Hi folks,

 

Trying to decide between these tow.  Going to lease them and i'm able to get similar deals.  The key thing for me is economy !

 

I went out for a drive the BMW yesterday and it was registering an average MPG of around 52mpg on the drive i did

 

Same drive in the octavia was around 37mpg - both driven from cold.  Not sure how many miles each car had done

 

Seems really low for the octavia.  Didn't make a huge difference in eco mode

 

Should the octavia be really be achieving much better than this.  Needs something that is regularly going to do a minimum of high 40's as have a 35 mile commute to work each way of motorway and twisty a roads

 

Any thoughts folks as i really likes the drive of the octavia and is better specced for the money

 

Oli

37mpg is low for a TDi, but how do you know the computers are accurate?

 

Also, had the car been run in the previous 2 hours? If so, it just continues its calculations, rather than it starting at zero.

 

I get an average of 51mpg from the CR150 2.0 TDi

 

On an 18 mile run in to the centre of Manchester, including rush hour delays etc, I get at least 42mpg from a cold start. On a good day when the traffic is clear I see 55mpg+

On my 5 mile drive to work i'm lucky to see over 40mpg from cold, but then on a motorway drive from cold i'll see 50+mpg.

I've just got an Octy 3 VRS but given the choice I'd be having the beemer!

It's no comparison. Get the BMW.

Hi folks,

 

Trying to decide between these tow.  Going to lease them and i'm able to get similar deals.  The key thing for me is economy !

 

 

Oli

What did you mean similar deal?

Same initial deposit, same annual milage allowance, any service included, same monthly payment, same final value, same equipment?

The BMW does seem a better place to be.  Certainly feels more special

It's no comparison. Get the BMW.

He speaks the truth.

 

I have just handed back my 3 year old 320D Touring. Performance is pretty close versus the VRS TDI, build quality is far superior in the BMW, but the Skoda has an easy win for space. My 320D averaged 35-37mpg around town and hit low to mid 50's on the motorway. The reason I didn't get another BMW was due to space. Servicing on the BMW is also much more expensive if you have to pay for it yourself.

 

The BMW is the better car, but the Skoda offers more space and practicality, and is much cheaper if you are buying yourself. As you are leasing, get the BMW unless you need the extra space. The BMW just feels nicer. Fuel economy should be pretty much equal.

Get the BMW but also a couple of paving slabs for the boot in winter unless you're looking at the X-Drive version.

Get the BMW but also a couple of paving slabs for the boot in winter unless you're looking at the X-Drive version.

The 320 has excellent traction, better than the FWD VRS at least. Sure, floor it in the wet and thr rear will slide out but it is very controllable and easy to avoid. Paving slabs is a silly suggestion which would worsen things and unbalance the rear, bur I think you were joking there. In the wet the BMW will put it's power down much better than the VRS. RWD is also more fun to drive.

How expensive does the servicing work out on the BMW in comparison with the skoda.  Although leasing it will be non-maintained so will need to service myself

How was the BMW to run.  No probs or nasty suprises

How expensive does the servicing work out on the BMW in comparison with the skoda.  Although leasing it will be non-maintained so will need to service myself

My company paid for them but the bills ranged from £200 to £450 for interim and major services.

 

How was the BMW to run.  No probs or nasty suprises

Other than regular DPF warning lights (which were cleared easily with a 10min re-gen) and one electric window failure it was fine.  The DPF warnings were most likely caused by my short-trip/in-town driving style. Are 3-Series better quality than Octy III's - yes, are they worth £8K more - no.

What sort of annual mileage are you doing and what is the cost per month for both cars ?

30k miles per year

 

£350 on both although it will be a straight 3 year lease on the ocatvia and a financed purchase outright for the BMW (5 month old car) that i will just sell after 3 years of the 6 year finance.  Done it before and based on the car losing 50% of its value over 3 years it works out about the same

Does everyone reckon the BMW and the VRS TDI should be about the same on fuel?

 

My drive to work is 40% twisty a rood followed by 60% on the damn A14

 

If they are then i'm thinking just to go with the VRS as i wont have the hassle of trying to sell it - thoughts?

I may be able to opt out of the company car scheme with my new job next year and quite fancy a 320 or a VRS. I will be doing a similar annual mileage.

The only way you'll be able to compare them fairly on fuel usage is to start with both cars with a brimmed fuel tank and do the same reference journeys in each over a variety of different road types. Even then you will have slight differences dependant on traffic volume and conditions. But it'll be an awful lot more precise than simply looking at the average readout.

 

Then fill both cars back up to full and see how much is required for each.

 

The BMW is perhaps a step up in overall quality, but does loose out on space. Depends if the only chief requirement is fuel usage.

 

If I was making a call, I'd say the BMW will be ahead on efficiency although Skoda have caught up with the Mk3. But that figure you've listed for the Skoda does seem very low. As has been said, simply relying on the computer MPG readout is not sufficient, certainly not if a purchase depends on it!

I wouldn't choose one vehicle over the other on likely MPG, they're both pretty similar. The other differences are far more stark - value, space, perceived prestige.

 

If I needed the space, it would be the Octavia, if not, then I'd flip a coin tbh.

Edited 23 November, 201312 yr by Dodgy

Id rather have the BMW if there is hardly any difference in cost and didnt need as much space as the Octavia offers; it would need to be Sport or M Sport spec mind.

If the monthly cost is the same then unless you need the extra space it's a no brainer - get the BMW!

The 320d is better looking, has a far higher quality interior plus ride and handling are leagues ahead. Fuel economy difference will be negligible but probably better on the Beemer.

IMHO...no brainer if you want a vehicle that will get you there in all conditions it can only be the Skoda!

The biggest problem with the BMW is "REAR WHEEL DRIVE"

I have had BMW's but when the weather closes in give it up and get a front wheel drive....simples

IMHO...no brainer if you want a vehicle that will get you there in all conditions it can only be the Skoda!

The biggest problem with the BMW is "REAR WHEEL DRIVE"

I have had BMW's but when the weather closes in give it up and get a front wheel drive....simples

Or get some winter tyres and sail past all the fwd/awd cars that are struggling.....lol.

Is the BMW that bad.  I know its crap in the snow but at all other times of the year surely its ok

My 330 is the nicest car I have ever driven and for effortless miles and I've owned close to 180 cars, if it wasn't for the 25mpg I would drive it until one of us died, bmw gets my vote