Hello from England

[BarnabyJones]

I am equally suspicious. The writing is awfully clumsy for a "car journalist"...

 

Thank you.

 

Barnaby

[BarnabyJones]

Come on now, give the man a chance. He's about to write an eloquent riposte to my critique of his website.

 

Again, thank you (but I'm sure you'll all be the judge of that).

 

Barnaby

[Geek42]

Hello and thanks for the welcome!

 

I'm glad you use What Car? so much, that's great to know.

 

Yes, like you, I love the Octavia's value, space and interior quality, but I wish the ride was more comfortable. It's not unbearable, it's just not as supple as I'd like it to be.

 

Must admit, I agree with you – I'd much rather have the 2.0-litre diesel version than the 1.6. It's faster, quieter and still very economical, plus it has a sixth gear, so is more relaxed on the motorway.

 

As for the What Car? verdict, our favourite hatchback is the 1.2-litre petrol (the 1.6 and 2.0-litre diesels get the same star rating), whereas we prefer the 1.6 diesel in the estate (again, it gets the same star rating as the 2.0-litre diesel). There's basically little difference between the diesels – they're both really good cars. The 1.6 is cheaper to buy and will cost you slightly less in fuel and tax (both as a private buy or as a company car), but the 2.0 is noticeably more powerful, so you don't have to rev it as hard. As I said, I'd happily pay the extra for the 2.0-litre, but the 1.6 is still a fine choice.

 

I hope your journey home was good!

 

Barnaby

 

OK, so I must have looked at the estate review, but to be honest I'm not sure why you'd differentiate between hatch and estate. I know that you'll argue about load lugging and torque, but the estate isn't really any bigger unless you load it to the ceiling, which most people probably don't do.

 

Still, you say the 1.6 is cheaper to buy and run than the 2.0 diesel - fine, we can argue about margins but the direction is clear, however if you prefer the 1.2 petrol in the hatch why not the 1.4 in the estate? It's cheaper to buy than the 1.6 diesel, not that much more expensive to run, and it has the same torque figure so shouldn't be any worse for pulling loads (in fact, I'd wager it's better due to the gearing differences). Or if you really want torque then we're back to the 2.0 TDi.

 

I'm not trying to start an argument (well, a little bit maybe  ) but I just don't see the logic.

[BarnabyJones]

Welcome!

 

As someone who has frequented predominately the MkII and MkIII Octavia forums in the last few years, the good news for us owners (bad news for any budding journos looking for a negative scoop) is that by and large Skoda cars are pretty decent and reliable and there is nothing in the forums from the enthusiasts that demonstrate a fundamental and material fault with any particular model due to engineering or manufacturing issues.  As far as I can tell, most cars seem to be fit for purpose.

 

I think you did mention in a different reply that the equivalent VW would cost significantly more.  Prior to buying my current Blackline I had only driven VWs.  But I compared the Octavia VRS estate price against the equivalent Golf estate and the VW was at least £5k more.  It was a no brainer really and I would say the Skoda quality is there or there abouts against the VW.

 

We are a happy and positive bunch here.  

 

Hello

 

Yes, you're quite right: pretty much all Skodas are good – and they have been for many years. They're also often far better value than many rival cars.

 

Trust me, I'm not here for a scoop – I simply want to know what you all think of your Octavias. I have my views on my car, and it'll be great to know how you are getting on with yours.

 

Keep the replies coming!

 

Barnaby

[JungleJames]

 There's basically little difference between the diesels – they're both really good cars.

There is actually quite a difference between the diesels. The 1.6 is totally reliant on the turbo, and is very lacklustre until the turbo kicks in. Because of this, it has a very noticeable turbo lag. All totally the opposite to the 2.0

 

The 1.6 also feels slower than it is meant to be because it needs to be revved so much, and as it is so reliant on the turbo.

 

With the 2.0 you get a massive shove from standstill. The power/ torque is there from the start.

It is, overall, a much easier car to drive. The 1.6 is good yes, but as good as the 2.0? Definitely not. The 2.0 is afantastic engine, and shows how far diesels have come along. The 1.6 is a normal diesel engine.

There also doesnt seem to be any real life difference in fuel useage.

[JungleJames]

Hello

 

Yes, you're quite right: pretty much all Skodas are good – and they have been for many years. They're also often far better value than many rival cars.

 

Trust me, I'm not here for a scoop – I simply want to know what you all think of your Octavias. I have my views on my car, and it'll be great to know how you are getting on with yours.

 

Keep the replies coming!

 

Barnaby

I basically agree with your views. The main problem is how hard the ride is.

[BarnabyJones]

OK, so I must have looked at the estate review, but to be honest I'm not sure why you'd differentiate between hatch and estate. I know that you'll argue about load lugging and torque, but the estate isn't really any bigger unless you load it to the ceiling, which most people probably don't do.

 

Still, you say the 1.6 is cheaper to buy and run than the 2.0 diesel - fine, we can argue about margins but the direction is clear, however if you prefer the 1.2 petrol in the hatch why not the 1.4 in the estate? It's cheaper to buy than the 1.6 diesel, not that much more expensive to run, and it has the same torque figure so shouldn't be any worse for pulling loads (in fact, I'd wager it's better due to the gearing differences). Or if you really want torque then we're back to the 2.0 TDi.

 

I'm not trying to start an argument (well, a little bit maybe  ) but I just don't see the logic.

 

Good morning

 

We prefer the entry-level petrol Octavia because it's a bargain and is brisk enough for most people. We prefer the entry-level diesel version of the Estate for the same reasons and, because an estate should (theoretically) be used to carry more stuff more of the time than a hatchback, its superior low-rev torque means you don't have to work its engine as hard as a petrol (I take your point about the 1.4 petrol, though, which is an excellent engine). The final reason to go for the diesel is tax: many estates are company cars, so low CO2 emissions (plus a fairly low price) mean cheap tax costs, which is vital for company drivers. 

 

Having said all that, if you want more performance, the 1.4-litre petrol and 2.0 diesels are both excellent choices – we just think that the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesel are the better versions for most people. 

 

Opinions are great, though, so please keep them coming!

 

Barnaby

[BarnabyJones]

There is actually quite a difference between the diesels. The 1.6 is totally reliant on the turbo, and is very lacklustre until the turbo kicks in. Because of this, it has a very noticeable turbo lag. All totally the opposite to the 2.0

 

The 1.6 also feels slower than it is meant to be because it needs to be revved so much, and as it is so reliant on the turbo.

 

With the 2.0 you get a massive shove from standstill. The power/ torque is there from the start.

It is, overall, a much easier car to drive. The 1.6 is good yes, but as good as the 2.0? Definitely not. The 2.0 is afantastic engine, and shows how far diesels have come along. The 1.6 is a normal diesel engine.

There also doesnt seem to be any real life difference in fuel useage.

 

Hello

 

Ah, I was talking about the 1.6 and 2.0-litre diesel versions as a whole, in that they're both fine choices. I said that there is a noticeable difference in performance, but you're right that they'd use similar amounts of fuel (we're running a 2.0 diesel Octavia and a 1.6 diesel VW Golf and their economy is remarkably similar).

 

Like you, I'd much rather have (and pay the extra for) the 2.0-litre diesel model, but I'm sure there are lots of 1.6 diesel owners out there who love their cars and don't care that it's slower than the 2.0.

 

As I said, everyone has a different opinion, which is great, so keep them coming.

 

Barnaby

[BarnabyJones]

I basically agree with your views. The main problem is how hard the ride is.

 

Hello

 

I'm glad you said that: it's my biggest issue with the car. Sure, the handling is good, but I wish the ride was more supple. Sadly, many new cars are engineered to be stable first and comfortable second.

 

I went for my Octavia (a 2.0-litre diesel in SE trim) with the standard 16-inch wheels, too, in an effort to get the best possible ride: http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/april/1289000

 

I've also driven a VW Golf with the same rear suspension as my Octavia, and it's much more comfortable and settled over bumps. Still, the Golf is also more expensive to buy, so you pays yer money...

 

Barnaby

[Sheldon.Cooper]

The final reason to go for the diesel is tax: many estates are company cars, so low CO2 emissions (plus a fairly low price) mean cheap tax costs, which is vital for company drivers. 

 

Opinions are great, though, so please keep them coming!

 

Barnaby

The way the government is screwing company motorists on CO2 emissions will have repercussions on the motor industry in a few years time.  They are pushing everyone towards small engines which destroy any fun motoring might bring (you tell me a 1.2 tsi is more fun than a 2.0 tsi).

 

Even currently exempt electric cars go from 0 - 13% BIK by the 2018 tax year. 

 

VRS TSI engined cars (if your company policy allows the higher CO2 of the petrol version) goes from 21% to 29% and sorry but that's ridulous and it'll cost out many people getting 'nice' company cars and more people will be in base model euro boxes.

 

Anyhoo, rant over.

 

The Octavia is nice, has more toys and space per £ than its rivals but with a few options added onto top models it goes into mid spec Audi, BMW, Mercedes territory and that makes the Octy nowhere near as good a proposition as it used to be.

 

Mine has a few rattles (too many for a new car), is nowhere near as good on fuel as the laughable goverment figures but makes me feel good when I drive it and that's important. At time of choosing (March 2013) it was the best car I could find for the money (sub £32K, economy, size, toys) and I tried a few (Golf Mk7, New Leon, Merc A class, Audi A3, Audi A4, BMW 3 series, Mazda 6, Focus, Mondeo, Kuga, Passat, Tiguan) 

 

Overall I'm happy, the Octy could be better but delivers a good all round package rather than a great one.

[Geek42]

The final reason to go for the diesel is tax: many estates are company cars, so low CO2 emissions (plus a fairly low price) mean cheap tax costs, which is vital for company drivers. 

 

Point taken, there is a tax bracket difference. I looked them up again last night and the insurance group is also different by more than I realised. I tend to keep my cars until they are not worth enough for the differential to matter, but if you buy new and replace within 3 years there's probably also a depreciation advantage to the 1.6TDi over the petrol versions, so it has small cost advantages in several areas that would add up to be significant even without stellar mpg figures.

 

I'll yield on this one, you have explained the choice well, although for my taste I still find the lack of a 6th gear a strange one.

[Geek42]

Incidentally I think that the 1.4TSi could also happily use longer legs. My guess is that the marketing department needs to keep some petrol/diesel differentiation so it's unlikely to happen any time soon, but considering the way the torque is delivered from low down I'd be interested to see economy figures for a 1.4 with a much higher top gear ratio (mpg well into the 50's in the real world I should think).

 

That said, I'm very pleased with the mpg of my 1.4TSi as it is (high 40's) so maybe they know better than me what gearing it should have!

[Shermo]

The 2.0 TDI could do with a 7th gear being honest, or a higher sixth. On mine 6th is usable from 40mph and is fine from 45+ on all but a steep hill, ideally final gear should be for motorway cruising so 55mph+

[Geek42]

Agreed, in this age of CO2 reduction and energy saving I believe that all cars should have a top gear tailored to motorway cruising MPG optimisation. I believe that such a thing existed when my Dad was a youth, didn't a lot of 1960's/70's cars have an 'overdrive'?

[Shermo]

With the grunt that the 2.0 TDI has the ratios could be much further apart. The 5th and 6th gears as so close together that I tend to change from 4th to 6th, very rarely am I using 5th gear.

 

I guess with a manual there is less options than automatic where you can throw more gears (BMW have 8 speed automatics?) but I do think they could do better ratios so the 6th gear is much more for motorway use only.

[JungleJames]

With the grunt that the 2.0 TDI has the ratios could be much further apart. The 5th and 6th gears as so close together that I tend to change from 4th to 6th, very rarely am I using 5th gear.

 

I guess with a manual there is less options than automatic where you can throw more gears (BMW have 8 speed automatics?) but I do think they could do better ratios so the 6th gear is much more for motorway use only.

I'll agree that 6th gear could be further apart from 5th. But your previous claim that you can use 6th at 40mph? Thats a little too early. The engine would be struggling, and i wouldnt be too sure it uses less fuel. Try and accelerate from 40 if in 6th gear. You wont be going very fast.

The earliest i change into 6th is at 50, and thats only if im steady at that speed. In fact I usually leave cruise on 52 just to try and make sure there is no struggling.

[SNR]

Hi Barnaby

 

My experiences closely mirror your own - right down to the rattle you've written about in this month's mag.  I managed to trace the cause myself and stuck a bit of felt on the seat behind the adjustment lever - job done.  The issue has been discussed on here a few times, and I'm a bit surprised it took the dealer so long to twig. 

 

Overall the car is excellent:

 

- the load space (I have a combi) made Christmas with the in-laws a breeze - they really couldn't believe that everything stacked up in their hallway had come out of the boot of our car!  I would have liked a flat floor in the back like my old Civic, but you can't have everything.

 

- the 1.4TSI engine is simply a joy (if a bit of a price hike over the 1.2)

 

- the interior is unfussy and the dash excellent - I was put right off a number of alternatives by their bizarre attempts to look "innovative" and "different" in that department.  There are some great little touches like the very accessible isofix points in the back.

 

- the kit levels are (in my view) quite well-judged.  I have the SE and just added cruise control and the multi-function steering wheel for a spec that is pretty much spot on for my needs.  (I would have added the fold-flat passenger seat, but it was not in production when I ordered, despite being featured in all the PR material.)

 

The flies in the ointment for me are exactly those you have identified - a rather unyielding ride and quite a lot of road / suspension noise on all but the very finest road surfaces.  I also agree with your assessment of the different kinds of noise / boom problem people are having.  One unfortunate consequence of the road / suspension noise is that it rather overwhelms the bass frequencies from the stereo, which sounds great at rest but nowhere near as good when the background noise kicks in on the move. I believe this specific point was picked up in a Telegraph road test writeup, and is probably one reason a number of people have expressed disappointment with the quality of the standard audio setup.

 

On the noise front, it does feel a bit like Skoda have gone all out to save weight (with associated performance and economy benefits) when perhaps a few more kilos of soundproofing would have delivered a more refined car.  It will be interesting to see if they do anything about this when the car gets its first facelift.  Or maybe VAG still want to sell some Golfs!

 

Simon

[BarnabyJones]

The way the government is screwing company motorists on CO2 emissions will have repercussions on the motor industry in a few years time.  They are pushing everyone towards small engines which destroy any fun motoring might bring (you tell me a 1.2 tsi is more fun than a 2.0 tsi).

 

Even currently exempt electric cars go from 0 - 13% BIK by the 2018 tax year. 

 

VRS TSI engined cars (if your company policy allows the higher CO2 of the petrol version) goes from 21% to 29% and sorry but that's ridulous and it'll cost out many people getting 'nice' company cars and more people will be in base model euro boxes.

 

Anyhoo, rant over.

 

The Octavia is nice, has more toys and space per £ than its rivals but with a few options added onto top models it goes into mid spec Audi, BMW, Mercedes territory and that makes the Octy nowhere near as good a proposition as it used to be.

 

Mine has a few rattles (too many for a new car), is nowhere near as good on fuel as the laughable goverment figures but makes me feel good when I drive it and that's important. At time of choosing (March 2013) it was the best car I could find for the money (sub £32K, economy, size, toys) and I tried a few (Golf Mk7, New Leon, Merc A class, Audi A3, Audi A4, BMW 3 series, Mazda 6, Focus, Mondeo, Kuga, Passat, Tiguan) 

 

Overall I'm happy, the Octy could be better but delivers a good all round package rather than a great one.

 

Good morning

 

Yes, I agree with a lot of what you say about company car tax. The rising cost of fuel and VED is another reason why many people are turning away from the 'more interesting' versions of cars – and if people aren't buying them (and car manufacturers are obliged by European legislation to reduce the average CO2 output of their cars) then these versions will disappear. It's eye-opening to look at a copy of a magazine from a few years ago to see what types of engines were available (it's pretty different to what's around today).

 

Having said all that, it's not all doom and gloom. I'm a strong believer in the technical ability of car engineers, and although it's true that a car with a 1.2-litre turbo engine is unlikely to be anywhere near as fun as one with a 2.0-litre turbo, I'd much rather have a 1.2 turbo than an older-style 1.6 non-turbo engine, for example. I'm also sure that as more and more engines become turbocharged and the design of the turbos is improved, turbo lag will be less and less noticeable (as it has already become over the years).

 

There, I feel better for that!

 

You're right that the cheaper Octavias make more sense than the more expensive ones – although the pricier ones have loads of toys, they also cost a similar amount to cars with posher badges (not that that is a guarantee of a good/better car).

 

I'm sorry to hear that your Octavia has so many rattles. Have you got the one that mine (and many others, by the sound of it) had on the passenger seat? It was the seat-height adjustment lever rattling against the plastic side of the seat – most annoying!

 

Thanks again for the post.

 

Barnaby

[BarnabyJones]

Point taken, there is a tax bracket difference. I looked them up again last night and the insurance group is also different by more than I realised. I tend to keep my cars until they are not worth enough for the differential to matter, but if you buy new and replace within 3 years there's probably also a depreciation advantage to the 1.6TDi over the petrol versions, so it has small cost advantages in several areas that would add up to be significant even without stellar mpg figures.

 

I'll yield on this one, you have explained the choice well, although for my taste I still find the lack of a 6th gear a strange one.

 

Hello

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Yes, you're right about the lack of a sixth gear – it's an example of penny-pinching (to be fair, Skoda is far from the only manufacturer to offer smaller-engined, cheaper cars with fewer gears than larger-engined, more expensive ones) and does mean that the engine is revving higher on the motorway for a given speed (unless the gearing is long enough to compensate, which it usually isn't) so it'll use a bit more fuel and be noisier. I must admit, it'd put me off the 1.6 over the 2.0-litre, but then that's just my opinion.

 

Barnaby

[JJBS3]

I am up to 2200 miles in my VRS diesel saloon so far, and have to say I'm totally and utterly happy with every aspect of the car so far, especially in comparison to other vehicles I've had recently.

Lovely performance, stability and handling, huge amount of space, no rattles as yet to speak of either.

I can see where people are a little disappointed by the ride, but having come from a BMW 3 series with runflat tyres, and a pick up truck before that, to me its sublime!

 

I would have liked the Canton upgrade, but the car was already outside my budget (company car) - again though, in comparison to the stereo fitted to my BMW, its wonderful!

[BarnabyJones]

Incidentally I think that the 1.4TSi could also happily use longer legs. My guess is that the marketing department needs to keep some petrol/diesel differentiation so it's unlikely to happen any time soon, but considering the way the torque is delivered from low down I'd be interested to see economy figures for a 1.4 with a much higher top gear ratio (mpg well into the 50's in the real world I should think).

 

That said, I'm very pleased with the mpg of my 1.4TSi as it is (high 40's) so maybe they know better than me what gearing it should have!

 

Hello

 

Yes, that's an interesting point. It'd certainly have better economy (maybe not by a huge amount, though) and has the torque to cope with longer gearing.

 

Gearing is always a compromise between fuel economy/CO2 emissions and performance at all speeds and on all roads, though, so it'll never suit everyone. Many modern cars already have very long gearing, however – it's odd driving a car that can do 70mph in second gear, knowing that you have four more gears to go!

 

Barnaby

[BarnabyJones]

 

Hi Barnaby

 

My experiences closely mirror your own - right down to the rattle you've written about in this month's mag.  I managed to trace the cause myself and stuck a bit of felt on the seat behind the adjustment lever - job done.  The issue has been discussed on here a few times, and I'm a bit surprised it took the dealer so long to twig. 

 

Overall the car is excellent:

 

- the load space (I have a combi) made Christmas with the in-laws a breeze - they really couldn't believe that everything stacked up in their hallway had come out of the boot of our car!  I would have liked a flat floor in the back like my old Civic, but you can't have everything.

 

- the 1.4TSI engine is simply a joy (if a bit of a price hike over the 1.2)

 

- the interior is unfussy and the dash excellent - I was put right off a number of alternatives by their bizarre attempts to look "innovative" and "different" in that department.  There are some great little touches like the very accessible isofix points in the back.

 

- the kit levels are (in my view) quite well-judged.  I have the SE and just added cruise control and the multi-function steering wheel for a spec that is pretty much spot on for my needs.  (I would have added the fold-flat passenger seat, but it was not in production when I ordered, despite being featured in all the PR material.)

 

The flies in the ointment for me are exactly those you have identified - a rather unyielding ride and quite a lot of road / suspension noise on all but the very finest road surfaces.  I also agree with your assessment of the different kinds of noise / boom problem people are having.  One unfortunate consequence of the road / suspension noise is that it rather overwhelms the bass frequencies from the stereo, which sounds great at rest but nowhere near as good when the background noise kicks in on the move. I believe this specific point was picked up in a Telegraph road test writeup, and is probably one reason a number of people have expressed disappointment with the quality of the standard audio setup.

 

On the noise front, it does feel a bit like Skoda have gone all out to save weight (with associated performance and economy benefits) when perhaps a few more kilos of soundproofing would have delivered a more refined car.  It will be interesting to see if they do anything about this when the car gets its first facelift.  Or maybe VAG still want to sell some Golfs!

 

Simon

 

 

Hello Simon

 

Ah, I should have looked at this forum ages ago! It would have saved me (and the dealer) a lot of hassle!

 

A 1.4 petrol Estate sounds like a mighty fine car – good choice! I wish I'd gone for cruise control and the multi-function steering wheel on my car as well.

 

You're right about the noise – I also think the Octavia could do with some more sound-deadening material. Like you, I'm also cynical and think VAG want there to be distinct differences between the Seat Leon/Skoda Octavia/VW Golf, and this is one way of doing that.

 

Still, I'm glad you're enjoying your Octavia so much.

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Barnaby

[BarnabyJones]

I am up to 2200 miles in my VRS diesel saloon so far, and have to say I'm totally and utterly happy with every aspect of the car so far, especially in comparison to other vehicles I've had recently.

Lovely performance, stability and handling, huge amount of space, no rattles as yet to speak of either.

I can see where people are a little disappointed by the ride, but having come from a BMW 3 series with runflat tyres, and a pick up truck before that, to me its sublime!

 

I would have liked the Canton upgrade, but the car was already outside my budget (company car) - again though, in comparison to the stereo fitted to my BMW, its wonderful!

 

Hello

 

Glad to hear you like your vRS so much.

 

I'd have liked the Canton stereo as well (if it was my own car, I'd have gone for it), but the standard one is pretty good. Yes, the standard stereo (if that's what yours had) in the BMW 3 Series is poor. An old colleague of mine from a hi-fi magazine said it was mainly due to the cheap speakers the 3 Series comes with. It's a shame, you'd expect (well, demand) an upmarket car such as the BMW to have a good stereo, but it certainly hasn't got that!

 

Barnaby

[Sheldon.Cooper]

I'm sorry to hear that your Octavia has so many rattles. Have you got the one that mine (and many others, by the sound of it) had on the passenger seat? It was the seat-height adjustment lever rattling against the plastic side of the seat – most annoying!

 

Thanks again for the post.

 

Barnaby

I have two annoying rattles, one is the flimsy parcel shelf.  It lets you know it's there when you drive on our less than perfect British road surfaces.  The second is caused by the sun roof net cover.  When it's retracted there's a rattle, if I press on the roof lining about 1/2 foot behind my head the rattle stops.  When it's forward there's no rattle but I didn't spec a glass sun roof just to always have the net cover forwards!

 

On the plus side I have no boom in the cabin as described by many people.  My fuel pump doesn't whistle.  Park assist is freakishly good! 

 

Oh, and one negative I haven't seen anyone else comment on... the paint work is awful (solid white), there are small red/brown spots all over the car (almost looks rusty) they appear 3-4 days after cleaning it.  I've had 30+ cars (albeit mostly metallics) but none have ever attracted that kind of whatever it is!  I'm not too bothered as it's a company car and I take it to the car wash every week but if it was mine that I'd spent all that money on I would be extreamly upset (although if it was mine it would have been metallic blue!).

[BarnabyJones]

I have two annoying rattles, one is the flimsy parcel shelf.  It lets you know it's there when you drive on our less than perfect British road surfaces.  The second is caused by the sun roof net cover.  When it's retracted there's a rattle, if I press on the roof lining about 1/2 foot behind my head the rattle stops.  When it's forward there's no rattle but I didn't spec a glass sun roof just to always have the net cover forwards!

 

On the plus side I have no boom in the cabin as described by many people.  My fuel pump doesn't whistle.  Park assist is freakishly good! 

 

Oh, and one negative I haven't seen anyone else comment on... the paint work is awful (solid white), there are small red/brown spots all over the car (almost looks rusty) they appear 3-4 days after cleaning it.  I've had 30+ cars (albeit mostly metallics) but none have ever attracted that kind of whatever it is!  I'm not too bothered as it's a company car and I take it to the car wash every week but if it was mine that I'd spent all that money on I would be extreamly upset (although if it was mine it would have been metallic blue!).

 

Hello

 

Ah, that's not good about the rattles. Quite right about the sunroof! Are you going to get a dealer to investigate soon, or wait until the car's next service is due? Either way, let me know how you get on.

 

Hmm, I've not heard any complaints about the paint quality. My car's (metallic) paint isn't the best I've seen, but it's perfectly acceptable, and certainly not like your car's. I'd get a dealer to take a look, but I have my doubts that you'll get a quick (or even a satisfactory) solution!

 

Barnaby