With the Karoq and 1.6 TDI diesel they are looking at this year and into next which is why they will have SCR when Skoda / VW / SEAT / Audi manage to get them built and out for sale, 

and why the 1.4 TSI's will not be going in any of the VW Groups models and the petrol engines will have a GPF.

 

As to test drives, i have no idea why a SEAT driver has a SEAT and then finds out there is something they do not like, 

a good SEAT Dealership will lend a car for a few days to try out.

 

As will other Dealerships.  If a dealership will not lend a 'demonstrator' for a day or a half day as a minimum and you are needing to know how cars are before buying then unless the very newest model of car it always worth looking if they are available as a hire car anyplace and hire one for a day.

You are going to be spending maybe a year or twos income buying a car so whats £50 and a tank of fuel to see if you are getting the right car.

 

Often when Skoda / SEAT / VW / Audi launch new models they are Demonstrators or Hire cars anyway when first into the UK, and those Demonstrators are not supposed to be some Sales Executives perk or there to be molly coddled until the Dealership can punt it for max profit with a great tax break from HMRC.

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Offski

10 hours ago, Boolean said:

The Karoq was tested with both engines, and in all test cases (driver only or fully loaded, whatever the road type) the 1.0 TSI has a similar or lower consumption...

 

 

Unfortunately some of these test don't reflect real life driving. Small engines are very fuel efficient if you drive economically. Drive like a normal person with occasional hard accelerations and hit 70mph on the motorway. You'll find that bigger engines are a lot more competitive. On motorways journeys the mpg gap between my Skoda and BMW is a lot smaller than one would think.

 

Volvo offer a 3 cylinder petrol in the very sought after XC40. So far it's under performed in reviews. Above town speeds it needs to be revved, max 38-19 mpg on the motorway and if you drive in a hurried manner 30mpg will be your maximum. Further more there is noticeable lack of power if you are not at the sweet spot 1,850rpm.

 

This is not me slagging the 1.0TSI. For some it will be all their needs. However it's worth driving both engines as small engines can be strained in heavy SUVs. Thankfully there will soon be a Skoda branded Arona which will perform a bit better than the Karoq with the 1.0TSI. 

 

59 minutes ago, Offski said:

it always worth looking if they are available as a hire car anyplace and hire one for a day.

 

I can't stress this enough. Given how poor trade-in values make it prohibitively expensive to change car until the end of the agreement, £100-150 to rent a car for a weekend is cheaper than clearing/rolling over £3,000-4,000 negative equity. 

 

 

Furthermore there is no shame in booking a test and asking the dealer for a 1 hour slot to give the car a proper go. Even after that, return and ask to drive the same car or even a different one for more perspective!

9 hours ago, Crassus said:

 

I bought two of my recent three cars in a rush so this time I'm test driving and evaluating long before I need to pull the trigger. 

I agree. I bought a Kia Sportage 2.0l CRDI in a hurry, after serious problems with a BMW.

I kept it 2 years, all the time thinking I would get to like it. It would grow on me.

Wrong. Parts of cars that you don't like don't improve over time. Took my biggest ever hit on depreciation as I bought top of the range new and expected to keep it for many years.

So pleased to ditch it for the cheaper and slightly less well equipped Karoq - I got it right this time!

Have we really moved on with power and economy,seeing people talking about test drives I once hired a 1.2L   Vauxhall Nova for a weeks holiday (late 80s) and was really impressed with performance and economy ,so impressed that on return that we bought the new Nova GTE  ,old tech now with 8 valves but that 1.6l engine 100bhp was a dream in that small hatchback,it had plenty of everything and we both loved to drive it ,economy probably not quite as good as today’s offerings but a joy to drive,was it really 30 years ago?

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Sad555

1 hour ago, OldKaroq said:

I agree. I bought a Kia Sportage 2.0l CRDI in a hurry, after serious problems with a BMW.

I kept it 2 years, all the time thinking I would get to like it. It would grow on me.

Wrong. Parts of cars that you don't like don't improve over time. Took my biggest ever hit on depreciation as I bought top of the range new and expected to keep it for many years.

So pleased to ditch it for the cheaper and slightly less well equipped Karoq - I got it right this time!

We all learn from our mistakes. I am even considering leasing my Karoq as PCP is starting to look less attractive. Depreciation is so steep that at the end of an agreement, trade-in value is less than the balloon payment. Why would I want to buy a car for £xxxxxx from a finance company when it's worth 10-20% less as a trade-in. 

 

At least with leasing you can negotiate a new car with a clear head and not be tempted into a dealer "putting together a deal" that essentially rolls over negative equity into a new agreement. However PCP gives you the option to terminate after 50% of the borrowed sum has been paid. 

 

23 minutes ago, Sad555 said:

Have we really moved on with power and economy,seeing people talking about test drives

Yes. Small petrol engines have made a monumental leap since the introduction of turbo charged 3 and four cylinder blocks.  You no longer have to rev the car to 4000rpm just to get the most of it. Pair the new 1.5TSI with DSG and it is as torquey at low speeds as a 2L diesel but smoother and near inaudible unless you floor it. 

 

Before buying the Fabia i was set on a 1.6-1.8L engine but was blown away by how capable the 1.2L engine was with my daughter, GF and sales person in the car. The beat thing about my Fabia is that I bought it three weeks before emissions tax got more expensive. I only pay £20 a year. 

 

I am replacing the X3 with a Karoq because the Skoda is as capable but cheaper to run, buy and easier to drive around town. Most importantly the X3 now comes in at right under £40k. Add an option or two and you will be above 40k and have to annually pay £310~ in emissions tax during the first 5 years. 

Some buying a car and not wanting to be the ones landed with new models with 'snagging faults' might wait and after the cars have been on sale and on the road look at 'New' or a used first model.

 

Obviously 'What Car' ('Autocar' )  Haymarket Publishing Media Group with VW as a client making a car 'What Car' car of the year before any customer has one is interesting. 

but then they usually fail to following up on the cars issues and then make them 'What Car' Used car of the year.

 

Sometimes the first models are the best deals and have the Quality Control, sometimes not.

 

This year a 1.0 TSI without a GPF might be worth buying as a Used Car / Ex Demonstrator rather than being an Early Adopter and Road Test Dummy for VW Group with cars they are away to be getting out the factories in the next few months and being landed with them for 3 years or for 'long time mister' if buying a keeper.

28 minutes ago, Offski said:

'What Car' car of the year before any customer has one is interesting. 

 

It absolutely is and more than often the press cars are have top of the line engines and every option under the sun which is not a reflection of the typical pre-reg SE Skoda with only spare wheel and mats. 

1 hour ago, Crassus said:

Yes. Small petrol engines have made a monumental leap since the introduction of turbo charged 3 and four cylinder blocks.  You no longer have to rev the car to 4000rpm just to get the most of it. Pair the new 1.5TSI with DSG and it is as torquey at low speeds as a 2L diesel but smoother and near inaudible unless you floor it. 

Don’t quite see these figures as comparable,the 1.5l has 250nm of torque whereas the yeti 2.0l has 350nm and as for monumental leaps ,30 years ago the daihatsu gtti  3cylinder turbo was producing 100 bhp so revisiting someone’s old tech and polishing it up not that monumental not that I’m knocking little turbo engines it’s that i’am still not that convinced about 3cylinder,1.0L  engines in cars the size of the karrot and Octavia estate which when laden to their full capacity which is why they were purchased and not just for their economy.

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Sad555

A classic was  in 2014  the All New 3rd Generation Fabia was 'What Car Car of the Year 2015'  in time for the late 2014 / Pre Christmas advertising campaign in mags and on the telly even though cars were not with customers, other than 'Media Cars' delivered to Skoda,

then it turns out it was a particular engine / model of the Fabia they gave it to.

They predicted great residuals and were wrong, and in other Comparisons of the Class put the Polo ahead because running / servicing was cheaper....

 

Now someone post the JD Power Reliability award link on the forum and it is about Dependability,  just the Electrical, Engine & DSG issues are not important enough to affect 'Dependability'.

 

Dennis Publishing,  Haymarket Media and other motoring journals and journalists need held to account more often.

They are too good at taking the trip, the media pack, the left hand drive car in another country with left hand drive roads and doing reviews and predictions.

 

eg

2018 the 1.4 TDI which had the 'wrong coolant'  not bad water pumps, and the 1.2 TSI engines are discontinued and the 1.0 TSI that came in gets a GPF with the face lift.   The DQ200 DSG has issues for some, software and clutch packs,  

Where are What Car now reporting all that ?  

 

 

 

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Offski

54 minutes ago, Sad555 said:

Don’t quite see these figures as comparable,the 1.5l has 250nm of torque whereas the yeti 2.0l has 350nm and as for monumental leaps ,30 years ago the daihatsu gtti  3cylinder turbo was producing 100 bhp so revisiting someone’s old tech and polishing it up not that monumental not that I’m knocking little turbo engines it’s that i’am still not that convinced about 3cylinder,1.0L  engines in cars the size of the karrot and Octavia estate which when laden to their full capacity which is why they were purchased and not just for their economy.

 

250Nm is just peak torque. The key selling point is that torque is delivered at a low 1,500rpm. 10-15 years ago the same torque would be delivered at 3,000-4,000 rpm in a larger engined naturally aspirated polo. As far as drivability and fuel efficiency goes, it's a big improvement. 

 

I have a 2.0L diesel in my other car and also had a 3L diesel as a loaner two months around. Yes they pack more punch when flooring it from 30-60mph but driving around town the 1.5TSI is smoother, quieter and nipper off the line because of the lower weight. 

 

Despite the pitch forks, diesels aren't going anywhere. I still highly rate them for those who spend alot of time on motorways or tow. However, you no longer need to buy a diesel to enjoy decent low end torque or a 2L+ engine for refinement.

 

I do agree that 1L engines or three cylinder ones are overstretching themselves in SUVs. The XC40 T3 is a disaster. 

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Crassus

Even calling the ones with 2 wd is stretching using the term SUV's for 'advertising purposes'.   

Suburban Utility Vehicle or Sports Utility Vehicle, they are MPV's or Small MPVs.

 Crossovers maybe or tall hatch backs,  but not obviously AWD's or often that much space for the weight to get passengers and luggage for all the people in all the seats.

 

The 3008 getting best small 4x4 awards by a mag is another classic when it had not 4x4 / awd.

Even if the system of ant-slip might be better than Part Time AWD, if the OEM tyres were any actual use in the conditions you might need it.

 

The Fabia / Rapid SUVish type tall car with a 1.0TSI and AWD with the light hybrid will be good hopefully, 

just obviously because of emissions needs they will get 'Eco' tyres as the OEM fitment and no Factory Option for 'All Weather / Winters'.

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Offski

17 minutes ago, Offski said:

The Fabia / Rapid SUVish type tall car with a 1.0TSI and AWD with the light hybrid will be good hopefully, 

 

That's unlikely to happen. Not even the VW T-Roc or T-Cross are getting AWD. They are strictly FWD crossovers. 

That is right they are not because they are Type Approved and in production. They got the 'platform' that they got.

That can be adapted easily by the 2nd biggest car manufacturer in the world to AWD as Audi did with A1 for S1 / quattro with a rear tunnel change, electric motors need more than just that though.

(they homolotated them so that you could have Motorsport Success with VW Polo & R5 Fabia rallying....)

 

Skoda are spinning a 'Maybe Fabia vRS ish thing so yet again a Maybia, a  Hybrid Maybia,  maybe a Kroqet.

 Skoda boss said 19 new models by end 2020,  Hybrid & EV's needed obviously.

So because the new platform needs built / type approved and trialed, so Low Volume seller Skoda are perfect for that, 

it used to be SEAT that got New tech first to try out on the general buying public *180ps min 1.4 TSI Twincharger DSG*, and then also old and tried and tested part bin tech which was sometimes the best tech. *Exeo*

 

 

Volkswagen Group hybrid hot hatches due from 2020 _ Autocar.mhtml

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Offski

This debate about which engine to buy is plain SILLY because everyone buys a car with a specific budget. Lets face it who would buy a V8 Ferrari if you could afford one with a V12. Same question with an Aston Martin let me buy the V8 Vantage because it will use less fuel than the V12

Diesels are dirtier in-terms of pollutants proven directly harmful to human life. Levels of Nitrogen dioxide, Nitric oxide and Nitrous oxide are 2-3x higher within modern diesels than modern petrol's.

 

Regarding performance, the 1.5TSI and 2.0TDI 150 are pretty much identical. The extra torque of the diesel is countered by much shorter gearing and increased weight. There are plenty of direct comparison videos on youtube.  Here's a 1.4TSI 150 vs a 20.TDI 150 up to 200kmph.

6 hours ago, Crassus said:

 

250Nm is just peak torque. The key selling point is that torque is delivered at a low 1,500rpm. 10-15 years ago the same torque would be delivered at 3,000-4,000 rpm in a larger engined naturally aspirated polo. As far as drivability and fuel efficiency goes, it's a big improvement. 

 

Again, agreed. We changed my wifes 1.4l non turbo Polo for a 1.2 TSI Fabia. The Polo had to be revved hard to get anywhere. Horrible to drive due to the dated engine. Fabia 1.2, like the Karoq, pulls easily from low RPM.

 

I have a 2.0L diesel in my other car and also had a 3L diesel as a loaner two months around. Yes they pack more punch when flooring it from 30-60mph but driving around town the 1.5TSI is smoother, quieter and nipper off the line because of the lower weight. 

 

My BMW 330d was a superb motorway car, but I much prefer the 1.5TSI DSG around town.

 

Despite the pitch forks, diesels aren't going anywhere. I still highly rate them for those who spend alot of time on motorways or tow. However, you no longer need to buy a diesel to enjoy decent low end torque or a 2L+ engine for refinement.

 

Yep.

 

I do agree that 1L engines or three cylinder ones are overstretching themselves in SUVs. The XC40 T3 is a disaster. 

 

42 minutes ago, Orville said:

Diesels are dirtier in-terms of pollutants proven directly harmful to human life. Levels of Nitrogen dioxide, Nitric oxide and Nitrous oxide are 2-3x higher within modern diesels than modern petrol's.

 

Regarding performance, the 1.5TSI and 2.0TDI 150 are pretty much identical. The extra torque of the diesel is countered by much shorter gearing and increased weight. There are plenty of direct comparison videos on youtube.  Here's a 1.4TSI 150 vs a 20.TDI 150 up to 200kmph.

Sorry, Orville,

 

You are just not up to date. Modern diesels with AdBlue and EGR to reduce combustion temperature have solved the NOx issue. The particulates question is very effectively handled by DPF - and has been for several years. The all important long term issues of lower CO2, has had the diesels outperforming petrol engines for not decades, but a century.

 

Lastly, I do not see how you referenced comparison addresses the issue?

 

 

1 hour ago, Agerbundsen said:

Sorry, Orville,

 

You are just not up to date. Modern diesels with AdBlue and EGR to reduce combustion temperature have solved the NOx issue. The particulates question is very effectively handled by DPF - and has been for several years. The all important long term issues of lower CO2, has had the diesels outperforming petrol engines for not decades, but a century.

 

Lastly, I do not see how you referenced comparison addresses the issue?

 

 

Let's agree to disagree. NOx is a FAR bigger risk to public health than CO2. There is plenty of independent emissions analysis available online. There are also many detailed medical journals listing the impact of NOx on respiratory systems and developmental disorders. Check out ICCT publications for real-world testing of the latest diesels (and petrols).

 

edit: Zero modern diesels (EU6+) meet their promised emissions levels. The very best exceed manufacturer stated limits by >2x, with the worst being >10x more polluting. Ad-blue works best at optimum operating temperatures under very light-throttle. From cold or when under acceleration it is ineffective. There's a nice graph illustrating real-world diesel emissions performance below.

 

https://www.theicct.org/publications/real-world-emissions-using-remote-sensing-data

 

In summary, real-world tests of latest petrol engine emissions are "reasonably accurate" when compared to manufactures published specs. Real world latest-diesel emissions are MASSIVELY HIGHER than manufacturer published specs.

 

 

 

Edited 22 July, 20187 yr by Orville

2 minutes ago, Orville said:

Let's agree to disagree. NOx is a FAR bigger risk to public health than CO2There is plenty of independent emissions analysis available online. There are also many detailed medical journals listing the impact of NOx on respiratory systems and developmental disorders.

 

We can agree  and we can disagree at the same time.

 

NOx is not nice in high concentrations, such as in cities like London. Outside of urban areas, NOx is not a problem, as nature reduces it to harmful  compounds. CO2 is a long term problem, screwing up the climate for all of us - conurbation dwellers or not.

 

The problem is that studies are OLD - pre-current technology. Data from 5 years ago do not include current engine technology - neither petrol or diesel. Add the Dieselgate debaucle, and the result is that diesel has a bad name generally, and it is easy and popular to wee on diesel. 

 

NOx generation is is increased by high combustion temperatures - right where the diesel achieves the higher efficiency from. The current Diesel engine technology reduces this by EGR and by SCR - selective catalytic reduction - catalyst, which turns most of the NOx into Nitrogen  and water. 

 

Until the electric or hydrogen powered vehicles become practical/economical, we are left with CO2 emitting vehicles - diesel and petrol - one is not an angel, the other one is not the devil.

I am a bit perplexed by those saying the 1.0tsi is too small for the Karoq 'SUV' and that some/many SEAT 1.0tsi owners are getting appalling consumption in theirs because of its small capacity.

The Karoq in FWD versions is not a real 'SUV' just a fairly sensible transport package. It has similar weight to an Octavia, slightly worse aero drag (0.34 compared to 0.30/31 Octavia Sedan/Wagon). No one in the Octavia section is complaining about performance or economy of their 1.0tsi, quite the contrary.

The Karoq 1.0tsi offers 200Nm torque which is the equivalent of a 2 litre NA engine, as said by others this torque is far more useful being available from relatively low revs.

As far I can tell most of the FWD 'SUV' competitors with 2 litre NA engines are a lot heavier and with worse aero so while a Karoq with a larger engine/ more performance will be favoured, the smaller and cheaper option will be more than adequate and even exceed expectations for performance and consumption.

The sad thing is we are unlikely to see the 1.0 equipped Karoq or Octavia in Australia.

 

1 hour ago, Gerrycan said:

I am a bit perplexed by those saying the 1.0tsi is too small for the Karoq 'SUV' and that some/many SEAT 1.0tsi owners are getting appalling consumption in theirs because of its small capacity.

The Karoq in FWD versions is not a real 'SUV' just a fairly sensible transport package. It has similar weight to an Octavia, slightly worse aero drag (0.34 compared to 0.30/31 Octavia Sedan/Wagon). No one in the Octavia section is complaining about performance or economy of their 1.0tsi, quite the contrary.

The Karoq 1.0tsi offers 200Nm torque which is the equivalent of a 2 litre NA engine, as said by others this torque is far more useful being available from relatively low revs.

As far I can tell most of the FWD 'SUV' competitors with 2 litre NA engines are a lot heavier and with worse aero so while a Karoq with a larger engine/ more performance will be favoured, the smaller and cheaper option will be more than adequate and even exceed expectations for performance and consumption.

The sad thing is we are unlikely to see the 1.0 equipped Karoq or Octavia in Australia.

 

 

If you treat it as a car to carry one adult, perhaps two, or one adult and a couple of children in normal driving it is ok, it is basically a taller upper mid size car

 

If you are looking to load it up, storm along motorways, or adding things like roofboxes, then the 1.0 is going to have to work hard, probably needs to be in a gear lower and is going to be drinking fuel faster than a bigger engine which can be run at lower revs.

 

The 1.0 tsi is a brilliant engine, but why VW Group didn’t make a 4 cylinder version, 1.33 litres using same pistons, is a mystery, and setting the power at 130-135 hp.  There is simply too much power gap between the choices of petrol engines available.  In my opinion the range needs a petrol of about 130hp to cover the huge gap.

 

Edited 23 July, 20187 yr by SurreyJohn

Until just the past few years Skoda / VW have produced family size cars with 5 seats, with 60, 70, 75, 80, 90, 105, 110, 140, and 150 ps.   115 ps is maybe a good starting point now

 

Gerry can the exact problem with the 1.0 is that it's torque band doesn't extend to low revs. On paper it has more torque than the preceding 1.2, but the useful band is above 2000 rpm so downshifting is the order of the day. The 1.2 would pull from anywhere over 1000 even though its peak figure was lower.

 

And about aero. your cd figure need to be multiplied by frontal area to get a valid comparison. The Octy and Carrot are possibly not as similar as you suggest.

Edited 23 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

All this tech stuff is over my head. Our long distance touring days fully loaded and towing with a roof box are over and there's just the two of us, basically retired. For that, we see no difference between the 1.0 and the 1.2 Yetis we had before.

 

Horses for courses.