The radio controls were cheap plastic ones and the rubberised plastic just felt hard. This is an A3 I'm on about of 2008 vintage. Maybe things have improved but I felt mine was better. It rattled a bit too whereas the Octy is quiet. I don't believe in paying through the nose for a badge.

The climate control dials are annoying too as you have to do a click at a time to change the temp. I used to drive one everyday and this was my biggest annoyance with it!

This thread is very interesting on paper the more prestigious badges are more money however when I went shopping for a new lease car just before Christmas, I was very surprised to discover that over 60,000 miles/2 years I could have an A4 allroad quattro for £100 a month less than a Superb 4x4 simply because of residuals. So that was am easy choice. When I checked the situation was similar on an Octavia vRS diesel estate vs. An A3 170bhp (even the quattro was cheaper to lease than a vRS). Only the Yeti could beat the VW equivalent, but overall, businesses lease VWs and Audi's because they are cheaper.

I didn't ask about the Fabia vRS simply because I couldn't bring myself to drive a petrol.

The Octy isn't based on the A4! The Superb is a comparison for the A4!

Don't be daft man!... you've got the techy platform answer above but the reality is that interior space-wise etc. the A4 and Octy are DIRECTLY comparable!... the Superb is the A6 equivalent!

Don't be daft man!... you've got the techy platform answer above but the reality is that interior space-wise etc. the A4 and Octy are DIRECTLY comparable!... the Superb is the A6 equivalent!

No they aren't. The only difference between the Golf and the Octy interior wise is the boot space. The A4 is much bigger inside....believe me, i have driven all 3 on a regular basis!

No they aren't. The only difference between the Golf and the Octy interior wise is the boot space. The A4 is much bigger inside....believe me, i have driven all 3 on a regular basis!

Having also driven them all I would beg to differ... maybe it's a perception thing again?

A1=Ibiza=Polo=Fabia

A3=Leon=Golf=Octavia

A4=Exeo=Passat=Superb

Q5=N/A=Tiguan=Yeti

You can argue it how you like, but that's how the platforms stack up range for range. The Skodas are all a bit bigger inside, but they are the same platforms.

No real perception. The a4 is loads bigger inside and out but particularly inside.

Get your tape measure out

This thread is very interesting on paper the more prestigious badges are more money however when I went shopping for a new lease car just before Christmas, I was very surprised to discover that over 60,000 miles/2 years I could have an A4 allroad quattro for £100 a month less than a Superb 4x4 simply because of residuals. So that was am easy choice. When I checked the situation was similar on an Octavia vRS diesel estate vs. An A3 170bhp (even the quattro was cheaper to lease than a vRS). Only the Yeti could beat the VW equivalent, but overall, businesses lease VWs and Audi's because they are cheaper.

I didn't ask about the Fabia vRS simply because I couldn't bring myself to drive a petrol.

Indeed that is one point I hastened to mention, thanks for bringing this up wja96.

Whilst VW's and Audi's are considerably more expensive to buy than their Skoda/Seat counterparts, they do largely hold their value much better.

Reason for this is that VW and Audi (more VW to be honest) offer little or no discount on their vehicles as they are such a proven brand they can sell their allocations over and over again without having to offer discounts. As a result used values stay incredibly strong. Skoda are actually damaging the future value of their cars by offering the VAT deal, the saving you make on the initial purchase I am certain you will lose come trade in time, certainly if you're buying the car in the traditional HP manner. As good as Skoda's are its apparent in order for them to properly compete in the marketplace they need to offer such discounts to continue selling the numbers that they do; they probably make very little profit per car but make up for this by building and selling so many. That's why they keep extending the VAT deals.

Before we looked at the Fabia vRS estate, we toyed with the idea of buying a new Golf Match TSi or a nearly new Golf S/SE TDi. An ex rental (so well used with approx 8K on the clock) 1 year old 1.6 TDi 90 S 5dr Mk6 Golft was still retailing for approx £13K. A friend of my brothers managed to negotiate us approx a 6-8% discount on a new Match but the monthly payments were a little higher than we wanted to fund.

Fabia vRS was ideal for us, small car with a huge boot, decent quality and nicely specified. We had the 1.2 TSi Elegance DSG in mind too but when push come to shove because the future value of the vRS was a fair bit better than the Elegance, it worked out to a cheaper monthly payment by the tune of approx £20/month and so decision was made. Appreciate that its likely going to cost a bit more to fuel, insure and tax the vRS but that we can deal with. I was selfishly hankering after a quick second car too so worked out pretty well in the end!

I will also say that the Superb is more A6 size but runs on a lenghened Passat platform. Its a much bigger car than an A4, certainly to look at anyway. The Superb estate and A4 avant cant even be compared in size, there is a massive difference.

Yes looks like it except the plastics and the quality are the same - see the 2 pics below which is the best close up i have of both cars to see the plastics:

Sorry JRW still dont agree even after the photographic evidence you've kindly provided. Theres lots of little tell tales: -

* Grain of the soft touch plastic is different to the Octy's. Less sheen on the Golfs and sorry it looks of better quality to me

* The soft touch grain is continued on the harder lower dashboard. Its not on the Octy as far as I can tell, again evidence of more expensive tooling techniques being used to finish the plastics.

If you want to get really picky, even the ICE and Climate control units (although technically the same pieces of equipment) are finished to a different standard asthetically. Again I think the Golf's units look more upmarket with brushed chrome accents and plastic shades that match the panels that meet around them. The shiny chrome details on the Skoda units look cheaper in my opinion.

I think the Octy has an air of the MK5 Golf (essentially the variant it is based on) about it. Fit and finish agreed are probably to a higher standard than a MK5, certainly since the FL but the way the silver dash trim meets the black HU and Climate controls shouts MK5 Golf, was the same in my old MK5 Match.

At the end of the day VW went to town on the MK6 Golf, admittedly in alot of respects to save on build costs but the emphasis was on improving perceived quality and improving refinement way beyond its competitors. Every magazine you read raves about this (although they do say the Golf is a bit bland in ways...I agree with that) VW market the Golf as a more premium product and it has been developed as such. Having had a couple of MK5's and now a MK6 I can say they have succeeded in this. The MK6 is a nicer car than the MK5. The Octy is a fantasic car but it's built as a budget variant no matter how you swing it. Skoda have basically taken what they are given from VAG and have made the most of it but there is only so much you can do with older chassis tech and mechanicals.

Same goes for the Fabia, great little car and I'm buying one because its so cheap (and none of the other VAG competitors put the 180ps engine in an estate body) but in most respects certainly in terms of perceived quality and chassis tech it is inferior to the current Polo as its mostly based on the previous one.

I'm not trying to put Skoda's down but rather saying it as it is. Sadly VW and Audi (and Seat to a degree) tend to get all the latest platforms and tech, whereas Skoda have to make do with what they are given and make the best of it.

This is all just my opinion; dont get me wrong I do respect your's and you are entitled to think they are of equal quality, we are all different and have different views. I just simply do not agree thats all. Lets just leave it at that

Edited 4 March, 201115 yr by pipsyp

It's like soup.

Anybody can make soup. Whether it's out of a tin, microwaved for 3 minutes, or whether it's handmade in a professional kitchen by the finest chef using the most expensive ingredients to a delicately honed recipe. Soup will be produced and soup will be eaten by those that like soup.

Some people prefer to be seen in the most fashionable silver service restaurants with high concept interiors, eating thousand dollar soup made by celebrity chefs with celebrity friends. It makes them feel better about themselves and they enjoy the experience.

Others prefer to eat their soup straight out of the tin with a plastic spoon, whilst sat in their pants watching Jeremy Kyle at home. They are hungry and the soup fills a need for soup.

It's still 95% water. But each to their own, the man who paid 36 pence for his soup at Netto may well enjoy his soup just as much as the man sat in the posh restaurant, but is he having the same experience?

Edited 4 March, 201115 yr by Royston

Sorry JRW still dont agree even after the photographic evidence you've kindly provided. Theres lots of little tell tales: -

* Grain of the soft touch plastic is different to the Octy's. Less sheen on the Golfs and sorry it looks of better quality to me

* The soft touch grain is continued on the harder lower dashboard. Its not on the Octy as far as I can tell, again evidence of more expensive tooling techniques being used to finish the plastics.

If you want to get really picky, even the ICE and Climate control units (although technically the same pieces of equipment) are finished to a different standard asthetically. Again I think the Golf's units look more upmarket with brushed chrome accents and plastic shades that match the panels that meet around them. The shiny chrome details on the Skoda units look cheaper in my opinion.

I think the Octy has an air of the MK5 Golf (essentially the variant it is based on) about it. Fit and finish agreed are probably to a higher standard than a MK5, certainly since the FL but the way the silver dash trim meets the black HU and Climate controls shouts MK5 Golf, was the same in my old MK5 Match.

At the end of the day VW went to town on the MK6 Golf, admittedly in alot of respects to save on build costs but the emphasis was on improving perceived quality and improving refinement way beyond its competitors. Every magazine you read raves about this (although they do say the Golf is a bit bland in ways...I agree with that) VW market the Golf as a more premium product and it has been developed as such. Having had a couple of MK5's and now a MK6 I can say they have succeeded in this. The MK6 is a nicer car than the MK5. The Octy is a fantasic car but it's built as a budget variant no matter how you swing it. Skoda have basically taken what they are given from VAG and have made the most of it but there is only so much you can do with older chassis tech and mechanicals.

Same goes for the Fabia, great little car and I'm buying one because its so cheap (and none of the other VAG competitors put the 180ps engine in an estate body) but in most respects certainly in terms of perceived quality and chassis tech it is inferior to the current Polo as its mostly based on the previous one.

I'm not trying to put Skoda's down but rather saying it as it is. Sadly VW and Audi (and Seat to a degree) tend to get all the latest platforms and tech, whereas Skoda have to make do with what they are given and make the best of it.

This is all just my opinion; dont get me wrong I do respect your's and you are entitled to think they are of equal quality, we are all different and have different views. I just simply do not agree thats all. Lets just leave it at that

2 different photos in 2different lights. Suffice to say that in the flesh it is identical. The only hard plastic is from the bottom of the centre console to the jumbo box.

With the columbus in the surround looks better as it is sunken into the dash and the climate controls are identical with a chrome finish.

I'm not trying to put Skoda's down but rather saying it as it is. Sadly VW and Audi (and Seat to a degree) tend to get all the latest platforms and tech, whereas Skoda have to make do with what they are given and make the best of it.

Very true.

Royston you have got the idea.

My grandfather used to run a corner shop way back when there was rationing still going on after World War 2. The local ladies all bought their nylon stockings from his shop for a shilling from a stack he kept on the counter top. But one lady looked through these and said she needed some better ones, hadn’t he got anything a bit more upmarket. Apparently she said this in a mock posh accent. Think Hyacinth Bucket here and you wont go far wrong.

Well my grandfather was prepared for this type of customer as well. He told her conspiratorially that he had some specials under the counter, rummaged and found them wrapped up in a special bag. She smiled. How much, she enquired, 2 shillings for these rare they are he replied. She smiled even more, paid up and left beaming with pleasure. He took another pair from the counter top, put them in a bag and stashed them under the counter for the next customer of this type.

Clearly there are customers who feel better paying more for what is essentially the same thing, as long as they earnestly believe it is better. Also there are customers who feel better for getting value for money. I do not pass judgement on either, but it is genius for a company to be able to sell the same set of parts into four different customer types for four different prices. The A1/Polo/Ibiza/Fabia is sold into four different customer types under the perceived banners of Image/Quality/Flair/Value. Its Genius.

I don't think anyone should pretend that Skoda are the same as Audi and VW and that the only difference is the badge. If a Polo was the same price as a Fabia there would be no contest.

I don't think anyone should pretend that Skoda are the same as Audi and VW and that the only difference is the badge. If a Polo was the same price as a Fabia there would be no contest.

I wouldnt pretend this for a moment, but you might want to argue this one with Richard Hammond who did state this when comparing the Ibiza/Polo/Fabia.

Clearly if you assemble your component set in a value version and price it the same as a premium version, you wont sell many value versions. All 4 badges sit in slightly different markets so you can obey the first law of marketing and charge what each market will stand.

As the starter of this thread, I am intrigued at the tin of worms it has opened!

It started with my missus looking at an A1 in the showroom, with my VRS parked outside next to an A1, and a couple of salesman being genuinely surprised and shocked when we invited them to look under the Skoda bonnet to show them what sort of engine and gearbox we would like in our new Audi, and them seeing these 2 cars side-by-side.

What the thread seems to have triggered is a glorious dead-horse-flogging-fest of “my dashboard has slightly softer plastic so it must be the premium one” and then “oh no it isnt”.

I am dedicatedly not anti-Audi, We have one on the drive and will definitely buy another soon. But we will not be paying £26k for the same oily bits as my VRS, to drive it looking at the same set of dashboard dials, albeit all wrapped in a prettier shell with fewer doors.

surely marketing and brand image has something to do with the higher pricing of audi's.

The catch on my Estate tailgate is stamped as an Audi part. Anyone know which Audi it is from?

Only time I have seen on a vag car a part like that stamped with only one badge, maybe its from the R8!

There are a few parts under the bonnet with vw/audi stamp

and the door handles look like they come from a golf

Edited 5 March, 201115 yr by fabia55

Error

Edited 5 March, 201115 yr by paulemillar

I had an A1 on order, arrived in December but I pulled out as financial circumstances have changed and £22k was a lot of money AND that wasn't the vRS equivilent engine model either.

Had been considering a Smart car but the vRS is so much more car for not much more money.

I've priced up the vRS, Ibiza and Polo. The fully loaded vRS came out over £3k less than the Polo (missing a few options). With the no vat offer it's then almost another £3k cheaper again. £15,515 OTR vs £21,695

Personally I prefer the interior of the vRS, that Polo tartan isn't my cup of tea and I think the dash is very dull in comparison to the vRS. Don't like the Ibiza enough, aside from the sports seats, so that's been discounted. The Polo beats the vRS on mpg and emissions dropping into E (£110) rather than F (£125) but is three groups higher on insurance (27 vs 30). But the £6k saving should hopefully cover the differences there.

Two things that would improve the vRS package for me, lower the ride height and a five year service plan for £250 like they offer on the A1 (Polo do a 3 year one I believe)

Two things that would improve the vRS package for me, lower the ride height

With the £6k you saved im sure you could stretch to some coilovers

Ive been looking on this site a while now and im patiently waiting for my vrs at the end of the month. I actually own a 1.4 se polo 2010 and after testing and ordering the vrs i feel a bit stupid that i bought the polo in the first place. Sure the interior is more solid but not worth the premium in my eyes.

Ive also noticed a lot of people mentioning the polo runs a slightly newer platform but as far as i can tell massive amounts of parts are the same as the previous model so dont let people fool you into thinking the fabia is the dinosaur i can tell you the polo is pretty much identical to the fabia bar the interior and body work

Cant wait for my vrs now

This thread is very interesting on paper the more prestigious badges are more money however when I went shopping for a new lease car just before Christmas, I was very surprised to discover that over 60,000 miles/2 years I could have an A4 allroad quattro for £100 a month less than a Superb 4x4 simply because of residuals. So that was am easy choice. When I checked the situation was similar on an Octavia vRS diesel estate vs. An A3 170bhp (even the quattro was cheaper to lease than a vRS). Only the Yeti could beat the VW equivalent, but overall, businesses lease VWs and Audi's because they are cheaper.

Understandable given the prices 3-4 year old A3 1.9 TDi Sportbacks, even relatively high milage examples, were fetching when I was looking early last year.

A 2 year lease based on 30000 miles / year is very different to the private buyer who drives 10000 or less miles a year and keeps their car much longer.

If I get say £1000 back in 10 years time my Fabia will work out at £1250 / year.

If I bought a new A3 1.6TDi Sportback with the same engine and similar paper specification and optimistically got back £2500 the cost would be over £1900 / year.

Despite being built on the same platform I personally I think Skoda's are better than VW's and Audi's. I work in a small independent garage and work on just about anything that comes through the door. Skoda's don't seem to suffer from the same sort of problems that other VAG makes do. It maybe that VW and Audi models use the latest technology and gimmicks, whereas Skoda are slightly behind but are tried and tested. No-one should be in any doubt that VW's and Audi's are far from the last word in reliability. I was an AA patrol for many years, and attending Skoda's broken down was actually a very rare occurrence.....

Despite being built on the same platform I personally I think Skoda's are better than VW's and Audi's. I work in a small independent garage and work on just about anything that comes through the door. Skoda's don't seem to suffer from the same sort of problems that other VAG makes do. It maybe that VW and Audi models use the latest technology and gimmicks, whereas Skoda are slightly behind but are tried and tested. No-one should be in any doubt that VW's and Audi's are far from the last word in reliability. I was an AA patrol for many years, and attending Skoda's broken down was actually a very rare occurrence.....

I agree VW's and Audi's arent the bomb-proof vehicles they were in the 80's and 90's, we've owned a number of VAG cars (03 Ibiza 1.9 PD 130 Sport, 08 Polo 1.4 Match, 58 MK5 Golf Bluemotion Match, 59 MK6 Golf 2.0 TDi GT - the Golfs have been company cars) and all of them have had to have some silly warranty work on them, the MK6 Golf being the worst culprit! The Ibiza was generally fine mechanically but electrically there were some gremlins.

If I have to be entirely honest I think the reason you've not seen many broken down Skodas is because up until very recent years there havent actually been that many on the road. Theres been a definite boom since the VAT deals started. I'm sure I read somewhere that in 2009 VW shifted something like 141000 new cars, Skoda only sold 30ish thousand; still alot of cars but nothing like the volume VW shift.

I agree VW's and Audi's arent the bomb-proof vehicles they were in the 80's and 90's

Maybe you should check this out.