So our local council have decided to introduce a ban on EURO V and older diesel cars in the city centre. Details are sketchy but it makes me wonder about getting ahead of the problem by selling on our (mint, low miles) MKii diesel and buying a MKiii instead. Possibly a newer diesel but most likely a petrol.

 

Aside from the cost of selling a perfectly good car (170, 4x4, elegance), are there any disadvantages to the mkiii?

 

Stuff that we've found a bit annoying about our MKii listed below:

 

1. My wife finds the seats a bit hard, MKiii any better?

 

2. MKii ride can be a bit firm on our trashed roads. Hoping the MKiii might be smoother.

 

3. Road and engine noise in our MKii is not as good as our old Volvo. I used to think it was an issue with our car specifically  but tried another 170 4x4 recently and it seems the same. Is the mkiii any better? I'm guessing that a petrol engine would solve part of this in either model.

 

I do like the look of the MKiii and guess I'm looking for upsides that soften the blow of having to spend the cash.

 

Cheers,

 

ip

 

 

1. I would not say that Mk3 seats were softer than Mk2. They are more or less same.

 

2. Mk3 is smoother but would recomend DCC option as that way you can choose Comfort for extra trashed roads and the drive will get more smooth. I myself found standard MK3 Superb suspension too "wobbly" but am happy with DCC.

 

3. Sorry to break it to you but old Volvo will be quieter in terms of road noise I would say that Mk3 is quieter than MK2 in terms of general noise, road noise and wind noise but there is still room for improvement (nothing that lil sound deadening would not cure). 

 

4. Ahhhh, already done .... and I was just getting warm

 

It depends on your driving habits but if your MK2 has low milage, then you don't drive much and would recomend a petrol engine. 

I went from a Mk.II 170 Elegance Estate to Mk.III 280 L&K Hatchback and never regretted it.

I agree with alf.onso except on point 1.

I used to get a pain at the base of my spine in the Mk.II which I suspected was because of the location of a steel support bar. With the Mk.III I’ve driven many 500+ mile single journeys and arrived feeling as fresh as when I started. Both cars had leather electric adjustable/heated/ventilated seats so like-for-like the Mk.III seats win hands down for me.

My Mk.III came with Pirelli P7 and the road noise was often awful. Switching to another brand (in my case Michelin CrossClimate+) has made a world of difference.

Avoid the 18 and 19 inch wheels if you have bad roads.

I went from two previous MkIIs to a MK III (all diesel) and there are certainly no disadvantages in the MKIII IMO.  Seats are slightly more comfortable although I didn't have many complaints about the MKII in that area.  Overall refinement and ride quality is noticeably better in the MkIII.  Switching to petrol will certainly give you a more refined experience.   Agree with above comments on tyres - avoid larger wheels and the tyre brand can make a huge difference so its not always a like-for-like comparison.

Thanks for responses, really helpful. Yes, we only do around 6k miles per year so petrol makes good sense for us.

 

One other question. How does the standard sound system in the mkiii compare to the standard one in the mkii? 

 

Cheers, 

 

ip

1 hour ago, iperry said:

How does the standard sound system in the mkiii compare to the standard one in the mkii? 

 

I would say it is slightly better but if you like improvement on sound vise, then Canton is a must. 

Canton does sound nice but since I'll be buying a used one, it kind of limits me to finding a bargain petrol L&K (good luck with that).

 

Another feature of the MKii that looks nice is the DCC options. Probably not an issue yet for most but how much does a DCC shock cost to replace (vs a standard one)? Part of the reason my old Volvo had to go is that it had the 4C chassis option (basically DCC on a Volvo). Shocks were £1k per corner including fitting. With two on the way out, I sold the Volvo on rather than repair.

 

Cheers,

 

ip

 

3 hours ago, iperry said:

Probably not an issue yet for most but how much does a DCC shock cost to replace (vs a standard one)? Part of the reason my old Volvo had to go is that it had the 4C chassis option (basically DCC on a Volvo). Shocks were £1k per corner including fitting. With two on the way out, I sold the Volvo on rather than repair.

 

 

 

I asked parts department guy before buying car. His reply was (after sharp intake of breath) ....very expensive....much more than standard shocks. But he said he never ever had to order one and only a hand full of standard shocks and he had been there a few years.

 

Might be cheaper to go back to standard shocks if ever one went, if thats possible.

Edited 23 July, 20187 yr by xman

Sounds about right. Our volvo was nearly 9 years and 120k miles before it started seeing them fail (all at the same time).

 

ip

With the intention of keeping my motor well after 5 years this is the reason I didn't go for DCC. I'm happy enough with the standard suspension.

I had the standard sound system on a MkII, then Canton on another MkII and now the standard system on a MkIII.  I would say there is a noticeable (positive) difference between the standard system on the MKII v MkIII.  Canton is nice but after a few weeks I didn't really miss it as the standard system is decent for the average user.

I spent some time in the back of a non-DCC mk3 Superb (taxi) on fairly poor roads over the past couple of days. It did feel pretty crashy tbh. I went from a non-DCC Mk2 with 17" wheels to a Mk3 with DCC and 18". The ride quality is better on the mk3,  but if you can't stretch to DCC I'd go with xman's suggestion and stick to 17s if the roads you use aren't too good. Canton is outstanding compared with normal sound system, but if it were a choice between DCC or Canton, it would be DCC all the way for me.

@BriskodaJeff made a good point. If today I needed to choose between Canton and DCC, I would choose DCC. 
This weekend I was driving narrow, very curvy and very uneven country roads. It was so jumpy that for the sake of my internal parts I switched DCC to Comfort and it was so much more pleasant to be in the car. Later the road conditions improved  (still very curvy and narrow tarmac country roads), I switched DCC to Sport and found myself having a wide smile on my face ..... then I looked at the passenger side and found my wife not sharing my wide smile. It took my brain about 0.01 seconds to switch to Husband Survival Mode, my wide smile faded and my right foot got suddenly very light.

 

Sound system is something that can always get swaped in the future. I think that even only changing Superb's standard audio system speaker elements, can make a big difference.

I went from a Mk1 Elegance to a Mk2 SE to a Mk3 SEL and I preferred the Mk1 leather seats, a bit wider & more comfy I thought.

 

The biggest difference I found from the Mk2 to Mk3 is in the technology depatment and bits you can set up via the various screens.

 

(not keen on the electronic handbrake but that's another story) 

 

Well, I can now make an informed comment on this myself having bit the bullet and bought a MKiii.

 

Previous car:

MKii, Elegance (with a few extras, front and rear parking, heated windscreen, autopark..) 170hp Diesel, DSG, 4x4. 63 plate, 31,000 miles.

 

New car:

MKiii, SE L Executive (with a few extras, front and rear parking, autopark, DCC, driver assist stuff, phonebox....), 2.0TSI 280ps, DSG 4x4. Used example, 65 plate with 27,000 miles.

 

It's hard to compare them fairly because the spec and engine are so different but here goes:

 

1. Seats, mkii much harder but maybe more supportive. mkiii seats more 'comfy' but maybe more fatiguing on long journey. Might just need to keep adjusting them for better position.

 

2. Sound system. Standard sound in the mkiii is far better than the standard sound in the mkii. Much clearer and less harsh. Happy not to have Canton. Standard good enough for me

 

3. Quietness: mkiii win hands down. Obvs the new one is much quieter with the petrol engine but I'd say that wind and road noise are also much reduced. Nicer, quieter place to be.

 

4. Handling. The mkiii has a much softer and smoother ride. Surprised myself by finding a DCC example and liking it. Comfort is not good, wallows even on the motorway. Normal is fine. Sport is good fun on A/B roads. Even Sport is softer than the standard setup on my mkii though. On balance the mkii feels a bit more 'direct' to drive. Steering is sharper and diesel lump pulls a bit more immediately due to torque. That said, the mkiii is nice enough, probably more comfortable overall and Normal mode is good for our ruined roads.

 

5. Tech. The mkiii is in a whole new league. Mine came with a load of driver assist stuff that I would not have specced myself but now immediately love. Adaptive cruise is fantastic. Lane assist is really handy on the motorway (I had a 9 hour drive home after I bought mine). New head unit (radio etc) much easier to use with better menus, better looking screen, better touch screen sensitivity and better Nav. All told, just a huge improvement. Feels more finished.

 

6. Interior: mkiii is next step up. Nicer plastics, better looking dash. Is it possible it's even more roomy?

 

7. Exterior: mkiii, love it, like a slightly toned down Audi. I do still like the rounder mkii looks though.

 

8. Engine: Well, hardly fair to compare but the 280ps 2.0 TSI is a hoot. Torquey, powerful, sounds nice and managed 37mpg on the 9 hour drive home. What's not to like?

 

9. Wheels: The wheels on the mkiii seem to be more scratched and curbed than those on the mkii. Oh wait, that's just mine :( Ah well, save up and get them fixed I guess.

 

Cheers,

 

ip

1 hour ago, iperry said:

4. ... Steering is sharper and diesel lump pulls a bit more immediately due to torque.

 

If you feel that there is a small stall when you press the throttle, then many 280 (and other) Superb owners have bought and fitted throttle response box and have commented that it made their Superb totally different car (in a good way).

 

And congrats on your new Superb!!!

 

 

 

Edited 1 August, 20187 yr by alf.onso

Anyone noticed that the mkiii driver access is more restricted - I could do with the door pillar moving back an inch or at least being vertical rather than angled forward.

 

I seem to be brushing the pillar a bit getting in resulting in trim start to get a bit grubby and door seal wearing.

 

My son's mki has much more access and I didn't notice any issues on my mkii.

 

Are the door pillars in exactly same position on the hatch as compared to the estate versions on the mkiii's?

Nothing that a couple of hours with an angle grinder and a half competent welder wont be able to sort. 

5 hours ago, Wheelnut said:

Anyone noticed that the mkiii driver access is more restricted - I could do with the door pillar moving back an inch or at least being vertical rather than angled forward.

 

Honestly can't say I have noticed this, even when only opening the door to the first stop-point in confined spaces. But I am somewhat vertically challenged (read shortar$e) so maybe that's why.

ThMy "old" car was the very same model as your (Mkii superb 4X40 and had only done 82K in the 8.5 years I had it. When I parted with it  the whole car was really immaculate inside and out. It had an electric tailgate ,dimming rear view mirror, full sized spare wheel. 'sunset glass and good mileage left on the tyres. Against a 4X4 sport line plus I got £5.25K.

The new job had 4.9k on the dial. and cost £29.45k. It has more gismos than I need but lack the loading capacity of the Mkii and on top of which the fold-down seats in the back leave a big gap banked gap whereas the older car had the benefit of a flush fold down which allowed more loading capacity. The new model's suspension is too much like a sedan in as much that it is soft, even in sport mode, making it bob up and down. When pulling a caravan the 190 engine is superb but it, the car, seems to lack the control of the Mkii. 

Yes the seats are better: particularly the Alcantara rather than the leather of the old car.

The new car's windows are noisy and the rear centre headrest is too short and not fit for purpose. Its a woner it past safety man's inspection. The telescopic risers only go up one notch.

 

In summary, would I make the change if the opportunity arose again? The answer is no. The new model has only just got the edge over the Mk11 making it too close a call to warrant the change given the additional outlay. There are other options available both within the V.W. range and elsewhere:particularly when one considers the premium costs area  of this model. 

The Mk11 superb elegance 4X4 may appear dated and lack some of the Mk111's little touches but for me the "old model was as many  the Skoda engineers say, it is bomb proof. meaning that it was a reliable well put together car. Given the first 1250 miles or so in the new car and its already apparent inherent problems, I am somewhat concerned about my future relationship with this car.  

 

One other disappointing issue is that the tracking and steering alignment  was out on the new car,  as is the chamber, -1degree 11minutes on the front. Not at all a pretty happening at all.. The former has been fixed but he latter in another and more serious matter. No comment or movement in the area has been forth coming so far.  

23 minutes ago, Triplesuperhet said:

The new car's windows are noisy 

 

I have to agree on this. The electric windows are very noisy when winding on my MY18 SEL. The front ones also make an alarming loud click on the way down about half way. Not a quality experience. I need to complain at the next service.

 

In comparison our mk ii fabias and mk ii octavia are smooth and quiet. 

 

Also must say the folding mirrors also sound loud and laboured as well as each folding at different speed, looks a cheap act when performing.

 

Gives the impression, the latest Skoda models are using cheap components in certain areas. Rear discs/pads in particular widely reported in a Briskoda thread to be made out of cheap jack rusting material with ridiculously short life.

 

 

Great post @Triplesuperhet. I make no pretence - I love my Mk3. But there was something "honest" about my previous Mk2 that is missing from the current car. The only reason I sold my Mk2 is because I need absolute reliability. I don't regret it - but I  wouldn't mind betting that my old car has done 100,000 miles as a taxi since I sold it, and that it hasn't missed a beat during that time. That's how good it was. 

 

FWIW my recommendation would be that unless you love the tech (I do) and are prepared to pay for it (gulp - blank cheque) then if you have a good Mk2, think long and hard about changing. If you do decide to change then you will struggle to find a better replacement than the Mk3.

@iperry congratulations on the new car. I think you made the right choice. DCC shocks are very expensive at around 1k each but if you only drive 6k a year, it'll be a long time before you need to think about that. 

 

You also have the true sleeper of them all with SE-L spec especially if you got the 18inch stock wheels. It looks so unassuming but isn't. I had to choose between am SE-L and Sportline 280 and went sportline. Sometimes I do think if I should have done it differently as I am a big fan of sleeper cars.