Guys,

 

Yesterday, I was comparing my new Scout with a colleague’s new car, he went for a premium brand in basic specification (very impressed, unlike the 1980’s basic is no longer poverty).

 

He was totally stunned when I told him my Scout cost the same as his (approx. £29k).

 

Now I like my Scout very much, however, I did re-assess the car on the drive to work this morning, for example the plastic door trims, quality of boot carpet or small squeaks are fine on a £17k car, but on  a  car costing £29K?

 

So been thinking about build quality in cars.

 

The Octavia (estate) range costs from £17.5k to £29k

 

My colleague’s premium brand range costs from £29k to £39k

 

So when the Octavia is being assembled it’s treated as a £17.5k car regarding paint finish, trim, sound proofing, etc. The extra value is added with specification 4x4, VRS, dsg, etc.

 

However, during manufacturer the premium brand is treated as a £29k car with better paint finish, trim quality, etc.

 

So the big question, does the basic Octavia offer the best value and if you decide to go for a higher spec is the money better spent on a basic premium brand or maybe a Superb?

I'll bite.

 

Did his car have 4wd? What engine? How big?

 

How truly comparable are they in terms of ability and utility? Surely that's what matters most?

 

Cars are machines for taking you from one place to another, with the convenience of it being entirely at your choice as to when and what route.

 

Anything after that is ultimately embellishment thanks to the car industry working hard to sell brand, image and aspiration, but it makes us car nuts feel good about our purchases!

 

Did you want the 'feeling' of buying the range topper the usefulness of AWD, raised ground clearance and a powerful engine at probably £10k cheaper than the premium brand equivalent? Or would you rather forego that all for material door cards, a slightly quieter car (except when straining the base engine to overtake...) I'm guessing base spec alloys (which a car nut would call you on but the average joe wouldn't) but that luverly badge on the nose?

 

Neither answer is wrong by the way. It's what's important to you! I'm a utility and function kind of guy first, but I know plenty aren't.

It's a very interesting point , I've had previously base level 3 series and two A4's , my current car is elegance 2012 skoda Superb 140 diesel . Having driven the "expensive " brands the superb is the best car I've driven for comfort , spec , space and overall relaibilty .

I think the issues with the current superb is that the other brands have learnt few things , they are now offering a lot standard while skoda is removing lots of the standard kit from the SE models or style here in Ireland . The price difference is getting closer , for my money the skoda Octavia estate is still unbeatable for value for money while the superb is getting expensive,

Id go high spec reasonably priced car over low spec premium any day.

I dont care about nicer plastic, its still plastic.

I checked out the new Audi a4, and the winterpack costs twice of what it does on skoda, and doest include auxillary heater. Its highway robbery. The sunroof cost almost twice as much.

I read the article abit too fast, the winterpack does include aux heater, but it costs about 2800£, not 2000 as I first thought.

I tend to the view that there isn't sufficient difference between premium / non-premium cars in the same segment to

justify the price difference of premium makers.

 

However for a similar price I would prefer a more basic car from the next segment up, to a highly specified car from the segment below. 

Things like "the premium brand is treated as a £29k car with better paint finish, trim quality, etc." has been (and still is) a longstanding urban legend.

 

I currently drive a Superb II Combi Exclusive TDI 170 DSG. If I'd go for an A6 Avant with the same specs and equipment, the overprice would be near 20.000 euros. And it isn't justified at all IMHO.

 

Well, the Audi has soft plastics almost everywhere, the Skoda only at visible/touchable sites.The basic leather is the same in both cars. If you want a true premium leather, you have to go for "Audi exclusive" equipment line... for another 4 or 5.000 euros. Upgrade the 17" alloys to 18" costs 400 euros in the Skoda, more than 1.000 in the Audi. The Audi navigator screen isn't tactile :peek: .

 

OK, Audi front suspension is more elaborated, but... are you going to go for a track day with an almost 5 metres long state?

 

Audi (or BMW, or Merc, or Lexus, or whatever so called premium you want) is better than the Skoda? Yes, for sure.

 

But does this "improvement" costs so much? No.

 

Everyone is free to spend his money in whatever he likes.

In our company car list currently, I can opt for a 316d Touring SE manual or Superb SE-L Exec DSG, amongst others.

The difference in monthly BIK is £5. The level of standard kit is noticeably different.

A colleague will definitely opt for badge snobbery, he blatantly told him his wife wouldn't want a Skoda on the drive.

I wouldnt exactly say a 316d gives any bragging rights..

I wouldnt exactly say a 316d gives any bragging rights..

 

Certainly not any longer. Judged by numbers of each on the road, the Skoda will certainly be the more 'exclusive'.

I wouldnt exactly say a 316d gives any bragging rights..

I fully agree. The point is that both are the top two most expensive cars in the list.

I changed out my Skoda estate (elegance 170 4x4, 3 years 9 months old) last summer, and at the time looked at a number of alternatives. Surprisingly, the offers via carwow etc. on the Skoda estate, at the time, were not great (8-9%) compared to other makes. I say surprisingly, as when I bought the previous one, it had not long been launched and I got a 20% discount.

Having 3 teenagers, two dogs, I just looked at the large estates like the A6, 5, Passat (new model then) and e-class. For space it was really down to the superb and e-class. I bought the superb on PCP and planned to do the same again, so as well as looking at the net price after discount, also the guaranteed future value would have an affect on my total outlay. In the end there was about a £25 month difference between an L&K 4x4 estate and an e220 AMG estate, both with about 2K worth of extras. So along with the extra £200 deposit the e-class was going to cost me about ~£1100 over the next 36 months. Naturally, I realise the L&K has 4x4, so not a direct comparison, but these were the two models I would have chosen. The discount on the e-class was just under 20% at about £8,000, bringing it down to £32,300 IIRC compared to a few pounds over £30K for the L&K.

Personally, I view both of these as just general estates, so nothing to get excited about, and previously having the superb, faultless by the way, badge snobbery certainly wasn't at play. Although, I still confess at cringing at the numerous 'Superb' badges, but I don't bat an eyelid at the Skoda ones. ;)

So what was better in the Superb? Well, after a year, I can say that I miss the 4x4. Not a great deal, but on balance I would pick one with 4x4 over one without for this type of car. Although it is older, the Columbus system slightly has the edge over the MB one. In winter I also miss the heated windscreen that would have been on the superb, not a problem in our mild winter last year, but still better than none in my opinion. Lastly, the Skoda's 170 engine had more torque lower down and its quieter than the comparatively noisy merc engine.

So what's better about the E-class? The ride is a lot better, mainly down to the superb's too low profile tyres, but the e, also on 18's is better at all speeds. Handling is slightly better, a lot more controlled in pitch and dive and less roll, but no loss in comfort. Wind noise is about the same.

General fit finish, the leather etc. are better too, a generally I'd say the quality is just a notch up, not by much but still noticeable. When all three seats are occupied in the back there's more shoulder room, and although it doesn't have the huge legroom of the superb it is deemed good enough by my two older sons. Lastly, the ability to drop the rear seats at the rear tailgate is a handy feature for the University and tip runs, but I could easily live without it.

One bizarre omission, and the only bit of kit on top of the heated windscreen, that I would be missing from the equivalent superb is that e-class has electric seats, but unless you pay something like £1500+ for the all singing and dancing comfort seats, you don't get an electric motor to move the seats back and forwards and memory buttons. Not a big issue for me, as my wife doesn't drive it that often, but it was still a surprise to find that you have a electric for every other adjustment, but for the obvious backwards and forwards you have to use a lever!!!

So overall, is worth the extra £1 a day?? I'd say yes on comfort, handling and general quality of build and materials and it's only let down by the noisy engine and seat handle. Equally I'd happily have a Superb again and may consider opting for the III next time around to have a change, especially if the discounts are now better as they seem to be from some of the threads on here.

Here are some pics of the 'base' spec e-class when it was delivered last year...

cheers, Steve

Thanks for sharing! What was your effective capital cost per month for that?

Thanks for sharing! What was your effective capital cost per month for that?

Just under £370 a month after 10% deposit.

cheers, Steve

Thanks for that stevehg.  The comments on engine noise are pretty common.  I know someone who also changed from a 170 Superb to an E-Class and their comments would mirror yours - noisy engine, power distribution not as good (or not always where you need it) but slight improvement in overall quality.  The build quality and comfort is not surprising of course and should be expected from a Merc but overall the fact that we can compare the two cars so closely demonstrates that the Superb is still one decent car.