and well specified. most of my family have VAG cars and have no complaints so i guess i just got a lemon. my kia on the other hand has been a pleasant surprise - totally reliable, well engineered, and nice to live with. the fuel economy sucks a bit, but buying second hand gives you less choice, and the deal i got on it was far too good to pass up despite it being a petrol car.

anyway, hope my lengthy post helps, and possibly dispels the tiny bit of badge snobbery i've witnessed in this thread :p

Edited 4 April, 201016 yr by martzweb

Kia will have worse residual values. Kia has poor build quality. Buy the Skoda.

I'd argue with you about the build quality on a modern Kia.

My stepmother has a 1.6D Kia and it's well put together, if a little uninspiring to look at inside

The 1.6 diesel in the Kia is on a par with other 1.6 diesels I've been in and I wouldn't let the negative comments here stop you from going to look at one.

So why do I drive a Skoda I hear you say... I bought a Octavia vRS because it had the performance I wanted at a price I could afford. If I had been looking at 1.6 100-120 bhp diesel cars I strongly suspect I would be driving a Focus now and not an Octavia...

People talk about 3 and 7 year warranties, don't forget you need to take mileage into account too. I effectively have a 2 and a bit year warranty on my vRS as I'll hit 60000 miles just after 2 years. If I had the Kia, I'd probably have a 3 1/2 year warranty as that would be when I hit the 100000 mile mark...

Choose the car you're happy with when you've taken them both for a test drive...

Thanks matrzweb, but now im more confused than ever

Another factor is that I live just down the road from a Skoda dealership and the sales guys there have been very good, absolutely no pressure to buy, let me test drive it knowing this, and spend a good while with me going over the options etc. On the other hand the KIA dealership os about 15 miles away, and they didnt seam interested, yes I test drove it, but the sales guy made no effort to be helpful.

Also the Skoda guy mentioned that you can extend the manufacturers warranty for about £300 a year, but he did indicate that he may be able to do us a deal on that!

Therefore I have test driven both, I think the Skoda felt better, maybe because I drive an Audi now, but I just like the drive, as well as the switch gear (cruise control on them are very good etc). The Cee'd 3 did look good, expecially in white, but i dont think the interior felt as 'classy' if that makes any sense!

Bit of a bugger really as im needing to make a decision this week!

hahaha....sorry

i'm kinda lucky because the skoda dealer i bought from also happens to be the kia dealer as well, and they are about 3 miles from my house. thats a pity about the kia dealer being a bit of an arse .... perception is 9/10's of everything to my mind and if you dont get a good feeling from the dealer you're not going to feel as good about the product. dont get me wrong, i bought the skoda because it had such a good reputation and also because i liked the vw bora my dad has (10yo and still looks / goes brilliantly). mine was an ex rental car and i think it'd had it's ass kicked before i even got my hands on it. my local dealer has been very helpful, i just dont think they ever got a proper handle on what was wrong with the car and that's spoiled the whole experience for me.

buy whatever works best for you. if you're an audi driver now, then the skoda is going to feel better to you anyway. the kia has very light controls, and for some that can be a bit offputting, but personally i'm all about ease of use these days (getting a bit old y'see) and the kia feels better to me.

anyway .. good luck with your decision .... just dont be afraid to pester the dealers and take multiple test drives

Thats for all your comments, I think I have decided on the Skoda, I enjoy the Audi, and hopefully the Octavia will be simular.

So now to decide on the colour, I like white (looks good, easier to patch up any scratches etc) but does it look too much like a taxi??

of the non-metallic colours, I think the red is the best for a "normal" Octy.

White does look good on the vRS, but on the other models, yes, it does look like it needs your phone number painted down the side.

Not a big fan of red cars, have a tendancy to fade sometimes, maybe it will have to be metallic silver!

Thats for all your comments, I think I have decided on the Skoda, I enjoy the Audi, and hopefully the Octavia will be simular.

So now to decide on the colour, I like white (looks good, easier to patch up any scratches etc) but does it look too much like a taxi??

Doh! - it was all going so well with the dialogue of choice between Kia & Skoda...........

But now you've moved onto colours - the real emotive subject

Black Magic for me, but it's not the best colour to keep looking smart.

John.

Doh! - it was all going so well with the dialogue of choice between Kia & Skoda...........

But now you've moved onto colours - the real emotive subject

Black Magic for me, but it's not the best colour to keep looking smart.

John.

Yeah its a tough one, always liked the White but its just a shame that it seams to be the choice of colour for taxi drivers too. Maybe I need to persuade my wife into letting me get a VRs

Also started to wonder about the engine, I automatically thought the Diesel (1.6) would be better, but just did a calculation online and the diesel would only pay for itself after 3 years! Then when you compare the 0-60 times (11.8 for the diesel and 9.7 for the 1.4 petrol) it does make you wonder!!

Edited 7 April, 201016 yr by chesterben

honestly the diesel is the better bet, and i'd say go with the 1.9 if you can rather than the 1.6 because it has a lot more torque. you're driving an a3 1.9 pd atm, either the petrol or the 1.6 diesel will drive you mad ... trust me on this. my kia is a 1.6 petrol, and it goes well, but the lack of low end torque just does my head in.

as for colour ..... ah... gotta be black mate. my ceed is black, and when it's all clean, it looks spankin' i had 2 white toyotas and a white pug and they always looked dirty - even when they were clean!

I like the Satin grey, but SWMBO has an aversion to "Silvery" cars, so the middle ground we got to for our new car is Anthracite grey.

A word of warning, if Kia's 7 year warranty forms a significant part in your reasoning behind buying one of their cars I strongly recommend you first read the small print (try finding it though).

Warranties cost the manufacturer huge amounts of money, all of which is factored back into the cost of the actual product.

To be able to offer (and honor) a 7 year warranty the terms and conditions and subsequent exclusions are much more apparent than with any other manufacturer.

It is worth noting also that the level of protection from Kia's warranty reduces throughout its term meaning that items covered in year 3 will not necessarily be covered in year 7.

The warranty is built to a cost, just like the car. To do this and remain competitive there are things you might expect to be covered that are not!

A word of warning, if Kia's 7 year warranty forms a significant part in your reasoning behind buying one of their cars I strongly recommend you first read the small print (try finding it though).

The warranty is built to a cost, just like the car. To do this and remain competitive there are things you might expect to be covered that are not!

I think the man has already made his decision, and is now pondering over the much more difficult issue of colour etc :p

As for the Kia, i bought mine because it was a well engineered, good looking vehicle, with much praise heaped upon it (much like the original octavia) by both the motoring press (always a difficult audience) and early adopters. The fact that it had a 7 year warranty was a bonus, but not my main motivation in the purchase. Yes, there are certain elements of the warranty that "run out" quicker than others, but i take comfort in the fact that long after my skoda is entirely "my problem" (which happened 3 month ago) my kia will still be covered.

Fair point, even a limited or reduced warranty is better than no warranty!

@martzweb:

Your comment on the 1.6 cr having less torque than the 1.9pd is IMHO false. Yes, one can easily stall the 1.6 (did it even today, after having driven the 1.9 tdi of my daughter and not paying attention to the character of my 1.6cr), but once it passes let's say 1600-1700 rpm, things go forward remarkably easily and silently, and your mpg will be better than with the 1.9pd. You'll drive the cr more as a petrol car, but with higher torque and more mpg. I'm enjoying every kilometer (or mile, whatever) with it.

You're right about badge snobbery: whatever car you buy, if it was made on a Monday (or a Friday), you have a bad car. After two (very) bad experiences with Audi, the firm my son works in had decided not to buy an Audi any more. And if your Lada does the job, you have a good car...

ok broere, point taken .. i was only going on opinions i've studied here and elsewhere, but at the end of the day, they are just opinions if the 1.6 can manage better mpg than the 1.9 pd then that's excellent, because despite my love / hate relationship with my own, i could never fault it's fuel economy. you are totally right on the monday/friday thing ..... my skoda was definately one of those! it's a pity really, because despite it's meager spec, and steel wheels (i cant afford alloys) it is a very nice looking car ...so much so, that i spent part of the weekend removing all the tar marks, giving it a damn good wash, and giving it a coat of t-cut colour fast (i'm sure the detailing gurus will tell me it's junk, but it hides the scratches, and it's all i can afford).... long story short, it's sitting outside gleaming and it still kind of tugs on my heart strings despite the awful problems i've had with it.

anyway, i'm starting to waffle, so back to the featured broadcast .....

Thanks for the replies guys. Yeah thinking about it again i think the diesel is a good bet over the petrol. I have driven the CR 1.6 and didnt notice much difference to the 1.9 in the Audi, although it wasn't quite as noisy!

The colour is a tough one, I personally think the octavia looks good in a light colour due mainly to the large dark grill. I guess I will have to ask the garage what used cars they have in the different colours so I can see them better.

So what sort of discount would you think I could haggle for at the dealer? I like I said above the dealer let it slip that even with the VAT reduction, the GM that the garage get it the same, so there should be some room for manoeuvre.

Ummm, not so sure now! Just took the KIA out for a long test drive and its not a bad little car! The ICE worked really well with my iphone, and it does look nice in white!

Also the dealer has offered to match the £777 discount from KIA, so thats £14,700 for a top spec Cee'd with Bluetooth, ESP etc as standard!

I'm taking the Octavia out for a longer run on Saturday so ill see what they can offer!

Mine is Black Magic. It looks great when glossed up, but it's a pig to keep clean and every last mark shows up. I'm happy with my car but if I had my time over I'd have gone for another colour. Unless you're obsessional about cleaning/polishing it, get a lighter shade.

Edited 8 April, 201016 yr by thinkblueskies

Ummm, not so sure now! Just took the KIA out for a long test drive and its not a bad little car! The ICE worked really well with my iphone, and it does look nice in white!

Also the dealer has offered to match the £777 discount from KIA, so thats £14,700 for a top spec Cee'd with Bluetooth, ESP etc as standard!

I'm taking the Octavia out for a longer run on Saturday so ill see what they can offer!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ....... YES MY PRECIOUS THE DEVIL CEED WILL HAVE YOU!!!!!

i dont have bluetooth in mine, (only a mid spec GS) but i do have bt handsfree on my navman 500 so no biggy. the ICE is def nice in the kia, just this morning i had ac/dc blasting out plenty loud on a rather quick belt in to work and the speaker system handles it v well

Latest update! Took the 1.6D Elegance (which is the one I would get) out on Saturday morning and the drive is a lot better than the Cee'd (Sorry martzweb). I am 6'5 and there is a lot more room in it than the Cee'd, I love the radio (especially as it tells you what track is playing on the radio!!). So we got back to the dealer and we started to talk about price. The problem is that they wont budge, the best they offered was to throw in the spare wheel for free.

This means that if I added the safety features (ESP, curtain air bags etc) then the car would be nearly a grand more than the KIA!! But what I have found is that the Octy is far more economical than the KIA, on my test drive of the KIA (some motorway, some town) I was only getting 43mpg. I thought that maybe this was due to it being new, but I have been reading on a KIA forum and people rarely get over 50!!

So im as confused as ever!

What I would like some advice on the following:-

1) How important is the ESP? Does it really make much difference? Is it worth 300 odd pound!

2) How big an issue is is that the engine is belt driven? What does it cost to replace? When does it need doing? The Cee'd is chain driven!

3) What are the servicing costs? Are there any major ones in the first 5 years or so?

4) Colour - If i do decide on an Octy its between Silver or possibly White, any photos would help!

5) Price - Has anybody used "drive the deal"? are they reliable?

Thanks guys, I need to order one this week!!

Edited 12 April, 201016 yr by chesterben