We've had a Mk 2 Hatchback for 10 years and I've always liked how it looked, even before we got it.

It was simple and looked like what I thought a car should look like, the same as a 5 year old would draw it

I especially liked the rear with the C light cluster.

We were also lucky enough to get it in Sahara Beige before they replaced it with Cappucino.

 

Our Mk 3 hatchback is due for delivery in a couple of weeks and I'm just not getting that warm fuzzy for the looks this time around.

Especially the back, not sure what's going on with the boot and the "creases".

Anyone else have misgivings about the Mk 3 appearance?

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by JosipB

I had similar thoughts about the rear, when moving from a MK2 to a MK3. I think the rear looks a bit awkward on the MK2 hatchback, I'm glad I went for the Mk3 Estate.

 

The front however, looks much better on the MK3, IMO. Sharp and aggressive.

I've got more misgivings about the lateral abdominal support the Recaros give when cornering hard. In hindsight, the Focus ST was much better. And the lack of front traction on anything like full power. I also have park sensors fitted to a car for the first time and they aren't accurate enough (to within say 3 inches) to garage park, but sound off like a hypochondriac on acid when i'm within 4 feet of something, which mutes the tunes. 

 

However, the DSG, the panoramic roof, the KESSY, the adaptive cruise, and the Canton are wonderful. 

 

I wouldn't\ didn't buy the mk2, thought the styling was anonymous, but everyone is different, and I'm almost certainly in the minority on here.

The best way to make an objective assessment of the styling is parked one summer evening in front of a vineyard while sampling the local produce.

Works for me.

Definitely prefer Mk. 2  as simpler, more classic, also it had protective rubbing strips on doors - now absent. I don't like the more fussy Mk. 3 look as much but it is still a lot better than many new cars, especially the so-called crossovers.

 

This applies to a lot of other cars - I think the new Mondeo looks much worse than the simpler lines of a few years ago. I changed makers when I had my long line of Cavaliers and then the Vectra arrived. Who designed those weird side mirrors?

Also they screwed up the models that followed my neat Nissan Primera GT. Some peculiar heap came out that looked vaguely French.

 

Classic shapes are nicest, without meaningless lumps and bumps and weird headlights and grills that look as if they are either grinning at you or scowling. It's a car, FGS, not a family pet!!

Estate looks much more cohesive as a piece of design. Almost as if they started with the combi and then thought F*** lets do the hatch now. Something oddly awkward about the rear of the hatch.

Estate looks much more cohesive as a piece of design. Almost as if they started with the combi and then thought F*** lets do the hatch now. Something oddly awkward about the rear of the hatch.

 

Agreed - the estate looks the complete car (only my opinion of course). Wasn't overly convinced on the looks when the mk3 was launched but it has steadily grown on me - the more defined front (especially on the vRS) looks more aggressive! Not convinced on the standard vRS 18" alloys either - hence I ordered the 19" xtremes (just for the overall look).

I had the mk2 hatch, front looked more "move over" aggressive. So wasn't overly fussed on the plain front of mk3. However I went for it, but Vrs with black pack, which improved things. Went for estate for my leisure activity. But must admit I do prefer the long smooth flowing lines of this.

I have a race blue vrs estate on my drive. I think it looks gorgeous.

I've had 4 Mk1's, 1 Mk2 and now a Mk3 Octavia, I don't buy cars for their looks and if I did, I'd buy an Alfa....Nuff said ?

I've had 4 Mk1's, 1 Mk2 and now a Mk3 Octavia, I don't buy cars for their looks and if I did, I'd buy an Alfa....Nuff said ?

Mine would be a 360M  Modena (need to win the lottery first!)

I instantly liked the look of the mk3 when I saw it. I will concede though, the rear (especially the vRS models) need to have a wider, more aggressive stance. A greater bulge in the rear arches would be good.

Ive got a mk3 estate after coming from a Passat, I always fancied an octy but really didn't like the look of the mk2. Just thought it looked a bit dated with its curvy headlights and colour coded b and c pillars where as most modern estates seem to have the side windows and pillars blacked so the side of the car merges into one sleek feature tapering to the rear of the car.

I think the mk3 estate looks really good! I'm not so sure on the hatch but I'm not generally a fan of saloon shape cars anyway, other than classic cars

I think the mk3 is the best looking octavia so far. The old ones did look ok, but very plain.

The hatch, imho is a bit of a Friday afternoon car.....purely lookswise, compared to the estate..

I parked next to a MK3 Octavia the other day. It was Race Blue the same colour as my Rapid Sport. Looking at them both from the rear I could see no difference other than bumper reflectors on the Octavia. I too don't like these sharp creases the back of every model but the front of a MK3 looks great from all angles. I preferred the rear of my MK2 [emoji106]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For a family estate 99% happy with mine.

 

I've still got a misgiving about the grill shape, which looks a bit clumsy in chrome. The rear estate styling has really grown on me - the drop in suspension on the VRS does make it look a bit sleeker and wider than the standard car...

 

I've got more misgivings about the lateral abdominal support the Recaros give when cornering hard. In hindsight, the Focus ST was much better. And the lack of front traction on anything like full power. I also have park sensors fitted to a car for the first time and they aren't accurate enough (to within say 3 inches) to garage park, but sound off like a hypochondriac on acid when i'm within 4 feet of something, which mutes the tunes. 

 

However, the DSG, the panoramic roof, the KESSY, the adaptive cruise, and the Canton are wonderful. 

 

I wouldn't\ didn't buy the mk2, thought the styling was anonymous, but everyone is different, and I'm almost certainly in the minority on here.

i dont think the seats in the vrs are recaros,

Talking about Mk. 2 (hatch),  I had, and preferred, the pre FL version. Didn't like the headlight shape etc on the FL.

Talking about Mk. 2 (hatch), I had, and preferred, the pre FL version. Didn't like the headlight shape etc on the FL.

+1.. I'd have thought twice about ordering one if they hadn't changed the shape for the mk3. It really did look like an old man's car (imo of course).

Edited 22 January, 201511 yr by Greg R

Looks are very subjective. Surely its a good thing that at least the shape is interesting enough for us to have opinions about it.

 

Personally, all non vRS octavia's are pretty boring, at least the bumpers, wheels and spoilers of a vRS make it look less mundane. Lets be honest, VW/Audi would strop if Skoda produced an absolutely drop dead gorgeous looking car.

I had similar thoughts about the rear, when moving from a MK2 to a MK3. I think the rear looks a bit awkward on the MK2 hatchback, I'm glad I went for the Mk3 Estate.

 

The front however, looks much better on the MK3, IMO. Sharp and aggressive.

 

 I meant to say, the rear looks a bit awkward on the MK3 hatchback.

Edited 22 January, 201511 yr by waaar

+1.. I'd have thought twice about ordering one if they hadn't changed the shape for the mk3. It really did look like an old man's car (imo of course).

Ditto! I really disliked the direction Skoda took first with the Roomster and then the Fabia and Octavia facelifts...I'm glad they went back to the sleek looking headlights.

Edited 22 January, 201511 yr by kallekilponen

I think the mk3 has been designed to be just another 'Eurobox' in an effort to attract more Eurobox drivers and gain a bigger market share, in the same way Skoda are getting rid of their smaller indy dealers in favour of multi franchise ones.

I'd like to get excited by the mk3 vRS but it just doesn't do it for me. No doubt its a better car, but looks wise.......

Again just my view but I think the mk2 vRS is easier to distinguish from the other mk2 models but it's more difficult to tell the mk3 equivelent from its siblings. The whole VAG group have these corperate faces to their cars now, get some twonk in an Audi up your chuff who's desperate to get past you in traffic and it's difficult to tell if its someone in a cooking A1 who will actually hold you up or something that might have a decent turn of speed. Probably why mk3 vRS drivers get frustrated, the car in front thinks your a 1.2...... especially in race blue LOL

A few months ago I got dragged into a market research meeting about car looks and fittings. I don't know who the survey was put on for but all the pictures were of current crossover cars and I thought they all looked horrible, lumpy meaningless bits of "styling",  like toys or something a 5 year old might scribble.

 

They asked about having windscreen displays of info (instead of "looking down at the dashboard" presumably). I can't imagine anything worse than having changing images projected onto my windscreen - i want to look through it, not at it.

Each to their own I guess.