Buying a used Octavia II - advice on service history

[duotwr]

Hi,

 

I'm planning to replace our ancient Fabia in the next couple of months, I plan to get a used Octavia Hatchback -  probably 2011 or 2012, 1.2 or 1.4 petrol version depending on what I can find. For the money we've got I expect I'll be getting something with around 40k on the clock.

 

Are there any major service items I should be checking have been carried out for this type/age of car - or any advice on other thing to be aware of? I plan to buy from an approved dealer.

 

thanks in advance for suggestions/comments.

 

Keith

[sniper29a]

heavy Octavia with 1.2 or 1.4 would soon become a nightmare. Why such a car?

[Jevpls]

heavy Octavia with 1.2 or 1.4 would soon become a nightmare. Why such a car?

 

1.4 TSI isn't the weakest engine. 1.2 is but it shouldn't be that bad either. It provides ~the same power as 1,6 MPI but better torque. I've driven that 1,6 MPI and it's quite OK even with passengers and luggage. Don't forget that shifting is possible for overtaking.

The old car (Fabia) isn't a sportscar. So, replacing it with same performance Octavia doesn't seem to be somthing stupid.

[ryan-re]

heavy Octavia with 1.2 or 1.4 would soon become a nightmare. Why such a car?

 

you are still looking at around 100bhp which is plenty if you dont want to drive fast

[sniper29a]

It is all down to your driving style.

 

Anything with turbo will be killed by short trips.

 

Anything with low volume engine is good for shopping trips only.

 

I used to have Skoda Fabia HR II - 80HP with around 180Nm or so. Later on remapped to 100HP and 250Nm. It is very balanced car but you must drive alone and never enter mountains. Fabia is about 100-200kg lighter than Octavia I guess.

 

SO IF YOU LIVE ON FLATLANDS AND DRIVE ALONE - GO FOR IT.

[duotwr]

Thanks for the responses and comments.

 

I've been driving a 1.2 Fabia Mk1 estate with 54 bhp for the last 7 years - speed is not a major issue to me!

 

Rationale for this vehicle - Fabia has been great, but getting a bit old and costly to maintain. ALso the kids are getting bigger (we're quite a tall family). Driving pattern - wife uses car for work, maybe 6-8 trips each day <5miles each during the week. Longer trips up to Scotland to visit family 3-4 times a year. Typically holiday in the UK, so every year we put about 1500 miles on it over the course of 2 weeks.

 

Considered an estate - but I don't think our pattern of use justifies it. On holidays we'll fill the car and attach a roof box. Would prefer petrol as 1) I'm bothered by environmental impact of increased diesel usage in cities, and 2) our mechanic used to run a fleet of diesel Octavias as taxis - reckoned for our usage pattern diesel wasn't cost-effective and didn't suit a diesel engine.

 

I'm needing a bit more space, and decent reliability - they are the priorities.

 

Any good reasons as to why a 1.2/1.4 wouldn't fit the bill I'd be interested in - or any other suggestions on models. Probably looking to spend no more than £8-10k from an approved dealer though.

 

Keith

[Jevpls]

I mentioned 1,6 MPI engine above. Sadly that's a discontinued engine because it could fit you well. Not the most powerful and fuel efficient but a reliable one.

Anyway, go for Octavia. Plenty of space both for passengers and luggage. I prefer estate too but here are lots of hatchback fans as well.

[Nigel J]

Would the 1.2 / 1.4 tsi engines of this age have a timing chain or belted cam?

 

I seem to recall that earler cars have poor quality timing chains cheaply sourced by VAG from China which, in some cases, shed metal shards causing engine failures.

Later versions have cambelts -  with a 2011 car these may be due replacement soon. 

Edited 23 October, 2015 by Nigel J

[planehazza]

It is all down to your driving style.

 

Anything with turbo will be killed by short trips.

 

Anything with low volume engine is good for shopping trips only.

 

I used to have Skoda Fabia HR II - 80HP with around 180Nm or so. Later on remapped to 100HP and 250Nm. It is very balanced car but you must drive alone and never enter mountains. Fabia is about 100-200kg lighter than Octavia I guess.

 

SO IF YOU LIVE ON FLATLANDS AND DRIVE ALONE - GO FOR IT.

 

This.  My girlfriend bought a 2013 Kia Picanto 1L 3 cyl.  She lived in Whickham, Gateshead, which for those not famaliar with the area, is on a massive hill on the Tyne Valley.  Her car is going to need a lot of work soon I think ha.

[Aspman]

Big car small engine isn't a combination I'd recommend.

 

Worst case will have been a previous owner like my SWMBO that has thrashed the car every day of it's life.

[sniper29a]

Thanks for the responses and comments.

 

I've been driving a 1.2 Fabia Mk1 estate with 54 bhp for the last 7 years - speed is not a major issue to me!

 

Rationale for this vehicle - Fabia has been great, but getting a bit old and costly to maintain. ALso the kids are getting bigger (we're quite a tall family). Driving pattern - wife uses car for work, maybe 6-8 trips each day <5miles each during the week. Longer trips up to Scotland to visit family 3-4 times a year. Typically holiday in the UK, so every year we put about 1500 miles on it over the course of 2 weeks.

 

Considered an estate - but I don't think our pattern of use justifies it. On holidays we'll fill the car and attach a roof box. Would prefer petrol as 1) I'm bothered by environmental impact of increased diesel usage in cities, and 2) our mechanic used to run a fleet of diesel Octavias as taxis - reckoned for our usage pattern diesel wasn't cost-effective and didn't suit a diesel engine.

 

I'm needing a bit more space, and decent reliability - they are the priorities.

 

Any good reasons as to why a 1.2/1.4 wouldn't fit the bill I'd be interested in - or any other suggestions on models. Probably looking to spend no more than £8-10k from an approved dealer though.

 

Keith

 

REASONS:

 

1. short trips kill the turbo - if you buy non turbo engine, fuel consumption kills you. I rarely drive under 5km, I RIDE BIKE INSTEAD. Weaker the car, higher consumption it has got. When I crashed my Subaru and got replacement car Opel/Vauxhall Astra 1.2. It had same consumption as Subaru Impreza but it didn't drive as one.

2. low cubature engines have got higher consumption. Fabia 1.4TDi 59kW has got 4-5.6l/100 on flatlands...mountains 7-25l/100km; Octavia 2.0TDi 140kW has got 3-7l/100km; if pushed hard 8-15l/100km. IT'S ALL ABOUT TORQUE !!!! BOTTOM LINE, SO CALLED ECO CARS ARE ECOLOGICAL ONLY ON PAPER !!!

 

 

I would suggest Fabia 1.9SDI but you already had one. I would go for anything without TURBO!

An other suggestion is to buy two cars - buy Smart for wife and an other one for long trips with TDi ;-)

[Jevpls]

REASONS:

 

1. short trips kill the turbo - if you buy non turbo engine, fuel consumption kills you. I rarely drive under 5km, I RIDE BIKE INSTEAD. Weaker the car, higher consumption it has got. When I crashed my Subaru and got replacement car Opel/Vauxhall Astra 1.2. It had same consumption as Subaru Impreza but it didn't drive as one.

2. low cubature engines have got higher consumption. Fabia 1.4TDi 59kW has got 4-5.6l/100 on flatlands...mountains 7-25l/100km; Octavia 2.0TDi 140kW has got 3-7l/100km; if pushed hard 8-15l/100km. IT'S ALL ABOUT TORQUE !!!! BOTTOM LINE, SO CALLED ECO CARS ARE ECOLOGICAL ONLY ON PAPER !!!

 

 

I would suggest Fabia 1.9SDI but you already had one. I would go for anything without TURBO!

An other suggestion is to buy two cars - buy Smart for wife and an other one for long trips with TDi ;-)

 

A few comments on this.

1) I really agree about small car fuel consumption. It's fine when it's about town driving. Usually they consume less. When you enter highway (especially with passengers and luggage) then fuel consumption rises high.

2) too bad but actually there are no possibilities to buy a rather new Octavia without a turbo. VW models have got FSI engines but they are not available for Skoda.

3) don't say you're talking seriously about Smarts:

 

a) they are ugly (probably the next ugly car after Fiat Multipla);

they are expensive;

c) they've got high fuel consumption for such midget car;

d) they are't safe. Don't say that they got nice crash test ratings. I don't give much about that. You see well that in a crash your legs might have a very nasty contact with the car in front of you...

[sniper29a]

A few comments on this.

1) I really agree about small car fuel consumption. It's fine when it's about town driving. Usually they consume less. When you enter highway (especially with passengers and luggage) then fuel consumption rises high.

2) too bad but actually there are no possibilities to buy a rather new Octavia without a turbo. VW models have got FSI engines but they are not available for Skoda.

3) don't say you're talking seriously about Smarts:

 

a) they are ugly (probably the next ugly car after Fiat Multipla);

they are expensive;

c) they've got high fuel consumption for such midget car;

d) they are't safe. Don't say that they got nice crash test ratings. I don't give much about that. You see well that in a crash your legs might have a very nasty contact with the car in front of you...

 

3a) Only women demand looks over practical purpose ;-)

 

Subaru is ugly too (I'm talking about Subaru up to 2008) but they are the best cars I've ver had.

 

3b) you always get what you pay for

 

3c) you misunderstood purpose of this car - it is city car. 5th gear is at around 60kmh or so. It is like people buy 1.2HTP because it is ecological with low consumption - first, they are unable to drive it because they think 5th gear at idle revs as diesel is ok. Second, it has got consumption of 10l/100km if you drive properly.

 

3d) you're mistaken - smaller the car, safer it is. Smaller the car, more rigid construction it requires. Common cars are made from carbon steel, which suppose to roll at rate of 15m/s (unsure about correct speed). At this speed you may survive because it won't reach 30G. All organs can handle 30G; brain can handle 50G crash. Small cars are similar to F1 cockpit, it is a monocoque-like construction from one piece.

 

Once, there was a Top Gear crash test. Volvo against smart. Volvo written off, Smart ok. Only, problem with small cars is you won't get mechanical injuries such as broken bones or cuts. But you will die on internal organ damage and bleeding

[Jevpls]

 

 

you're mistaken - smaller the car, safer it is. Smaller the car, more rigid construction it requires. Common cars are made from carbon steel, which suppose to roll at rate of 15m/s (unsure about correct speed). At this speed you may survive because it won't reach 30G. All organs can handle 30G; brain can handle 50G crash. Small cars are similar to F1 cockpit, it is a monocoque-like construction from one piece.

 

Once, there was a Top Gear crash test. Volvo against smart. Volvo written off, Smart ok. Only, problem with small cars is you won't get mechanical injuries such as broken bones or cuts. But you will die on internal organ damage and bleeding

Ok, we may have different opinions about view, price or performance. Whatever. But you haven't convinced me that Smart is any good if safety is an issue. Even if it has built so great, in the case of crash happens that you have mentioned in the last sentence. If the car doesn't take the energy, the driver does... so I prefer cars with more than nothing after the windscreen. In case of crash there is something that deforms (I'm not speaking about high speed crashes when engine replaces the driver in the front seat).

.

You might disagree

 

Anyway, lets not ruin this topic that is't about how useless or great Smarts are.

[duotwr]

Thanks for the slight diversion into Smart cars!

Actually now I find myself wondering if I shouldn't pick up a 2011 1.6 MPI, which Jevpls mentioned earlier. Looks to me like they can be got for about 5k and might be adequate for what we need.

I'll have a read up on other posts about pros and cons, and what to look for if I end up plumping for a tsi.

Keith

[Jevpls]

Actually now I find myself wondering if I shouldn't pick up a 2011 1.6 MPI, which Jevpls mentioned earlier. Looks to me like they can be got for about 5k and might be adequate for what we need.

 

Have you really found that engine for 2011 car? That's weird. I thought such cars were available only like 8 years ago or so...

Anyway, take a look here:

http://www.cars-data.com/en/skoda-octavia-combi-1.6-elegance-specs/45397

 

Performance

Top speed: 188 km/h

Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 12,4 s

Urban consumption: 9,8 l/100km

Urban consumption kms: 1 op 10,2

Extra-urban consumption: 5,7 l/100km

Extra-urban consumption kms: 1 op 17,5

Average consumption: 7,2 l/100km

Average consumption kms: 1 op 13,9

CO2 Emission: 173 g/km

 

AS you see, it isn't very fuel efficient. I don't know if these CO2 emissions are good/bad for taxes or insurance - you should know that better.

But... after getting a diesel I miss that the simplicity of 1.6...

 

By the way, it's always possible to install LPG system on it and it will be a cheap car

 

Anyway, try one if it's possible and then you will see if it's the car you need or not.

[duotwr]

Hmm. Unless I'm missing something then there are a few available through the approved skoda search. Anyway I'll see if there's anything nearby i can try before buying, see how i get on.

Thanks for the replies.

Keith

[Jevpls]

In Latvian advertisement site the newest 1.6 is from 2008. But maybe in UK it was in sale for a longer time. It's possible.

[brad1.8T]

I find it really odd that folks are saying the 1.4tsi isn't suitable for the weight of the Octavia when so many Superb owners find it perfectly OK.

 

To the OP:  try & drive one & make your own choice.  Personally, I wouldn't touch a Naturally Aspirated VW group car with a barge pole.  The wide spread of torque of the turbo engines mean you don't have to thrash the daylights out of them - even in hilly country.  If you are really concerned about engine wear then bring the services forward to every 7000m instead of 10,000m.

[Tranberg]

The 1.2 TSI works well in a VW Caddy, with enough low-end to ensure a relaxed drive, if you have no ambitions of overtaking.

I can't see why it shouldn't work well in an Octavia.

 

On crowded UK roads do you have any choice besides swimming with the flow of traffic?

[irc]

As a 1.4Tsi Octavia owner I can tell without any reservations that the 1.4 engine works well for the size of car.  I'm comparing it to my previous Mondeo 1.8 petrol.  The 1.4Tsi pulls better from lower down the rev range. Has similar power mid range, though a bit slower at the top end. It copes fine with 4 or 5 adults on board.  I test drove a 1.2Tsi and thought it lacked at bit of acceleration 3 up at motoway speeds. The 1.2 will get the car around but won't be as good overtaking or driving with a fully loaded car.

 

MPG  - In general use gets 44-46mpg. Up to 52mpg on relaxed A road driving.

 

In 3 yrs, 34K miles the only things I've done other than servicing is replace a number plate bulb, front wipers, and tyres. Tyres replaced this week at 34K miles.  Rears still had 4mm but i changed them anyway as I'm going to all seasons and wanted the same tyres front and rear.