My first (and only?) post.

I’m a long-term SAAB driver – 5 over the past 26 years and other marques before that. For the past 10 years I’ve been driving a MY2004 SAAB 9.5 (2.3litre) Aero Estate with the following vital statistics:     250bhp, 350Nm, 140bhp/tonne, 0-60mph in 6.9 secs, max speed 152mph, 33mpg.

I love this car which I drive with a ‘smooth, spirited style making good progress’ (IAM language), rather than driving like a hooligan (been there, done that). To be honest, I rarely use (or need) the car’s full potential in acceleration or speed.

 

My SAAB still drives great after nearly 160,000 miles, but at some point I’ll need a replacement. Should it be a Skoda and if so, which one?

 

The obvious answer would seem to be a VRS TSI estate (good looking and, I think, 230bhp ought to be enough), but should I consider an Octavia SE L 1.5 ACT Estate? Acceleration for the 150 ACT is not too bad at 8.0secs (only about a second slower than my SAAB), certainly for ‘everyday use’ and it has some interesting tech and economy. Not as exciting, but perhaps it’s good enough? I only cover about 10,000 miles/year these days (early, active retired), so it’s petrol-only please. Also, I generally prefer manual shift, so I’ve not pursued a Superb 2.0 TSI estate which only comes with DSG. I would plan to keep the car for several years (~10?) and then consider where electric auto technology is. Looks-wise, it’s a pity Skoda don’t make a 1.5ACT Sportline?

 

Car	Bhp	Nm	Bhp/tonne	0-62	Max speed	mpg
SAAB	250	350	140	6.9	152	33
VRS	230	350	160	6.6	153	40?
ACT	150	250	118	8.0	136	50?

 

Discuss…….. (as they say).

I will test-drive, but haven’t done so yet. However, I’m interested in the views of current Skoda drivers, especially anyone else who has made the move from SAAB to Skoda.

Cheers,

If money was no question and you had to have a skoda i would spend my hard earned on a superb sportline 280

 

Price £33,295; Engine 4 cyls, 1984cc, turbo, petrol; Power 276bhp at 5600-6500rpm; Torque 258lb ft at 1700-5600rpm; Gearbox 6-spd dual-clutch automatic; Kerb weight 1560kg; 0-62mph 5.8sec; Top speed 155mph; Economy 39.2mpg (combined); CO2/tax band 164g/km, 32%

Edited 2 December, 20178 yr by JohnnyType2

39.2mpg, you'd be living in a dream world to expect more than 30mpg on a good day, I got 28mpg out of my last tank full in the 230 now the cold weather is here.. best ever was 37 at a constant 70mph trip.

I went through a similar dilemma deciding between a 1.4 SE L Estate and VRS.  I actually discounted the 1.5 as when I ordered back in September it was only £300 more, but the 42 month Guaranteed Future Value on the PCP was £1000 less.  Even using the claimed consumption figures I wouldn’t see the £300 back in that time, let alone the albeit forecast GFV and the less proven technology.

 

But back to your point.  Our Octavia is to be one of two cars (I don’t call it a second car as both are decent but serve different roles).  The other is an Audi S3 3 door, so gives a lot of performance for a compromise in practicality and economy.  We also need a load lugger (currently a Yeti) hence the estate purchase.  However I do also like a bit of oomph.  However, in the end, we came down on the side os the 1.4 - this is why:

 

The 1.4 engine is well proven, surprisingly sprightly, economical and at no times feels under powered.  The SE L spec is actually slightly better (for us) than VRS, so if you wish to include everything in the SE L on a VRS there will be a few extras adding further to the price difference.  The suspension is also softer on the SE L but not too much of a handling compromise (although the rears suspension setup is inferior).  Up to 10mpg better economy is a real incentive though for the rare occasions that I would miss the extra power.

 

In favour of the VRS was the nicer sounding engine and more power than you will probably need, the slightly better looks and better handling (at the expense of a harsher ride).

 

Clearly if this is to be your only/main car, your priorities may differ to ours and I do still have moments of regret as I await delivery of the Octavia 1.4 in January.  If you can test both engines back to back it may help, but ultimately the question you need to ask is ‘is this 1.5 quick enough’.  If you are in any doubt and remembering that even with the VRS running costs will reduce significantly from what you are accustomed to, I would go VRS.  Ride quality v handling may also be an influencing factor.

I came from a Saab 9-3 Aero 2.8v6, which was tuned with a JZW stage 1 tune.

 

Quite happy with the Skoda and many say that Skoda is picking up the "quirky" end of the market left void by Saab.

 

But, as pointed out on the thread, the Superb would be a more natural replacement for the 9-5.

 

About power and power delivery, you would be more than happy with the VRS - mine is manual and I really don't feel lack of power on it.

 Also, these cars are quite easy to tune and there is a huge market for that, so... Easy to get a lot of power if you wish.

 

For the segment, the Octavia is one of the most spacious cars out there, but the seats are nowhere near the Saab comfort, but then again... What is, right?

 

About the "crashy" feel, surprisingly, lowering the car takes care of that, since the lowering springs are actually more comfortable.

 

I would recommend the VRS as an Aero replacement, or you might miss that "get-up-and-go" feeling when you want to put your foot down.

1 hour ago, marko said:

39.2mpg, you'd be living in a dream world to expect more than 30mpg on a good day, I got 28mpg out of my last tank full in the 230 now the cold weather is here.. best ever was 37 at a constant 70mph trip.

 

There must be something wrong with your car - I frequently get between 7-8l/100km on my car, which is 40-35mpg.

 

Of course, if all you drive is city short trips, YMMV... Literally

yes mostly 6 mile runs to work  but it's a straightish run, like I said 37mpg best I got on a long run which is fantastic IMO for the performance of the car. winter has knocked it down from 30 to 28mpg at the moment.

2 hours ago, marko said:

39.2mpg, you'd be living in a dream world to expect more than 30mpg on a good day, I got 28mpg out of my last tank full in the 230 now the cold weather is here.. best ever was 37 at a constant 70mph trip.

 

Most of my journeys result in an MPG figure in the 40s, though my commute is 23 miles each way mainly motorway. I've had 56mpg on a longer run - though this figure was no doubt helped by average speed zones.

 

Short trips = 30ish, longer trips = 40+ seems to be the norm.

I went from a 9-5 HOT Aero to a V6 Superb. Different characters, but it was an easy move to make.    There’s been too much gap between the Saab and my vRS for me to properly compare them, but I think they had broadly similar performance, but the Saab felt more solid, planted, and was a nicer place to be in. The vRS has more room.  Saab was in the early 20's mpg, vRS is in the upper 20's.  I’d buy another Aero at the drop of a hat, but haven’t found ‘the’ one yet.

 

Gaz

Edited 2 December, 20178 yr by V6TDI

I’ve gone from 9-3 Turbo X estate to a MkIII Octavia vRS TDI estate.

The Turbo X was running 310bhp & 490Nm with a Superchips remap. Awesome power delivery & traction from the XWD system.

Downside was appalling fuel economy - 22mpg average, & £500 a year for tax.

I’m seeing twice the amount of fuel economy now, £30 a year tax, but still miss the power, sound track & traction. The Turbo X was auto, which was great. You could switch it the semi auto for manual shifts, but most of the time it was in auto. The vRS is manual, which actually can be a burden when sat in traffic. I’m not too keen on the DSG system, so it had to be a manual.

Torque output is pretty similar but the power band is shorter. The luggage space & passenger space is bigger in vRS, which is better for me & the ever growing family!

Over the years I have had 3 Saabs, a 9000 which was very quirky, nothing special to drive but ok. I then had two of the old 900’s one being a n/a 2 litre petrol, the other a light pressure turbo, tweaked to become a full pressure.. very enjoyable to drive, but very thirsty, and expensive to maintain. The scout I currently have is worlds apart, but 25 years of progress has produced a much more refined and useful family car.

I too jumped out of a Turbo X wagon like JonTDi but from a manual BSR tuned 5.6 0-60 into a VRS TDI 4x4 DSG. I miss the look, shove and noise of the TX and then again I don’t miss the 60 mph resonance, 26mpg, £500+ Tax, almost 300 mile tank, worry of parts availability, limited rear passenger space and only adequate load space for an estate.

 

Vrs is way more spacious for growing kids, loading for holidays, 4x4 goes round corners a lot better, dsg easier for traffic and has seamless power delivery, 500+ mile tank, cheaper parts and accessories readily available, up to date technology. 

 

Vrs is just does it better for today’s lifestyle. Easy to live with. More than happy with it. 

Edited 2 December, 20178 yr by BigEjit

I had a 9-3 SS 2.0 turbo petrol with a noobtune map on it and loved it!! I had a couple of dreary 1.6tdi hatchbacks then got the VRS tdi. Love it! Not as quick as the Saab but still puts a smile on my face. For the price I really dont know what will replace the Skoda in a couple of years? Another Skoda? Maybe a superb? 

 

@Viggen get a VRS 

11 minutes ago, BigEjit said:

I too jumped out of a Turbo X wagon like JonTDi but from a manual BSR tuned 5.6 0-60 into a VRS TDI 4x4 DSG. I miss the look, shove and noise of the TX and then again I don’t miss the 60 mph resonance, 26mpg, £500+ Tax, almost 300 mile tank, worry of parts availability, limited rear passenger space and only adequate load space for an estate.

 

Vrs is way more spacious for growing kids, loading for holidays, 4x4 goes round corners a lot better, dsg easier for traffic and has seamless power delivery, 500+ mile tank, cheaper parts and accessories readily available, up to date technology. 

 

Vrs is just does it better for today’s lifestyle. Easy to live with. More than happy with it. 

What he said

Thank you all for your replies to my post, especially to Falmouthboy for his extensive and reasoned argument. I think you’re all confirming my thoughts thus far. It’s too early for real-world experiences of 150 ACT, I guess.

 

I buy my cars outright, so guaranteed future value on a PCP doesn’t feature. Incidentally, my total costs for my SAAB HOT Aero Estate are £21,800 including depreciation to £zero, all servicing and tyres included, but not insurance, road tax/RFL and fuel. This is for 11 years/120,000 miles of driving so far (the car was 30 months old/40,000 miles when I bought it).

 

To summarise, the key factors in a future choice (VRS vs 150 ACT SE L) seem to be:

Performance: equivalent to SAAB (VRS), or a bit less (150 ACT)

Economy: 10,000 miles @40mpg is ~£250 p.a. more than 50mpg, but is ~£250 p.a. less than my current 33mpg.

Rear suspension: IRS vs torsion bar (of which I have no experience).

Wheels/tyres: I would prefer 17’’ 225/45 (same as my SAAB) for a less-hard ride than 18” 225/40 of the VRS.

Looks/image: I confess that the VRS has the edge.

Fun to drive: I expect the VRS to win here.

 

I want the space of the estate (road bikes/MTB and other ‘adventure sport stuff’ – it’s why I retired early!) although mostly only carrying me plus Mrs V (empty-nesters now). Petrol and manual shift. I haven’t had a car with an engine of less than 1.8litre since about 1980, but figure I should seriously consider current technology advances (back then my much-loved 1984 Cavalier Sri Hatch was 1799cc and only delivered about 105bhp, but boy, it was fun!).

As expected, I need to test drive both, but the SAAB is still good, so there’s no rush.

Thanks.

I expect you wont find the Octavia as refined as the SAAB, the ride is quite firm and there is a fair bit of road noise.

 

Remember the SAAB was an 'executive' car, whatever that really means, whereas the Octavia is only really a 'fleet' special, whatever that means...!

 

Basically the Skoda is less refined, and the quality of the interior materials are not as good.

 

Also consider the Superb Sportline.

 

Have a look on here for good discounts, up to 20% 0ff Octavia & Superb:  www.broadspeed.com

 

 

I traded a Saab 9-3 1.8t linear for my Octavia last January.

 

I agree with what others say in that the Octavia and Superb lines are almost spiritual replacements to the 900/9-3 and 9000/9-5 ranges, understated not-quite-premium.

 

My thoughts:

- The Octavia is obviously more practical than the 9-3 saloon, though I did manage to get mattresses and baby cots etc into that somehow.

- Octavia cheaper to run, 1.6 diesel so getting close to 50mpg and £20 a year road tax, vs 25-29mpg and £300 a year.

- Though obviously moving from a 2 litre petrol turbo to a 1.6 litre diesel it is a bit slower, 150 down to around 110bhp. But not as bad as I thought, and not dangerously slow. I do miss that group N touring car style roar at high revs though.

- Standard stereo on the Skoda is a world away from the tinny non-replacable item on the Linear.

- I miss the big comfortable seats in the Saab.

- They both look well after a good wash, though the Saab looked less taxi/minicab-like.

- Some standard features on the Saab, even in Linear spec, the SE Octavia is missing - steering wheel controls, front and rear armrests, ski hatch.

- Small things on the Saab like the bonnet opening gas struts and boot opening keyfob button made it feel premium, whereas the Octavia feels a lot more fleet with an old fashioned bonnet prop stick and "open yer own" bootlid.

My Dad had a 2002 9-5 estate from new. Best thing about it was the sound system - not just good speakers etc but they did it right and probably spent well over the GM budget on sound deadening. 

 

Absolutely great cars. Such a shame. 

3 hours ago, WallMeerkat said:

I traded a Saab 9-3 1.8t linear for my Octavia last January.

 

I agree with what others say in that the Octavia and Superb lines are almost spiritual replacements to the 900/9-3 and 9000/9-5 ranges, understated not-quite-premium.

 

My thoughts:

- The Octavia is obviously more practical than the 9-3 saloon, though I did manage to get mattresses and baby cots etc into that somehow.

- Octavia cheaper to run, 1.6 diesel so getting close to 50mpg and £20 a year road tax, vs 25-29mpg and £300 a year.

- Though obviously moving from a 2 litre petrol turbo to a 1.6 litre diesel it is a bit slower, 150 down to around 110bhp. But not as bad as I thought, and not dangerously slow. I do miss that group N touring car style roar at high revs though.

- Standard stereo on the Skoda is a world away from the tinny non-replacable item on the Linear.

- I miss the big comfortable seats in the Saab.

- They both look well after a good wash, though the Saab looked less taxi/minicab-like.

- Some standard features on the Saab, even in Linear spec, the SE Octavia is missing - steering wheel controls, front and rear armrests, ski hatch.

- Small things on the Saab like the bonnet opening gas struts and boot opening keyfob button made it feel premium, whereas the Octavia feels a lot more fleet with an old fashioned bonnet prop stick and "open yer own" bootlid.

That 150bhp would have been turned into 230 with only a remap!!! 

On 12/8/2017 at 13:12, glosrich said:

I expect you wont find the Octavia as refined as the SAAB, the ride is quite firm and there is a fair bit of road noise.

 

Remember the SAAB was an 'executive' car, whatever that really means, whereas the Octavia is only really a 'fleet' special, whatever that means...!

 

Basically the Skoda is less refined, and the quality of the interior materials are not as good.

 

Also consider the Superb Sportline.

 

Have a look on here for good discounts, up to 20% 0ff Octavia & Superb:  www.broadspeed.com

 

 

 

There is also apparently quite a difference between the lower engine sizes like you seem to have and cars like the vRS because of differences in the rear suspension etc - so the comparison to be fair needs to be done with the exact Octavia you are looking at.

 

I don't find my vRS is particularly that bad, there are a few areas that could be improved but you could probably say that in any car unless you are throwing around silly money (from new).

18 hours ago, JamiePvrs said:

That 150bhp would have been turned into 230 with only a remap!!! 

 

True but what affect would that have had on the likes of the turbo or the autobox? I'd assumed that poverty spec meant that they'd be the downrated versions.

 

I found 150bhp plenty day to day.

 

I did do the yobbish thing and fit a K&N filter which made no difference whatsoever

Mine ran fine, albeit a manual, for another 40k miles after the remap I sold it at 130k on the original turbo. Had to replace the clutch after the map but that was to be expected. And it was dyno'd at about 115k and it was runni g 201bhp at the wheels. Not bad for a cheap remap and k and n filter 

I am curently driving a 2.0t petrol Vectra SRi estate that has a SAAB powerplant as it dates from the GM/SAAB tie up. Its still in stock 185bhp format and still a good tool after 14 years and 112000 miles. Its a mile muncher that can press on a bit if needed.

 

I have 2 kids,  a springer spaniel,  9 pushbikes,  tec diving kit,  camping stuff and occasionally tow my parents caravan. The Vectra has coped with all this for years.

 

Although it will probably go on for a while yet,  recent changes to our circumstances meant a replacement was on the cards...

 

I wanted a petrol estate with no less power. We went to Skoda to look at an Octavia VRs 230 estate but on test drive it felt no more refined than the Vectra (not a bad thing, just not as good as I had hoped)  and also was pretty small inside compared to the Vectra. We decided to keep the Vec a bit longer and instead replace the missus's 17 year old Astra with a Yeti!

 

Roll on a year and I have a Sportline 280 Combi on order. Its everything the Vectra is and then some. I've test driven 3 Sportlines and been very impressed. I'd have thought the Superb was closer in size and feel to your 9-5 anyway, so is that worth a look?

2 hours ago, edwards said:

I am curently driving a 2.0t petrol Vectra SRi estate that has a SAAB powerplant as it dates from the GM/SAAB tie up. Its still in stock 185bhp format and still a good tool after 14 years and 112000 miles. Its a mile muncher that can press on a bit if needed.

 

I have 2 kids,  a springer spaniel,  9 pushbikes,  tec diving kit,  camping stuff and occasionally tow my parents caravan. The Vectra has coped with all this for years.

 

Although it will probably go on for a while yet,  recent changes to our circumstances meant a replacement was on the cards...

 

I wanted a petrol estate with no less power. We went to Skoda to look at an Octavia VRs 230 estate but on test drive it felt no more refined than the Vectra (not a bad thing, just not as good as I had hoped)  and also was pretty small inside compared to the Vectra. We decided to keep the Vec a bit longer and instead replace the missus's 17 year old Astra with a Yeti!

 

Roll on a year and I have a Sportline 280 Combi on order. Its everything the Vectra is and then some. I've test driven 3 Sportlines and been very impressed. I'd have thought the Superb was closer in size and feel to your 9-5 anyway, so is that worth a look?

 

No more refined........small compared to the vectra......... 

 

Are you for real? The VRS would have felt like a Bentley compared to a crappy old vectra.

 

But then again there's no way you could fit 9 push bikes, 2 kids and a Springer spaniel in the skoda

 

 

There is a weird pattern here, cause I too had a Vectra 2.5v6, right before my Saab 9-3

...and now the Octavia.