I just think that the Rapid is a poor design, and does not live up to the quality of the other Skoda cars.

I just think that the Rapid is a poor design, and does not live up to the quality of the other Skoda cars.

 

Rubbish, on the whole it's a better car than the Roomster I had previously and probably the current Fabia too.

Ditto ^^

Rubbish, on the whole it's a better car than the Roomster I had previously and probably the current Fabia too.

I don't agree. On saying that I have never liked the Fabia, but while boring inside it still has better build quality.  The inside of the Rapid sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at one in a showroom with examples of the other cars.

I've no problem with you saying the Rapid's interior is of a lower quality than other models in the show room, it's a cheaper car aimed at people who are more budget conscious than they are particularly bothered about bells and whistles, but I'm sorry you can't honestly expect me to believe that you think the Citigo's interior is better than the Rapid's as you just said over in Jayne's i10 thread?

 

 

vs

 

 

They're both cars engineered to a budget to fulfil a role, and it shows in both cabins. One is a small car aimed specifically at people driving around busy towns/cities, the other is a larger car aimed at families who would find an Octavia to be a stretch too far on their budgets.

 

Edit: For the record, I think the Citigo is a fabulous car, regardless of how less plush it's interior is compared to more upmarket (and much more expensive) alternatives in the city car market.

I get the impression that the Skoda range is unofficially split between premium and workmanlike. Sit in a Citigo, Fabia, Rapid, Roomster and you get hard plastics, less sophisticated chassis set up etc etc, whereas sit in a Yeti, Octavia, Superb and you get the best of Skoda? Perhaps people are disappointed with the Rapid because its size suggests that it should sit in the premium range and yet it has the finish of the workaday Skodas? I suppose it is only through the pricing of the car that Skoda can manage expectations. 

 

I'm not sure about the above now. Given that the Citigo rides almost as well as the VW UP, it has a very sophisticated ride and excellent refinement for a city car. My thesis is in tatters.

 

It's a good bit of analysis although as you say your theory falls down on the Citigo, it's an excellent car. I do think the interior is a little bit dull personally, but then such things honestly don't bother me (although that steering wheel would have to be a leather one) and it wouldn't put me off owning one, the load capacity is what put me off buying one as it simply wouldn't have suited my needs. (Looked at a Citigo Sport in the dealership when negotiating for my Rapid, cracking little car).

Anyway, enough of the "oooh it's all hard and scratchy, I want soft touch plastics to fondle!" element of the discussion, it's entirely off topic and not helpful to the OP's request for advice on tyres.

I've no problem with you saying the Rapid's interior is of a lower quality than other models in the show room, it's a cheaper car aimed at people who are more budget conscious than they are particularly bothered about bells and whistles, but I'm sorry you can't honestly expect me to believe that you think the Citigo's interior is better than the Rapid's as you just said over in Jayne's i10 thread?

vs

They're both cars engineered to a budget to fulfil a role, and it shows in both cabins. One is a small car aimed specifically at people driving around busy towns/cities, the other is a larger car aimed at families who would find an Octavia to be a stretch too far on their budgets.

Edit: For the record, I think the Citigo is a fabulous car, regardless of how less plush it's interior is compared to more upmarket (and much more expensive) alternatives in the city car market.

OMG the citigo dash is awful. And that's deemed better than the rapid?

Maybe I need to get my eyes tested again

I don't agree. On saying that I have never liked the Fabia, but while boring inside it still has better build quality. 

 

Can you be more specific?

OMG the citigo dash is awful. And that's deemed better than the rapid?

Maybe I need to get my eyes tested again

The Citigo dash is not awful. It is certainly better looking than the Rapid. Look at the bit with the vents on the Rapid, it looks like something from the 80s.

Lol - we're not going to win with you! You like your citigo and we love our Rapids.

Do us a favour and shut up banging on about how you hate the dash, the plastic blah blah.

Bored of you now, as it seems a lot if others are.

I do love a bit of cross-forum bonding lol

 

The Citigo and Rapid dont have the greatest dashboards in the Skoda range for sure

 

But for the price of them both, they look pretty good to me

The Citigo dash is not awful. It is certainly better looking than the Rapid.

That's entirely a matter of opinion of course, but I respectfully disagree.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Nothing wrong with cross forum bonding but when some people just bang on and on about how bad its is despite not owning one you tend to think they are a bit nuts!

But for the price of them both, they look pretty good to me

Exactly my point, they're both unmistakably budget cars and there's precisely nothing wrong with that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Exactly my point, they're both unmistakably budget cars and there's precisely nothing wrong with that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Oh but there is lol

That's entirely a matter of opinion of course, but I respectfully disagree.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

+1

To get back to the original subject of this thread.  I have just spent a week driving around in a Rapid 1.6TDi with the 215/40-R17 wheel/tyre option.  The ride is atrocious compared with other cars of the same size/weight.  The wheel/tyre size is far bigger than necessary - 205/55-16s or even a 15" wheel/tyre combination would be a much better match to the car.

 

My own MkII FL Octavia vRS also has a terrible ride on its 225/40-18s - again bigger wheels and tyres than are necessary, particularly the weight of the standard alloys.

 

Skoda seem to be trying to emulate the ride quality of the Audi Sport/S-Line models rather than the Audi SEs or most Volkswagens.

 

With modern cars outward appearance seems to be given higher priority than driver/passenger ride comfort.  Since I purchased my vRS  7 weeks ago it is noticeable that many of my friends would now rather give me a lift than travel in my car.  A couple have even actually commented on the rough ride.  I had a few small cosmetic mods in mind but improving the ride is now a priority - any suggestions has to how? 

Here's a list of things you could do:

Buy a different car.

Change your wheel/tyre setup.

Check your tyre pressures.

Put up with it, it's not that bad.

Here's a list of things you could do:

Buy a different car.

Change your wheel/tyre setup.

Check your tyre pressures.

Put up with it, it's not that bad.

Thanks for your well considered advise.

 

My wife agrees with your first suggestion - "Buy a different car"

 

I will certainly be changing the wheels/tyres when the current tyres need replacement.

 

The tyre pressures are as recommended by Skoda.  To what do you suggest I change the tyre pressures? 

 

The ride is poor compared to all my friends' cars and my last car (2005 Civic Type-S).

 

Perhaps this is better discussed in the Octavia MKII forum and so I will post there.

To get back to the original subject of this thread.  I have just spent a week driving around in a Rapid 1.6TDi with the 215/40-R17 wheel/tyre option.  The ride is atrocious compared with other cars of the same size/weight.  The wheel/tyre size is far bigger than necessary - 205/55-16s or even a 15" wheel/tyre combination would be a much better match to the car.

 

My own MkII FL Octavia vRS also has a terrible ride on its 225/40-18s - again bigger wheels and tyres than are necessary, particularly the weight of the standard alloys.

 

Skoda seem to be trying to emulate the ride quality of the Audi Sport/S-Line models rather than the Audi SEs or most Volkswagens.

 

With modern cars outward appearance seems to be given higher priority than driver/passenger ride comfort.  Since I purchased my vRS  7 weeks ago it is noticeable that many of my friends would now rather give me a lift than travel in my car.  A couple have even actually commented on the rough ride.  I had a few small cosmetic mods in mind but improving the ride is now a priority - any suggestions has to how? 

 

The 17s on the Rapid are optional, 16s are standard on the Elegane.

 

As for your vRS, if you buy a car at the performance end of the range I would expect a harder ride..

Nothing wrong with cross forum bonding but when some people just bang on and on about how bad its is despite not owning one you tend to think they are a bit nuts!

 

If I had the money I would employ a psychologist to investigate why some people love to go out of their way to come and bully the Rapid so much.

 

I suspect it is a combination of the name and it being near Octavia sized but not Octavia class.

Sorry all Rapid owners, I have been being a bit of an ass, but I still think my Citigo is better.........................LOL.

The 17s on the Rapid are optional, 16s are standard on the Elegane.

 

As for your vRS, if you buy a car at the performance end of the range I would expect a harder ride..

yes I know the 17s are optional on the Rapid.  The car I was referring to was bought as an ex-demo (so 17" wheels to make it look 'pretty?).

 

I agree that a car at "the performance end of the range" will have harder suspension, but I think that the vRS is not harsh.  Good design could make the suspension more compliant without compromising the handling or road holding.  Other manufacturers manage to do so.  However, smaller wheels with higher profile tyres will likely be my first attempt to improve the ride.