Bye bye skoda hello VW

[The Plumber]

Been running Skoda's myself on and off for 18 years; started with a 5 year old Rapid 136. Don't think I've had a completely fault free model in that time but on average better than other manufactures I've tried. BMW I think was the most unreliable brand in my own experience; owned three during the mid to late 1990's and only one was fairly fault free, the other two had all too regular problems.

Only had one VW a 2006 MkV Golf TDI 4motion; generally a good car, only it's appetite for prop shafts and transmission vibration, kept blotting it's copybook. Tried two dealers and neither got to the bottom of the issue.

Back to Skoda and sad to say that my own recent experience would suggest that aspects of the build quality (rather than material) is not as it used to be, along with the standard of dealers technical staff knowledge and workmanship.

Within the family we have a Fabia I, Fabia II FL, Yeti and a Superb II and I would suggest comparing a Fabia to a Golf then the Golf wins hands down. However the Yeti is noticeably better in all respects to the Golf V, therefore should give the Golf VI a run for it's money; my take on it anyway.

TP

[silver1011]

I know the skoda is 8k cheaper than the golf.

£8K?

£8,000?

Eight thousand pounds MORE than a Skoda?

For a soft touch dashboard and a VW badge? Madness.

[hs_gill]

Techie I loved the skoda but it's not a patch on the golf 8k more but you do notice it, and far more stuff than standard my fabia and most of my previous skodas rattled and creaked but this golf felt more refined and better built, not slagging the skoda to be fair it's less expensive to buy, but I'm glad I've jumped

[hs_gill]

Best of luck wt the new Golf. I'm sure they r good cars although I haven't driven a new one. I have ordered a new Fabia 1.4 mpi. Already own an Octavia 1.6 mpi. The Fabia should not be compared to the Golf. Golf is a larger car. I test drove the new Polo and Fabia this week. VW were willing to give me a good deal but the Polo felt cramped as compared to the Fabia. I could hardly notice the difference in interior quality between the 2. Going for the Fabia by choice, not as a compromise.

[logiclee]

Sebonini, I went from a MK1 Fabia VRS (doing just under 70K in 3 years) to a Golf Bluemotion SE (now Match), just under 3 years ago, and now have 66K miles on, so hope am qualified to comment.

The golf, as you say is a fantastic build quality, and feels like it will do a million miles. Economy has not been anything near expected, although as its a company car,

If I had a choice I would go for a bigger engined version next time, purely as I think I would get better economy (as not ragging it so much), but overall I'm delighted with it.

BFN

RBW.

I think you are seeing what many including myself have seen. The old 1.9PD engine gave excellent economy no matter how you drove it and the big slug of bottom end torque meant a slight squeeze of the throttle gave a surge of torque.

The new CR engines have a more linear power delivery and liked to be revved for performance but use the revs and economy sufferes. The new CR engines make you work for economy, something you never had to do with the old 1.9's.

Cheers

Lee

[seboni121]

the 1.6crtdi has better fuel economy than the 2.0 crtdi and cheaper running costs

[MartynVRS]

The old 1.9pd TDI was fantastic. Could drive fairly hard all day and do 40mpg maybe less if you had no traffic to slow you down.

[logiclee]

the 1.6crtdi has better fuel economy than the 2.0 crtdi and cheaper running costs

On paper yes but the tests are carried out at low speeds with very low rates of acceleration and very light throttle positions. If you are the type of driver who doesnt drive for economy then the bigger diesel may be a better choice. My commute to work is on pretty fast roads and I do sometimes use a 1.6tdi 105 dsg Golf. It does 50-55mpg which is the same as my 2.0CR dsg Passat. Engine maps, tall gearing and stop start can all help to get good figures in the official tests but if you spend you time on fast A roads and motorways and enjoy a spirited driving style then a bit more power and an aerodynamic shape may be a better bet than an economy special.

For an extreme example I tried a Fabia Greenline 1.2tdi. Unbelievable economy figures on paper but using it for my current mileage and driving as I do now it couldn't improve on the Passats mpg and felt very underpowered.

So it's certainly not a sure bet that a smaller engined less powerfull model will save you masses of money.

And what many VAG owners have seen is that older technology was able to give better economy in the real world even though official figures do not agree.

Cheers

Lee

[seboni121]

On paper yes but the tests are carried out at low speeds with very low rates of acceleration and very light throttle positions. If you are the type of driver who doesnt drive for economy then the bigger diesel may be a better choice. My commute to work is on pretty fast roads and I do sometimes use a 1.6tdi 105 dsg Golf. It does 50-55mpg which is the same as my 2.0CR dsg Passat. Engine maps, tall gearing and stop start can all help to get good figures in the official tests but if you spend you time on fast A roads and motorways and enjoy a spirited driving style then a bit more power and an aerodynamic shape may be a better bet than an economy special.

For an extreme example I tried a Fabia Greenline 1.2tdi. Unbelievable economy figures on paper but using it for my current mileage and driving as I do now it couldn't improve on the Passats mpg and felt very underpowered.

So it's certainly not a sure bet that a smaller engined less powerfull model will save you masses of money.

And what many VAG owners have seen is that older technology was able to give better economy in the real world even though official figures do not agree.

Cheers

Lee

Lee I drive like an old woman

[logiclee]

Lee I drive like an old woman

Yeh, I know you do, was really ageeing with rainbow-walkers comments on the new 1.6tdi compared to the old 1.9tdi.

Cheers

Lee

[seboni121]

Yeh, I know you do, was really ageeing with rainbow-walkers comments on the new 1.6tdi compared to the old 1.9tdi.

Cheers

Lee

I preferred the old pd engine much better gearing although noisier

[rainbow-walker]

Couldnt agree more with Lee, I have driven both the new 2.0 and the 1.6 diesel, and because of my lead foot I get much better MPG in the bigger engined car.

Also, a good comparison (I know we shouldnt be comparing Fabia's to Golf's, but humour me)....

• In the Fabia VRS I used to get 50mpg by the time I got to a roundabout about 4 miles from home in the morning, and was nudging 60 mpg by the time I got to the next roundabout about 18 miles from home.
  

• In the Golf 1.6 Bluemotion, I get 40mpg if I am lucky on the first roundabout at 4 miles, and nudging 50mpg by the time I get to the second roundabout 18 miles from home.
  

I do this journey every day, and this is completely consistent. The only slight additional factor is I think the Fabia was a little more optimistic on fuel usage than the Golf (using brim to brim method), but even so, thats a ridiculous difference given the power difference between them.

Thats progress for you I guess. I'd love someone to show me how to get 60mpg out of the Bluemotion Golf, cos it aint happening if Im driving it.

rgds

RBW.

On paper yes but the tests are carried out at low speeds with very low rates of acceleration and very light throttle positions. If you are the type of driver who doesnt drive for economy then the bigger diesel may be a better choice. My commute to work is on pretty fast roads and I do sometimes use a 1.6tdi 105 dsg Golf. It does 50-55mpg which is the same as my 2.0CR dsg Passat. Engine maps, tall gearing and stop start can all help to get good figures in the official tests but if you spend you time on fast A roads and motorways and enjoy a spirited driving style then a bit more power and an aerodynamic shape may be a better bet than an economy special.

For an extreme example I tried a Fabia Greenline 1.2tdi. Unbelievable economy figures on paper but using it for my current mileage and driving as I do now it couldn't improve on the Passats mpg and felt very underpowered.

So it's certainly not a sure bet that a smaller engined less powerfull model will save you masses of money.

And what many VAG owners have seen is that older technology was able to give better economy in the real world even though official figures do not agree.

Cheers

Lee

Edited 19 March, 2012 by rainbow-walker

[Simon Cobb]

Well, I've got a foot in both camps as of today. My Scout is now 18 months old and 100% perfect in every respect. It's still a rare car in NZ and I like it all the more for that.

We recently decided we need to go back to being a 2-car family and I test drove the Fabia VRS and the Polo 1.2TSI in highline, spec, somewhat above the UK SEL spec. We would have gone for the Polo GTi, but I would have had to join the 6 month-plus waiting list. The Fabia was quick, great fun and appeared to have the Skoda build quality I'm used to, but for me, the fairly boxy Fabia styling was not to my taste. So we opted for the top spec Polo, with the sweet 77kW 1.2 TSI engine, mated to the 7-speed DSG (not even an option in the UK from what I can see). Price-wise, converting back from NZ$ to £, it worked out at £14,500 with lots of equipment included as standard that are options in the UK.

As a comparison, I specc'ed an identical car on VW's UK site and with a manual gearbox, the car was priced at £17,500 (probably £18,500 if a DSG box was available), so I was pretty happy with the £14,500 deal. Not that long ago, cars here were much more expensive than the UK, but the tide seems to have changed.

So with a VW and a Skoda in the same family, it will be interesting to see how they both fare. I suspect I'll be very happy with them both :-).