Are current and past Skoda Owners going to be buying the All New 2013 3rd Generation Fabia in any numbers.

The Estate Version seems to be appealing to some, 

but it looks like the Hatch might be as big a sales disaster in the UK as the Rapid / Rapid Spaceback.

 

So much promise from Skoda (Auto Express / What Car) in the teases & build up to the car ever being launched.

Then, High Prices in the UK and not that great advances in Connectivity Technologies at launch.

So much promised, and as usual those that buy first are let down, and after people buy the car Skoda Customer Services just brush off questions on why things are not working as shown in the Brochures or any dates can be given when the Updates will be available.

Edited 13 May, 201511 yr by goneoffSKi

Petrol cars, yes but no more Derv's for me.  To much emission equipment on them now seems to make them less reliable and diesel is fast becoming demonized by some authorities.     Well I've damned them all and bought an Audi S4, petrol of course.  The A3 derv will be ditched next time it starts throwing a wobbly.

I haven't read all the posts but most of the first page.

I had a 1999 Octavia SLX TDi Estate (one of the first ones) kept it till 10 yr old and 180000m, prior to that a Golf 1.8CL 1992(J) 12 years and 180000m when I got rid. Both had a very hard life, up and down farm roads and through the odd rally stage. A friend has an Audi 80 estate 260000m used as a work van and to set up rally stages.

 

I think the point is that cars of the era 15 to 20 years ago were much better built, stronger, maybe heavier and less technology. Far more robust. In some ways over engineered (think old Mercs).

Cars today are cheap in comparison, finance is cheap, they are built down to a cost regardless of manufacturer but only the likes of Dacia admit it. Crammed full of technology that is costly to repair and replace.

Honest John is quoted as saying that cars are now only built to last 7 years, indeed airbags should be replace at 12 to 15 years which would render any car of that age uneconomic to repair.

Add into the mix that roads are less well maintained and you can see why there are issues.

Not to mention the vanity of drivers, fads and throwaway culture of most consumers,

Absolutely yes! But mines from 2001, so as basic as they come

Id buy another skoda/vag car definitely i owned a punto evo for 3 months broke down 4 times! Px that for a focus zetec which was ok but pretty bland and boring very noisy on motorways too. My experience so far is good or is it just because ive had crappier cars before lol

If i had a choice id still have my old 53 astra cdti sxi well built comfortable economical and drivable, new vaux's arent the same and i wanted a newer car

I wouldn't buy a new VW group vehicle again for a few simple reasons:  I know someone who worked for Audi/VW and just over a decade ago he told me that Audi produced less than 1/10th of current production figures (how  true or accurate that is, I honestly don't know), and a similar story with VW.  As production went up, there were improvements and new model development but quality of some components and the way the cars were screwed together suffered.  This was evidenced by comparisons with a few Audi cars he mentioned. Late 90's models and early Naughties models were reputedly better in some respects than mid the late 2000 models as things like electrical connectors and wiring looms gave issues on the later ones (corrosion of rear light clusters and wiring being one commonly reported fault). My neighbour is having to replace lots of wiring on his 2006 A4 due to problems so I can believe this).  

 

VW cars suffered with increasing complexity and a surprising number of failures of things like the complex handbrake circuit of later model passats for example started dragging reliability ranking down due to the increasing number of warranty claims. Skoda didn't seem to suffer as much because a) they seemed on the whole to be less complex and ii) production was lower which seems to somethow correlate to some quality issues.  

 

This is all a little confusing when you compare with the Japanese car market where they have huge production figures but reliability has continued to go from strength to strength.  The difference seems to be in the contracts for small components such as connectors, and in some areas of design.  Performance specification is all very well but for contract purposes, you can have two similar performing items but one may outlast the other by decades, and there's a balance to be struck.  It seems many car makers are getting it wrong here (Mercedes and BMW in particular).

 

I prefer the basic reliability and solid build of earlier Fabias for example to newer models, but prefer the Mk3 Octy to the Mk1.  I wouldn't buy a Mk3 simply because they no longer represent the bargains they once did,  and you can do better for the money.

 

It's a similar story with Volvo, Beemer, Merc, and many other car companies, so Skoda aren't alone here.  I suspect that increasing commercial pressures, increased turnover and a more difficult world market do affect the finished products but by and large. Skoda are still reasonably good vehicles if you exclude the nightmare that is the 1.4 self destructing engine (as used in Mk2 vRS Fabias, in Audis and Polos etc).

I haven't read all the posts but most of the first page.

I had a 1999 Octavia SLX TDi Estate (one of the first ones) kept it till 10 yr old and 180000m, prior to that a Golf 1.8CL 1992(J) 12 years and 180000m when I got rid. Both had a very hard life, up and down farm roads and through the odd rally stage. A friend has an Audi 80 estate 260000m used as a work van and to set up rally stages.

 

I think the point is that cars of the era 15 to 20 years ago were much better built, stronger, maybe heavier and less technology. Far more robust. In some ways over engineered (think old Mercs).

Cars today are cheap in comparison, finance is cheap, they are built down to a cost regardless of manufacturer but only the likes of Dacia admit it. Crammed full of technology that is costly to repair and replace.

Honest John is quoted as saying that cars are now only built to last 7 years, indeed airbags should be replace at 12 to 15 years which would render any car of that age uneconomic to repair.

Add into the mix that roads are less well maintained and you can see why there are issues.

Not to mention the vanity of drivers, fads and throwaway culture of most consumers,

 

 

Partly for economic reasons, but also for some of the reasons you list above loskie, I have mostly owned older cars. When younger and more enthusiastic some nice old sports cars before the "classic" car movement caused them to fetch silly prices. . Austin Healy 3000, early MGB ragtop ect, the nicest and most desirable was a 1940s Allard M type dhc (V8 sidevalve Ford Pilot engine) which I replaced with one out of a scrap Pilot as I bought it minus engine, in fact most of my cars needed work when I bought them and none cost me more than £50-00 to purchase  ...   usually resold just to cover my costs as I tired of one and found another.

 

But for the last 20 years or so, a car has just been a means to get from A to B, and campervans I owned a way to have affordable holidays. but my means of transport immediately prior to the present Skoda, an elderly Land Rover Disco seemed to rekindle my interest,  too heavy on fuel however for my relatively limited means, and now I am really enjoying the excellent Octavia and of course this forum and you guys are keeping that old rekindled flame burning again...

 

So to answer the question asked by the OP... Yes, if anything happened to my present Skoda, I would definitely buy another. but unlikely to be a new one.

 

Alan.

I bought our two Skoda's for three main reasons:

 

1) They were cheap

2) They were VW's without the badge and price.

3) I didn't care about Skoda's shady image.

 

Now Skoda's are:

 

1) No longer cheap

2) Same quality, I assume.

3) Are a respected brand pushing up prices and demand and servicing costs.

 

Not sure I'm brave enough to go French and aren't interested in the too common offerings from Ford and Vauxhall.

 

The warranty offered by the Korean's is tempting and they are now knocking out some good cars.

Ever since I've had company cars they've been from the VAG stable: 2x Golfs, 2x Octavia, 1x A4 and 1x Superb. There was a Focus at the beginning too.

My next choice will also be from the same stable but with BMW in the mix.

I've got used to the build quality and reliability so that is a given, like others I find the current Skoda line up a bit bland but with the A4 on run out and new Superb Estate not likely to be out in time I may be veering towards VW Passat or 3 series, A6 at a push.

I still look at the MK1 Superb and think its better built than the newer stuff. The interior was nicer and the plastics felt better than the MK2.

I jumped from VAG because I fancied something different. Then when I went to come back I couldn't find a nicely styled VAG that I liked in budget. I didn't like the MK2 Superb, the Octavia didn't do it for me and the Passat was dull. Audi do some nice cars but they were all the same with no character.

I went for the Kia and IMO this is where VAG need to be worrying. The warranty, the styling and the build quality outperforms the equivilant models they produce. IMO.

I might return for a MK3 Superb in a few years but who knows.

I wouldn't buy a new VW group vehicle again for a few simple reasons:  I know someone who worked for Audi/VW and just over a decade ago he told me that Audi produced less than 1/10th of current production figures (how  true or accurate that is, I honestly don't know), and a similar story with VW.  As production went up, there were improvements and new model development but quality of some components and the way the cars were screwed together suffered.  This was evidenced by comparisons with a few Audi cars he mentioned. Late 90's models and early Naughties models were reputedly better in some respects than mid the late 2000 models as things like electrical connectors and wiring looms gave issues on the later ones (corrosion of rear light clusters and wiring being one commonly reported fault). My neighbour is having to replace lots of wiring on his 2006 A4 due to problems so I can believe this).  

 

VW cars suffered with increasing complexity and a surprising number of failures of things like the complex handbrake circuit of later model passats for example started dragging reliability ranking down due to the increasing number of warranty claims. Skoda didn't seem to suffer as much because a) they seemed on the whole to be less complex and ii) production was lower which seems to somethow correlate to some quality issues.  

 

This is all a little confusing when you compare with the Japanese car market where they have huge production figures but reliability has continued to go from strength to strength.  The difference seems to be in the contracts for small components such as connectors, and in some areas of design.  Performance specification is all very well but for contract purposes, you can have two similar performing items but one may outlast the other by decades, and there's a balance to be struck.  It seems many car makers are getting it wrong here (Mercedes and BMW in particular).

 

I prefer the basic reliability and solid build of earlier Fabias for example to newer models, but prefer the Mk3 Octy to the Mk1.  I wouldn't buy a Mk3 simply because they no longer represent the bargains they once did,  and you can do better for the money.

 

It's a similar story with Volvo, Beemer, Merc, and many other car companies, so Skoda aren't alone here.  I suspect that increasing commercial pressures, increased turnover and a more difficult world market do affect the finished products but by and large. Skoda are still reasonably good vehicles if you exclude the nightmare that is the 1.4 self destructing engine (as used in Mk2 vRS Fabias, in Audis and Polos etc).

 

 

Unfortunately I think a majority of buyers equate quality with the number of features on a car. So that's the focus for the manufacturers.

 

I chose the Honda partly because it didn't have many gadgets to go wrong, the DPF didn't have reputation of some brands and the engine was a chain cam. Plus depreciation had been high to make the car seem cheap and they did a good deal on a 3yr warranty despite the car being 4yr old.

I am a big Skoda fan, but the closure of my local dealership, boring new cars all looking the same but scaled up or down and the focus on sensible cars rather than sporty really means there isn't a single one currently on sale I want.

since the current batch of mkIII octy, mkIII fabia, rapid etc I have noticed a lack of the airy interior and to me seem less knee room and I am closer to the screen, and all skoda seem obsessed with is the size of the boot ( to the detriment of passenger space)

 

if I had stayed with skoda this time it would likely have been an entry level 1.2TSi Octavia S

 

the other thing they seem obsessed with is gimmicky things like mirror link and smart gate, what currently seem to be drawing quite a bit of negative comment at the moment

 

I think they need to go back to there roots and start looking at what customers want rather than what is cheap out of the VAG parts bin and give us back some cars with a bit of character, as currently from the front it's difficult to tell which model is coming towards you (fabia, rapid, octy all look the same)

The warranty offered by the Korean's is tempting and they are now knocking out some good cars.

 

 

I went for the Kia and IMO this is where VAG need to be worrying. The warranty, the styling and the build quality outperforms the equivilant models they produce. IMO.

 

I too like some of the cars the Korean's are producing. Even think the Pro Cee'd (is that right?) looks quite cool. Only seen it in the advert though.

 

But re the 7yr warranty, one missed stamp in the service book?, I wonder?????

 

since the current batch of mkIII octy, mkIII fabia, rapid etc I have noticed a lack of the airy interior and to me seem less knee room and I am closer to the screen, and all skoda seem obsessed with is the size of the boot ( to the detriment of passenger space)

 

The big boots are what set Skoda apart from their VAG brother's and sister's. A boot that is big enough to get the pushchair and all the family paraphernalia in.

 

The Octavia is after all a cheaper Golf with a big boot aimed at those who don't have to have a VW badge on the grill to keep up with the neighbors.

 

If it wasn't for the big boot on the MkIII Octavia then I have a sneeky suspicion that most Octavia owners would have instead been drawn into the better deals currently on offer from SEAT on the Leon and Leon ST.

Edited 15 May, 201511 yr by silver1011

I too like some of the cars the Korean's are producing. Even think the Pro Cee'd (is that right?) looks quite cool. Only seen it in the advert though.

 

But re the 7yr warranty, one missed stamp in the service book?, I wonder?????

 

I've no doubt there will be caveats in the warranty but then there is also a lot is inaccurate information around on the strength of the Korean's longer warranty's as the term gets closer to the 7 year mark.

 

My best mate bought his brand new 2008 Kia Ceed within a few months of us getting our nearly new 2008 Octavia Scout. For the last 7 years both cars have led similar life styles, mainly the school run with the occasional longer trip to see family, go on holiday etc. As a result they are both on between 45,000 and 50,000 miles.

 

I take much more care of my cars than he does, he sees it as an inanimate object to get lug the family around so the Octavia is still looking smart, the Kia is looking a little rough now with scrapes and scratches etc. Both cars have been main dealer serviced all their life.

 

In that time the Kia has needed a new radio (flattening the battery) in it's first year and a little plastic clip that holds the bonnet arm to the wing. That is it. It has recently had discs and pads but as he knows nothing about cars he had these replaced on the dealers recommendation. My Skoda dealer advised me to replace ours 2x MOT's ago, they are still good yet.

 

His wife even span it off the road one winter through a fence so it has had some bodywork repairs.

 

My Octavia on the other hand whilst still been reliable and a very good car has had a lot more warranty work / expense. The ABS pump (Teeves), corroding alloy wheels, faulty electric window, 2x engine sensors, broken high-level brake light, wing mirror glass falling out and a few other niggles. The big ones were under warranty but the rest were just annoying, a few hundred quid here, another few hundred quid there. A 7 year warranty would have covered all these faults.

 

So for me the Korean's seem to be screwing their cars together pretty well, or at least better than VAG were.

Edited 15 May, 201511 yr by silver1011

Interesting, and useful comparison points there

 

Nice timing with the purchase of both cars help too!

 

So for me the Korean's seem to be screwing their cars together pretty well, or at least better than VAG were.

 

There is only so far that a manufacturer can take the build quality though - I think it's that the Koreans et al have moved their game on but VAG haven't?

True, but I wonder how much the manufacturer can directly influence?

 

So many components are sourced from third party companies these days that fewer and fewer materials are produced in-house.

 

All of the electronics that run through every element of a modern car. All that circuitry and sensors etc.

 

I'm far from the automotive industry but I do get an insight into product development for a large global company on a daily basis in my job and it is all about VI (value improvement), which is their way of covering over the term 'take cost out'.

 

The pressure these days to save a few dollar or euro cents is immense. A €0.05 EUR saving per car soon amounts to bigger profits.

 

One of our manufacturing plants moved from an NSK bearing to a different, lower cost local supplier recently with disastrous consequences, our warranty went through the roof.

 

It's all about striking a balance.

To put the warranty aspect into perspective, my first kia, a 2007 Kia Cee'd ran for nearly 3 years with no servicing at all. I really didn't look after it but kia covered any warranty claims I did have. From memory it had a couple of abs sensors and some paintwork done.

Don't know how it would work now but they were pretty good. My Optima has had a new back windscreen due to a demist issue and there is one at the dealer at the mo having a new engine under warranty.

On the flip side my previous kia was the most reliable car I've owned.

i am waiting to see how my new 2015 Hyundai i20 fairs,

 

seems ok so far, but only had it 2 months, but it needs to go back to the dealers for a panel to be resprayed, this panel was respray before I picked it up for a small scratch in the lacquer but now appears to be a different colour to the rest

 

so far the car is not doing bad on mpg but not as good as a VAG unit, spec and build I would say so far is better than a fabia III and cheaper

 

this is the competition VAG need to be aware of, or they will lose more customers as word gets out about better value for money, like skoda was when they first joined VAG, but gradually VAG bosses have killed the brand from something innovative to be another corporate clone

I'm now on my fourth Octavia but it'll be my last. I've posted elsewhere on here about build quality and the can't be a**** to do a proper conversion job for the rhd market in the mk3. I'm quite taken with the Kia Optima though. They can't shift them either, so it might make a good bargaining tool. I might even dump the derv if things stay the same in terms of employment, as I'm no longer paying for my own fuel and go back to the green stuff. 

True, but I wonder how much the manufacturer can directly influence?

 

So many components are sourced from third party companies these days that fewer and fewer materials are produced in-house.

 

All of the electronics that run through every element of a modern car. All that circuitry and sensors etc.

 

I'm far from the automotive industry but I do get an insight into product development for a large global company on a daily basis in my job and it is all about VI (value improvement), which is their way of covering over the term 'take cost out'.

 

The pressure these days to save a few dollar or euro cents is immense. A €0.05 EUR saving per car soon amounts to bigger profits.

 

One of our manufacturing plants moved from an NSK bearing to a different, lower cost local supplier recently with disastrous consequences, our warranty went through the roof.

 

It's all about striking a balance.

 

 

That's an interesting observation but one thing you can be certain about is that all big manufacturers can directly influence quality but cost saving comes first.

 

It's a well known in car journo circles for example that when Merc offered up the first of their "Blue Efficiency" C class for review, it was screwed together using more reliable parts than the production model ended up with, which may or may not be true of other manufacturers too, and first production runs were a backwards step in reliability compared with previous generation models.  Similar story with BMW (which I wouldn't touch with a barge pole now...in fact I wouldn't have either).  The aim of the modern European industry seems to be to make things reliable for the first 3 or 4 years to attract the fleet markets and then it's up for grabs.  Warranties typically these days are also conditional upon having all servicing done by manufacturer franchised dealers or approved outlets so getting round the freedom of choice buyers have to have the cars serviced more cheaply. They rake in profit wherever they can.  Even bodywork warranties are conditional upon no bodywork repairs (post accident or even for things like stone chip repairs) being undertaken by anyone other than main franchised dealers.  I know, it happened to one of our cars much to my disgust.

 

The other main issues include the relentless drive of Euro compliance becoming even more cloud cuckoo and unsustainable.  All that EC has done is to increase the number of "disposable" small  engines which is the reality (ask any mechanic) resulting in a whole life larger carbon footprint, not a smaller one.  It's ludicrous.  Whilst the aims of EC are laudable the reality is not so great. I had a brand new 3 cylinder whizzbang motor for a service car last week.  Official figures gave it as 65 to 70mpg combined.  Best I managed at a steady 60 to 65 on the motorway was 50mpg (readout said 49.4).  That's pathetic for a modern engine of less than 1 litre.  When I picked it up, the mechanic told me that they were indeed disposable, and that he hated working on them.  A friend has a C1 with a similar small EC engine.  At 60k miles everything started going wrong and he told me that he wished he'd bought a larger engined older car as the new batch are false economy to him.  That about sums it up.  We're lured by increasing gadgetry/eco credentials/low running costs as a portent of value for money, and it hides what are fast becoming overly complex and more and more unreliable vehicles which are developed at the forced behest of a bureaucratic unaccountable Euro organisation which far from driving genuine innovational improvements, are looking to eco-targets as the main driver.  As long as the designs meet these targets for a few years, manufacturers have ticked the boxes.  None of them give a fig for whole life costs, which directly affect environmental issues in terms of carbon footprint as well as the short term targets.  It's all become a not so funny joke.

 

We've had several Skodas, all early models, and whilst they've not been the last word in reliability, they have been relatively easy to fix, robust and have stood the test of time as far as getting us from A to B fairly cheaply.  We wont ever sell our Mk1 Fabia vRS SE as it's too good and robust a litle vehicle (as well as being super economical...we regularly get over 70mpg which makes a joke out of modern eco machines).  It's a king compared with any small new car although it lacks the fancy kit list.  I predict that used values for really good Mk1 vRS Fabias will rocket as the years tick away and they become less obtainable.

 

We looked to replace our main family workhorse this year, a Merc C220 cdi estate.  It's been fantastic since the day it was bought and covered well over 120,000 trouble free miles. We wouldn't touch a new version as reliability simply isn't there any more and compared with competition, they're way over priced.  Quality peaked mid noughties with these.  We instead looked at Octavias up to 5 years old and under 50K miles.  I was shocked at the asking price of say 4 year old vRS estates and after doing some in depth research, these have as many issues as the newer mercs it seems whilst used values are not that much less.  Obtaining low mileage examples was also difficult.  Looking at a few, I was unimpressed with bodywork quality but was impressed by the vastly improved interiors although passenger and driver space seems unremarkable.  What swung it for us was basically they're no longer any more reliable or robust than any other Euro box and sell on gimmickry rather than practicality.  If we bought a new Skoda, it would be a Yeti or Roomster as to  my mind they give better VFM and practicality.

 

However, the search bizarrely ended up knocking on the door of Lexus.  We bought arguably one of the worlds most reliable luxury vehicles which sacrifices nothing in terms of performance or gadgetry.  It has more boot space than you can shake a stick at, has more performance than an Octy vRS whilst being more economical than the petrol vRS.  It is also better appointed, way more luxurious, better screwed together and, well...just better!  The joke?  It is 7 years old and cost not much more than  a low mileage 7 year old Octavia vRS with similar mileage.  What is it?  A top of the range GS300 fastback with 60K miles, and a 3 litre V6 petrol engine that even round here with the hills to get anywhere returns over 30mpg combined and 40 on a run.  It does the 60 sprint in 7 seconds dead and onto 150mph, handles well, is like a gentlemans club inside has massive passenger space, massive boot, sure footed handling and is whisper quiet. It also has sat at the very top of most reliability and owner satisfaction tables for years.  I am now won over by Lexus and wonder why I haven't thought about them before (ignoring their nasty 220 diesel engine which is far from good or reliable).  The VW group can keep their new cars and their over hyped marketing.  I wont be won back unless something fundamental happens to improve the current situation.

Edited 16 May, 201511 yr by SEVrs

That's an interesting observation but one thing you can be certain about is that all big manufacturers can directly influence quality but cost saving comes first.

 

It's a well known in car journo circles for example that when Merc offered up the first of their "Blue Efficiency" C class for review, it was screwed together using more reliable parts than the production model ended up with, which may or may not be true of other manufacturers too, and first production runs were a backwards step in reliability compared with previous generation models.  Similar story with BMW (which I wouldn't touch with a barge pole now...in fact I wouldn't have either).  The aim of the modern European industry seems to be to make things reliable for the first 3 or 4 years to attract the fleet markets and then it's up for grabs.  Warranties typically these days are also conditional upon having all servicing done by manufacturer franchised dealers or approved outlets so getting round the freedom of choice buyers have to have the cars serviced more cheaply. They rake in profit wherever they can.  Even bodywork warranties are conditional upon no bodywork repairs (post accident or even for things like stone chip repairs) being undertaken by anyone other than main franchised dealers.  I know, it happened to one of our cars much to my disgust.

 

The other main issues include the relentless drive of Euro compliance becoming even more cloud cuckoo and unsustainable.  All that EC has done is to increase the number of "disposable" small  engines which is the reality (ask any mechanic) resulting in a whole life larger carbon footprint, not a smaller one.  It's ludicrous.  Whilst the aims of EC are laudable the reality is not so great. I had a brand new 3 cylinder whizzbang motor for a service car last week.  Official figures gave it as 65 to 70mpg combined.  Best I managed at a steady 60 to 65 on the motorway was 50mpg (readout said 49.4).  That's pathetic for a modern engine of less than 1 litre.  When I picked it up, the mechanic told me that they were indeed disposable, and that he hated working on them.  A friend has a C1 with a similar small EC engine.  At 60k miles everything started going wrong and he told me that he wished he'd bought a larger engined older car as the new batch are false economy to him.  That about sums it up.  We're lured by increasing gadgetry/eco credentials/low running costs as a portent of value for money, and it hides what are fast becoming overly complex and more and more unreliable vehicles which are developed at the forced behest of a bureaucratic unaccountable Euro organisation which far from driving genuine innovational improvements, are looking to eco-targets as the main driver.  As long as the designs meet these targets for a few years, manufacturers have ticked the boxes.  None of them give a fig for whole life costs, which directly affect environmental issues in terms of carbon footprint as well as the short term targets.  It's all become a not so funny joke.

 

We've had several Skodas, all early models, and whilst they've not been the last word in reliability, they have been relatively easy to fix, robust and have stood the test of time as far as getting us from A to B fairly cheaply.  We wont ever sell our Mk1 Fabia vRS SE as it's too good and robust a litle vehicle (as well as being super economical...we regularly get over 70mpg which makes a joke out of modern eco machines).  It's a king compared with any small new car although it lacks the fancy kit list.  I predict that used values for really good Mk1 vRS Fabias will rocket as the years tick away and they become less obtainable.

 

We looked to replace our main family workhorse this year, a Merc C220 cdi estate.  It's been fantastic since the day it was bought and covered well over 120,000 trouble free miles. We wouldn't touch a new version as reliability simply isn't there any more and compared with competition, they're way over priced.  Quality peaked mid noughties with these.  We instead looked at Octavias up to 5 years old and under 50K miles.  I was shocked at the asking price of say 4 year old vRS estates and after doing some in depth research, these have as many issues as the newer mercs it seems whilst used values are not that much less.  Obtaining low mileage examples was also difficult.  Looking at a few, I was unimpressed with bodywork quality but was impressed by the vastly improved interiors although passenger and driver space seems unremarkable.  What swung it for us was basically they're no longer any more reliable or robust than any other Euro box and sell on gimmickry rather than practicality.  If we bought a new Skoda, it would be a Yeti or Roomster as to  my mind they give better VFM and practicality.

 

However, the search bizarrely ended up knocking on the door of Lexus.  We bought arguably one of the worlds most reliable luxury vehicles which sacrifices nothing in terms of performance or gadgetry.  It has more boot space than you can shake a stick at, has more performance than an Octy vRS whilst being more economical than the petrol vRS.  It is also better appointed, way more luxurious, better screwed together and, well...just better!  The joke?  It is 7 years old and cost not much more than  a low mileage 7 year old Octavia vRS with similar mileage.  What is it?  A top of the range GS300 fastback with 60K miles, and a 3 litre V6 petrol engine that even round here with the hills to get anywhere returns over 30mpg combined and 40 on a run.  It does the 60 sprint in 7 seconds dead and onto 150mph, handles well, is like a gentlemans club inside has massive passenger space, massive boot, sure footed handling and is whisper quiet. It also has sat at the very top of most reliability and owner satisfaction tables for years.  I am now won over by Lexus and wonder why I haven't thought about them before (ignoring their nasty 220 diesel engine which is far from good or reliable).  The VW group can keep their new cars and their over hyped marketing.  I wont be won back unless something fundamental happens to improve the current situation.

^^^^^^^ Really good post,i enjoyed reading that.

+1 on the Lexus,great quality,great engines+ interiors.... and a turn of speed that embarasses a lot of hot hatches.

Edited 16 May, 201511 yr by faradaycage

Cheers for that.  Yes, I was staggered by how good the Lexus really is.  It's quicker in a  straight line than our mapped vRS but doesn't make a fuss about it...just wafts you to insane speed if the go pedal is kept pressed.  The remarkable thing is that at 70mph you can hear a pin drop in the cabin it's that quiet.  I've often sat at the lights and had to check the rev counter to see if the engine's running!  The stereo is a premium Mark Levinson affair too (big amp in the boot which itself could take family luggage for a holiday with ease) and betters my home sound system for quality. Seating is the most comfortable I've ever experienced and betters even the Volvo S60D5 we had (itself a remarkably comfortable vehicle) with 10 way adjustable memory seats, themselves with heaters AND air conditioning for both front seats (scratches head and wonders how they do that).  It weighs 1.7 tonnes and easily handles as well as the vRS, is rear wheel drive which is a big plus.  Anyone wanting to look at a performance Skoda should do themselves a massive favour and check out the Lexus GS range. The newer hybrid models are even better, and despite their 3 litre plus engines will do a genuine 40mpg combined.  Bargains though are with the reasonably rapid GS300 (2005 to 2008 models) and genuinely fast GS430 (over 300BHP from its legendary V8 lump shared with the ultimate LS models...try 0-60 in 5.8 seconds!).  For reliability, the 3 litre V6 and 4 litre plus 4.3 litre V8s are the ones to pick.  I googled for issues with the GS300 and could find none which is super rare.  the RX 300 does have some niggles and is less reliable or economical (not the exact same engine as there are some differences).  No cam belt to change (chain drive) and one of the most smoothest reliable auto boxes on the market.  I love mine...a genuine drivers car but grown up with all the luxury you;d expect in say a Bentley!

Edited 16 May, 201511 yr by SEVrs

Cheers for that.  Yes, I was staggered by how good the Lexus really is.  It's quicker in a  straight line than our mapped vRS but doesn't make a fuss about it...just wafts you to insane speed if the go pedal is kept pressed.  The remarkable thing is that at 70mph you can hear a pin drop in the cabin it's that quiet.  I've often sat at the lights and had to check the rev counter to see if the engine's running!  The stereo is a premium Mark Levinson affair too (big amp in the boot which itself could take family luggage for a holiday with ease) and betters my home sound system for quality. Seating is the most comfortable I've ever experienced and betters even the Volvo S60D5 we had (itself a remarkably comfortable vehicle) with 10 way adjustable memory seats, themselves with heaters AND air conditioning for both front seats (scratches head and wonders how they do that).  It weighs 1.7 tonnes and easily handles as well as the vRS, is rear wheel drive which is a big plus.  Anyone wanting to look at a performance Skoda should do themselves a massive favour and check out the Lexus GS range. The newer hybrid models are even better, and despite their 3 litre plus engines will do a genuine 40mpg combined.  Bargains though are with the reasonably rapid GS300 (2005 to 2008 models) and genuinely fast GS430 (over 300BHP from its legendary V8 lump shared with the ultimate LS models...try 0-60 in 5.8 seconds!).  For reliability, the 3 litre V6 and 4 litre plus 4.3 litre V8s are the ones to pick.  I googled for issues with the GS300 and could find none which is super rare.  the RX 300 does have some niggles and is less reliable or economical (not the exact same engine as there are some differences).  No cam belt to change (chain drive) and one of the most smoothest reliable auto boxes on the market.  I love mine...a genuine drivers car but grown up with all the luxury you;d expect in say a Bentley!

Many moons ago I had a friend who had a Bentley Mulsanne,the first time he had a ride in my Lexus he got really agitated,I asked him why he was looking so peeved and he said it made him realise what a waste of money and how badly screwed together the 3 year old Bentley was compared to my 5 year old 160,000 mile Lexus,and when i told him i was getting 28mpg on a bad day and 42 on a good one he damn near blew a gasket...lol

I might add that at 3 owners and 160k on the mileometer that Lexus drove like it had just rolled out of the showroom,my friends Bentley?...well...30,000 miles and the door handles in and out..loose,endless expensive servicing and air-con problems etc etc.If i could afford the thumping great road tax,i would take an ebay old time Lexus again in a heartbeat.