New Vs Old

[stu220]

I currently own a 2012 Vrs estate manual diesel that I bought new in 2012 as I was doing fairly high miles, hence it has just turned 70k miles. The car has been faultless so far and my only issue is that I find the drivers seat bolster digs into my right thigh, so long journeys can be uncomfortable. Before you ask, I had no such problem with the petrol version (2011) I had before it and can only think it was down to not having leather on the new car.

 

Now my mileage has come down to 12k per year I am thinking of buying a Mk3 petrol Vrs hatch, probably with DSG. My question is, what are the improvements in the car over the mk2, even between the 2 petrol engines as I had the previous version.

 

Has anyone got the 230 and is it any good and worth the extra?

 

All your thoughts are appreciated.

[MoggyTech]

I have the MK3 TDi VRS and love the build quality, it's manual though, as I wouldn't touch a DSG gearbox with a very long poll. Just too complex for my taste. 

The 230 is quick but can be thirsty, I stuck with the diesel even though I don't do big miles, it's quick enough but frugal (52 MPG) and I drive it fairly hard.

[Gaz]

Has anyone got the 230 and is it any good and worth the extra?

 

My 220 made 234bhp on JKM's rollers 

 

Jus' sayin'  :sun:

 

Gaz

 

(and yes, I know it's all relative and a 230 probably puts out more)

[Redboy]

Torque, toys, comfort, handling, refinement. Bigger. My TFSI MkII was awesome but the MkIII is better. The only minus point is that it is not as solid as the MkII and has a few niggles with buzzing plastics on each B pillar and the same issue as the MkII with the door filling with water that I am hoping to have sorted this week.

[Brooksuk]

My mk3 tsi dsg is a good step forward from my mk2 Blackline ( admittedly I'm comparing diesel vs petrol). Loads of toys, very fast and super smooth. DSG gearbox is fantastic!!

[PhilbvRS]

I've just gone from 2011 vrs tdi to a new one.

It's definitely worth the switch, massively better car, even has proper brakes.

The only downside is that even though the brochure says it's better on fuel it's not. Possibly even a little bit worse. Sounds like you want petrol so not an issue.

[pipsyp]

Mk3 is a better car than the Mk2 but a few points worth making.....

Its considerably more expensive than that the Mk2 was

It seeingly depreciates at a rate which is worse

Whist perceived quality/design detailing is fresher and all round "better"....I am not convinced actual quality has improved a great deal. There arw areas of the car that dont seem quite so robust....some materials if you look hard enough are v cheap.

I cant speak for the TSI but the 184 TDI is alot better than the older CR 170 (the 150 is also in fairness)......my biggest gripe with the O3 as good a car as it is....it just isnt a great value propostion like the O2 was.

[JohnMorr]

We went for a L&K 1.8 Tsi with 7-speed DSG. Quite simply the best car I've ever owned (and that includes M-B 500s and BMW 730). Smooth, quiet and relaxing with imperceptible gear changes. An unusual mix in the UK, but highly recommended.

[PhilbvRS]

Mk3 is a better car than the Mk2 but a few points worth making.....

Its considerably more expensive than that the Mk2 was

It seeingly depreciates at a rate which is worse

Whist perceived quality/design detailing is fresher and all round "better"....I am not convinced actual quality has improved a great deal. There arw areas of the car that dont seem quite so robust....some materials if you look hard enough are v cheap.

I cant speak for the TSI but the 184 TDI is alot better than the older CR 170 (the 150 is also in fairness)......my biggest gripe with the O3 as good a car as it is....it just isnt a great value propostion like the O2 was.

rrp might be considerably more but on a pcp it's not. My new estate dsg is 30 quid more per month than my saloon manual. (500 on to of the equity from existing pcp) Edited 5 December, 2015 by PhilbvRS

[pipsyp]

rrp might be considerably more but on a pcp it's not. My new estate dsg is 30 quid more per month than my saloon manual. (500 on to of the equity from existing pcp)

Yes the 0% makes them affordable monthly on PCP (I have said as such before)....trading loan interest for a large upfront discount.

Problem being is the finance is based on the new car price......the GFVs are looking fairly unrealistic (3.5 years old GFV on mine is 10.3k i believe.....its not even 2 years old and barely worth 12k now)......the high RRP mixed with poor residuals has left most on the 0% deal in a v poor equity position...unless they put thousands in at the beginning which is rather defeating the point of PCP finance and will have just gone up in smoke anyway.

Arguably mistake I made was buying my car direct fron my usual dealer....I should have shopped around with the brokers and taken the best deal...would have softened the blow...but I have no doubt Id still be in neg eq regardless.

Personally I think you are best off buying nearly new either paying cash outright or reasonable deposit with decent APR personal loan...or alternatively look for a 2 year/10k pa PCH deal.

I suppose PCP is OK if you are set on keeping the car for the term and handing back...early trades will be difficult and I am seriously doubting the car will be worth the GFV come the end of the term.

The Octavia has rather been a victim of its own success....where as the Mk2 was still a bit of a nieche following...to the learned car folk who knew it was basically a rebodied Mk5/Mk6 Golf at far less cost....the new car really has mass market appeal with people buying them who would never have entertained the idea of a skoda before.....lots of cars sold, lots of used stock....poor trade in prices as a result as there is a blatant oversupply of used O3's.

Its a great car, mine has been utterly faultless but it definitely is not a good bet residually. A few people are going to be really suprised when they go to trade their 2 year old O3's in..perhaps for another and find their dealer offers them v little for it. Im not as Ive been there :-)

Again rather in summary...O3 is the better car and that cannot be disputed but they do suffer terrible residuals and I think its key for the OP to be aware of that if he is considering taking the plunge....Id have appreciated the advice myself but I was a fairly early adopter and the situation was rather unknown then...it was expected for the O3 to be a better bet than the O2 but how wrong my dealer was.

Edited 6 December, 2015 by pipsypreturns

[Redboy]

The MkII was a stonkingly good car as it was solid and despite a few G60 and air con gremlins, people took a punt because it offered great value for money. Now it comes with a lot more toys and probably due to Skoda's growing reputation linked to good customer and reliability surveys, more customers want to experience what most of this website's users already know, Skoda do make good cars. It's only now though that, unfortunately for the original owners, who were used to getting a great deal for relatively low prices, Skodas cost more. Perhaps if Dacia make a performance Duster with the Clio 2.0 petrol engine.......................

[PhilbvRS]

Yes the 0% makes them affordable monthly on PCP (I have said as such before)....trading loan interest for a large upfront discount.

Problem being is the finance is based on the new car price......the GFVs are looking fairly unrealistic (3.5 years old GFV on mine is 10.3k i believe.....its not even 2 years old and barely worth 12k now)......the high RRP mixed with poor residuals has left most on the 0% deal in a v poor equity position...unless they put thousands in at the beginning which is rather defeating the point of PCP finance and will have just gone up in smoke anyway.

Arguably mistake I made was buying my car direct fron my usual dealer....I should have shopped around with the brokers and taken the best deal...would have softened the blow...but I have no doubt Id still be in neg eq regardless.

Personally I think you are best off buying nearly new either paying cash outright or reasonable deposit with decent APR personal loan...or alternatively look for a 2 year/10k pa PCH deal.

I suppose PCP is OK if you are set on keeping the car for the term and handing back...early trades will be difficult and I am seriously doubting the car will be worth the GFV come the end of the term.

The Octavia has rather been a victim of its own success....where as the Mk2 was still a bit of a nieche following...to the learned car folk who knew it was basically a rebodied Mk5/Mk6 Golf at far less cost....the new car really has mass market appeal with people buying them who would never have entertained the idea of a skoda before.....lots of cars sold, lots of used stock....poor trade in prices as a result as there is a blatant oversupply of used O3's.

Its a great car, mine has been utterly faultless but it definitely is not a good bet residually. A few people are going to be really suprised when they go to trade their 2 year old O3's in..perhaps for another and find their dealer offers them v little for it. Im not as Ive been there :-)

Again rather in summary...O3 is the better car and that cannot be disputed but they do suffer terrible residuals and I think its key for the OP to be aware of that if he is considering taking the plunge....Id have appreciated the advice myself but I was a fairly early adopter and the situation was rather unknown then...it was expected for the O3 to be a better bet than the O2 but how wrong my dealer was.

I've just got 8200 for a 4.5 year car px. I think you are being a little unfair about residuals, didn't someone start a thread about an 18m old car px at 17k. Not sure where you get 12 from.

I also wouldn't assume 0% means no discount.

I'm very happy with my deal and the GFV is fair.

Also let's say the GFV is too high well that's brilliant imo.

[glosrich]

I dont think the residuals are really any worse than similar cars.

Yes the big discounts and 0% dont help residuals, but at least on a PCP or PCH you know exactly how much it is costing you up front.

If its not worth the GFV just hand it back to Skoda.

Also depends what spec and colour you have, some aren't as desirable.

As to getting out of any finance agreement early, thats usually always results in negative equity.

[pipsyp]

I've just got 8200 for a 4.5 year car px. I think you are being a little unfair about residuals, didn't someone start a thread about an 18m old car px at 17k. Not sure where you get 12 from.

I also wouldn't assume 0% means no discount.

I'm very happy with my deal and the GFV is fair.

Also let's say the GFV is too high well that's brilliant imo.

Was it a Mk2 you just traded....their residuals are better. Take it from someone who knows first hand.

I had a vRS Blackline DSG estate...paid about 20k for it....got not far shy of 17k for it after 12 months. I got more money back out of the sale than deposit I put in.

Have a Mk3 2.0 Elegance estate now....paid 23k for it...after a year it was worth maybe 15k....16k if I did another deal....a few more months down the road its barely worth 12k. I am now in neg eq to a tune of around 4k and for now not really softening.

Before you say "well its not a vRS, they dont hold their money as well"...we are talking maybe 1.5/2k difference residually as the Elegance this time is pretty popular and only a little cheaper....people are being offered equally insulting money for their vRS's.

Case in point my old local dealer are selling a 63 reg TDI estate with 31k miles for 15.5k...in fact most of their used stock is comfortably sub 20k. They have an older vRS Blackline hatch just under 14k.....Im not being unfair....its how it is.

[pipsyp]

Also the guy offered 17k for an 18 month old vRS I am sure was offered that part ex for a Golf R. They are likely making no money on the PX but their margin on the R.....this is far from an everyday occurance to be offered 17k for a car like that. Its probably not worth 15k trade for someone who wants/needs to turn a profit on it.

As to the over cooked GFV...two ways you can look at that.....if you dont want to be thousands of £ in neg equity for the majority of your PCP its not good (some neg is OK but multiple thousands of £....I dont think so)....also if you plan to buy it at the end if its worth less than the GFV why would you...unless you were mad :-)

Skodas financing changes from VAT off to higher RRP and no interest has helped knacker things and the difference between money borrowed and worth have increased by a good few K...really because Skodas RRP's are inflated.....for e.g a 23k Elegance is really a 20k car....a £25k vRS a 22k car and so on and so forth. Oversupply the other limiting factor...so much used stock its a buyers market and just serves to further drive down used prices.

Edited 6 December, 2015 by pipsypreturns

[PhilbvRS]

Sounds a bit "glass is half full" to me.

Edited 6 December, 2015 by PhilbvRS

[GoneToBeemer]

As Pispsy says...realistically they can put any guaranteed future value in a car they like, but it's only worth that at the end of your contract period! If you pay 25k for any car, or any figure for that matter, you're going to be in negative equity for the whole period. You may as well set fire to your £ when you drive any car out of a showroom.

Hence my support for PCH...yes it has its downsides but you pay your monthly figure for a period you agree to, and that's that

[pipsyp]

Sounds a bit "glass is half full" to me.

Really? Go and get your car valued in 12 months time PhilbvRS and see if that statement still rings true. I speak from experience and am saying it for the benefit of people like yourself.

Im not going to slander the Octavia Mk3 for being a bad car, but holding its value well is something it simply does not do. I guess you will find out for yourself in time to come.

[PhilbvRS]

Really? Go and get your car valued in 12 months time PhilbvRS and see if that statement still rings true. I speak from experience and am saying it for the benefit of people like yourself.

Im not going to slander the Octavia Mk3 for being a bad car, but holding its value well is something it simply does not do. I guess you will find out for yourself in time to come.

But "holding its value" is all in your head anyway. Most people buy a car on finance. My car didn't cost £xx,xxx it costs £xxx per month and in that respect it's a very cheap car for what it is.

I could buy a golf R that will hold its value better but if it's on 5% Apr the interest alone would be roughly half what I pay on the vrs.

Need to look at the big picture not invoice price to eventual px/sale price.

[PhilbvRS]

As Pispsy says...realistically they can put any guaranteed future value in a car they like, but it's only worth that at the end of your contract period! If you pay 25k for any car, or any figure for that matter, you're going to be in negative equity for the whole period. You may as well set fire to your £ when you drive any car out of a showroom.

Hence my support for PCH...yes it has its downsides but you pay your monthly figure for a period you agree to, and that's that

What do you think you pay on pcp. Deposit then monthly payment, except you have flexibility. My deposit and monthly payment on pcp were less than some dealers quoted me for pch.

[GoneToBeemer]

If you're doing 20k a year, I doubt a PCP deal would be anywhere near the price you'd pay on contract hire. Obviously everyone's situation is different and you choose what best suits you...all I'm saying is PCH suited me the best

[WesternDuke]

I went from a Mk2 FL petrol vRS to the Mk3 version and have not regretted it a day since.  It is a much better car all round, except for the start/stop which annoys me and gets switched off as soon as the engine is started!

[PhilbvRS]

If you're doing 20k a year, I doubt a PCP deal would be anywhere near the price you'd pay on contract hire. Obviously everyone's situation is different and you choose what best suits you...all I'm saying is PCH suited me the best

Why is that then? Is excess mileage on pch less than pcp?

[pipsyp]

The 0% PCP makes these things v affordable monthly but the high borrowing vs poor residuals leads to a significant neg equity position....unless you put in a good few K upfront.

If you are PCP'ing with a view to keep the car for the full term then hand back/trade in fair enough.....but the PCP doesnt offer the flexibility it is supposed to for people who like to change their car more regularly. Its definitely no good for someone where their circumstances might or do change during the term.

I would have to currently find 3-4K either in a good deal or cash up front to get out of my 22 month old car.....I dont call that flexibility. At two years in shortfall should be fairly minor or around the breakeven point....here it is not even close.

Neg equity isnt unusual on PCP deals, but this level of shortfall is pretty woeful. That is what I am driving at.

[GoneToBeemer]

Why is that then? Is excess mileage on pch less than pcp?

 

I'm not actually 100% sure on why the costs are different...maybe because there's no option to own at the end, and VWFS expect the car to come back in a certain condition etc. For example, you have to put branded tyres on...and the car is subject to inspection when it's handed back (think there's a thread knocking about recently).

 

I also think at the time Skoda were putting out some pretty competitive PCH deals. Of course costs are going to vary dependent on what deposit you put in, but as mine was for work I put the smallest I could down (£500) and just got the monthly hire figure for the 3 years.

 

Does anyone else know why you will tend to find (in my experience and things I've seen) that PCH deals are generally cheaper per month?