Morning guys,

Fancied kicking off a light hearted non -Skoda related debate this morning; also keen to hear peoples general opinions.

My O3 2.0 TDi Elegance "may" have to go in due course as a change in living and working arrangements is set to up my commuting mileage from approx 400 miles/month to 2k+. I currently fund my O3 through a car allowance but if I start putting that kind of mileage on it long term it'll likely cost me dearly down the line....its therefore possibly going to have to go in place of a company car.

My current workplace have gone all Whole Life Cost and CO2 crazy which means either a diesel or hybrid/electric car but affords me some half decent choices of motor. They however come standard spec bar metallic/pearl paint.

Two that really appeal are the cars as per the title as I can have either at reasonable taxation and no additional contribution.

Now I can get a GTD DSG if I want it but i'd have to cough up £50/month for the privilege so its not going to happen.

So pros and cons of each:-

GTD

+

A bit quicker than the GT

Looks alot nicer inside and out

Will almost certainly drive a bit better

Xenon lights

Climate

Cheaper tax due to list price and CO2 output

-

No nav (not a deal breaker I guess)

Manual box a bit wearing with the mileage i'll be doing

As above not loads quicker than the GT

ACC without DSG not so great i'd assume

GT

+

DSG + ACC a nice combination for long distance travel

Not alot slower than the GTD

Standard nav

-

No Xenons or climate

Bit dull compared to GTD

Wont likely drive quite so well

More expensive for CC tax

each to their own but a manual gearbox overall is probably nicer, particularly in a GTD (v debatable).

So chaps go for your lives, what would you do given the choice?

....BTW heads clearly saying GT DSG, heart GTD manual!

GTD in any guise

In real world conditions, not a lot between them, however if you had a GT and every time a GTD drove past you gave it a second glance, there's your answer, make sure you go for the GTD,...

 

£50 a month to some is a lot of money and depending on how long you need to keep the car, this too can have an impact.

 

Both are good cars although the GTD just edges it for me.

I'm with you both, absolutely thinking the same...just there is a lure of DSG and ACC for the long distance trips I'd be undertaking, also being used to having Amundsen nav and then lose it moving to the GTD would be a bit annoying.....nothing a half decent garmin/tomtom wouldnt resolve of course.

Too true, DSG is great, have it on my VRS and wouldn't look back.

 

ACC yep, agree there too.

 

As for sat nav, I use my iPhone 5 and it's done a better job getting me places than my old oem sat nav unit used to so shouldn't need to be a deal breaker.

 

Tough call really, I still know what would happen if you go for the GT and you have a GTD overtaking you ;-)

For that sort of mileage I think dsg and acc would be the biggest "must haves" especially if you're just sitting on the motorway

A GTD DSG really would be best of both worlds but thats £1800 over 3 years id rather not spend. That said ive had two DSG equipped cars in the past and have to say overall I do still prefer a manual particularly on a diesel, its just I also hate the inevitable left knee ache!

2k miles a month is 72k miles over the 3 years. A lot of driving!

 

If you think about it  you're not paying that much more to have a much smoother driving experience:

 

2.5 pence per mile

£1.25 per hour (at average 50 mph)

 

I'd take the GTD DSG and stump up the cash if I was doing that much mileage. If you really had to choose between those two though, it would have to be the GTD wouldn't it?

From reading your first post, you've already discounted the derv...but it's the sensible option with that kind of mileage going on. 

From reading your first post, you've already discounted the derv...but it's the sensible option with that kind of mileage going on. 

 

I'll give you it's not obvious from that post - but posts on other earlier threads give the game away... he's on about the GTD vs the GT with a diesel engine.

The real world difference assuming your 2k a month is mostly motorway work

 

The DSG has a higher BIK (about 2%?)

The DSG will use more fuel (about 35litres a month at your mileages, which seriously adds up)

 

The DSG will be smoother.. Big Whup unless a) don't know how to use a clutch or have only one leg

 

At those mileages the GTD manual makes more sense.  A Volvo S60 D4 Business edition makes even more sense

 

Do a google search for BIK rates, there are a few sites telling you the rates in 2015,16 & 17.

 

Basically they are just going up and up.  Even zero emission cars go from 0-13% BIK over the next 3 years!

 

Government doesn't care if it's "green", they want our money.

If I do change it'll almost certainly be for a manual GTD I think. When you're to be saddled with a car for 3+ years and you have the chance for that choice to both be a little emotive but also make economic sense (normally never the twain shall meet) its got to be a goer.

For sure with the mileage i'll be doing my head does say a DSG would be very useful but having owned a couple and finding that (in my own opinion) it didnt mate very well with the 2.0 TDi engine I think even if I took the DSG equipped GTD id end up not enjoying it as much as the manual car and not liking it as much as a consequence. I certainly wouldnt pay £50/month for the privilege anyway.

Fuel costs arent such a big deal as I'm fortunate enough to get a fuel card for both business and personal use, at the moment I just pay tax on the spend yearly with relief for business miles, going back to a CC will result in fuel surcharge instead so will pay tax monthly regardless.

My original plan to buy a vRS TSi in due course has been a bit scuppered by both the mega mileage increase and also my firms change to car allowance policy that will prevent me running anything next time around that puts out more than 120g/km CO2; though suppose a manual vRS TDi would be an option still under different circumstances. Naturally I'd rather a petrol car but it would make no sense given the circumstances and no petrol choices on the car scheme.

Edited 31 August, 201411 yr by pipsyp

GTD.

I've got a GT TDi. I do 20k miles a year. Took delivery in March and its just turned 11k miles already. I chose it over the GTD as its more comfortable to spend long periods of time in, and the nav is standard. It still handles great but the slightly smaller wheels, slightly softer suspension, and more comfortable seats make it a great long distance cruiser. I chose a manual box as its much better on fuel. Currently the long term consumptions is at 57mpg and I'm almost always on A & B roads. I've read on VW forums that some GTD owners have enquired about having GT seats fitted. Apparently some find them a little firm, some find the pattern design a little OTT. 

Certainly have a go in both first. 

Gt. It's the miles your doing mate. We would have the vrs if we didn't do 35k a year. No regrets so far. The 150 engine is superb. It does help if you have a "fun" car for the weekend. If your spending upwards of 10 hours a week in a car first and foremost it needs to be comfortable and come with lots of toys that makes driving lazy/easy.

Edited 5 September, 201411 yr by Stuski

GTD. Because of engine, manual gearbox, suspensions, brakes, interiors, etc..

 

On highway can't appreciate the loads of advantage of DSG while - if you drive with non optimal light conditions - Xenons do make a lot of difference to me.

 

HTH,

This was a similar dilemma to me when choosing the company car - I had decided on the GTD. My budget didn't agree and allowed me to get the VRS TDI, or the Elegance 2.0 Diesel Estate.

I was completely sold on the Octavia (as the GTD exceeded my budget), and ummed and arrr'd for ages.

As I commute across the Pennines each day, the thing that sold the VRS to me was the Xenons for the dark twisty lanes (as, like you I wasn't allowed to add options) 

 

Occasionally I do think I might have been more comfy in the elegance (30k miles per year), but its not like the VRS is uncomfortable.

Gt. It's the miles your doing mate. We would have the vrs if we didn't do 35k a year. No regrets so far. The 150 engine is superb. It does help if you have a "fun" car for the weekend. If your spending upwards of 10 hours a week in a car first and foremost it needs to be comfortable and come with lots of toys that makes driving lazy/easy.

Absolutely concur RE the 150 engine, naturally have this in my MK3 and IMHO it's a far superior unit to the previous 170 CR never mind the 140 CR.

I thought the same about the GT too, problem is I made that decision getting my Elegance over another vRS and have kind of regretted it. Don't have the luxury at the moment of buying a plaything (was considering an E46 M3 for a while but a bigger mortgage and some life changes have put that on hold) so whatever I do get needs to be reasonable (if not quite) fun. I am sure the GT will be a better in this regard as it has sports suspension and a bit sportier all round Than an Elegance but still not sure it's enough. The standard navigation and DSG/ACC combo (whilst I'm not a big diesel with DSG fan) does have its appeal.

My octavia is also a manual and have to say I do overall prefer it to DSG.

I still think a (Carbon Grey) GTD manual 5 door has it swung unfortunately :-)

Edited 5 September, 201411 yr by pipsyp