We are going to have a baby in December, and so wee need a bigger car.

Looking at the following models (Estate):

 

MkII

1,8 TSI 160

2,0 TDI 140

 

MkIII

1,2 TSI 105

1,4 TSI 140

1,6 TDI 105

 

Does anyone know roughly how they compare? I will commute 10km every day on a highway, and we will be using the car for vacation trips across Europe.

Is the MkIII worth waiting for to get in a used condition (saving some money)?

 

/Regards Evert

Id go for a 1.8 tsi mrk2 out that list. As 10km isnt enougth milage in my mind for a tdi as the dpf will soon be shot. With a 1.8tsi you can rougthly average about 40mpg and more. So it will definatly do the miles required for traveling accross europe.

With that daily milage stay away from diesels. which petrol and which mdel is up to you. Have a test drive and see which you prefer based on your budget

With lower mileage petrol could work out cheaper, though with a diesel myself averaging under 8k miles a year I've never had a dpf issue in nearly 4 years.

As for mk2 vs mk3 the mk2 will be cheaper to buy and more available at the moment.

Which is better? I'd test drive both and see which one you prefer, I'm not convinced the mk3 is a massive leap forward vs cost.

2.0 TSI all the way....

Go Mk2 140, take it your looking at a late model (CR) engine so no dpf issues with that mileage, Great economy.

I tried Mk3 and just do not like it lots of reasons and very expensive for what it is over a comparable Mk2 IMHO.

I have mkii 1.8. More real world power than mkii vrs diesel! Fantastic engine but to get 40mpg have to trundle along! My average with normal, not slow, driving is about 35. I found it wallowy and soft though, and lowered it and it's brilliant now. I also think mkiii is too expensive for what it is. When I want a change I'll get a Golf or Yeti.

The big problem is a good MkII (regardless of engine choice) will cost you £££, and any MkIII will cost you £££££££. 

 

It boils down to this.....do you think the MkIII is worth the extra ££££ over the MkII. Only you can decide after you test drive both. 

 

Remember the MkIII engines you list are also available on the MkII. 

The smart money is the 1.8 TSI

Do you need an estate?? the boot is massive 

However drive them all, the 1.8 is a very fast car and surprises many

Thanks to you all for your recommendations!

I am aware that the 1,8 TSI 160 is very well regarded, and I will try and test drive one asap.

 

A small price compasison:

MkII 1,8 TSI 160 2010 43000km is €16200

MkIII 1,4 TSI 140 2014 0km is €21400 (temporary discount of €2500)

 

Thats a difference of €5200

Do you still think it's too much of a price difference?

 

/Evert

Thanks to you all for your recommendations!

I am aware that the 1,8 TSI 160 is very well regarded, and I will try and test drive one asap.

 

A small price compasison:

MkII 1,8 TSI 160 2010 43000km is €16200

MkIII 1,4 TSI 140 2014 0km is €21400 (temporary discount of €2500)

 

Thats a difference of €5200

Do you still think it's too much of a price difference?

 

That's a heck of a price difference.....I guess it would be even more with a MkII 1.4TSI? 

 

Only you can judge if the extra price is worth it for a MkIII.

The MkIII performs considerably better in the EuroNCAP tests - four stars for the MkII is distinctly average these days. This assumes of course that you're planning to have an accident!

 

I've test driven a VRS MkIII and it is a major step up in quality, safety and systems compared with the MkII I think, but its also a price leap, and the MkII is still a very good car.

 

It's worth test driving both and see what you think about refinement etc.

The MkIII performs considerably better in the EuroNCAP tests - four stars for the MkII is distinctly average these days. This assumes of course that you're planning to have an accident!.

 

That's not the whole story though. In Sweden (where car safety is a national obsession) it seems EuroNCAP testing wasn't quite good enough for them. So Swedish insurance firm Folksam gathered data on real car crashes with injuries/fatalities and rated cars based on this real world data. The MkII Octavia came out at least 20% safer than average in real world accidents.

 

You can read the results here: http://www.folksam.se/polopoly_fs/1.11226!/webbversioneng_R6546.pdf

2.0 TSI all the way....

 

 

Soooo,... not the one he was looking at in the slightest then?

 

Oh, and you're wrong anyway as the 1.8 is much better.

Soooo,... not the one he was looking at in the slightest then?

 

Oh, and you're wrong anyway as the 1.8 is much better.

 

Yeah yeah...dream on.....vRS 2.0....

Yeah yeah...dream on.....vRS 2.0....

 

Not sure I agree. Although I hate to break this to any 2.0 TSi owner, the 1.8 TSI is near as damn it as fast as the 2.0 TSI, but more economical.

 

Also you get better comfort on a standard trim car with a 1.8 TSI compared to a vRS, especially on rough roads, which probably suits most people better. If I was in the market for a larger petrol engined Octavia, I would choose the 1.8 TSI all day long. 

Edited 19 September, 201312 yr by booke23

If it were me I don't think I'd be looking at the Mk3 yet.

 

I avoid the first year of any new model to try to avoid the inevitable teething problems.

 

The Mk3 is at a premium cost right now because it's new. If you are happy to drive the older shape you're going to get a better deal on the Mk2 right now.

 

The I'm wary of the smaller engines now and I'd double check the real world mpg before buying. It might well be the case that in the real world you get better mpg from the 1.8TSI than the 1.2.

 

1.8TSI certainly seems to be the dark horse of the range. There are tales of engines making well over 160hp from stock and very good mpg for the performance.

Edited 19 September, 201312 yr by Aspman

With the price of a Mk 111 its also worth looking at what other manufacturers can offer for the same money. I can see the potential for it being heavily discounted in a while to sell the volumes they will make, buying a Mk 111 now & you may find depreciation to be just a tadge scary in a year or so 

Heard a few people saying nowadays that Skoda's are no longer a secret and their prices are creeping up to reflect popularity and the rest of it.

Not sure I agree. Although I hate to break this to any 2.0 TSi owner, the 1.8 TSI is near as damn it as fast as the 2.0 TSI, but more economical.

 

Also you get better comfort on a standard trim car with a 1.8 TSI compared to a vRS, especially on rough roads, which probably suits most people better. If I was in the market for a larger petrol engined Octavia, I would choose the 1.8 TSI all day long. 

 

Perhaps it depends on just how strong the 2.0 TSi actually is.

Skoda may rate it a 197 bhp (to keep VW happy?) but we've seen 211 bhp on dyno readouts before tuning.

 

I'd quite fancy a 1.8 TSi in an Octy3, but Skoda UK won't sell me one!

Similar problem if I wanted a new Superb, 2.0 TSi not available in the UK.

 

Maybe the next car won't be a Skoda after all.........

Ok, how about this: An Mk2 RS 200 -12 (40000km) is about the same price as a brand new Mk3 TSI140.

 

Opinions?

With both a Mk 2 diesel Vrs Estate and a 1.8 TSI hatch in the family I would certainly pick the TSI for low mileage.  It also drives better, feels lighter and has at least as much effective poke.  MPG is not dissimilar either.  Mk 3 costs too much and is not available as a 1.8 TSI in UK.

MPG is not dissimilar either.

Really?.....what mpg are you getting from your 1.8 TSI?

Bought this yesterday

140 TSI

Just spec'd my ideal vRS. North of £26k..... absolutely no chance whatsoever.