Mentioned this previously but with the CR engine now fitted to the Octavia in place of the venerable PD both have virtually the same engine line up. With the Monster though you appear to be paying a heck of a lot more for the petrol 1.8TSI option in comparison to diesel then you are on the Octavia.

Yeti SE 4x4 RRP (cheapest engine first)

2.0 TDI CR 110 4x4 = £19,015

1.8 TSI 160 4x4 = £19,515

2.0 TDI CR 140 4x4 = £19,830

Octavia 4x4 (cheapest engine first)

1.8 TSI 160 4x4 = £19,040

1.6 TDI CR 105 4x4 = £19,335

2.0 TDI CR 140 4x4 = £20,545

Be interested to know how and why it's £1190 cheaper to fit a 1.8TSI into an Octavia than a Yeti, if you compare the price difference to the 140 diesel. Or is it the Octavia owner is being charged more for the 140 :wonder: Either way it's a weird price structure.

TP

Either way it's a weird price structure.

TP

TP you sound surprised?! It is SUK you are talking about here. No rhyme nor reason for anything they concoct alas. Just look at the option prices for Park Assist on SE and Elegance Yetis and then compare that to the individual costs of front parking sensors and ESP on their own. Just as mind baffling.

Unless I have misread your figures the difference is £475, not £1190. That is not so dramatic. The Yeti is cheaper on the 2.0 CR though which I guess is your real point, why are they all not more expensive or all cheaper.

I assume there must be mechanical reasons which makes one cheaper to produce or fit in the car? Perhaps........

Unless I have misread your figures the difference is £475, not £1190. That is not so dramatic. The Yeti is cheaper on the 2.0 CR though which I guess is your real point, why are they all not more expensive or all cheaper.

I assume there must be mechanical reasons which makes one cheaper to produce or fit in the car? Perhaps........

well anything can happen in the wonderful world of TP's mathematics, wouldn't think I had an ONC in Aerospace Engineering

TP

I think you guys are going at this from the wrong angle.

The pricing is market dependent - not cost dependent. So Skoda and others are pricing based on their intended buying public and what they expect they will pay. (LSE Marketing course, 1965 - it hasn't changed much!).

Consider what you think the cost dífferences are between the three versions of the 2.0 CR engine...........not much, right? Certainly there ought to be very little between the 1140 and the 170, as they also share identical gear and drive systems, so a little more for a larger turbo and bigger brakes.

There is a manufacturing principle that the relative cost of different sizes of more or less the same type of priduct is almost directly related to their weight. If you compare the weight of the Fabia, Octavia and yeti, there is really very little weight difference from just over 1100kg to just over 1400 kg dry weight. Under 30%, yet the price of the Yeti is double the Fabia.

Extend that out to a BMW X1/X3 and the Tiguan - not much weight difference, but big price differences. BMW and VW are not that much poorer at building cars at an economical cost.

Edited 11 August, 201015 yr by Agerbundsen

I don't think the pricing has too much to do with how much it actually costs to make and build a certain engine or build.

Like a lot of things like cars, the pricing will be decided more by looking at the relative prices of the cars competitors on the market, and deciding from there how much they should charge.

So they might take an equivalent vehicle in the same trim and engine, say a Qashqui, and there will be a strategic pricing decision that Skoda will price say 2% under Nissan. And that is how they will get the price.

I would imagine that is how you get the disparities between a Yeti and an Octavia, because they are being pegged against different competitors.

Take charging different amounts for the engines. I can't believe that it costs anymore to actually physically make a 140 TDI compared to a 170 TDI. But they charge more for the 170, just because they can and consumers expect to pay more for a more powerful engine. Likewise, with the 1.2. This is the cheapest engine, but I bet given its high technology and output relative to displacement, it is actually one of the more expensive variants to produce. However, it’s the smallest engine, and consumers would not expect to pay more for a less powerful engine, and so it gets priced accordingly.

It sounds crazy as logic would say that you get charged more because you are getting 'more', but most of the time pricing is driven more by what the vendor thinks they can get away with in the market place.

Wow. You two posted 2 minutes apart and your replies are near identical! Did you both do the LSE Marketing course in 1965? Love it.

But yes you are both right. There is also definitely not £10,000 worth of stuff in a Yeti Elegance over a base Yeti!

That's why we chose an SE, when we were thinking of a fully loaded Elegance. Couldn't see why the cost was 8k more.

And comparing Yeti and Octavia does make the latter good value, particularly when the VAT free deal is still running on the Octavia.

But yes you are both right. There is also definitely not £10,000 worth of stuff in a Yeti Elegance over a base Yeti!

No, of course there isn't, but note the vast amount of discussions here on the forum about the Bling Bits (learned a new word ) and not much about the brilliant basics. People can afford the additional luxuries and want them, so the car companies charge elatively more for them.

That's why we chose an SE, when we were thinking of a fully loaded Elegance. Couldn't see why the cost was 8k more.

And comparing Yeti and Octavia does make the latter good value, particularly when the VAT free deal is still running on the Octavia.

Which price list shows a difference of as much as £8k between an SE and Elegance??

The list price of my Elegance is about £2k more than the same engine in an SED. The extra bits are well worthwhile the difference - Xenons, Bluetooth, Leather and heated seats would cost a lot more if specified as extras on an SE.

Which price list shows a difference of as much as £8k between an SE and Elegance??

.

Indeed see point 23 in this post as well. It makes no sense to order an SE with many options - when the price difference is only £1,995.

Wow. You two posted 2 minutes apart and your replies are near identical! Did you both do the LSE Marketing course in 1965? Love it.

But yes you are both right. There is also definitely not £10,000 worth of stuff in a Yeti Elegance over a base Yeti!

Some strange maths going on here. Where is the price list that shows a difference of £10k between an E and an Elegance with the same engine??

Try about £4k difference and the extra equipment on the higher priced model is easily justified by this price. Alloys, Fogs, better radio, more airbags, nicer trim, reverse park sensors, Xenons, cruise control.... the list goes on and on!

Where is the price list that shows a difference of £10k between an E and an Elegance with the same engine??

I never said with the same engine! Of course the engine is part of the cost BUT as stated elsewhere the cost difference between say a 2,0 TDI CR 110, 140 and 170 should really be minimal. Nor can I imagine that the cost difference between a 1,2 and 1,8 petrol engine can run into many thousands - even if they are totally different engines wheras the TDIs are mostly just different software.

Supply and demand. Market forces. That is what prices a commodity and not the actual build cost.

Strangely I can only ever recall Ford using a flat price structure for cars with different sizes of engine.

A few years ago a 1.8 litre petrol Focus was the same price as a 1.6 for the same trim level. Don't know whether that is still true but I was impressed with the honesty. Still wouldn't buy one though.

I suppose there is sense in having some sort of hierarchy with pricing as everyone would be be buying the 170 CRd and no 1.2 TSi's would ever be sold if they were all the same price.

Strangely I can only ever recall Ford using a flat price structure for cars with different sizes of engine.

A few years ago a 1.8 litre petrol Focus was the same price as a 1.6 for the same trim level. Don't know whether that is still true but I was impressed with the honesty. Still wouldn't buy one though.

I suppose there is sense in having some sort of hierarchy with pricing as everyone would be be buying the 170 CRd and no 1.2 TSi's would ever be sold if they were all the same price.

You got that right. at the same price, you would get both power and economy out of the 170 CR. Come to think of it you get it at the different price too.

Which price list shows a difference of as much as £8k between an SE and Elegance??

The list price of my Elegance is about £2k more than the same engine in an SED. The extra bits are well worthwhile the difference - Xenons, Bluetooth, Leather and heated seats would cost a lot more if specified as extras on an SE.

That's why I put fully loaded.

If we were ditching the Range Rover we wanted an Elegance with all the options, and I mean all. Total price was 26k less discount.

The alternative was to keep the RR and run the Yeti as a second car. In this case we'd be quite happy with a petrol DSG 2wd with a few extras. The price difference was actually about 8k to 9k.

In the end we couldn't justify 8k for the same car, as it was still missing toys like electric seats, pre-heater for the winter, so we went with the SE discounted to 16k and are keeping the Rangie which has lost most of it's depreciation at nearly five years old already.

Hope that makes more sense now.

Hope that makes more sense now.

Ah! Yes, now it makes sense!!

(LSE Marketing course, 1965 - it hasn't changed much!).

And did you take part in any of the sit ins with Tariq Ali??

And did you take part in any of the sit ins with Tariq Ali??

No, it was a company sponsored correspondance course - and I think all the political activity at LSE really was a bit later.

No, it was a company sponsored correspondance course - and I think all the political activity at LSE really was a bit later.

Ah! So you missed all the fun!! When all the revolutionaries got overexcited and took over the Uni Social place, the Union, and did a "sit-in", the word then passed around all the medical, and veterinary, and "right-ish" wing faculties and rugby clubs, who then one by one infiltrated those sitting in in the Union, so that, when the normal chucking out time came, Tariq and the revos were quietly bundled out onto the street. TWas SO exciting and yet really peaceful.

And we all lived happily everafter. *sighs wistfully*, gazing back through misty, rose tinted specs with rheumy old eyes.....................

The economics of manufacturing also include the way that the original R&D investment is recovered.

Skoda spend x developing the Octavia and expect to sell a million of them so each car carries x/1000000 of the R&D cost. Also, Octavia is further into the model life cycle so (a) the R&D was cheaper and ( Skoda have probably got most of it back by now.

They then spend y developing the Yeti, like it or not they will sell less Yetis than Octavias so they have to recoever more R&D per unit. So Yeti is more expensive. It's also newer (so R&D was more expensive) and Skoda have had less time to get their investment back/

It's a bit more complicated than that as some bits get reused across many models but you get the drift.

Of course that's just one factor in pricing stuff.