PCP Values impacted by VAG Diesel issue

[V6Jules]

Remember you are talking about turbo diesels... Turbo petrols also offer bucket loads of midrange torque from similar rpm yet if you need to you can also hang onto the revs and use the bigger rpm range to your advantage. I test drove the TDI VRS before the TSI one and it felt flatter and less powerful at all engine speeds, both are pretty gutless under 1500rpm. The 1.4 I had as a courtesy car was pretty nippy but very quiet and smooth unlike a diesel.

[V6Jules]

Although back on topic I'm sure the dealer just said that diesels are being hit on value as an excuse for the poor valuation on the car... I will find out what they think of my 14 plate TSI VRS soon.

[SkodaVRS1963]

Remember you are talking about turbo diesels... Turbo petrols also offer bucket loads of midrange torque from similar rpm yet if you need to you can also hang onto the revs and use the bigger rpm range to your advantage. I test drove the TDI VRS before the TSI one and it felt flatter and less powerful at all engine speeds, both are pretty gutless under 1500rpm. The 1.4 I had as a courtesy car was pretty nippy but very quiet and smooth unlike a diesel.

 

Agreed; I thought my VRS diesel went like a rocket until I drove my Focus ST petrol.........it's chalk and cheese (and 39mpg in the petrol vs 43mpg in the Skoda diesel - a real no-brainer).

[Lady Elanore]

Even though my petrol Beemer produces peak torques at 1250 rpms and 450nm of the stuff, it's high 8th gear is still way short of my 1,600 Diesel Vitara that pulls a top gear that is 5mph/1,000rpm higher. This might be an extreme example but it's one I've found to be a pretty consistent difference between petrol and diesel. So diesels, which are very quiet now at cruising speed, are often even better for long distance drivers who trawl up and down the motorways. Plus you have to stop less often for fill ups, well at least the car does

 

I like both types of engine and it's not just because of the mpg 

Edited 16 September, 2016 by Lady Elanore

[SkodaVRS1963]

Plus you have to stop less often for fill ups, well at least the car does

 

Really?

 

I used to fill my Skoda (allegedly) 51 litre tank up every four weeks.  Never ever got more than 43 litres in even though the computer told me I was within 25 miles of dying.

 

Just filled my Focus ST petrol up, again after four weeks.  Got 49 litres into a 55 litre tank.

 

But the numbers are irrelevant; I fill up every four weeks irrespective of whether it's a VRS diesel or a Focus ST petrol (and with petrol being cheaper than diesel then it's a win-win).

[old newbie2]

Remember you are talking about turbo diesels... Turbo petrols also offer bucket loads of midrange torque from similar rpm yet if you need to you can also hang onto the revs and use the bigger rpm range to your advantage. I test drove the TDI VRS before the TSI one and it felt flatter and less powerful at all engine speeds, both are pretty gutless under 1500rpm. The 1.4 I had as a courtesy car was pretty nippy but very quiet and smooth unlike a diesel.

I'd say that our EOS & Superb start pulling at 1200'ish RPM, not 1500, but the AMD remaps might well have made a difference.

The Golf R is bog-standard, & with a much bigger turbo, but it still scoots into gaps without needing many rpm's.

 

I always feel that the diesels have reasonable torque at idle, but no more until circa 1500 when you get more than you need, but then diminishes at app. 3000.

If you are driving a multi-ratio automatic then that's probably acceptable, but with a gutless 5-speed manual (Octavia 3 1.6)  the all the fun just goes away.......

 

Horse & Courses of course, but for us low-mileage drivers then petrol = more fun but not too expensive.

 

DC

[Lady Elanore]

I've never owned a petrol and a diesel car of similar age where the petrol has done better mpg. of course some cars have much bigger tanks than others. Which if I read your above post correctly, you agree with? SkodaVRS1963 

 

Actually I just re-read your post and I am not sure what you were questioning. Diesels need filling up less often than petrol or that ( I hopefully inferred) I needed filling up more often than the car - my fuel consumption is shocking

Edited 16 September, 2016 by Lady Elanore

[Orville]

Diesel used to be the choice for low to mid-range torque before every manufacturer started bolting small efficient turbos to petrol engines. Nowadays diesel and petrol turbo engines of similar capacity produce similar torque. The difference (in performance / feel) is that diesel maintains peak torque from ~1500-3500rpm versus ~1800-5000rpm for petrol. Mated to shorter gearing, petrol pulls harder for longer, whilst being smoother, more responsive and sounding better. The 1990's and 2000's saw massive jumps in diesel refinement and performance, to a point where diesels could compete on equal terms with petrol. The current decade has seen a swing back to petrol development, with turbos being bolted on for drivability and economy, rather than being reserved for road going rally cars (Subaru's, Evo's) or the boy racer brigade (RS and R5GT Turbos etc). Ford's 1.0 Ecoboost 3-cylinder petrol produce up to 140PS and can return 63mpg. That's more tha 90's RS Turbos and almost as much as many current 2.0 turbo diesels.

Diesel is far from dead, but there is a perceptabke swing back to petrol.

Edited 16 September, 2016 by Orville

[V6Jules]

I'd say that our EOS & Superb start pulling at 1200'ish RPM, not 1500, but the AMD remaps might well have made a difference.

The Golf R is bog-standard, & with a much bigger turbo, but it still scoots into gaps without needing many rpm's.

I always feel that the diesels have reasonable torque at idle, but no more until circa 1500 when you get more than you need, but then diminishes at app. 3000.

If you are driving a multi-ratio automatic then that's probably acceptable, but with a gutless 5-speed manual (Octavia 3 1.6) the all the fun just goes away.......

Horse & Courses of course, but for us low-mileage drivers then petrol = more fun but not too expensive.

DC

I've never driven any 4 cylinder TDI engine that pulled well from idle... In fact my Passat PD140 was the easiest car to stall I've ever had. Once it hit 1700rpm though it used to give you everything at once which felt very punchy but this was deceiving as it wasn't actually that quick.

I would guess the golf R needs a little spooling to get the most out of it though as it must have a bigger turbo to get that level of power? I am looking at getting an R estate to replace my VRS :-D

[Gromle]

The difference (in performance / feel) is that diesel maintains peak torque from ~1500-3500rpm versus ~1800-5000rpm for petrol.

Thats not the case with the Octy. The 2l TDIs doesnt reach max torque until 1750rpm, and stops at around 3k rpm.

The 2l tsi have max torque from 1350rpm to 4400rpm. And its the same for the 1.8tsi.

Edited 16 September, 2016 by Gromle

[GoneToBeemer]

Diesel used to be the choice for low to mid-range torque before every manufacturer started bolting small efficient turbos to petrol engines. Nowadays diesel and petrol turbo engines of similar capacity produce similar torque. The difference (in performance / feel) is that diesel maintains peak torque from ~1500-3500rpm versus ~1800-5000rpm for petrol. Mated to shorter gearing, petrol pulls harder for longer, whilst being smoother, more responsive and sounding better. The 1990's and 2000's saw massive jumps in diesel refinement and performance, to a point where diesels could compete on equal terms with petrol. The current decade has seen a swing back to petrol development, with turbos being bolted on for drivability and economy, rather than being reserved for road going rally cars (Subaru's, Evo's) or the boy racer brigade (RS and R5GT Turbos etc). Ford's 1.0 Ecoboost 3-cylinder petrol produce up to 140PS and can return 63mpg. That's more tha 90's RS Turbos and almost as much as many current 2.0 turbo diesels.

Diesel is far from dead, but there is a perceptabke swing back to petrol.

I would love to find anyone who can extract that from one of the Ford Ecoboost engines...even driving super carefully I couldn't get one over 44 mpg on a motorway run as I mentioned in a previous post. I think Ford are one of the most guilty for fluffing up economy stats!

[peter312]

I used to get 48 to 50 mpg with a Focus 1.0 (125 bhp). On the same sort of journeys I get 58 to 62 mpg in my Octavia 2.0 TDi. If I get stuck in stop start traffic, the Skoda drops to about 54 mpg whilst the focus could fall to 40 mpg.

The other thing I have found is that the Focus could hardly be described as being able to pull strongly; the Octavia is a lot better than that.

[andyvee]

Attended a finance event at a dealer only to be told that due to the VAG ongoing Diesel Saga my 2 yr octavia diesel has no equity which unlike my previous (pre Diesel issues) Diesel Octavia when traded in that had £4k, I heard the EU will not as per USA pursue VAG as they are a significant employer in the EU.

The VAG Dieselgate has had some impact, maybe about £1k, but Skoda over egged the GFVs in the first place.

 

Anyone who thought their car was going to be worth £4k more than the GFV ..............

[SkodaVRS1963]

The VAG Dieselgate has had some impact, maybe about £1k, but Skoda over egged the GFVs in the first place.

 

But of course they did.

 

In my case, a £24350 purchase equated to a £5150 deposit, 41 payments of £199.57 and a final payment of £11017 to own the car.

 

After 42 months, VW reckoned the car would be worth £11k.

 

Experience shows that VW pulled our pants down, an4lly shafted us and then walked away claiming someone else was to blame.  And don't get me started on their claims for mpg on the Octavia VRS.

 

I'd never buy a VW brand again.

[kevberlin]

But of course they did.

 

In my case, a £24350 purchase equated to a £5150 deposit, 41 payments of £199.57 and a final payment of £11017 to own the car.

 

After 42 months, VW reckoned the car would be worth £11k.

 

Experience shows that VW pulled our pants down, an4lly shafted us and then walked away claiming someone else was to blame.  And don't get me started on their claims for mpg on the Octavia VRS.

 

I'd never buy a VW brand again.

I find this interesting, never having had PCP and not quite understanding how it works.

In your case what therefore was the value of the car after 42 months? Presumably less than 11k?

[old newbie2]

But of course they did.

 

In my case, a £24350 purchase equated to a £5150 deposit, 41 payments of £199.57 and a final payment of £11017 to own the car.

 

After 42 months, VW reckoned the car would be worth £11k.

 

Experience shows that VW pulled our pants down, an4lly shafted us and then walked away claiming someone else was to blame.  And don't get me started on their claims for mpg on the Octavia VRS.

 

I'd never buy a VW brand again.

So, if you don't want to "own" the car, which would be quite understandable after 3.5 years, you just hand the keys back &/or start again, which is the whole point of the PCP process, yes / no?

 

All cars depreciate, maybe they were a little optimistic, but at least you don't have the same financial loss that you would have if you'd bought the car outright!

 

I own my cars, paid cash for them & have written off any potential equity, (in my mind), in the same way as I would with any other purchase.

 

If / when I do decide to change vehicles it's possible that there will be some trade-in value against another car, but I don't make any assumptions with regard to their future worth,

if only 'cos I don't change them that often............

 

DC

[bouff34]

But of course they did.

 

In my case, a £24350 purchase equated to a £5150 deposit, 41 payments of £199.57 and a final payment of £11017 to own the car.

 

After 42 months, VW reckoned the car would be worth £11k.

 

Experience shows that VW pulled our pants down, an4lly shafted us and then walked away claiming someone else was to blame.  And don't get me started on their claims for mpg on the Octavia VRS.

 

I'd never buy a VW brand again.

But assuming you were on 0% APR the GFV makes no difference whatsoever....

 

If it is set too high you actually benefit from lower monthly payments up until the final payment (hence Skoda are likely to tend towards higher GFV because the low monthly payments will attract people).

 

If it is set too low you pay more monthly but at the end have a lower payment to buy the car.

 

Either way you end up paying exactly what you agreed to pay over the duration of the contract. i.e. exactly the same total amount but just different timings

 

 

So, if Skoda set the GFV way to high... you pay less each month but won't have any equity at the end. And if the GFV really is way out then you can just walk away???

 

 

Or have I missed something here?

[GoneToBeemer]

But assuming you were on 0% APR the GFV makes no difference whatsoever....

If it is set too high you actually benefit from lower monthly payments up until the final payment (hence Skoda are likely to tend towards higher GFV because the low monthly payments will attract people).

If it is set too low you pay more monthly but at the end have a lower payment to buy the car.

Either way you end up paying exactly what you agreed to pay over the duration of the contract. i.e. exactly the same total amount but just different timings

So, if Skoda set the GFV way to high... you pay less each month but won't have any equity at the end. And if the GFV really is way out then you can just walk away???

Or have I missed something here?

The point is, generally you will have a bit of equity left in the car to p/x at the end, and given most people will pay a deposit at the beginning of PCP, that will essentially end up out the window come the end, and you will have to fork out again for a new car.

Because of this, PCH makes much better sense as the deals are much better. Therefore if you want to pay monthly, why would you use PCP.

[andyvee]

Or have I missed something here?

No, but there are people out there who seem to 'expect' their car to be worth significantly more than the GFV therefore giving them a deposit towards the next purchase. Like the starter of this thread .........

[SkodaVRS1963]

I find this interesting, never having had PCP and not quite understanding how it works.

In your case what therefore was the value of the car after 42 months? Presumably less than 11k?

 

VW reckoned it would be worth £11k after 42 months.

 

Mine was valued at that after 32 months which is one of the reasons I bailed.

 

I suspect at 42 months the VRS will fetch 9k tops - that's a 15k depreciation.

 

How much of the depreciation is due to Dieselgate and how much is due to Skoda overestimating the GFV so that they can sell the car with lower repayments is a topic worthy of it's own thread.

[bouff34]

No, but there are people out there who seem to 'expect' their car to be worth significantly more than the GFV therefore giving them a deposit towards the next purchase. Like the starter of this thread .........

Agreed, and that is down to either the salesman's misrepresentation OR people not understanding the financial agreement they have signed (and probably both).

 

The term GFV is confusing in any case - really it is simply your final payment to complete the purchase of the car, nothing more nothing less.  If there is no equity at the end you haven't been conned by anyone - you agreed what you were going to pay at the outset and that is what you have paid.

 

Skoda seem to have got their predictions wrong for used car values but by setting the GFV high that has given us all lower monthly payments.... you can't have low monthlies AND a low final payment...

[SkodaVRS1963]

Skoda seem to have got their predictions wrong for used car values but by setting the GFV high that has given us all lower monthly payments.... you can't have low monthlies AND a low final payment...

 

Yep, agreed.

 

If Skoda had pitched their GFV at £9k instead of £11k then monthly repayments go up by 2000 / 42, i.e approx £49 a month.

 

All of a sudden, my £199 per month payment is £248 per month.

 

And then you're into BMW / Mercedes territory.

 

I don't think Skoda underestimated their GFVs, I think their marketing guys were very, very smart.

[silver1011]

it does highlight one benefit of the PCP, you have some limited protection from depreciation. Just think, if the car is worth even less than the GFV then at least you don't have to stomach it 

 

That assumes you hand the keys back and walk away at the end of the deal.

 

If this is the plan then PCH makes more sense.

 

Anyone thinking that the equity left in a car at the end of a PCP is free is mistaken. Equity means you've overpaid via the deposit and/or monthly payments. Negative equity means you've been underpaying since the beginning.

 

Take out the unnecessary complications (which is what the dealers use to get you to sign up) and either buy outright or lease (PCH).