Currently driving the previous version Polo GTI, 1.8 turbo engine which I can honest say I quite enjoy. I do a low mileage, 6,000 per year, and so having the most fuel efficient engine is not a big issue for me.

But time is coming up for a change. I am very impressed with the Skoda brand, and it is clear that in the last few years they are punting out decent, quality motors. The Yeti was getting great reviews.

Was initially thinking about a Octavia VRS estate, but that 2.0 petrol engine may be too much of a gas guzzler plus I dont do a lot of motorway miles and so my attention has focused on the Fabia VRS estate - boot would be nearly double the size I have got now, roof rails could be useful in the future and the 180bhp 1.4 engine will be excellent.

I understand that the floor plans, engines etc etc of the cars are all shared between Skoda, Seat and VW.

But where is the justification for there to be a £6k price difference between the Fabia VRS and Polo GTI? Where is the cost cutting by Skoda?

Is it just harder plastics? Styling might not be the best inside/out? All image? Engine cover under bonnet?

£6,000 is a lot of extra money to find for effectively the same car - or are Skoda pulling a fast one and I would notice a BIG quality difference between a VW and a Skoda.

Appreciate your thoughts.

Edited 13 January, 201115 yr by BA Baracus

It may not be that the Skoda is 'cheaper', maybe VW have added 6k as they know badge snobs will pay the extra

Largely a cost exercise for a perceived 'better brand'. Plus some of the interior touches are better, plastic quality in places for example.

But not enough to warrant the price difference, in my view. If you don't have a problem with the brand, then it really comes down to a few design choices. Will you notice? Will it bother you? Only you can answer that

Also, if you're looking at something of this size in estate form, VW don't offer anything. You choices, especially with the 1.4TSI are the Fabia or Ibiza.

Steve

It may not be that the Skoda is 'cheaper', maybe VW have added 6k as they know badge snobs will pay the extra

It is quite true that it is more about "badge snobbery", than cost cutting on the part of Skoda, In most cases you will find that the Skoda model, is far better speced out than the similar model in the VW line up, and if you were to spec up the VW to the level of the Skoda, you would find that the price difference is even greater.

I am speaking from experience, and found nearly a €8000 difference between my Superb Combi, and a similar spec VW Passat Estate, and I must say that I find the Superb to be much better built than the VW, It would appear that Skoda workers, are like VW workers were many years ago, They take pride in their work, and do not rely on the badge to sell the car.

Edited 13 January, 201115 yr by jonnb

I think the general fit is better in some VWs, my Fabia rattles and vibrates a lot now from its interior. However, it was a cheap car so I accept that, but if a VW is built the same and had the same faults I would be pretty mad. I dont think the gap is that great to be honest, just the badge that costs.

Is it just harder plastics?

The plastics are all the same, the only difference between "hard" and "soft" plastics is the finish on them...and the differential for the cost of the finish is very very small. In terms of establishing the build quality of a car, the feel of the plastic is probably the least useful indicator yet seems to be favoured by a lot of motoring press...

Edited 13 January, 201115 yr by robmawer

But where is the justification for there to be a £6k price difference between the Fabia VRS and Polo GTI? Where is the cost cutting by Skoda?

Most of the difference is, of course, the so-called 'badge snobbery'. However, you can see cost-cutting by Skoda on the materials in the cabin - e.g. plastic door handles (my bugbear!). I have not driven the new VW, but it feels as if it has better noise insulation inside (has anyone here compared them?). For just a few hundred pounds, the Skoda would be every bit as good as the VW in this respect. It is the only reason I am hesitating about buying one.

i had a previous model polo and have to say the skoda is almost identical, only difference i can see is the badge. all models of polo (bar the SEL) feel much more plastiky than the fabia, and i was expecting a baby golf, but the polo is closer to the fox. my previous polo (new in 2008) had a very long list of things wrong from the factory, including rattles and suspention knocks, but worst of all was 2 different shades or red!

although the interiors of the 3 cars (i have also had a 2009 ibiza so can compare all 3) is similar, the best 'screwed together' one is by far the fabia.

i get a lot of 'ewww you brought a Skoda!' but after a 5 minute drive in my 2011 vRS they got out with their tail between their legs and the best they could come up with is 'well the seats are comfy'

i would not go back to a VW as, in my experience, the build quality is inferior to skoda and seat is nice but cant justify the extra 2k when the cars are identical

my rant over

Edited 13 January, 201115 yr by masserator

Having had a Golf GTI Mk5 from new & then getting a Skoda Octy VRS new last Jan I could compare both models.

Build Quality, Skoda better

Plastics Hard & Soft, No difference (though Mk6 Golf may have improved plastics)

The dials & switchgear were better on the Skoda.

Noise Level, Skoda quieter

The only area that I could say I felt the Golf superior on a quality/features level were 1/ in the use rubber mats at the base of door pockets (keeps stuff from sliding about) 2/ Footwell lighting (Skoda VRS doesn't have these) & 3/ A light that comes on when you slide the vanity mirror open on the back of the passenger sunvisor.

For the record I also felt the Golf had a better (lower) seating position, better handling (The VRS CR tends to be more reluctant to turn in unless you boot it & let the XDS help) & better steering feel (the Skoda is a little over-assisted).

Having recently traded in the Golf for a Fabia VRS & must say that the Fabia does feel a little cheap compared to both the Octy & the Golf. Interior door handles are nasty & the switchgear feels a little 'Fisher Price'...the fan/temp knobs for example...on the Fab you tweak them...nothing happens...so you do it again...and they adjust. On the Octy & Golf each click of the knob equates to a small change in Temp/fan speed...it's a small thing but it makes you feel that they are quality cars....saying that the Fabia is more fun than the Octy & Golf to drive...right up there with my old 205 GTI 1.9 for sheer zest!

For my test drive of the vRS and driving my dads latest Golf GT DSG the interior of the Skoda is very similar to a golf in both build quality and material. From the limited time i spent in the vRS it seems as good as the golf. Its pure badge snobery to have the polo over the vRS when cost is counted up - makes no sense to me.

I must admit i never thought i would buy a Skoda, but so far from the very little i have seen I am very pleased to have driven the car and done a deal with the dealer. Its a VAG car and its a decent product, my previous car to the Mazda was a Focus ST Turbo and I felt that focus model had a big inprovement in build quality over the first gen focus, and I would say the Fabia improves over this.

I am very much looking forward to receiving my car when it arrives and it probably will turn some heads from some of the people I know whom i am sure will say why have you bought one of them - however i expect the same reaction as another post that once they get out the car they will be very quiet and have nothing to say in the negative against the car.

it probably will turn some heads from some of the people I know whom i am sure will say why have you bought one of them - however i expect the same reaction as another post that once they get out the car they will be very quiet and have nothing to say in the negative against the car.

Test drive on Saturday and I cant wait to get one for the above reason - the absolute understated'ness* and complete shock and awe. Cant wait!

Can the price difference not be partially explained by the fact that the Fabia II sits on the old Fabia I chassis whilst the Seat and Polo (and the A1 for that matter) sit on a newer platform? This obviously leads to less development costs for the Fabia II, hence the lower price, though not £6k's worth. The VW badge is clearly made out of platinum, which explains the rest of the price premium.

Edited 13 January, 201115 yr by Statto

as said above, the best bit of my new Furby vRS is the shock and awe when pulling away from lights and the look on the bmw/audi/vw drivers face Rofl! have shocked quite a few!

the interior may feel solid but the vast amount of chunky black blandness really did spoil the car for me its just so miserable they have managed to inject some design is every other car in its range so why not the fabia :(

ive looked at the ibiza fabia & polo maybe its the magpie in me but a thoughtful curve a bit of chrome certainly make it more satisfying to touch

Edited 13 January, 201115 yr by daydotz

There is no reason why you couldn't take some of the dash vent surrounds to the painters and have them done in gloss black or something just to break the bland dash up a bit. I've done it with my mk1 and it looks so much better. Then you just need someone to produce some metal door handles and your done!

the interior may feel solid but the vast amount of chunky black blandness really did spoil the car for me its just so miserable they have managed to inject some design is every other car in its range so why not the fabia

This seems to be very much the view of the motoring press. For me, the so-called 'blandness' is an attraction in all cars from the VW stable. As long as one can see the controls, the dash should be subdued. One's eyes should be on the road.

I've gone from a £21K SE spec Touran to a new vRS.

The Skoda has the better interior, quality plastics and fewer rattles.

I've come back to Skoda as the cars are better value for money, and the dealers are in a different league when it comes to customer satisfaction when dealing with Mr buying public.

I had a number of BMWs and VWs (including Passats and Golfs) between 1995 and 2004 and then one day stumbled into a Skoda dealer in Canterbury whilst waiting for the VW dealer to open! I have never looked back. My wife and I have now had the pleasure of owning three Octavias including two VRSs, a Superb, a Roomster, a Fabia I Sport, a Fabia II Sport and we are now the happy owners of a Yeti and a Fabia II VRS. I could never justify going back to the inflated prices of VW and BMW for what is a perceived, but in my opinion a barely noticeable, improvement in 'quality'. This difference is most certainly compensated by much improved reliability and far better customer service (now from MSB in Darlington) not to mention the gulf in terms of value for money between these marques.

Now I just have to deal with my addiction of buying new Skodas!!!

My advice would be to make the change - pay thousands less and enjoy spending the money you save on something nice!

I currently have a 10 year old Audi A4 Avant 1.9 tdi that I bought just over 5 years ago with 73K on the clock.

Normally I buy a 3-4 year old car with around 30K on the clock and keep for 5-6 years.

Last year I was looking at A3 sportbacks but anything decent was selling well above £10000.

A Skoda dealer was selling their demonstrater Fabia 1.6 TDi Elegance estate for £12,000.

They then said with VAT deal a new car of the same spec was just over £13K if I could wait 4 months.

My first ever brand new car to my spec and 2011 registration for another £1k + options to me was easy decistion.

On paper compared to the A3 sportback SE the Fabia Elegance has climate control & cruise control as standard while ESP an option on the Fabia.

On A3 cruise control option requires driver information option too while Maxi-dot standard on the Fabia.

0-62mph A3 11.7 sec, Fabia 11.0 sec

Luggage space seats up A3 370 litres, Fabia 480 litres

My Fabia with ESP and metallic paint approx £13500.

An A3 Sportback 1.6TDi 105ps with metallic paint, cruise control & climate control is almost £21500 OTR list.

£8000 is serious money for Audi styling, more sophisticated suspension etc.

When I sat in and drove the Fabia I certainly did not feel I was in a vastly inferior / down market car compared to my A4.

Time will tell if materials and build quality are vastly inferior, plus my local independent garage told my while Audi's are still relatively reliable they see more problems now than on cars of similar age / mileage a few years ago.

Edited 13 January, 201115 yr by delta925

This is a simple economics question the answer is there are two ways of setting a price for a product and they are cost price + profit and market forces.

For basic goods the usual method is cost + profit and luxury goods is market forces.

For example the basic cost of making a £25 and £100 pair of trainers is basically the same, except one pair say a companies or celebrities name on them. The fashion concerned (duped) go for the name and are prepared to pay the extra cost.

Skoda, Seat and VW all share the same basic parts and therefore cost the same to build excluding labour costs - product development is also basically shared, Skoda's are probably priced based on cost price + profit and because VW have got a name and status the pricing is based on market forces.

I was going to get VW and in a review it said take a look at Skoda and In my opinion the cost difference is not worth buying a VW,

Everything said abpve echoes my own experience. before buy my octavia vRS i test dfrove it against the GTI within an hour of each other, for a good half hour+ each. for the life of me i couldnt see where the extra money in theVW golf was.

As has been discussed in various of the fora here, there can be a difference between the brands when it comes to certain problems that arise after the warranty has expired.

Most of it has been covered here, but i think in the main it is what people ask is, are they getting value for money?

So what the Fabia is not on the latest chassis, a majority other parts are shared with the rest of the range.

Maybe the plastics used are not quite up to high manufacturing quality, perhaps the radio doesnt have exactly the same features, maybe there is an extra cup holder. It does ask the question if these tiny & in some case un-noticable differences are worth the extra money.

There has been a couple of posts on here from press reports that VAG bosses are worried that Skoda are taking too many sales from VW, specially the Fabia because people are ignoring the badge, and feel that the Skoda is better value for money. Although if they follow up the idea of removing lots of options & making us pay for them then they might as well just make a base model & you top it up to your specification. (that would probably still come out cheaper than a VW )

Skoda rules !!!!!!!

£6k more!!! It's the badge like everyone is saying.

Before I bought my Fabia Estate diesel (I knew little about Skoda at the time and had worked on just a few) I drove the VW Golf diesel to see what all the fuss was about. It was great...but all I could afford at the time was the basic Golf hatchback diesel with the 1.9PD engine (lovely engine). The car had no quality radio cd player, no air-con, no heated mirrors and very basic interior. Yet they wanted a discounted price of £15,200 OTR. Somewhat shocked at this I went to the Skoda dealer and after a good chat (which opened my eyes) took out the Fabia estate diesel. The model I drove was the level 2 Mk2 and both diesel options were tried. It was well appointed compared to the Golf. with the aircon, very good cd/radio, heated and electric mirrors, quality interior etc etc. It went so well and the reputation of Skoda was so good I bought one. Never looked back. Best thing I ever did. But the best bit was it cost me almost 4k less and I have a bit more space in my car too.

DON'T FORGET: just 6 years ago or so, VW was at the bottom of the J.D Powers Manufacturers table for reliability and warranty claims. Not in just the J. D. Powers survey either. Thier cars suffered more of every type of fault than almost any other make. Even now they are only 'Average' for reliability. VW's marketing is the best in the world and makes you think they are the best cars you could ever buy but it just ain't true from the surveys. Yet Skoda continually makes it to number one or number two each year as a manufacturer and it's cars are alway in the top 5 and top 10. Fabia was a Which Best Buy too last year. Whether you like Skoda cars or not it must say something about how good they are.

I had a 9N 2002 Polo before my (MK1) Fabia. The Skoda is *miles* better screwed together than the Polo ever was. Even though they're basically the same car, production in the Ukraine vs. Spain makes one hell of a difference.

Edited 14 January, 201115 yr by dxg