Hi all

 

Im a newbie, currently driving a Civic Type R EP3.

 

Great car, love it, plenty of fun and surprisingly reasonable on fuel for the mostly town 8000-10000 miles a year i cover.

 

Just found out im going to be a dad for the first time. Very happy about the news.

 

So this led me to changing the car, now i love a bit of car shopping.

 

Requirements are 4/5 doors, good size boot, still fun to drive etc, so Octavia VRS fits the bills then

 

Question is, for my £3-£4 budget, am i best looking at a mint MKI with say 70K or a MKII with around 100-120k?

 

Advice and things to look out for please?!

Theres a mk2 in the for sale section for £3000.

Both mk1 and mk2 are good cars and theres a diesel option on the mk2.

For me i prefered the mk1 it looks better to me. I did look at mk2 when i was shopping and considered financing one but settled on the mk1 and i love it. Plus with a remap performance shouldnt be to far off your civic.

This is just my opinion but I think  for 3-4 grand the mk1 vrs is the one you should go for and if your starting a family the vrs estate is a nice looking  car with a huge boot.

Mk2's look poo, too fat and to me they are a step down to the mk1. Think there was a few problems with the 2 litre engine too and going by the taxis I've been on the mk2's don't take the milage as well as the mk1. My octy is over 140k without any problems

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

I would say your budget would get you an even lower mileage mk1. Lloyds cousin has a mint red mk1 for sale with about 55k on the clock. I'm now on my fourth octy VRS had two Mk1s purchased from new an 06 mk2 also purchased new and now back to a mk1 that had 65k on the clock when I got it.The 1.8t is awesome as long as regular oil changes have been carried out and the cam belt and associated parts have been done to schedule. The boot area is huge on the hatch even more so on the estate version. The hatch does however have braces just behind the rear seat which protrude into the load area. Get a stage 1 map and you will have a very capable family car that's also a lot of fun. Driven carefully should see 35mpg +. Take a look at the MK1 buyers guide in this section.

Id say the mk1 VRS , just looks so much better ! The MK2 VRS looks no different really to a standard diesel . I get around 35MPG around town and on a run 40-42MPG . Ive got 2 kids and has lots of space for them .

 

Also Ive got a Mk1 Vrs Estate for sale http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/278341-mk1-2003-skoda-octavia-vrs-estate/

Petrol for your budget. Stay away from the diesels as it will be a PD for that money. Probably a mk1

As you are in Portsmouth buddy can always pop down and see my VRS MK1 with a view on what they are like and a few tuning mods i have done to increase a still excellent family car.... 

 

And like others have said  a very low mileage MK1 VRS is well into your budget. 

Another vote for the mk1 from me too. Very very hard car to be honest. Mines on 117k and it drives like new. It looks better than the mk2 as well IMO. Although the mk2 is a bit more refined, a little bit more spacious, and the boot is even bigger I think. But, to be honest, the mk1 is big enough.

Tough choice,love my mk1 it will fit everything needed when you have kids,prams, bikes etc in it's boot it covers miles well and it's fun....but compared to the mk2 it's worse on fuel,dearer to tax ,slower and inside is old and dated,if I was looking I would choose a mk2

For your budget id say try stretch to a Mk2.

 

Handles infinately better than a mk1, the engine is more torquey and better to drive normally.

Also with it being more modern its more refined, has ESP along with ABS and Traction control that actually works.

 

Dont get me wrong, the Mk1 is a good car. but for your money there are better options.

Thanks for all the responses

I think from looking around and my point of view, I would get a mk1 with half the mileage and mint con compared to a mk2 at that money. Def petrol either way as I'm mostly town driving.

Have checked out buying guide for mk1, they are overall very reliable too which is of course a concern.

Prob hold its money too so after a couple of years easier to sell with low miles still if I'm looking to move up to a mk2!?

Mark 1 for me - the 1.8T engine seems a lot more reliable providing it's looked after. Don't worry about the mileage, instead buy one based on how it's been looked after.  I looked at loads before buying mine (115k), it was the highest mileage but had by far the best history (an A4 folder full of receipts), only two owners from new and an immaculate interior.  The lower mileage ones I looked at were 5 owner sheds, so buy on condition rather than mileage - it'll be easier to sell on when the time comes too.  Age doesn't seem to affect the value much either.

 

I'm a Honda fan and have had a few fast ones in the past.  The power delivery of the vRS is far different to a VTEC engine, the vRS is incredibly torquey and pulls like a train.  The boot is absolutely huge.  I'd also look at the 2002 onwards shape Honda Accord 2.4 VTEC, the performance is similar to a vRS although strangely the insurance is higher.  I was torn between them both, I decided to go for the Skoda because I fancied a change after having three Hondas in a row.

 

It might also be worth looking at a Laurin & Klement (very posh version) or the 4x4 estate, both of which are available with the lower powered version of the vRS engine, 150bhp instead of 180bhp.  You can have them chipped to give you vRS power. 

 

Lastly, this forum is by far the friendliest and most knowledgeable car forum I've ever come across.  If you have a problem or a question, someone on here is bound to know the answer.  If you go ahead and buy a Skoda, it's well worth becoming a Freedom member to support the site (twelve quid a year including a free sticker or twenty quid for two years with a free sticker).

 

Good luck with your search!

Spend 2-3k on a good condition and well looked after mk1, don't worry about miles. Mine is on 110k and still very quiet and drives better than it did when I got it (at 73k) due to replacing parts through normal wear and tear. Mine is still on the original clutch too. Don't pay a premium for one with low miles - it may have done more town miles so the suspension/clutch/engine may have had a harder life than one that has done double the miles along A roads and motorways. At 10 years old things like suspension bushes are going to become perished anyway regardless of mileage. Spend the money you save on the purchase price on good maintenance.

Some excellent valid comments there too

Thanks

I have done a lot of autotrader surfing and although I love my Honda and can't fault it, I think I really fancy a skoda next (wouldn't have thought I would be saying that 10years ago!)

Good point about condition / maintenance over mileage.

My type r is on 110k but drives excellent and has bucket loads of service history!

General wear and teat items and servicing is a must and comforting to know that they are generally pretty reliable following that

I do think the mk1 is the better looking

Mk2s are still nice tho but just look abit more friendly

And with the mk1 being pretty much mk4 theres millions of goodies u can get lol

And there are some awesome mk1 chaps lol

Shamelessly plugging yourself there I see! Ha

Yeah being mk4 based the mk1 does lend itself more I feel, plenty of knowledgable people around, plenty of parts etc.

I used to do a fair bit of work myself on my old mk4 golf & bora, coil overs, brakes, interior mods etc

_{I'll provide another vote for the Mk1.  I've owned mine since new in 2004 and it has been fantastic for the 43,000 miles that I have driven it!   However the Mk2 estate has lots and lots of room in the boot for buggies and the like!}

Yeah estates seem to be huge so people say, but I think a hatch would prob be plentiful.

More hatches around to choose from so it would seem too

The boot space of the hatch is ridiculously large - it looks bigger than my Dad's Mondeo and it's miles bigger than the loadspace in my old Honda CR-V.  Don't forget that the estate has 16" wheels rather than the 17" wheels on the hatch and doesn't look as "sporty" as the hatch, although that's also why a lot of people buy one.

Funnily enough they were 2 possible alternatives to a vrs

Mon(yawn)deo

Or CRV, like the height of this am I'm tall myself, and great workhorse, got a mate with a 2000 V plate but no isofix in the back!?

Mondeo = lots for the money but just so boring

People comment on the estate vrs being slightly more comfortable due to 16" wheels so bigger sidewall for more cushioning but I would mind either, easy enough to get 17" wheels for an estates I would think

I loved my CR-V, it was a last of the mark 1s with the post-2000 150bhp engine (pulled like a train), never let me down even though I used to green lane off road it on a regular basis (far more than its design capability).  Really regret selling it, I'd have another one tomorrow.  I think the mark 2 versions have Isofix, any CR-V really holds its money though, three grand won't get you much in CR-V land.

 

Mondeos are pretty good cars to be honest; I test drove a Ghia X 2.5 V6 automatic which was lovely to drive but the frankly frightening 14 mpg average over a 15 minute pretty sedate test drive put me off!  Not a car to stand out from the crowd in though.

 

The ride of the vRS on 17" wheels is fine to be honest, in fact it's better than the ride of my Missus' 2009 Honda Jazz EX.  As you say, the 17" wheels (called "Spiders") are pretty easy to come by; there's normally someone on here flogging a set due to upgrading.  The standard vRS Spider alloy wheels are a lovely design though, so I've kept mine on!

Can't agree with you more there mate

CRV is tough as old boots from the research me and a mate did before he purchased one, but like you I would really want a mk2 version and my budget doesn't lend itself to much choice.

Mondeo are just a bit too plain Jane I think, although nowt wrong with them overall.

Think the vrs just fits my overall bill a bit more, and I really do like the spider alloys as standard, wouldn't be looking to do much to it really, only retro fit cruise if it doesn't have it on etc.

Local to me are JKM, VAG specialists and they do lots of retro fit work with OE parts very reasonably priced I think

I owned a mk2 Mondeo st24 before I bought my mk1 Octavia. Despite having only 50k on its clocks, it wasnt in the octavias league for reliability. Air con problems, electrical issues, suspension bushes every mot. The interior was a lovely place to be having full leather but to be honest the Octavia feels quite a lot faster. Never came up against one to test that theory though. I used to love a fast ford but that car actually put me off owning another. Stick with a Skoda.

The boot space of the hatch is ridiculously large - it looks bigger than my Dad's Mondeo and it's miles bigger than the loadspace in my old Honda CR-V.  Don't forget that the estate has 16" wheels rather than the 17" wheels on the hatch and doesn't look as "sporty" as the hatch, although that's also why a lot of people buy one.

 

I have a hatch but I have to say I think the estate is better looking.